December 04, 2007

12/4: Two Candidates, Two Challenges

The two topics that are currently generating the most discussion in the conservative blogosphere are Mitt Romney's upcoming speech on his Mormon faith and Mike Huckabee's meteoric rise in both national and Iowa polls. Conservative bloggers are divided over Romney's speech: some think it will provide a great opportunity for Romney to "grab the media limelight" and "really introduce himself nationally," while others think that Romney will only hurt himself by drawing attention to his Mormonism. As for Huckabee, conservative bloggers are impressed by his debate performances and his ability to compete with Romney in IA despite being heavily outspent, but they remain wary of his fiscal record and his ability to fight terrorism. Until Huckabee manages to assuage the concerns of conservative bloggers on these two issues, he is unlikely to combine his popularity surge in Iowa with a similar popularity surge in the righty blogosphere.

ROMNEY: The Moment, You Own It, You Better Never Let It Go

The lively discussion about Romney's upcoming speech about his Mormon faith continues in the conservative blogosphere:

NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "I think the speech is actually a pretty cool opportunity for a candidate who doesn't have huge name recognition, to tell his story, and introduce himself in a personal way, deeply entrenched in rich historic rhetoric. But I also think that it might be more useful for Romney in the general -- to really introduce himself nationally. Of course, you have to get there first, dontcha?"

Campaign Standard's Richelieu: "I think a strong case can be made for the Romney speech. Romney's faith is the big elephant in the room for a lot of primary voters. Ignoring it is no strategy for dealing with it, especially as Mike Huckabee puts personal faith in the center of the campaign with unabashed rhetoric and even television commercials proclaiming himself the Christian candidate. I don't see how Romney hurts himself by facing the faith issue. While I think it would have been better to do such a speech earlier in the year, I see little downside...Grabbing the media limelight now with a big move gives Romney a defining moment, which entails a certain risk, but also provides a very big opportunity."

Townhall's David Limbaugh: "I think it's a mistake for Mitt Romney to give 'the speech'...Huckabee's Christian credentials are doubtlessly helping him with many Christian conservatives. But I don't think Mitt's Mormonism is driving Romney voters to Huckabee. If Romney's Mormonism didn't bother them before Huckabee surged, it isn't bothering them now. This is not to say that Romney's Mormonism isn't a potential liability for him. I think it is, but not among those who have already been supporting him. The more attention he draws to his religion, the more of a liability it will become. He should leave well enough alone."

NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru: "The conventional wisdom seems to be that Romney's decision to make a big speech about faith was a mistake -- although the conventional wisdom until he made that decision was that he should do it. It all depends on what he has to say, of course. But it strikes me that there are more ways to screw this up than to get it right."

Campaign Standard's Matthew Continetti: "My suspicion is that a speech, even if it's 'the speech,' won't be enough to persuade voters who dislike Romney because he's a Mormon to give the former Massachusetts governor a second look. Short of Romney's conversion, nothing will persuade those voters."

Townhall's Hugh Hewitt: "I will be surprised if the speech Romney gives on Thursday will have much to do with theology, but I expect it will have a great do to do with political theory."

AmSpec Blog's Jennifer Rubin: "Contrary to advice from David Brody, Romney seems not keen at all about describing with any specificity -- even any generality -- his faith. This I think is perfectly appropriate under most circumstances but neatly highlights the dilemma he faces. If: 1) he says his faith informs who he is and all he does and 2) his faith is not one most are familiar with (and some are downright uncomfortable with) can he simultaneously say 'but I'm not going to tell you anything about my faith'? Well sure he can say it, but with such an approach whose minds will he put at ease?"

In a later post, Jennifer Rubin predicts that Romney will avoid focusing on Mormonism and instead talk about faith more generally: "After some comments from Romney and his advisors I think it is looking like The Speech is not a speech about Mormonism at all. He says its not a JFK re-do on nondiscrimination and he will not talk about Mormonism per se in any detail (Prediction: he will not use the word 'Mormonism' or say 'Church of Latter Day Saints'). Rather he is going to give what for any other Republican would be a standard speech which goes along the lines of: 1) The Founding Fathers believed in God; 2) The foundations of our country are inextricably linked to the Judeo Christian tradition; 3) Great movements from abolition to civil rights to pro-life were inspired by people of faith; 4) I'm a person of faith: 5) I support the same policies that you who are people of faith believe in: marriage and the sanctity of life."

HUCKABEE: Trying To Appease Fiscal Cons

Grover Norquist, president of the influential group Americans for Tax Reform, talked to CBN's David Brody about Huckabee:

"[Huckabee] has signed the pledge and he has promised to veto and oppose any efforts to raise income taxes if he was President. And at the debate he said that he would support the veto of any tax increase, so that was good too...Now, Club for Growth has been rough on him because of his period when he was governor...It's one of these things that as governor he's had a bad track record on taxes and spending, but as a candidate for President he is running as someone who will not raise taxes in the future and who is talking about fundemental tax reform such as going to a retail sales tax or the so-called fair tax. So some people say 'If you've changed your mind, we don't like you,' but that's not my position...I think we should accept converts. That's what winning looks like.

I would prefer to hear from Huckabee a little bit more about how his tax increases were a mistake. Ronald Regan raised some taxes and he said and that was a mistake...I'm not sure I've quite heard that from Huckabee.

I will almost certainly support the Republican nominee against Hillary [Clinton] or [Barack] Obama. The things that I think are slighly problematic are some of [Huckabee's] criticisms of international free trade. Not understanding free trade is scary. It's a populist applause line but it means that you're not thinking about serious things."

Brody observes: "As I listened to Norquist's tone over the phone, his tone wasn't harsh towards Huckabee at all. His words weren't either. You get the sense that while Huckabee hasn't been a model student, Norquist is banking on the future and that pledge is a big deal to him. Huckabee's challenge is to decide how far he will go in defending those tax increases. It'll be hard for him to pivot and say all of those were a mistake...Also, my guess is he'll take issue with being labeled a 'convert' but the fact that Norquist did not attack him like Club for Growth, that would be considered a positive development for the campaign."

Ramesh Ponnuru: "Norquist is surprisingly favorable [to Huckabee]."

NRO's Jonathan Adler: "If Grover Norquist is surprisingly favorable about Huckabee, George Will was surprisingly harsh in yesterday's column."

In related Huck-bashing, NRO's Rich Lowry rips Huckabee's tax plan in his New York Post column: "Mike Huckabee isn't running a substance-free campaign based on biography and applause lines. No, the former Arkansas governor has the distinction of advocating the most radical -- and politically unsalable and substantively daft -- proposal of any major presidential candidate. It's the so-called FairTax: It would eliminate the income and payroll taxes and replace them with a (supposedly) 23 percent national sales tax...Huckabee adopted the plan when he was unknown and languishing far back in the polls. It probably seemed a cheap way to inoculate him from his history as Arkansas governor: his tax hikes outweighed his tax cuts by half a billion dollars."

RedState's Erick Erickson offers his thoughts on Huckabee's problem with fiscal conservatives: "The Huckabee 'problem', if you will, perplexes me. Not a day goes by lately without someone on the right criticizes him on economics...At the same time, I can't really get that worked up about Huckabee supporting a tax increase to fix roads in Arkansas. The only people who could ever get worked up about that are people who have never been through Arkansas. The stark contrast in Arkansas pre-Huckabee and post-Huckabee is compelling...I give Mike Huckabee real credit for what he has pulled off, particularly in the face of just about every prominent conservative pundit I can think of, save Rush Limbaugh, beating the hell out of him for his ethics, his temper, his economics, his populism, etc. Dude is winning. Let's just accept it. And screaming about his economic plan isn't really hurting him with evangelicals right now who are more interested in saving the pro-life cause from Rudy than in salvaging a coherent conservative economic policy."

Erickson goes on to offer some advice to Huckabee: "Here's the thing though, Huck...If you want me to believe you are more than a Gerson [Ger-son' n. a Republican who likes to spend other people's money to feel good about himself in the name of social justice], you are going to need to make the case. Robert Novak, John Fund, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, the Club for Growth, etc., etc., etc. right now beg to differ with you. And you can't muddy them up in my eyes. But you can tell all of us what your fiscal policy would look like.* Heck, come blog about it here. We're happy to have you, Governor. But regardless of where you go, you need to start speaking. Romney is doing a 'Come to Jesus' meeting on his faith to shore up support with evangelicals. You best do the same with fiscal-cons, because most of us have known the Club for Growth a lot longer than we've known you. And we trust them. *Don't say 'Fair Tax,' because we both know it ain't gonna pass in the next four years with the present make up of Congress."

HUCKABEE II: The Other Conservative Critique Of Huck

Power Line's Paul Mirengoff's distate for Huckabee has to do with the ex-governor's national security positions, not his fiscal record: "My main objection to Huckabee -- the reason why he's my fifth choice out of five -- is that I lack confidence in his ability to fight terrorism. It's not just that he lacks experience in this realm, though that's certainly the case. The real problem is that he's too moralistic (which is not the same thing as moral). My first clue came when he said during an early debate that we need to remain in Iraq because 'we broke it.' Not because we need to defeat al Qaeda; not because we need to limit Iranian influence or avoid a devastating defeat at the hands of terrorists; but because we injured this formerly peaceful state. Huckabee's exaltation of moralism (in this case dubious) over policy calculation was difficult to miss. Now we learn (but are surprised) that Huckabee opposes waterboarding and would close the Guantanamo Bay detention center."

HUCKABEE III: Striking Fear Into The Hearts Of Dems

Last week, we quoted Open Left's Mike Lux's statement that he considers Huckabee "by far the best general election candidate on the Republican side."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas is also worried about Huckabee, but he expects the Club For Growth to hit him hard: "I always feared Huckabee's potential, though was heartened by his utter inability to raise any money. Well, he's gotten a serious boost from the 1-2 punch of the YouTube debate and the Sex on the City scandal...[His] lack of money has allowed Huckabee to fly under the radar. That will now likely change. And he won't have to contend with just his opponents in the race. Expect the Club for Growth -- Huckabee's arch nemesis -- to go in big against Huckabee any moment now. Perhaps not in Iowa, but it would make sense for them to build a firewall against Huckabee in tax-adverse New Hampshire."

Campaign Standard's Dean Barnett thinks Huckabee's money troubles are being overstated: "If Huckabee wins Iowa, his fundraising will get an enormous boost. If he wins Iowa, odds are Huckabee will have more cash on hand than any of the other candidates the day after the New Hampshire primary. Even more important, he'll get a helping of free media worth more than all the cash in all of the other candidate's coffers. Although it seems obvious, money is merely a means to an end in politics. The 'end' is getting votes. Right now, Huckabee seems to be doing the best where it counts the most."

Meanwhile, NRO's Jim Geraghty talks with pollster Scott Rasmussen about Huckabee's rise:

Rasmussen: "I think it's more a reflection of the field in general than Huckabee personally. Had anybody else resonated with GOP primary voters, this would have been impossible. What Mike Huckabee is doing is validating the dream of [Fred] Thompson's supporters -- that there was a vacuum or void in the race, but Thompson didn't grab it for whatever reason. It's not a one day blip. Each individual night in our tracking poll [Huckabee] was ahead of others in the race for in second place...My expectation is that other campaigns are going to aggressively highlight different aspects of his record. He will show us if he can stand up to it or not. If he does, this race is more wide open than anybody can imagine."

GIULIANI: Getting Good With Grover

While Grover Norquist had moderately nice things to say Huckabee, they were nothing compared to his effusive praise for Rudy Giuliani.

NRO's Byron York quotes a letter from Norquist to Giuliani that was just released by the Giuliani campaign:

"In looking at the records of all the Republican candidates, yours clearly stands out. You cut the income tax, business taxes, sales taxes, property-related taxes, and nuisance taxes. You are the most successful tax cutter in modern New York history and, on balance, the most successful tax cutter in the Republican field today. If you are elected president, I will look forward to working with you to reduce and reform taxes, restore fiscal discipline, increase government transparency, and pursue pro-growth policies that will improve America's competitiveness in the global economy."

York comments: "Glowing. But why did Norquist, who has not endorsed any candidate, write the letter to Giuliani? The answer goes back to the CNN/YouTube debate, in which Norquist asked the candidates whether they would 'promise to the people watching this right now that you will oppose and veto any efforts to raise taxes as long as you're president?' Giuliani, who has not signed the Americans for Tax Reform pledge, said, 'Yes, I would.' Since then, both Norquist and the Giuliani campaign have been in touch. Today, Giuliani wrote a letter to Norquist re-affirming his commitment to cutting taxes...In response, Norquist wrote back the letter released by the Giuliani campaign."

AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "For Giuliani, perhaps the most helpful aspect of the letter is that it is a shield against any future attacks or questions about why he didn't sign the American's for Tax Reform pledge."

Townhall's Patrick Ruffini: "Say what you will about Giuliani's conservative outreach, but fiscal conservatives have been unusually kind to the Hizzoner. First there was the Steve Forbes endorsement. Then the glowing Club for Growth report. And now this. Giuliani and Huckabee are the ying and yang of the GOP field. One is strong on fiscal issues and weak on social ones. The other is...the opposite. Unlike discerning minute differences in the shades of gray between Clinton and Obama, a Giuliani-Huckabee final would give Republican voters a real choice about the future direction of the party. That is, if Huck can topple Mitt in Iowa..."

DEM FIELD: More Iowa Speculation

TPM's Eric Kleefeld speculates about the electoral impact of the Univ. of IA's announcement that it won't keep the dormitories open during the winter holiday: "One might initially think this is bad news for Barack Obama -- after all, he's relying on heavy support from students -- but on closer inspection it's actually a wild card that could help or hurt any of the candidates, and in fact stands to reward whoever has the strongest organization among students...Counter-intuitively, this does not lessen the power of student areas in the caucus. Caucus participants actually vote for delegates to the state Dem convention, where the presidential delegates will then be picked. Those state delegates are apportioned according to a function of population and Democratic performance in the area -- and it has nothing to do with how many people actually show up on caucus night. As such, the power of student areas will remain the same even as the number of people participating in the caucus falls. The bottom line: Those students who do show up will have a disproportionately heavy weight when they vote..."

MyDD's Todd Beeton: "This is yet another challenge for the campaign organizations, especially those of Obama and Clinton who need to expand the caucus universe if they want to win. While this development would appear to hurt Obama more as he does especially well among younger voters, TPM argues that's not necessarily so. At the very least, it's yet another factor of the student vote the Obama campaign is going to have to address and is further evidence of the importance of the on the ground organization to winning the caucus."

Meanwhile, Mike Lux offers his impressions about where things currently stand in Iowa:

1.) The Obama surge feels real to me. Obama's team on the ground is feeling quite optimistic about things, and they weren't even downplaying things the way most campaigns do who are trying to keep expectations down. Most of the people I talked to while I was there predicted Obama would win, and they give him some clear momentum.

2.) I think Hillary is hanging in there solidly. She still has a great organization, which is not losing any steam, and AFSCME and EMILY's List both have impressive independent expenditure campaigns working hard and at a big volume. She's keeping things very close, and if Obama stumbles at all, or she catches a lucky break, she still has a solid shot at winning.

3.) My theories about [John] Edwards fading don't seem as likely to me after my visit. His organization still seems just as strong as my last visit, and in some conversations with folks from rural Iowa that came in for Saturday's Heartland Presidential Forum, I get the impression that he is still the strongest of the three in rural IA, which is important.

4.) [Joe] Biden has more momentum than [Bill] Richardson or [Chris] Dodd going into the final month, and is picking up traction in some places around the state. I expect him to finish fourth , but he has a very long way to go to pull off a shocker and get into the top three -- he's not surging by anywhere near that much, not yet at least.

CLINTON: Getting Nervous?

HRC's increasingly aggressive attacks on Obama continue to draw criticism from liberal bloggers:

Ex-Clinton Labor Sec. Robert Reich condemns HRC's attacks in a blog post entitled, "Why Is HRC Stooping So Low?": "I'm becoming increasingly concerned about the stridency and inaccuracy of charges in Iowa -- especially coming from my old friend...Yesterday, HRC suggested O lacks courage...Then asked whether she intended to raise questions about O's character, she said: "It's beginning to look a lot like that." I just don't get it. If there's anyone in the race whose history shows unique courage and character, it's Barack Obama. HRC's campaign, by contrast, is singularly lacking in conviction about anything. Her pollster, Mark Penn, has advised her to take no bold positions and continuously seek the political center, which is exactly what she's been doing. All is fair in love, war, and politics. But this series of slurs doesn't serve HRC well. It will turn off voters in Iowa, as in the rest of the country. If she's worried her polls are dropping, this is not the way to build them back up."

Firedoglake's Blue Texan: "Is HillaryCo getting a little desperate?...We've seen this kind of sleazy smear by innuendo from [HRC comm. dir. Howard] Wolfson before, during the phony OMG-Obama-will-meet-with-dictators! controversy. Politics is a contact sport, but tactically, I don't think this is going to work for Hillary. It plays into Obama's efforts to paint her brand of politics as the kind we want to leave behind, and by making the attack personal, it drags her down from her inevitable front-runner perch."

TAPPED's Dana Goldstein is angry that HRC's campaign is criticizing Obama's campaign for "recruiting out of state college students": "This is pretty gross. Democrats should support the rights of young people to vote where they live the majority of the year -- or really, wherever it's easier for them to get to the polls and they're inspired to do so. Clinton's pander to Iowa old folks on this matter proves she has despaired of competing with Obama for the college student vote. Campus progressive groups, including the College Democrats, have long made it a priority to register students to vote and encourage them to get involved in city and state politics where they attend school. I imagine even Hillary's hard-core student supporters will be dismayed by this move."

TAPPED's Ezra Klein agrees that HRC's attacks on Obama's youth mobilization efforts are "a bit unseemly," but he doesn't find those attacks "nearly as odd as the repeated e-mails trumpeting the fact that, in kindergarten, Obama wrote an essay entitled 'Why I Want to be President,' thus disproving Obama's claim that he's 'not running to fulfill some long held plans.'"

Klein thinks the HRC campaign is in panic mode: "This actually strikes me as the Clinton campaign in full scramble. Till now, I've been immensely impressed with the discipline of their attacks. Everything -- everything -- was narrative based, dedicated to furthering impressions of Obama as inexperienced. Over the last week or two, however, the campaign has moved into a full-court press, attacking Obama on anything and everything, in the hopes that something will stick. The focus on the inexperienced narrative has dissipated, giving way to attacks on policy (Social Security and health care), ambition, etc. Some of these assaults are fair, some aren't, but the scattershot fusillade has certainly grown more desperate and less controlled, reflecting, I'd bet, the sentiments of the campaign. Additionally, you have the campaign e-mailing out Iowa polls that show them ahead, which they've not done till now. They're worried."

The Atlantic's Matthew Yglesias: "Um, seriously, the Clinton [campaign] is attacking Barack Obama based on an essay he wrote in kindergarden. They follow up with an account of something he did in third grade! I suppose you have to respect the commitment to counterpunching and oppo research (Obama says he wants a new kind of politics, but wouldn't share his toy truck with little Jimmy when they were five -- how can we trust him now?) but surely someone must have said 'won't this look dumb?' when it was suggested."

TNR's Jason Zengerle: "Stay tuned for the Clinton campaign's next damning revelation about Obama, in which the Clintonistas accuses him of recycling his kindergarten 'I Want to Become President' three years later. Barack Obama: Ambitious and a Self-Plagiarizer! Developing..."

TAPPED's Tom Schaller: "It looks like Howard Wolfson and company are starting to reach a bit. Now they're citing an essay Barack Obama wrote in third grade! What's next, his middle school yearbook haircut as an indictment?"

Atrios, meanwhile, is tired of the back-and-forth between HRC and Obama: "I admit I really don't care about what Clinton said about Obama, and what the Obama camp responded with, and what the latest Iowa polls say, blah blah blah."

CLINTON II: Lay Off Her, MSM

With a new AP article raising questions about HRC's "electability" and a new New York Times article examining HRC's (allegedly) short coattails, several bloggers have come to her defense.

The Washington Note's Kevin Drum links to the NYT article and writes: "I'm actually open to the idea that Hillary Clinton might not have downticket coattails that are as strong as Barack Obama's. But if you want to convince me of this, you really need more than a few Kansas Republicans shedding crocodile tears, some allegedly 'privately nervous' House Dems, and a survey -- the only piece of actual evidence in the entire article -- that concludes just the opposite. Just sayin'."

Jason Zengerle: "Is Obama really more 'electable' than Hillary? Frank Rich certainly thinks so. Andrew Sullivan does, too. As for me, I'm not so sure. The crux of Rich's argument seems to be that Obama (unlike Clinton) disarms conservatives -- pointing to the kind words people like Peggy Noonan and Rich Lowry have had for him -- and that Obama's race would actually be an advantage in a general election campaign, in that it would prompt the GOP to engage in their cynical brand of racial politics, which in turn would drive white swing voters into the Democrats' corner. I hope those two things are true, but color me unconvinced for the moment. But I think the biggest doubt about Obama in a general election campaign has to be the (gulp) experience question -- not about whether he's experienced enough to be president (I think he is) but whether he's experienced enough to run a sufficiently tough general election campaign?"

Over on the right side of the blogosphere, Ramesh Ponnuru thinks HRC is more electable than people think: "I keep hearing Republicans crowing about Hillary Clinton's 'high negatives'...But I remember talking to a Bush strategist right after [John] Kerry had clinched the Democratic nomination in 2004. At the time Kerry had low negatives, and the strategist was pleased. Kerry wasn't crushing Bush in head-to-head match-ups even with those low negatives, he pointed out. And by the end of the campaign Kerry's negatives would be a lot higher. As people who were neutral or even favorable toward Kerry turned against him, his numbers against Bush would drop. It made sense. But Clinton is in the opposite position. She's doing pretty well in match-ups with Republican candidates even with her high negatives -- and it would be hard to drive those negatives up much."

OBAMA: Tough Enough?

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Were Obama to win the Democratic nomination, could he win the national election? I'm constantly surprised by Republicans I meet who really like Obama. I think he has great cross-over potential for picking up Republican votes. But, there are some potential potential hurdles. To what degree will Obama's race be a problem with some voters? And does Obama, or his team, have the experience to take on the Republican attack machine? Just look what the Republicans did to John Kerry. Say what you will about Hillary, but her people know how to fight. Having said that, Obama seems to be besting Hillary, or at least starting to, so perhaps he knows something she doesn't."

On a related note, The Onion asks a crucial question: "Which candidate would you prefer to get in a bar fight with?"

EDWARDS: Don't Misunderestimate Him

MyDD's Jonathan Singer links to the latest IA State Univ. poll, which shows Edwards in second place overall and in first place among likely caucus-goers' second choice, and writes: "Even as Clinton and Obama have traded the 'lead' in Iowa over the past few months, the general narrative to spring from the polling of the state is that it's a 3-way tie. The reason for this, beyond the fact that many of the polls show the top three candidates within the margin of error, is that while Edwards may poll in 3rd place consistently, the internals such as his support among previous caucus-goers and his strong second choice support, in addition to a strong ground organization, have led to a perpetual offshoot of this narrative, namely that if the caucus were held tonight, John Edwards would win...Questions remain, of course: is the claim 'John Edwards would win if the caucus were held tonight' more than just merely a narrative and will it be as true on January 3 as it appears to be today?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Understanding The Netroots

After examining some quantitative data showing which stories have received the most coverage in the liberal blogosphere, Open Left's Chris Bowers contrasts the liberal blogosphere with the MSM:

"It seems to me there are two key differences between our coverage of the 2008 campaign and coverage provided by other media outlets. First, the blogosphere is focused on a three-way campaign between Clinton, Obama and Edwards, instead of a two-way Clinton vs. Obama duel. Secondly, we actually focus much more on policy and legislation than does other media (even though I still think our horserace analysis is superior to that of the established, national media). Of particularly interest, I think, are the issues we focus on: military and foreign policy, energy and global warming policy, media reform and restoring checks and balances to governmental institutions. All of this is centered around the collapse of elite institutions in the United States, and eliminating all of the underlying causes of the Iraq war: media complicity, unitary executive, privatized military, neo-con foreign policy, and the oil-based economy. The reason I find this fascinating is that Matt [Stoller] and I have often argued that the failure of establishment Democrats and progressives / liberal institutions to prevent catastrophes like the Iraq war is the main cause of the rise of the progressive netroots. This is a position that seems to be justified by our areas of policy focus."

LEST WE FORGET: What Happens In Space...

From a recent article in The Guardian:

"'The issue of sex in space is a serious one,' [French scientific writer Pierre Kohler] says. 'The experiments carried out so far relate to missions planned for married couples on the future International Space Station, the successor to Mir. Scientists need to know how far sexual relations are possible without gravity.'

He cites a confidential Nasa report on a space shuttle mission in 1996. A project codenamed STS-XX was to explore sexual positions possible in a weightless atmosphere.

Twenty positions were tested by computer simulation to obtain the best 10, he says. 'Two guinea pigs then tested them in real zero-gravity conditions.'"

NRO's John Derbyshire is shocked: "Twenty? You mean...there's more than one? Aren't any of these astronauts Republicans?"

Posted by Ian Faerstein at December 4, 2007 12:58 PM