That is all.

(My full take in tomorrow’s New York Post — that’s Wednesday tomorrow.)

I expected the idea to be brought up that I’m just disappointed with Giuliani because he’s losing. I’d only note that, despite the perception that I’m some big Giuliani booster (I’ve never endorsed. I’m not sure that’s something I have any interest in doing.), I’ve been highly critical of the Giuliani campaign since at least last spring when he flip-flopped on civil unions. I’ve also been critical of his immigration pandering and his ugly War on Terror mongering. I was a believer in the late-state strategy; maybe that seems foolish now, but as I argued in today’s column, it was, at the very least, the best strategy available.

As to the usual charge that any argument for a socially moderate, fiscally conservative GOP (or GOP candidate) is just asking for a candidate who pleases me — well, yes, that is what most people in politics are after. The specific argument as re Rudy, however, is that he wasn’t going to win the Pat Buchanan / Mike Huckabee / Mitt Romney (version 2.0) part of the GOP base. He had to be the moderate-acceptable-to-die-hards. That is, he had to be McCain, but better (I’d argue much better, given my antipathy for McCain).

How that boils down to “He alienated Ryan Sager,” in Ramesh’s words, is beyond me. McCain’s alienated me, too, but he might actually win. Maybe Rudy could never have knocked off McCain in New Hampshire — they just love the old coot too much up there in the Granite State. But he certainly did himself no favors by failing to even fight for the ground that ought to have been his.

I’m no Clinton hater. For all his faults, Bill Clinton was a better conservative president than George W. Bush (though, yes, that has a lot to do with the Republican Congress).

But what a disgusting campaign Bill and Hillary are running against Barack Obama, with Bill today comparing Obama’s win in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson winning the Palmetto State twice. From now on, I guess, it will be “black candidate, black candidate, black candidate.”

Depressing because it will probably be effective.

A Cornerite notices what I’ve been noticing: Immigration, despite the hype, has been essentially a non-issue in this GOP campaign once votes are cast.

See Cloverfield:

I say this not just because my friend from receSs T.J. Miller is in it — and is the funniest part of it by far as the camera man, Hud.

I say it because it’s an amazing, genre-reinventing film with (spoiler alert) a giant lizard in it.

If there’s any justice in this world, it will kick “The Bucket List” ‘ s ass.

Here’s Huckabee this evening on the need for consitutional amendments on abortion and gay marriage:

“[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards.”

Anyone who doubts that this guy’s a borderline psychotic theocon, please raise your hand.

UPDATE: Of course, K. Lo. has no problem with God’s standards being enforced on tens of millions of secular Americans and the other tens of millions of Christians and Jews who don’t agree that Huckabee and the Religious Right know God’s mind as well as they think they do.

Over at her Dynamist blog, Virginia Postrel takes some time out to bitch slap Reason — the magazine she used to edit — for trying to use Ron Paul as a symbol of libertarianism rising, while ignoring his dark side:

I did not mean to criticize the essentially apolitical people like him and his wife [Ron Paul supporters] who heard some good things from Paul and decided to support him. …

I do fault my friends at Reason, who are much cooler than I’ll ever be and who, scornful of the earnestness that takes politics seriously, apparently didn’t do their homework before embracing Paul as the latest indicator of libertarian cachet. For starters, they might have asked my old boss Bob Poole about Ron Paul; I remember a board member complaining about Paul’s newsletters back in the early ’90s. Besides, people as cosmopolitan as Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch should be able to detect something awry in Paul’s populist appeals. (Note that by “cosmopolitan” I do not mean “Jewish.” I mean cosmopolitan.) I suspect they did but decided it was more useful to spin things their way than to take Paul’s record and ideas seriously. As for Andrew Sullivan, his political infatuations are not his strong point as a commentator.

For my own part, I’ve been more than skeptical of the Ron Paul phenomenon from the beginning — and have argued that it has next to nothing to do with libertarianism and everything to do with anti-war populism mixed with conspiracy theory-ism — but I’ve also, like Virginia, probably not invested enough energy in sounding the alarm.

Like Virginia, I disagree with Ron Paul on the war and on immigration, and I’ve never considered him the “face of libertarianism.” To many people, though, that’s probably exactly what he is. It’s a shame so many had to be taken in and that his bat-shittery will tarnish the name of an otherwise respectable strain of political philosophy.

So, to those who were taken in, some words of advice going forward. Now, perhaps I’m just ultra-sensitive to this stuff as a Jew, but when you hear a lot of talk from a group of people about “international bankers”: RUN THE OTHER FUCKING DIRECTION!!!

This was all more than foreseeable and foreseen.

I’ve said it a few times over the years, and it’s looking to me truer than ever tonight: Immigration is an entirely phantom issue in American politics; it’s always supposed to be the 800-pound gorilla, yet it never ends up deciding (or even strongly influencing) elections.

In a general election, it’s easy to see why this is: both parties are split in half on the issue, so nobody talks about it during the general.

In the GOP primary this year, however, it’s looked at times like it could be decisive. The GOP base is running riot over immigration, we’re told. So, why exactly are the two winners of Iowa and New Hampshire — the only winners the GOP race has so far — the two “worst” candidates, at least so far as the Lou Dobbs set is concerned? Mike Huckabee, he of “compassion” toward immigrants, runs away with Iowa. John McCain, he of “comprehensive immigration reform,” runs away with New Hampshire. Both candidates beat the tar out of “tough on immigration” (at least this week) Mitt Romney. (OK, Romney won Wyoming. Show of hands for who cares.)

Huck, of course, looks set to win South Carolina next, a state where immigration should be extremely important. And then we’re essentially into a national campaign. And, so, just what exactly did any of the candidates who have pandered so relentlessly on immigration buy themselves (here’s looking at you, Rudy)? A tougher road to hoe should they make it to the general, is all.

So, as I’ve said before, I spit on immigration as an important political issue. Candidates ought to quit getting sucked into the nativist trap. Like Ron Paul supporters, nativists yell the loudest; but it doesn’t mean they decide elections.

Some more predictions ahead of tonight:

Dem:

Obama - 44
Clinton - 32
Edwards - 15

GOP:

McCain - 33
Romney - 32
Huckabee - 12
Paul - 10
Giuliani - 8

My reasoning?

Reports of high Dem turnout probably mean a blowout for Obama. On the GOP side, I think McCain is wounded by the Obama surge (sucking up all the Independents), while Romney’s been fighting hard the last five days. This is an embarrassing finish for Rudy, if it comes to pass, and it’s happening in a northeastern state. While I still think the late-state strategy was the smartest he could have pursued, he needed to invest in New Hampshire enough to place; he didn’t.

I just made these predictions privately to a friend, so — what the heck — here they are for the record. Off the cuff, of course, and guaranteed to be wildly inaccurate:

Dem:

Obama - 38
Edwards - 33
Clinton - 27

GOP:

Huckabee - 29
Romney - 27
Thompson - 13
McCain - 9
Paul - 6
Giuliani - 5

My reasoning?

On the Democratic side: I’m going largely by the expectations games being played by the Big Three candidates. The Hillary Dash to Downplay Iowa has been amazing to behold. And I can’t believe the Obama folks would risk sounding this over-confident if they didn’t have good internal data showing a very likely win. The Edwards folks seem to be downplaying Iowa a bit, too, which is just comical given how much time he’s invested there.

On the Republican side: My first instinct on the Republican side is to ask, “Who the $#@% knows!?” My second is to make some guesses and assumptions. Huck vs. Mitt is neck and neck, and anyone who claims any special knowledge here is lying — everyone has a 50% chance of being right. My guess is that anti-establishment Huck enthusiasm will edge out hyper-organized and hyper-funded Romney resignation. (Maybe that’s a phrase I should coin — Romney Resignation: the feeling one is overcome with after realizing whomever you really want to vote for can’t win or isn’t in the race.) As to the rest of the field, Thompson’s had his mini-boom, and he’s a natural fit with Iowa voters, so that could add up to a third-place finish. Some people will predict McCain in that role; it’s possible, but I don’t see Iowans going with him any more than they’d suddenly give a boost to Giuliani. As for Giuliani, I expect a very low place, almost certainly below Ron Paul. Ron Paul will under-perform his poll numbers, putting lie to the idea that pollsters are somehow missing the existence of a “Ron Paul Revolution.”

So, in only a matter of hours, I can be mocked for getting it wrong.

UPDATE (6:23 p.m.): Just one other note on McCain. I admit that right now he has the best chance of winning the nomination he’s had all year (though, I still believe that means he has a 1% chance instead of a 0% chance). If he does, though, it will be through sheer luck, having run one of the worst primary campaigns in the history of primary campaigns. Even in the last couple weeks, he’s made a huge blunder by visiting Iowa and raising expectations there. He could take third place tonight, and in that case it gets spun as a victory by a media dying to write the McCain Comeback story. But why take the risk when he’s already got a great shot at New Hampshire? Why risk a fourth place finish being seen as a loss? Just another unforced error.

UPDATE II (1:01 a.m.): OK, well, I was actually really close on the Democratic side, where I have little expertise; Edwards was just a hair ahead of Clinton, but Obama really did win that big. On the GOP side, I got the order right, but the magnitude way off. Huckabee didn’t just squeak it out by a point, he blew the doors off this mutha by almost 10 points. Also, Thompson and McCain were basically tied. Ron Paul got around 10% — proving, once and for all I hope, that his poll numbers are not missing some gigantic “revolution” — rather, they’re perfectly in line with the number of votes he actually got. So stop all the but-all-the-young-supporters-have-cell-phones-and-ron’s-going-to-be-the-next-president and-we’ll-take-back-this-country-from-the-Jews stuff. It’s over.