Sunday 1, 2012 Talking Heads!

THIS WEEK WITH...STILL CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, RIGHT?

Oh, okay. It's This Week With Jake Tapper, which I like the sound of, personally, but ABC apparently does not on anything more than a temporary basis. (Jake is wearing his Gryffindor House necktie today, as well.)

We are quickly brought up to speed on the Iowa horserace. Mitt Romney and Ron Paul are tied, with Rick Santorum in third, and there's a room full of no people here for the meeting of The People Who Thought This Was Going To Be The Way Iowa Looked A Year Ago Club.

"Santorum," Tapper says, "Has got the big 'mo.'" He should really double check the urban dictionary, unless he's trying to be cheeky, in which case...well played.

Now here's the Jon Karl montage of all the stuff you already know, during which time I check my email. But, hey, it kills a little time!

Now, Ron Paul is here. What about Gingrich and Huntsman's statements, saying that his views are "out of the mainstream" and "unelectable" and "that's still pretty weird that you never cracked the spine on any of those loopy newsletters that you say you never read despite your name being tattooed all over them." Paul says that it's a "contradiction" to say he's unelectable, because he's up in the polls, and those who are down in the polls don't have a lot of credibility.

It is awfully silly of Jon Huntsman to be saying that other people are unelectable!

Paul goes on to say that Bush and Obama both ran on "humble foreign policy" platforms, so he doesn't see why his particular brand of foreign policy doctrine is that out of the mainstream either, and that he thinks that "the American people are with him." Okay, but, for the record, let's remember that Obama ran on escalating the War in Afghanistan, okay? And Bush's foreign policy promises in 2000 were things that I widely considered to be "a bunch of lies" at the time he was making them. (And no one in 2004 re-elected Bush for his "humble foreign policy" platform.)

Paul also says that he gets widespread support for his plan to cut a trillion dollars in spending. He says he's optimistic, and thinks that his message is actually "catching on" with people.

Now comes the newsletters question! Tapper wants a straight answer on a question that's quite succinct and good and answering it could make it go away. "Who wrote these newsletters, and do you still associate with these people?" Exactly. Because the big issue here is the story behind Paul's longstanding excuse that he didn't know about the newsletters' contents. I'd love to know who created that content, then, and exactly how hard a beating Ron Paul put on the responsible partieswhen he found out. Because that is LITERALLY what I would do, in the same position. I would drag the person outside into the street by his hair and put a clean whipping on him, with fists, and I'd make sure everyone saw it. And when a passerby asked, why is that guy literally knocking the enamel off of that guy's teeth, they would say, "Oh, that battered sack of bones wrote some racist stuff under the other guys name, and, well, that's what you get when you do that. You get beaten into a pudding in the middle of the street."

Paul says that Tapper's "assessment is mixed up" because the "reporting is bad." He says that he wrote a "lot of the newsletter" but was the publisher, not the editor, and there were some "very bad sentences put in" that he neither wrote nor reviewed..."an error on my part."

Paul says he condemned them, but does not know who wrote them. "There were eight or nine people." But how do not recall eight or nine people. That's not a lot of people! And, hey, I'll still roll up on eight or nine people and tell them that one or more is about to become street paste for some "bad sentences."

"It's never been a big issue at all," says Paul, who is probably forgetting about what a big issue it was in his 1996 campaign against Lefty Morris for the 14th District. He goes on to say that in terms of policies, his policy portfolio is the only one that actually benefits historically underserved and denigrated minority populations.

All well and good, but Paul needs to understand that he's getting the same exact scrutiny of any candidate, here. If these had been Mitt Romney's newsletters, the world would be similarly aflame.

Oh, hey, but how about Eric Dondero's allegation that Paul "engaged in conspiracies" aligned with 9-11 Trutherism. Paul interrupts Tapper: "No, no, no, don't even go any further than that. That's complete nonsense. I never bought into that stuff, I never talked about it. A conspiracy that Bush knew about that stuff? Let's be reasonable. That's just off the wall."

Tapper, having not gotten the straight answer on identifying the authors of the racist portions of the newsletters, asks the precise follow-up that I would have asked: "Doesn't this call into question your management style?" Exactly. There's no need, really, to turn this into an exploration into Ron Paul's views on race relations. Ron Paul is never going to have a significant influence on American race relations, ever, full stop. Seriously! That's the end of that story. But! He DOES want to be President? So, is he going to have a White House full of crackpot freelancers, all acting like they're on ghost protocol?

Paul admits that's a good question, and that it's a "human flaw." "I don't think anybody in the world has been perfect on management," he says. Sure! That's true! But I can count the number of people who apparently had racist garbage go out unwittingly under their byline with one hand. Still, Paul maintains, "To paint my life like that is a gross distortion." And, okay, that is perhaps fair.

Oh, now, Michele Bachmann is here. Poor, doomed, Michele Bachmann and her Ames Straw Poll trophy.

Tapper basically asks, "What happened?"

Bachmann says that she's done what no other candidate has done, which is travel to all 99 counties in Iowa. Actually, Rick Santorum did that!

She's gone into "cafes and living rooms" and made "strong connections" with the Iowans that probably got home from work and shouted, "What are you doing in my living room?"

Bachmann says that 40% of Iowans haven't made their decision yet, and that they all "make their decision on the spot with their neighbors" at the Caucus, and she thinks people will switch their vote en masse Tuesday night.

Tapper points out that the evangelical voters are also being wooed by Santorum and Perry, and Santorum brings a package of foreign policy experience as well, so why should Iowans pick her and not him? Santorum also has a lot of sweater vests, for instance.

Bachmann says she is the "strongest core conservative in the race" and there's "no comparison with the other candidates." Okay, I guess! She is the one who sits on the House Intelligence Committee, after all! And she's the only...tax litigation attorney. So, she's got that going for her as well. She also stood behind defaulting on our credit and destroying the world economy! Proven and tested in the fires of Washington! Maybe stared into those flames too long! Maybe, she sees those flames, dancing in her mind's eye when she dreams! These are all just maybes! And yet, the flames, the flames!

"We're number one in the category of enthusiasm," says Bachmann, who has never met a Ron Paul supporter. (Actually, she has, I forget her old Iowa campaign manager is a Ron Paul supporter now!)

Tapper asks, "in the interest of candor and being based in reality...assuming the polls are right, isn't that the end of your campaign?" Bachmann says she "bought tickets to head off to South Carolina" and that "January if a full month" and she plans to participate in all fifty states. She also says that she is the new Margaret Thatcher, and she will be "America's Iron Lady," because she saw the trailer for that movie this week. Last week, she was saying, "I WILL BE AMERICA'S GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO!" and the week before she was "I WILL SPEND A WEEK WITH MARILYN" and on Christmas she was all "I WILL DEFEND AMERICA FROM THOSE EVIL LUNESTA BUTTERFLIES THAT ARE ATTACKING RUSSIAN DOGS!"

Tapper wishes Bachmann a happy 2012, to which she replies, "Same to you and your listeners." Uhm...Michele Bachmann understands that this is a teevee show, right?

Now it's time for some panel chit-chat with Byron York, Neera Tanden, Craig Robinson, and Matt Dowd.

So, Iowa! Crazy, right? York says that Santorum had room to grow and the ability to demonstrate that he was prepared for the job and baggage-free. York notes that as long as Santorum hung in single digits, the people that liked him couldn't support him, because they felt like he couldn't garner a majority of voters, but now that's changed, and Santorum is experiencing his upside at the best possible time. Gingrich and Paul, he says, are falling in the polls. (Gingrich, faster and harder.)

Tanden says that the issue for Santorum is whether or not he has the cash and the campaign to get from Iowa to the rest of the country to compete with the deep-pocketed Romney.

Robinson touts the importance of this final Des Moines Resgister poll -- for a fence-sitter, this poll is a big tiebreaker. He couldn't be more right about the way the final poll was anticipated. If there are 10,000 voters disinclined to go with Romney or Paul, going to the caucus Tuesday with weight placed on that result, it could be a good night for someone who didn't expect to have one. (My sense is this would be one of the Ricks.)

Dowd says that if Iowa doesn't pick winners, it's great at picking losers, and come Wednesday, someone will be calling it quits. He also says that Iowa is like a clown car, where the guy who emerges from the trunk last gets a lot of attention, and in this case it's Santorum. Nevertheless, he's not bullish on Santorum, he still thinks Gingrich has a shot.

York notes that the negative ads in Iowa have really killed Newt. "You can not be anywhere in Iowa and not see an ad bashing Newt Gingrich."

Can anyone withstand that sort of negativity? Dowd says that Gingrich's big problem was that everything they said about him was true. Robinson points out the irony however, of the Romney affiliated SuperPAC painting Gingrich as a "flip-flopper" and a supporter of the individual mandate in health care. Yeah, but...that's why you have anonymous, corporate funded SuperPACs say that stuff! So it gets said, without the other flip-flopping mandate lover having to say it himself. Brave new world, folks!

Dowd says that the mistake all of the "not-Romneys" have made has been their failure to stand up and contrast themselves with Romney. Ding!

Most of the rest of the panel is not too optimistic about Gingrich. Tanden notes that when it came to be Gingrich's time to tank, he tanked quickly. Robinson says that everyone should view Gingrich's standing in later state polls with a big "So what?" After Iowa, he says, Gingrich won't be able to count on how well he's managing in later contests to preserve his overall chances. (Remember how well Howard Dean was doing in polls beyond Iowa?)

The DMR poll held that Romney had the best chance to beat Obama. Tapper points out this means that a significant number of people who think Romney is the GOP's only hope won't vote for him in Iowa. York notes that this is where Santorum hopes to claim support, and that Santorum is beseeching voters to not "play pundit" and just vote for the person they think is best. Dowd notes that this is once again, Romney's inability to close the deal with voters. He says that there's another twist in the race coming -- Romney locked in a battle with one or two opponents, instead of a field of six.

And let's remember! Between the early states and Super Tuesday, there is a three week pause -- an excellent time for a challenger to gather strength.

Tanden says that most people find Romney to be the toughest challenge to Obama, but that Romney's flaws are that he's very much a creature of "the one percent." Dowd says that if the election becomes about Obama, he'll lose. He will have to "decimate the Republican" to win, and that Romney is the hardest to decimate. Tanden says that you nail Romney for being a guy you can neither pin down or count on. Tapper says, "You sound like the Bush campaign in 2004 against Kerry."

Predictions in Iowa? Dowd says a three way tie at the top. Tanden predicts Romney. Robinson and York predict Santorum.

Now, here's Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, who will be an important figure in American politics, for about fifty more hours or so, and then he'll never be booked on a Sunday Morning Talk Show again, until 2016.

Branstad says that he thinks there will be a great turnout, and that Obama is terrible. He says that it's a "wide open race," and it could be Santorum as the winner, unless it's Mitt Romney, unless it's Ron Paul, unless it's Rick Perry, unless it's Newt Gingrich. So! No Michele Bachmann! And he thinks Obama is terrible.

Why has the race been so volatile? Branstad says there have been, you know, a whole mess of debates and a whole heap of imperfect candidates, and spending is out of control and Obama is terrible.

Am I making it clear that Branstad isn't so much giving cogent election analysis as he is playing the role of GOP cruise director? I hope so!

What's going on with the contradictions in the way Iowans view Romney -- the only electible candidate, who they still won't vote for Tuesday. Branstad says there's no perfect candidate, and there's some stuff they don't like about Romney, but there's also stuff they don't like about the other candidates, but Obama is terrible. So maybe Romney will win unless he doesn't, in which case he won't.

Some establishment types feel that a Ron Paul win will make the Iowa Caucuses no longer relevant. Branstad says you will always need to be in the top three in Iowa to win the race, and that Paul deserves credit for how he's done. Branstad says that Jon Huntsman made a big mistake not coming to Iowa, which is 100% true, but let's remember that there were scenarios over the summer that held that Romney might skip the state as well.

Now we are joined by Jon Karl and Radio Iowa's terrific reporter O. Kay Henderson. Karl says that the volatility of this race in Iowa has made it an exciting one to cover. Henderson says that Romney has been greatly improved as a candidate since four years ago. She says that the people running Romney's campaign in Iowa right now are the same ones who ran Lamar "LAMAR!" Alexander's 1996 campaign, "so they know what it's like to be facing surging candidates at the end."

Karl says Romney's strategy has been, at times, hands-off (did not compete in Ames), but has been running a "subterranean" campaign from the get-go.

Tapper says he's now in "debate withdrawal." SHUT UP JAKE! The two weeks without a debate were a wonderful holiday mitzvah.

Karl says that Gingrich cannot continue to be the nice guy in the race while everyone is beating him over the head with ads. "Look for a new Newt Gingrich after Iowa," he says. YES! Newt Gingrich will return to being a creature of pure anger!

Tapper and Karl sort of note the extreme, head-spinning irony of Gingrich being the guy in the race who wants to be the nice guy. (For those of you just joining American politics today, most of what is now known as "unbridled political dickishness" was invented by Newt Gingrich.

Tapper is still trying to wrap his head around Romney's inability to close the deal with Iowa voters. Henderson says that some voters go with their head, some go with their heart. Look to turnout levels to reveal enthusiasm, and look to see what the undecideds do on caucus night.

Henderson predicts Romney will win. Karl goes with Santorum.

Speaking of upcoming debates, you all realize that there is one Saturday night, and another one THE FOLLOWING SUNDAY MORNING, and, yet, to the best of my knowledge, NO ONE HAS BEEN PUNISHED FOR THIS?!

THE CHRIS MATTHEWS SHOW

Today, Chris Matthews is joined by Major Garrett and Gloria Borger and Kelly O'Donnell and David Ignatius, to yap at each other about Iowa and year-end listicles about journalism.

Matthews shrewdly notes that at some point, voters will decide whether or not to re-elect Obama or not, and so this year's camapaign could get awfully negative. (2008 campaign, by the way: pretty negative!) Garrett says that Obama "does not have much of a record to run on," and will have to emphasize "what a Republican would do to make things worse." Ideally, he says, the incumbent would prefer to tell a story about a "journey taken and a journey left unfinished" that discusses what everyone's accomplished together, and if I'm not mistaken, there have been significant accomplishments? But, okay, the economy is in the poop-trap, metaphorically speaking, so it's a hard slog.

Is Obama headed toward defeat? Borger says that the Democrats she talks do point at the high unemployment numbers, and, I guess, say, we're lucky to have political power so that we'll never know what that feels like! Actually, yes: Democrats be trippin' with worry.

Ignatius says that the Team Obama Re-Elect is worried and that this year is "the last chance he has to define himself as a leader." He allows that Obama is the one person in the race that can say, "I killed Osama bin Laden." (He's also the one candidate in the race who can say he's enshrined a certain amount of additional executive power so that he can kill other people, too!)

Borger says, "It's not going to be about foreign policy." It will be if Ron Paul wins the nomination! (That probably won't happen, though.)

Now we're talking about the Bush-Kerry election, for some reason. Hey, guys! Guys! Historically terrible unemployment crisis?

Too late, now we're talking about 2004, as "the sound of the panelists' own voices" wins the election against "stuff that I might, through some stretch of the imagination, term 'relevant.'"

Any chance Obama wins or loses by a landslide? Ignatius says something that does not in any way answer that question. Instead, he says that Obama will really work hard to define himself as a foreign policy president. Borger says that the voters are looking for "stability" and then she is interrupted and never finishes the thought. Garrett says that if Obama loses, it will be by a narrow margin, because of the "contours" of politics: Democrats win big, Republicans win small or with the help of the Supreme Court.

That said, most second terms are "won big," so this election is shaping up to be a historic anomaly.

Borger wants to know what gets Republicans to the polls in 2012, if they aren't excited about their candidates. Garrett says that the candidate who best "channels the anger" will win the election.

Kelly O'Donnell! You know that you are on a teevee show today? Like, there are cameras pointed at you, and everything!

Now we have a montage of every Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire primary winner and loser of the last half-century. God bless Chris Matthews's love of unrebloggable filler montages! This one goes on for about a hundred years.