Mark A. Kilmer's Political Annotation

Charlie Cook's Word

My New Hampshire post-mortem is the post under this one.

This quote is from Charlie Cook's "Of to the Races" column of this afternoon:

If history is an accurate guide, and assuming most polls are correct in predicting Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry will win today's New Hampshire
primary, he should go on to win the Democratic nomination. After all, in the past seven presidential elections, 13 of the 14 nominees won either the Iowa caucuses, the New Hampshire primary or both.

The exception was Bill Clinton in 1992. That year Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin's candidacy made his home state's caucuses a non-event, and Gennifer Flowers' news conference the week before the New Hampshire primary held Clinton back but enabled him to become "the Comeback Kid" after finishing second.

But results have not been consistent this year. Historically, organization has been the key factor in the Iowa caucuses. And yet, the two candidates who went into Iowa with the best organizations -- former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Missouri Rep. Richard Gephardt -- came in third and fourth, respectively. It's also true that New Hampshire voters often punish Iowa caucuses winners, that candidates who raise the most money in the odd-year win the nomination, and that sitting senators
rarely win nominations.

There you have it, folks. This Democrat nomination will probably not be won by truisms, old saws, or wive's tales, and it most certainly will not be won by history, which is, after all, past.
0 comments

New Hampshire's post mortem

What a lame night.

I know what I predicted, but it is going like the polls said it would. The only thing which has changed is that the inevitable has drawn nearer.

Kerry will double-digit Dean, and we have Dean's boy Joe Trippie declaring earlier this evening: "We do not consider South Carolina and Missouri be battleground States." Okay. They're going elsewhere. The Dean camp suggests that it is skipping ahead and going to Michigan, which holds its party-run primary on February 7. Short shirft to the 3rd. (Beethoven's 3rd Symphony, Eroica, was composed in tribute to Napolean, if you can find any symblolic meaning in that.)

"YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"

Ron Reagan -- yes, the spawn of the President -- was at the map of that Chris Matthews thaang on MSNBC, and he speculated that Dean would want to do Arizona and New Mexico. I suppose that is his grand, gnat-like strategy. And I am not at all surprised that the once-dominant Dean is down. I have said all along that he would not win the nomination: he's the wrong person, the wrong mix. "An implosion on a timer."

Kaboom.

Edwards and Clark. Look at it this way, I wrote Clark also off the nomination early. As Edwards pointed out last Sunday, Clark is not a "real southernor." He's done, and he knows it.

Edwards has to win South Carolina and Oklahoma, and hurt Kerry elsewhere on February 3rd. If Kerry wins South Carolina, and he is within reach according to polls, he is practically the nominee.

Thinking ahead: Kerry/Edwards vrs. Bush/Cheney. (A hypothetical, not a prediction.) I'm prepared to call that race now.

Thinking further ahead: If Edwards doesn't win the nomination and isn't selected as Kerry's veep nominee, does he stay viable for 2008? Hillary C. can run even if Rudy Giuliani waltzes along in 2006 and does the two-step on her Senate career. (A mixed-dance metaphor. Yikes!) No, on the above for John Edwards. If he would be Kerry's unsuccessful running mate, he might be able to stay in sight for 2008. But rememember, Lieberman stayed vital in part because of his ongoing Senate career. Edwards will not have that. What will he do for four years? Maybe he'll get a gig running the U.N. once Kofi resigns in disgrace. (Not a prediction. An hypothetical, again.)

Remember, it's easy to get caught up in the moment -- Kerry drubs Dean on one night -- and forget the span of time. We've a way to go, and there is nothing to say that this won't stay tight. No one, except perhaps for Wes Clark, is quitting, and I doubt he will. We've a way to go.

In a month, this will a be a footnote.

Joe Lieberman is going to Delaware! I think he's still in this because he's having a blast.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDENDUM: As a special treat, HERE is the story from Xinhuanet, the web site of the PRC's government-operated news agency, Xinhua:

MERRIMACK, New Hampshire, Jan. 27 (Xinhuanet) -- US Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts on Tuesday won the first Democratic primary in New Hampshire, according to projections by major television networks.

Exit polls conducted by Fox News, CBS and CNN showed that Kerrybeat former Vermont governor Howard Dean and other candidates in the primary. Official results of 38 percent of votes counted also showed that Kerry led Dean by 39 percent against 24 percent.

Kerry's victory in New Hampshire would undoubtedly gave him bigmomentum in his campaign to win the party's nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate. Enditem

Even the government of the People's Republic of China think that Kerry "undoubtedly" will be given "bigmomentum."
0 comments

KERRY DEFEATS DEAN

Another "Dewey defeats Truman"? Not tonight. FOX called it at 8:15p ET, with 17-percent counted.

Dean is done.

Now, Kerry was expected to win New Hampshire. This win will not, per se, translate into victories around the country where he exists only as the Massachusetts liberal aristocrat.

He's written off the South, as well.

Let's see what happens betwixt Clark and Edwards for third place...

If Clark loses, send him home.

Joe Lieberman is Connecticut's junior Senator. No tears are needed for the one decent, religious man in the Dem field. (He knows for certain that the Book of Job is not in the New Testamanet.)
0 comments

Two Tiers in New Hampshire?

The finish in the Iowa caucuses showed two tiers. Candidates Kerry (38%) and Edwards (32%) finished at the top, while candidates Dean (18%) and Gephardt (11%) held the bottom.

Exit polling I've heard so far shows two tiers in Iowa… Kerry/Dean - Clark/Edwards/Joementum.

This is not my party's primary.
0 comments

South Dakota's Special Election

Republican State Senator Larry Diedrich will face repeat Democrat Stephanie Herseth in South Dakota's June 1 special election to fill the House seat vacated by former GOP Representative Bill Janklow.

Herseth has been at this before, having lost to Janklow in 2002. This one promises to be an interesting race:

“Janklow decided not to educate people on Herseth,” Diedrich said after winning the GOP nomination. While he emphasized the importance of positive campaigning, Diedrich said he will also be “comparing” himself with Herseth.

His strategy will be to draw even in Democrat-leaning Sioux Falls and win big in rural western South Dakota.

According to a Herseth press release, she has raised $352,000 and has $354,000 on hand. An outdated FEC report puts Diedrich at $34,000 on hand. That's a 10x advantage, with GOP donors already spending on former Congressman John Thune's attempt to upset Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle.

Fortunately, the race is won't be won be won on looks alone, because then the GOP would be in serious trouble; To wit, here is the visage of that woman, Miss Herseth:

As politicians go…
0 comments

Qadhafi's Nuke Program is in Knoxville

Not quite, but according to the WashPost:

The United States said it took possession on Tuesday of an estimated 55,000 pounds of equipment and documents related to Libya's nuclear and ballistic missile programs, including centrifuge parts used to enrich uranium.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said a transport plane containing the sensitive equipment left Tripoli Monday night and arrived Tuesday morning at an airport outside Knoxville, Tennessee.

And we are destroying their chemical weapons, according to Mclellan.

Now, let's operate with the theory that Saddam Hussein possessed no extant system like the one Qadhafi is offering to be destroyed. A sane despot would have invited the civilized world in to have a look, clear his name. But suppose that Saddam's scientists, who knew to tell the dictator what he wanted to hear on pain of death, concocted stories of the existence of such a program in order to keep him happy. He might kill them otherwise, so there was a will to survive worked into their mindset.

Saddam wanted power; these weapons, real to him, gave him the perception that he had it.

What then of Qadafi? He wanted power; his weapons gave him the perception that he had it. But something spooked him.

Things are different when you're a despot and the only thing standing between you and your goals is, to use Ayman al-Zawahiri's term, a "paper tiger" with a resolve only to lob a few missiles or drop several bombs when irritated.

A new President, a stronger United States, Saddam removed, and Qadhafi's nuke program lands in Knoxville, bound for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
0 comments

Kerry's Anti-War Record

Candidate John Kerry tells the Dem masses from the stump that he "protested Richard Nixon's war." Mackubin Thomas Owens writes in today's NRO that people who knew Kerry said he came back from the war with no particular problem with it. But he wanted to run for Congress, and he needed an issue:

Kerry did not return from Vietnam a radical antiwar activist. According to the indispensable Stolen Valor, by H. G. "Jug" Burkett and Genna Whitley, "Friends said that when Kerry first began talking about running for office, he was not visibly agitated about the Vietnam War. 'I thought of him as a rather normal vet,' a friend said to a reporter, 'glad to be out but not terribly uptight about the war.' Another acquaintance who talked to Kerry about his political ambitions called him a 'very charismatic fellow looking for a good issue.'" Apparently, this good issue would be Vietnam.

Read Mr. Thomas's piece, Vetting the Vet Record: Is Kerry a proud war hero or angry antiwar protester? for the skinny on Kerry and The War, cliché-by-cliché.
0 comments

LaRouchies For Kerry

Followers of Democrat candidate Lyndon LaRouche started making noise at a rally for fellow-Democrat candidate Howard Dean and we escorted from the room. The LaRouchies catcalled that Dean was a "liar," and that only candidate John Kerry and LaRouche were telling the truth about the situation with the global economy.

B-grade comedian Al Franken, on hand to support Dean, provided the best laughs of the event when he attempted to help escort the LaRouchies out of the room:

Franken, a comedian and self-described liberal well-known for his attacks on the Bush administration and conservative-leaning media, helped carry out one of the disrupters. In the process, Franken's glasses were knocked off his face and broke in two.

Putting them back together with electrical tape, he quipped he had been "deputized" by Dean's security.

According to the CNN piece, the LaRouchies also heckled candidate Joe Lieberman, for some reason.

I have a soft spot for Lyndon LaRouche, the only candidate from the real "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." The man embodies the Democrat Party.

Ding Dong.
0 comments

Rich Lowry on John Edwards

Rich Lowry -- editor of THE political journal, National Review -- has written a piece for NRO in which he does a decent job of characterizing candidate John Edwards.

The wunderkind former trial lawyer with the gorgeously hair-sprayed bangs and soft, winning southern accent combines the synthetic sincerity of Bill Clinton and the condescension of Al Gore. He is the most insulting of all the Democratic presidential candidates, both as a matter of presentation and of substance.

He believes that voters are too thick to realize the affectation behind his lavishly open and caring stump style. "Now, I'm just asking," he tells his listeners here. "Does it make any sense to you — I'm just asking now, I don't know what you think about this — does it make any sense to you for us to be spending Social Security money on tax cuts?" Of course, he wouldn't be asking if he didn't know exactly the answer that his stilted question — one of his favorite stump tactics — will elicit.

He then calls Edwards properly for a certain hypocrisy in his stump speech.

Lowry, as I said, has a pretty good handle on Edwards, but I don't know that he is gripping it properly. He is frustrated that Democrat have not seen through Edwards, and it seems to make him angry. Been there/Done that.

John Edwards is a calculated mixture of smarm/charm masking a paucity of anything actually substantial. He can look a group over voters in their eyes from the stump, or a nation's worth through a camera lens, and lie to them as if he feels their pain and can damn well do something about it.

As I've said repeatedly, Edwards is the best liar politics has seen for at least a generation. Clinton himself wasn't this good, though Clinton's lies were arguably more frequent and much more venal.

"He believes voters are too thick to realize…" An argument can be made that many are. We are living in a nation whose voters elected the aforementioned Clinton not once, but twice. A sect of this nation's voters so hates our President that their voices quaver and their rationality flees. John Edwards can smarm/charm the Democrat voters. They're his audience, and there is not one amongst the other Democrat candidates with the character to hammer him where it he needs to be hit.

It may well take President Bush to call his bluff. "That's not the way things are, John."
0 comments

Dixville Notch - Hart's Location

It's not a case of "as they go, so goes New Hampshire," or any such thing, but Dixville Notch and Hart;s Location vote early, the initial reasons having long since become irrelevant. But it's a neat New Hampshire tradition.

Though Dixville is better known, the early voting tradition began in Hart's Location, about 50 miles to the south. According to local lore, Hart's Location began the practice in 1948 because many residents worked for the railroad and wanted to vote before starting early shifts. The town ended the practice in the mid-1960s when residents tired of all media attention, but resumed it in 1996.

In Hart's location, where there are just five registered Dems, the final count was:

Clark - 6
Kerry - 5
Dean - 3
Edwards - 2

In Dixville Notch, where there are 10 Registered Republicans and 16 registered independents, the voting on the Dem side went:

Clark-8
Karry-3
Edwards-2
Dean-1
Lieberman - 1

On the Republican side in Dixville Notch, President George W. Bush received 11 votes; with only 10 registered Republicans in the hamlet, this means that one of the town's 16 independents skipped the excitement of the Dem primary and showed her support for President Bush. (I will assume the Bush voting indie was a woman, because my wife assures me that 9 out of 10 women are smarter than men.)
0 comments

My New Hampshire Democrat Predictions

Tomorrow, we have a standard Democrat primary election where a large portion of the electorate may not be registered with the party whose primary it is. They can register at the last minute, as well. It's difficult a forecast with any real certainty who will arrive to vote, let alone how those votes will be cast.

I've seen the polls, and they make a compelling case for this and that.

My prediction, in order of finish: KEDCL.

1. Candidate John Kerry is the boy-next-door, getting all the poll-induced hype. He's the juggernaut, although we've recently seen what can happen to the media juggernaut-of-the-week. We must also remember the first definition of the term "juggernaut":

Something, such as a belief or institution, that elicits blind and destructive devotion or to which people are ruthlessly sacrificed.

That was Dean. This is Kerry.

2. Candidate John Edwards has no common-wisdom business being a second pick, but who will be there to stop him? As this is a primary and not a caucus, there will be no Kerry voters in the booth to persuade a tenuous Edwards voter to "come over to the dark side." It's easier to vote for Edwards, I think, than it is to caucus for him.

3. Candidate Howard Dean says he's surging, but the polls show no real gain. He might have stopped the bleeding, so to speak, but he is going nowhere. Deaniacs feed off each other, pushing their candidate with a mob mentality. There is no mob in the voting booth. I'll give him 20% tops, and this has little to do with his childish speech. He was imploding long before that; witness his third place finish in Iowa.

4. Candidate Wes Clark. Didn't he just say he was the son of a sharecropper who paid his way through West Point?

5. Candidate Joe Lieberman was actually the first frontrunner after Al Gore opted to sit this one out. The man tried, but he was trampled under foot and lacked the innate dynamism to do much of anything. Perhaps he'll switch parties and sit with Linc Chafee, Arlen Specter, and Olympia Snow. I honestly suspected that Gore would go to New Hampshire this afternoon to campaign for him, though.


That felt good.
0 comments

Dean Supports Preemption

I saw candidate Dean and his wife, Dr. Judith Steinberg, on Chris Matthews for a while this evening. Matthews asked him about the doctrine of preemption, and here's a paraphrase of what Dean said:

We've always had a doctrine of prevention. If we'd have know bin Laden was going to fly airplanes into skyscrapers, we'd have done something about it. We just didn't announce it. You don't tell the world you're going to attack them if you think they might be up to no good; you just do it."

This just is this. Dean has no problem with the doctrine of preemption; rather, he feels its arrogant and counterproductive to announce to the world that you are utilizing that doctrine.

He's wrong, of course. By announcing preemption, you are implementing prevention. If someone knows they'll be attacked if they stockpile mass-destructive weapons, they will be less likely to develop or purchase them.

But most important, Howard Dean supports the doctrine of preemption -- The Bush Doctrine -- so long as it is used tacitly. (Teddy Roosevelt? Hardly.)
0 comments

Dean has brought nothing...

...to the campaign.

Howard Dean offered nothing new, innovative, or worthwhile to the campaign. His positive contributions to the debate and to the process have been void, zilch, zero, naught, nothing, vacuum.

A young Knight Ridder stringer named Thomas Fitzgerald, however, writes differently:

Regardless of who wins the New Hampshire primary Tuesday, in one sense Howard Dean already has won a very important battle - the one for the rhetorical soul of the Democratic Party.

Listen to North Carolina Sen. John Edwards at a rally the other night: "You have the power" - a direct steal of Dean's rally-ending tagline. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said at another New Hampshire event that he wanted to "break the grip of the powerful interests in this country and put the people in charge." Both men bash insiders, Washington politicians and the establishment - even if they themselves are some or all of the above.

Those themes, sometimes the exact words, echo what Dean has been saying for months. Whoever wins the Democratic presidential nomination, to an important degree he will sound like the former Vermont governor. A little plagiarism among friends is par for the course in presidential politics, where the rule is if a message works, use it.

WRONG. Such language has been around as long as their have been politics and moneyed interests, but I can take you back to 1992, when they were used by Ross Perot and candidate for the Democrat nomination Governor Moonbeam, who has since gone on to become mayor of Oakland. (Jerry Brown was first called "Governor Moonbeam" by the late columnist Mike Royko of the Chicago Tribune. He tried to take it back in '92, when Jerry was doing his "We the People" gig, but it did not work.)

Now, there is a difference between what Perot and Brown did, and what Dean is doing. For kooks like Ross and Moonbeam, this was serious stuff. For Dean, it's schtick given him probably by that campaign genius Joe Trippi. Dean wants to be President, he's the failed governor of a small northeastern State, and he goes the outsider route. "Take it back. You have the power."

What else is Dean said to have contributed to the political game? Perot did the grass roots think larger, better, and more dramatically in '92.

The Internet campaign? That would have been independent of Dean. Someone activist/political entrepreneur would have put something together whether Dean had or not, because I can see no way you are going to have hundreds of blogmeisters sit back, shut up, and do nothing. They're -- we're -- not "mind your own business" types.

I was blogging for may two or three weeks when I received an e-mail from a fellow named Matt Margolis about something he was starting called Blogs for Bush. I signed on, not sure what to expect, and it has turned into an incredible operation -- unofficial -- for spreading the word about President Bush and the limits of his Democrat opponents.

Dean's sole contribution to this campaign, besides giving a lot of political writers someone over whom to swoon, has been: "YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"

0 comments

Judge Strikes Down Part of Patriot Act

U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins struck down a part of the Patriot Act about which I hadn't thought for a long time: the section barring individuals from giving advice of any sort to groups classified as terrorist organizations. Martha Stewart, under the Patriot Act, could not legally tell them how to fold their napkins.

Wrote Collins, according to the Reuters piece cited above:

"...The USA Patriot Act places no limitation on the type of expert advice and assistance which is prohibited and instead bans the provision of all expert advice and assistance regardless of its nature," Collins said in the ruling.

She rejected, however, the argument that the act invests the Secretary of State with too much power to declare groups to be terror organizations.

Congress now has to rewrite that part of the law if they wish to regulate advice.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I will give an Iowa forecast tonight. I've got a close eye right now on Dean, Clark, and Joe-mentom, though not to win.
0 comments

President Bush: limit malpractice awards

With a shot at candidate John Edwards in the hometown of candidate Wes Clark, President Bush today proposed capping the dollar amounts of jury awards in medical malpractice lawsuits, Candidate Edwards made a fortune suing doctors for patients can keeping a huge percentage of the awards:

"The health care system looks like a giant lottery, that's what it looks like these days with these lawsuits, and somehow the trial lawyers always hold the winning ticket," Bush said to an audience of several hundred medical professionals and others in a hospital auditorium here.

"Lawyers walk away with up to 40 percent - 40 percent! - of every settlement and verdict," Bush said. He said many such lawsuits are "frivolous" and are "driving a wedge between the docs and their patients," he said.

Bush argues that a nationwide cap on such lawsuits would drive down soaring health care costs and save taxpayers money.

He had pledged to attempt to end frivolous malpractice lawsuits in his State of the Union address last week. The camera did not pan to candidate Edwards, also a Democrat Senator from North Carolina, because he was not there.

The Edwards campaign countered that the President has his friends in "big insurance." This one will go on until November should Edwards get the nominaiton, with RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie deriding Edwards as only a "tort lawyer."

Remember, one must be pretty fast to catch an ambulence.
0 comments

Chirac's Real Motive

British Prime Minister Tony Blair believes French President Jacques Chirac's real motive for opposing the liberation of Iraq was to knock him down a peg, according to a new Blair biographer.

``I'm convinced he [Blair] believed the conflict with Chirac had expanded beyond Iraq to become a contest for the political leadership of Europe,'' author Philip Stephens told Reuters.

``Chirac hoped that Blair would be toppled.''

My source is this Reuters story, as the bio, From Tony Blair, is not due until next month.

``During the next few months Blair came to believe -- partly on the basis of reports from British intelligence -- that the dispute over Iraq was in fact a proxy for a much more serious contest,'' Stephens wrote.

``Chirac, these reports said, had decided that Blair had usurped his own position as the natural leader of Europe. It was time for the French president to reassert himself and to clip the wings of perfidious Albion.

What's new? Chirac's a megalomaniac and Blair is something of a paranoid. And Monsieur Stephens wants to sell books. Life at the Financial Times is evidently not thrilling enough for the man, who now purposes to be a dramatic biographer.
0 comments

Kerry dismisses the South

Candidate John Kerry thinks the Democrat Presidential candidate should concede and forget the south. He seeks to "change the face of America," to the exclusion of States south of the Mason-Dixon line.

From ABCNews.com:

"Everybody always makes the mistake of looking South," Kerry said, in response to a question about winning the region. "Al Gore proved he could have been president of the United States without winning one Southern state, including his own."

"I think the fight is all over this country," Kerry said. "Forget about those red and blue states. We're going to change that now, and we're going to go out there and change the face of America."

The South Carolina Democrat Party responded:

"If that's any indication of how he intends to conduct his primary campaign and a general campaign, then I think Fritz Hollings ought to reconsider his endorsement," Dick Harpootlian, former chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party, told ABCNEWS in an exclusive interview.

"It's the wrong message to be saying at this point," said Harpootlian, who noted Kerry was the only major Democratic candidate not running TV ads in his state.

"I'm shocked he would be talking about a strategy of avoiding the South," Harpootlian added. "He's got to demonstrate an ability to compete outside liberal Iowa and the liberal Northeastern United States. He's got to be able to play in Middle America."

Ah, but Kerry is a New England liberal elitist. ABCNews.com reminds us of the words of Senator Zell Miller (D-Georgia):

In his 2003 book, A National Party No More: The Conscience of a Conservative Democrat, Miller wrote, "Once upon a time, the most successful Democratic leader of them all, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, looked South and said, 'I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.' Today, our national Democratic leaders look South and say, 'I see one-third of a nation and it can go to hell.'"

And Senator Miller was right, as evidenced by candidate Kerry's very foolish answer. He not only plans to virtually ignore the South, he is telling them that he just does not care how they vote.

Start spinning, Ms. Cahill.
0 comments

New Hampshire GOP Primary

Presdient Bush is not the only Republican on Tuesday's GOP primary ballot in New Hampshire. These people are each seeking the Presidency of the United States, in whatever sense there is in their little universes.

Gregory Markle has the list with descriptions at the American Realpolitik weblog

For those of us who support President Bush, it is good to see the intra-party competition. (There's no word on how these folks are polling in New Hampshire, but it's not known if they have relatives or weird friends from high school living in the State.)
0 comments

Momentum for Edwards?

The Des Moines Register -- Remember them? -- offers us this story about the momentum of candidate John Edwards in New Hampshire.

Blockbuster campaign rallies, rising poll numbers and favorable feedback to Edwards' populist campaign style are signs things could be breaking his way in the last days of the New Hampshire primary campaign, as they did before his surprise second-place finish in the Iowa caucuses.

Edwards remains less known than New England contenders John Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. Likewise, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman and retired Gen. Wesley Clark have concentrated their presidential campaigns' early-state strategies on New Hampshire.

Emboldened by his Iowa success, Edwards is gaining ground in New Hampshire at a critical time, using an engaging and enthusiastic campaign style to make an impression on the state's still-large segment of undecided primary voters.

They quote a Dartmouth political scientist suggesting that it will be a three-man race coming out of New Hampshire: Kerry, Dean, and Edwards.

It will be nice to be rid of Clark, but are we back to saying that Kerry and Edwards will split the anti-Dean vote? That would require my recognition that Dean is again a factor in the campaign, and I am not prepared to do that just yet.

If Dean finishes second in New Hampshire, we'll talk. If he wins, the Dems have got a bigger problem.
0 comments

Track THIS! [motions]

Good morning. The latest Reuters/MSNBC/Zogby three-day, just released, shows that candidate John Kerry is starting to wither under the relentless siege of… Howard Dean.

Kerry - 31%
Dean - 28%
Clark - 13%
Edwards - 12%
Lieberman - 9%

Joe Lieberman is mired at 9-percent. He's going nowhere in this poll, but he's such an honorable man -- etc. -- that he merits recognition.

Again, these polls are just these polls. Take 'em out, leave them home, just don't bet anything valuable on them.

The Iowa polls did not predict the two tiers of the finish, with Kerry and Edwards in the top tier, followed distantly by Dean and the dearly departed Dick Gephardt. This poll indicates two tears in its own world: Kerry and Dean, then Edwards and Clark. Dean is surging in the top tier, while Edwards is surging in the bottom, so that would indicate -- to use the shorthand -- a DKEC finish. If we factor in the honorability of Lieberman, it would be DKECL.

The term for today, in the parts where I can be physically found, is "WINTRY MIX." In the cold of New Hampshire, if Zogby is leveling with us. the candidates are involved in their own wintry mix. (Spare the rimshot.)
0 comments

Saddam's WMD in Syria?

As we've discussed, former Iraq Survey Group chief David Kay resigned his post and declared that he didn't think that there were any WMD in Iraq. The Democrat candidates expressed outrage, or whatever it is that they're into these days, and Kay told Britain's Sunday Telegraph broadsheet that Iraq might have sent the weapons to Syria.

CNN reports that Kay told NPR Sunday afternoon:

But in an interview aired later Sunday on National Public Radio, Kay said it is difficult to determine whether shipments to Syria included weapons, in part because Syria has refused to cooperate in this part of the weapons investigation.

If this be the case, then perhaps Kay was attempting to make clear that Syria was not cooperating and could well have been Saddam's temporary depot.

Meanwhile, according to the Gulf Daily News site, the Syrians are vehemently denying everything:

The accusations by David Kay, the recently replaced head of the Iraq Survey Group, in Britain's Sunday Telegraph newspaper were "baseless deception and lies," said Information Minister Ahmad Al Hassan.

"The aim is to cover up their failure to find any weapons of mass destuction, the pretext they advanced for going to war," he said.

Meanwhile, in Monday's edition, the Daily Telegraph quotes British Prime Minister Tony Blair standing by his pre-war intelligence:

"I can only tell you I believed the intelligence we had at the time. It is absurd to say in respect of any intelligence that it is infallible, but if you ask me what I believe, I believe the intelligence was correct, and I think in the end we will have an explanation. I have absolutely no doubt at all in my mind that the intelligence was genuine."

This would make for a very lame novel.
0 comments

Dean: Iraqis were better off...

...in Saddam's nation-gulag.

Howard Dean's foot is again where it belongs, and that may not be in his mouth.

From the Associated Press:

"You can say that it's great that Saddam is gone and I'm sure that a lot of Iraqis feel it is great that Saddam is gone," said the former Vermont governor, an unflinching critic of the war against Iraq. "But a lot of them gave their lives. And their living standard is a whole lot worse now than it was before."

Howard, what's with you? Their working real, private sector jobs, earning real money. Whole segments of their infrastructure is coming online which had been down or never available since long before the war.

The most lunatic aspect to Dean's statement, though, is it is akin to saying that the Russian people were better off under the Soviet System. The Germans were better off when they were governed by the Nazis. The Cambodians had things better under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. The Afghan people were better off with Mullah Omar and the Taliban.

Dean, you are a silly man. This is probably the result of the same psychological malady which made him believe he ought to be President.

He leads with his heart, he tells us. He'd better get that checked, too. Senator Frist might be able to help him out: transplant-wise.

"YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"
0 comments

John Durkin Endorses Edwards

A month ago, Howard Dean's campaign issued a press release announcing the endorsement of former Senator John Durkin (D-New Hampshire), found here on their web site.

"I am deeply grateful to have the endorsement of Senator Durkin," said Governor Dean. "He has served his state well and fought hard for people here in New Hampshire. His experience and support will help us grow our Granite State campaign even more and help ensure our success in January and beyond."

"Governor Dean is bright; he's tough; he's honest; he's a Harry Truman Democrat who'll tell you what's what and tell you like it is, and that's a rare combination," said Senator Durkin. "People across America fear their jobs will be outsourced, their children won't be able to afford an education, or an illness would bankrupt their dreams. Governor Dean is the only hope for working people."

Durkim, who represented the Granite State from 1975-1981, was fine, until something went wrong.

As reported in this story in the Nashua Telegraph last Friday, Durkin saw his terrible mistake:

Durkin said the former Vermont governor came off too overheated after his third-place showing in Iowa and already had allowed Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry to steal the populist message Dean owned last fall.

“I am the role model for the angry young man who won statewide in New Hampshire. I’m also the role model for the middle-aged man who got his butt kicked in New Hampshire,’’ Durkin said during an interview Thursday.

Durkin was referring to the close Senate race he won as a young man in 1975 and to his blowout loss to former Senator Bob Smith two decades later.

The Telegraph article tells of a Durkin warning to Dean:

The Manchester Democrat talked with Dean last Friday before the Iowa vote to warn him that Kerry’s ads featuring New Hampshire citizens like John and Mary Ann Knowles of Hudson were moving undecided voters to Kerry.

Unendorsements don not happen every day in the political world.

From Reuters, we learn that Durkin has endorsed candidate John Edwards:

Edwards on Sunday won the endorsement of former U.S. Sen. John Durkin, who withdrew his backing from Dean last week.
``I'm trying to find the (candidate) who has the best chance of beating George Bush,'' the former New Hampshire senator said in a statement. ``I think Sen. Edwards would be the best.''

Durkin was born in Massachusetts and, of course, was once a New England Senator, thus he this was a backhand for John F. Kerry.

It's good to see that man smacked around a little, but if it gets much worse, his face might slide off.
0 comments

The Anti-Kerry

There's a very real chance that candidate Kerry could win New Hampshire, with candidate John Edwards finishing second. If this happens, the Dems probably have a bona fide two-man race, IF…

Kerry is surging in the polls in South Carolina, but he is still said to be trailing Edwards. If NH finishes Kerry then Edwards, and Kerry rides his NH momentum to a victory in South Carolina, then Kerry will win the Dem nomination unless an Anti-Kerry materializes.

Yes, there would still be time for an Anti-Kerry to emerge from the rest of the Dem field. It would have to be someone with a strong organization and gobs of money. Yes, I'm talking about Howard Dean.

So, if Kerry wins Iowa (done), New Hampshire (certainly), and South Carolina (maybe) -- and if he finishes in the top two in the other February 3rd States -- Dean emerges as the only possible Anti-Kerry, with Lyndon LaRouche as the wildcard.

These folks say they want to knock off President Bush in November.
0 comments

Sunday Show Summary and Analysis

My summary and analysis of the Sunday morning talk shows has been delivered to the various Inboxes throughout the world, and you can read the online version HERE.

Last night, I put up a post regarding David Kay's statement to the London Daily Telegraph that he'd seen evidence that Saddam had hidden some of his WMD in Syria before the war.

This came up on CNN's Late Edition, in a discussion with former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham (D-Florida) and current Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kansas).

Host Blitzer brought up the Telegraph interview to Roberts, who said that he was about to mention it. "If that is the case, there are going to be a lot of critics [of President Bush] with egg -- or WMD -- on their face."

We shall see.
0 comments

Trans-Candidate Dems

The Chicago Tribune this morning carries a Los Angeles Times throwaway piece about their latest poll.

A few things are worth noting:

Kerry's three main rivals--former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, retired Gen. Wesley Clark and Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina--are locked in a struggle for second place that could enormously shape the race.

That's what the Newsweek poll found, for what that's worth.

A second place finish by Dean would hurt Edwards and Clark more than it would hurt him. A second place finish by Clark in his first test will give him more credibility than has Sam Malone from Cheers.

If Edwards somehow finishes second, I'll be ready prematurely to declare the race over.

Then there's this:

Kerry led comfortably when voters were asked, regardless of which candidate they supported, which of the contenders they believed "is most qualified to serve as commander in chief."

What about Joey Lieberman, the only candidate with a moral compass and a shred of decency amongst this sorry lot.

As was suggested to me yesterday, perhaps Lieberman can hook up with Senators Olympia Snowe (R-Main) and Linc Chafee (R-Rhode Island) to see about joining the Senate GOP Mod Squad. He wouldn't be of much use to conservatives on many issues, but at least he'd have that "R" on his lapel and be a huge step towards a filibuster-proof majority of 60.

Finally, there was this:

The poll also found that the New Hampshire contest remains unsettled. One of 10 likely voters said they were undecided. Nearly 2-in-5 who have picked a candidate said they could change their mind. That's the same share of voters who described themselves as open to switching candidates in a poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times shortly before the Iowa caucuses.

This is the dynamic in Iowa which helped the candidates with momentum, as I had said it would. As in Iowa, Edwards and Kerry have the momentum in New Hampshire.
0 comments

The Sunday Talk Shows…

…starring John F. Kerry

KEY:
MTP: NBC’s Meet the Press with Tim Russert
FNS: FOX’s Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace
FTN: CBS’s Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer
TW: ABC’s This Week with former Clinton staffer George Stephanopoulos
LE: CNN’s Late Edition with Wolfgang Blitzer

Candidate John F. Kerry, the new flavor of the month going into Tuesday's New Hampshire primary, has FNS and FTN to himself, and he has a segment of TW,

Candidates also with segments of TW are Wes Clark, John Edwards, and Joe Lieberman.

Clark gets host Russert to himself on MTP, on LE will be candidates Edwards and Lieberman. Also on LE, former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham (D-Florida) and his notebooks, current Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), New York Governor George Pataki, and Ted Kennedy and his bottle.

The paucity of news made this morning should be obvious at this point, but one never knows. I will be watching these and describing and analyzing them for the Rightsided Newsletter. As always.

"YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"
0 comments

Saddam's Weapons in Syria

For as much political hay that has been made over Iraq Survey Group head David Kay's resignation from the WMD hunt and subsequent declaration that Saddam had no WMD, I hope there is a peep or two about THIS PIECE in the London Sunday Telegraph:

In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Dr Kay, who last week resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group, said that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before last year's war to overthrow Saddam.

"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."

Little Bashar al-Assad is going to be pressured from both sides, now: from one side, by the Bush Administration, and from the other, by his bosses, the Syrian generals.

Depending on what comes of this, it will be interesting to see the President's enemies try to put on this. It would be proof not only that Saddam had weapons programs but also that he was duplicitous and the U.N. Inspections were failing and could not have uncovered anything.

The Telegraph is a credible paper, a broadsheet, not a tabloid. Of the three major British papers -- The Guardian, the Times of London, and the Telegraph -- this one comes down in the political center.

This could be huge news...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Look who else has found this story.
0 comments

Newsweek Poll

Another poll to talk about.

Kerry - 30%
Edwards - 13%
Dean - 12%
Clark - 12%

The Newsweek magazine has a race for second place, with Edwards surging, and Dean and Clark tanking. Edwards, though, is basically running in two States at once -- NH and SD -- flying pillar to post between the two.

The poll also shows Kerry beating the President in a one-on-one matchup, and all the other Dems polling better against him. They put this in context, however:

Kerry is enjoying a marginal advantage over Bush, a first for the poll. Forty-nine percent of registered voters chose Kerry, compared to 46 percent who re-elected Bush. In fact, all Democrats are polling better against Bush, perhaps due to increased media attention to their primary horserace.

The head-to-heads, at this point, are a product of name recognition, familiarity, and whimsy. But they are something to write about.
0 comments

Dems go to North Dakota

The Dems are setting up in North Dakota in preparation for their February 3 primary, and candidate Edwards has begun picking bones from the corpse of the late Gephardt campaign.

The Deaniacs had a fun, fun, fun, real, live political rally on a pedestrian bridge in zero degree weather. The fire-breathing Howard Dean they supported is no more, slain by voter backlash in Iowa and maybe that "YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!" thing.

The rally on the pedestrian bridge was for a pedestrian candidate.

Who is Byron Dorgan going to endorse? The candidate who can say his name three times fast?
0 comments

Inside Iran

For any of you interested in geopolitics and the Middle East, Amir Taheri has a Must Read column in yesterday's New York Post.

It deals with the western mislabeling of the two factions in Iran, and it's what I attribute to laziness on the part of many western analysts and, especially (in my view) journalists. These Iran-watchers have constructed two sides: the "hard liners," led by Supreme Guide (Leader) Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the "moderates," fronted by President Muhammad Khatami. This, in my take, is similar to Kremlinologists arguing that Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev was anything but a new flavor of Soviet Communist.

In the case of Iran, Taheri argues, it is dangerous to judge a man's commitment to liberty based on the cut of his suit. A man in a robe and turban could well be a better human being than the suave man in the Italian suit.
0 comments

State of the Union Reaction

Nationally syndicated columnist Robert Novak reports today that Representative Maxine Watters (D-California) was a virulent crab while seated in the audience of President Bush's Tuesday State of the Union address. Representative Harold Ford (D-Tennessee), who made a run at the minority leader's post won eventually by Nancy "Also a Virulent Crab" Pelosi, was the most enthusiastic Dem.

Senator Hillary "Often a Virulent Crab" Rodham Clinton (D-New York) was evidently well-behaved, except for one valley-girl-wannabe eye roll:

WASHINGTON -- The most discourteous Democrat in Congress during this year's State of the Union address was veteran Rep. Maxine Waters of California. She refused to clap or stand when President Bush entered the chamber, even though Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, a fellow Black Caucus member, tried to get her out of her seat.

The most courteous Democrat Tuesday night was Rep. Harold Ford Jr. of Tennessee, another Black Caucus member. He was usually the first Democrat on his feet for Bush's applause lines, sometimes was the only Democrat standing and on occasion beat Republicans in getting up.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, known to grimace when Bush addressed Congress in the past, was on her best behavior this time -- usually joining Republicans in standing ovations. She retrogressed into eye rolling and head shaking, however, when the president claimed "dozens of weapons of mass destruction" had been "identified" in Iraq.

If Representative Ford can survive intact in today's Democrat Party, that party's soul is not entirely putrefied.
0 comments

This Weeks' Toast

Steven Taylor's Toast O' Meter for this week is up. It's his take on the Dem race right now, and he appears to be taking candidate Edwards somewhat seriously after Iowa and now that he's actually seen Edwards on the stump, one I look forward to every week.

It's an informative and entertaining read.
0 comments

Pick your Fritz

Candidate Kerry has two Fritzes, having received the backing of South Carolina's Democrat Senator Fritz Hollings on Thursday and that of Fritz Mondale of Minnesota on Friday.

"Fritz Mondale has served this nation well in many roles, and I am glad to have his support for my effort to set America back on course toward opportunity and prosperity," Kerry said in a news release. "His support will add to the momentum and energy in my campaign."

Acknowledging Bush will be tough to beat, Mondale said Democrats "need to get the nomination fight over with as soon as we can" and unite behind a single candidate.

This represents a split in the Democrat Party as represented by their oldest surviving White House team. Mondale's former President, Jimmy Carter, has kinda/sorta backed his "fellow Christian," Howard Dean.

The split in the Democrat Party is also revealed in the fissure between their other surviving White House team, with former Veep Al Gore staking his future in the Democrat Party on Howard Dean, the disappearing again. Gore's ex-boss, Clinton, has been rumored to be behind the Wes Clark juggernaut.

This Party doesn't know what it wants.
0 comments

Cranks for Edwards

For entertainment purposes only.

A partisan, throwaway trash web site, Republicons.com, has produced an imaginative scenario wherein Democrat candidate Edwards runs over President Bush in the electoral college, 378-160, next November. In fact, it sees an Edwards victory even without tapping into that candidate's southern base.

With the southern base, these folks throw together an unscientific scenario in which the President takes Virginia, Indiana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Colorado, Texas, Utah, and Alaska. Only.

What sort of helmets are those kids wearing?
0 comments

Of Drunken Sailors

Actually, the President signed the $373-billion spending bill, the contents of which would be my subject were I not so preoccupied with this Kerry/Edwards/Dean/Clark nonsense.

The spending bill passed the Senate, 65-28, on Thursday and the President quietly signed it on Friday, what with its deficit is projected to be pushing on the shy side of half a trillion dollars while the President's talking about halving that deficit in five years.

Four months into this Fiscal Year, spending is increased by only 3-percent, and the President has vowed to seek and destroy wasteful spending.

"Ground control…"

As Bush prepares to rev up his own re-election campaign, his aides are mindful of not disenchanting the GOP's core conservative voters. But he also faces countervailing pressures to avoid painful cuts in popular programs that would dismay moderates.

A moderate is a socialist?

As for forcing the debt onto our children and grandchildren, who's to say that they will complain? The apple never falls far from the tree, they say, and they'll probably spend like their drunken sailor forebears.
0 comments

Pro-Dean blogging

I found the following in a post on a pro-Dean blog, "Red State Rebels":

We Democrats - meaning those of you with primaries between now and February 3 - can make like the Iowans, play it safe, and anoint [sic] Kerry or Edwards as the most electable candidate. Or we can be brave and vote for Howard Dean."

This blogger is proposing that, instead of leaving the gun safely in its drawer, they pull it out and shoot themselves.

The interesting thing, when taken with my last post in mind, is that she insults two of Dean's opponents, Kerry and Clark, but says barely a word about Edwards. (She lumps John-boy and Kerry together as having no real differences from President Bush.)

This is getting weird. She said in the paragraph quoted above that Kerry and Edwards were the most obviously electable candidates, the she says: "I am for Dean because he is the only electable candidate."

Now, I do not mean to pick on her personally. I think she said on the Dean blog that she was from Idaho and had traipsed to Iowa to be a part of Dean's "Perfect Storm." (She might have been in the audience when the candidate uttered: "YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!") She fell for Dean, got involved, and worked with all of her political passion. I blame Howard Dean for using these people, much in the same way that Ross Perot did it in 1992.

How can Howard Dean live with himself?
0 comments

Gephardt frees Delegates

Erstwhile candidate for the Dem nomination Dick Gephardt has announced that his convention delegates are now free to vote for someone else, but he has not backed anyone yet himself. According to an Associated Press report, the former House Minority Leader had 15 Superdelegates pledged to vote for him.

I call on him now to resign his seat as representative of Missouri's 3rd Congressional District, but I do that as a matter of course.
0 comments

Zapping John Edwards

We've had several attempts by the amateurs to hit candidate John Edwards, and nobody is getting close. Matt Drudge spent a week promising us an exposé, and then told us that Edwards had changed his mind about privatizing social security between 1998 and 2003. Today, Drudge maintains that Edwards violated the spending limit in New Hampshire:

Through January 20, 2004, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, Edwards has spent $950,915 in New Hampshire -- already busting the state's "spending cap by over $220,000! [The state "spending cap" for New Hampshire is $729,600.] MORE Senator Edwards has also spent $682,517 on ads in Boston, bringing his total ad spending aimed at New Hampshire audiences to $1,633,432 more than double the New Hampshire state spending limit.

Take it up with the FEC, Matt. You haven't touched him. Yes, as Drudge indicates, Edwards claimed to be a "strong believer in the campaign-finance system. I think it brings integrity to the process," and he'll probably say it again. The man is a brilliant liar.

As I related yesterday, the Cybercast News Service (CNS.com) has offered that Edwards might have used junk science making much of his money as a tort lawyer, taking cerebral palsy cases. This story only buffeted my contention that he is a skilled orator and a masterful liar.

A fellow named Jonathan Last gives it his best shot on the web space, and came up with nothing.

He begins his piece by opining:

JOHN EDWARDS is currently the trendy pick to win the Democratic nomination. According to the conventional wisdom, John Kerry is now the solid frontrunner, Dean is a has-been (albeit a has-been with money), and Clark is increasingly out of his league--making Edwards a nice dark-horse bet.

Trendy pick? I haven't seen this trend, Mr. Last. As far as I know, I've been at in a vacuum at this since the summer of 2001. Sure, some have laughed, but they laughed at Einstein. Well, okay, they didn't, but you get my drift.

He writes his article about one small campaign event where Edwards would not disclose who has contributed to his campaign. We know who are his main contributors: attorneys. Last summer, there was a big stink when it was discovered that his campaign had accepted a check supposedly from a law firm employee who did not actually contribute herself. Then Edwards campaign gave the check back.

Last is reaching for something, but he's pulling his hand out with bits of confetti.

In criticizing Dem candidates today, RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie singled out candidate Kerry for a while, then took a swipe at Clark. I heard nothing on Edwards.

Edwards stumbled on the Defense of Marriage Act at the debate last night, but he neither wrote the bill nor was in the Senate when it passed. One would like to think he'd have studied up on it, and I personally think it shows far less preparedness than not knowing the name of the current leader of Djibouti, but that's the only stumble from the Edwards campaign in a long time.

It is often dangerous to have blind faith in mortal men, but I am counting on the fact that Karl Rove is sitting on something, holding it in case Edwards is the Dem nominee.

By the way, I'm ready to call New Hampshire right now. Barring any significant events or trends, the finish will be Kerry, Edwards, Dean, and Clark. That being said, I still think its insane to posit such estimations, but it's also fun.

The race for the Dem nomination could well turn out to be a determination of which boy is more golden.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

POINT OF CLARIFICATION: Even if Rove is holding onto nothing about Edwards, the President should defeat him easily if he should win the Dem nomination. I prefer to see "blood," and that is what we were looking at if Dean had somehow won the nomination. "YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ADDENDUM: I just found this sickening CNN bio of candidate Edwards. It does end with a decent warning, though: "On the professional front, Iowa proved what many in the Carolinas already knew: Underestimate John Edwards at your peril."

And here, Britain's Independent compares him to Clinton in all the positive political ways.

Maybe Sharpton can crush him in South Carolina and we'll be done with it.
0 comments

Wes thinks the GOP asked the questions…

…at last night's debate

Candidate Wes Clark, on the edge of oblivion, is convinced that the questioning at last night's debate was a Republican setup.

Moderator Brit Hume of the Fox News Channel asked Clarkey about when he became a Democrat. Clark responded by proclaiming that he voted for Clinton and Gore, and that he and his wife became Democrats as soon as he left the military.

He said he was for this and that various extra-Constitutional social program, thus the Democrat Party was the natural home for him.

Clark did not join the Democrat Party when he quit the military in June of 2000. He told host Tim Russert on Meet the Press as late as last summer that he was still debating which party to join. But this is just a political exaggeration, and I suppose he was also named after Sir Edmund Hillary.

Clark told reporters Friday, "I looked at who was asking the questions, and I think that was part of the Republican agenda in the debate."

Democrats have complained that Fox News Channel shows a Republican bias.

The ship is sinking.
0 comments

Mr. Justice Duck Hunter

Mr. Justice Antonin Scalia's recent Texas duck hunting sojourn with Vice President Dick Cheney, mentioned in this space last Saturday, are sticking in the news.

UPI reports that the two groups with a case pending before the Supreme Court regarding the secret meetings of the Veep's energy policy group are still mulling over the possibility of asking the justice to recuse himself.

The UPI piece contains a bit of B-grade opinion from UPI Legal Affairs Correspondent Michael Kirkland:

In light of all this, you would have thought Scalia would have been more careful about his contacts with Cheney before the upcoming Supreme Court argument. After all, Scalia has already withdrawn from hearing April argument in the Pledge of Allegiance case because he said in a summer speech that the phrase "under God" should not be removed from it.

There's also something a little comic about the latest controversy, with all these portly men being trundled down in the lap of luxury to shoot semi-tame game birds on the Texas Prairie. Scalia subsequently told the Los Angeles Times that the few ducks he shot were "delicious."

Scalia compounded the humor by getting up between arguments at the court earlier this week and staring hard into the press section -- something he normally would never do -- like a teacher trying to catch the students throwing the spitballs.

The question is, and Justice Scalia put aside his long term friendship with the Vice President when deciding whether the records from the secret meetings should be given to these little groups.

Kirkland speculates that Scalia will not withdraw from the case. If he did, the mix on the Court would be 4-4, meaning that the lower court ruling would stand and the records would have to go public.

Two Democratic senators, ranking Judiciary Committee member Patrick Leahy of Vermont and presidential contender Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, say they've sent a letter to Chief Justice William Rehnquist questioning the propriety of the Cheney-Scalia trip.

They should have asked Edwards and Kerry to cosign. This thing is purely political as it is.
0 comments

Blogging of the President

This Sunday from 9-11p ET, Minnesota Public Radio will broacast a show called The Blogging of the President.

We want to encompass the new voices and communities, the critique of institutional journalism, the expressive possibilities beyond politics, the doubts, the hype, and the truth.

They will be talking to former The New Republic editor and current The Daily Dish pensman Andrew Sullivan, the anonymous "Atrios" of Eschaton, and a few others.

If you want to listen but can't find an NPR station on your dial, you can borrow the station of my alma mater, the Pennsylvania State University: WPSU. The link is to their "Live Audio Stream" subpage with high-bandwidth mp3, low-bandwidth mp3, and Real Audio streams available.

0 comments

Sawyer - Dean Interview

Like quite a few of my fellow blogmeisters, I've devoted too great a portion of my evenings to the silly Democrats this week, between the Iowa thing and last night's debate. I thus missed the ABC interview between Diane Sawyer and the Juggernaut that Was. I found a review, via PoliBlog, by Sean Hackbarth on The American Mind. Of watching that woman, Ms. Sawyer trolloping with the Dem's Huck Finn, Dean, it's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it. Not me.

That being said, my good friend Joe Trippi, whom I don't know personally, has e-mailed to me the following links by which I can view Dr. Dean and his wife (Dr. Judith Steinberg, a.k.a. "Judy Dean") discussing "YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!" on prime time television. Here they are, by player and connection speed:

Real Player Dialup - Real Player Broadband

Windows Media Dialup - Windows Media Broadband

QuickTime Dialup - QuickTime Broadband.

The interview is 22 minutes long, so you might want to have a paperback nearby should you become bored. If you elect not to view this, I'm certain you can find clips of "YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!" scattered throughout the blogosphere. Or turn on the cable news.
0 comments

Prez to Curtail Growth

Even the Republican comptroller general, David Walker, has told the President that he cannot keep spending like a sailor who is well into his pints.

Congress and the president will have to curtail the growth of Social Security and Medicare, cut Congress's annual discretionary spending and simplify taxes, raising some, he said.

He suggested that the government begin selling off valuable properties, such as a veterans hospital in downtown Chicago; curtail some new military weapons programs; and examine the need for the country's vast nuclear defense network.

"I don't believe members of Congress and key policymakers in the executive branch understand the nature of the problem," Walker said. "People are not taking it as seriously as they should."

The President has now vowed to hold discretionary (non-entitlement) spending, apart from defense and homeland security funding. to below one percent in his FY 2005 budget.

HOWEVER:

Brian Riedl, a federal budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said the Republican definition of "homeland security" has become increasingly elastic as budget pressures have grown. In that context, holding spending outside of homeland security to 1 percent may mean less than it appears to, he said.

Government discretionary spending has increased by an estimated 27% over the past two years, yet there is no talk of actual spending cuts.

Adding new entitlements and tossing them off limits is not a way to drop the deficit by half in five years.

I'd quote an enthusiastic Howard Dean as an expression of annoyance, but I'm told I've done too much of that of late.
0 comments

March for Life

Good morning. Under the radar? The radar was nowhere to be found when the 31st annual March for Life took place in Washington, DC, and in dozens of State capitols around the country yesterday, the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. With Dem candidates like Wes Clark advocating Roe v. Wade as a litmus test, so few understand that case. Its trimester physic has been tossed aside by science. Its basis in the emanations of the penumbra of the Bill of Rights has been discarded by the Court, which instead bases its modern abortion decisions of the premise of "settled law." It is a poorly reasoned case and exists today only as a shell, a guarantor of abortion for the simple reason: "'cos we said so."

Tens of thousands of abortion foes marched peacefully in DC, joined thousands more in the States, demonstrated in an upbeat manner this year, buoyed by national surveys which show that a majority of women in all age ranges are increasingly pro-life.

Said Nellie Gray, president of the March for Life Fund: "This March for Life is a peaceful demonstration -- an annual reminder to all of Washington officialdom that it must overturn the Supreme Court's infamous Roe vs. Wade decision, which decriminalized the intentional killing of a preborn human. The Supreme Court cannot, and did not, legalize the killing of preborns. But Roe vs. Wade did unleash on our beloved country the feminists/abortionists' evil agenda of 'choice' to kill preborn humans, and did begin the slippery slope to decriminalize infanticide, euthanasia, assisted suicide, fetal research, and more evil. History records the Nazi experience of slippery slope from the so-called 1935 Nuremberg laws, through years of 'final solution' horrors, to reality of judgments at the Nuremberg Trials."

President Bush addressed the March by telephone, as presidents excluding Clinton have been wont to do.

Gray and marchers seek "Constitutional protection for the unalienable right to life of each human in existence at fertilization." It is "not a feminist/abortionist's right of 'privacy'."

Take back the language. The battle cannot be waged against "rights," be they the "right to privacy" or "reproductive rights." The focus has to be returned to the unborn child and his or her inalienable right to life. Is it not clear that they are talking about human beings?
0 comments

Dems Debate in Goffstown, NH

"YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"

From the campus of St. Anslem College, Wes Clark, Howard Dean, John Edwards, John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Lieberman, and Al Sharpton. Democrat Lyndon LaRouche was not invited to participate.

In answer to the first question, asked by ABC News' Peter Jennings about tax increases, candidate John Kerry boasted about having voted for Ronald Reagan's tax cut. President Reagan cut taxes in 1981. Kerry entered the Senate in 1985. He also said that "it can be argued that only people earning over $200,000 will see a tax increase" if President Bush's tax cuts were repealed.

Wes Clark defended his recently-manufactured membership in the Democrat Party by saying that he voted for Clinton and Gore, is in the party, and "will bring a lot of other people to it." Shades of Dean.

John Edwards addressed the fact that he voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam Hussein but against funding for the troops because he though we had to oust Saddam but that it should have been internationalized after the war. He said that if the President's funding bill had been rejected, the President would have come back with a new bill which was acceptable. He was asked how he knew the President would do so, and Edwards said that no one would have left the troops over there without funds.

"I took responsibility. I think it was the right thing to do." The debate had its first applause line.

The next applause line was Al Sharpton's, saying that the President wants to go to Mars before he's taken care of the problems here at home. That one's a winner with the Earthbound Democrat audience, unable to look further than down the street.

Kerry would change our armed forces to a two-division force: one for combat and the other for support. This would be temporary, he argued, until he could farm out all military operations to the U.N.

Howard Dean said that he would not have used the word "permission" when referring to securing the approval of the United Nations before using force. "My words are not precise," he explained, but we all knew what he meant. "I'm not kidding about what I say," he added. His words are not precise, but he is not kidding about what he says. Pardon me if I reiterate: "YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"

Clark was asked about his statement "guaranteeing" that there would be no 9-11s if he were elected President. He replied, "I never said the word 'guaranty'… I never said that.

What he did say, in a discussion with the editorial staff of the Concord Monitor, was this:

"If I'm president of the United States, I'm going to take care of the American people," Clark said in a meeting with the Monitor editorial board. "We are not going to have one of these incidents."

And that sounds like a guaranty which one could take to the bank.

Laugh line. Sharpton said to Dean: "Don't worry about hootin' and hollerin', Howard. If I had spent the kind of money you spent and still only got 18-percent, I'd still be in Iowa hootin' and hollerin'." Again: "YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"

Kerry was asked why he through his medals away while protesting the Vietnam war in the 1970s. He blamed Richard Nixon for not letting the sleep on the mall.

Jennings asked Clark about his endorsement from movie director Michael Moore, who called President Bush a military deserter without answer from Clark. Clark explained that Moore is entitled to his opinion and that he, Clark, he not looked into whether or not the President was a deserter. "He's not the only person to say that."

Wes Clark said that President Bush could be a military deserter.

Edwards, who was not in the Senate when Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as being between a man and a woman, was passed. He did say, though, that Kerry was right to vote against it, as such matters should be left to the States.

Sharpton later said that arguments for States' rights are for returning to our condition before the Civil War. One bad apple, on bad "right" claimed for States a century and a half ago, taints the very institutions of State governments in Sharpton's mind.

Clark said that the President's use of the word quota was racist. So, in the world of Wes Clark, the President is a racist deserter.

Lieberman, when borrowing Edwards's argument that the Dems should confront the President on the issue of values, was the only candidate to mention God as a creator. He said that when the Republicans "desecrate the environment, they desecrate the Earth that God's given them." He gave no examples of this alleged desecration, of course.

Dennis Kucinich said bluntly that there was a division in the Democrat Party over the war, and that he was the only one who had voted against both the war and the patriot act.

In response to the suggestion that he lacked the experience to take on President Bush in a campaign, Edwards said that he beat a sitting Republican Senator (Lauch Faircloth) who was backed by "Jesse Helms's political machine." Today, he's the Senior Senator from North Carolina, not Jesse Helms, he said. "I'm not a Senator by accident."

Edwards said that he strongly supports the Second Amendment but that there were limits on it. He used the usual illegitimate lines about "hunting with an AK-47" and the "gun show loophole."

Peter Jennings took over from Brit Hume as moderator for the second hour, and my eyes began to glaze.

Kerry shouted that he had stopped Newt Gingrich from gutting the clean water act and drilling in the A.N.W.R.

Howard Dean claimed that he had always held that there were no al Qaeda in Iraq and that Saddam had no Weapons of Mass Destruction programs. (Dean expressed the opposite in testimony before Congress and in a Times of London Op/Ed last year.) Lieberman, when his turn came around, reminded that Saddam had used the his WMD against the Kurds in the 1990s. He also reminded that Saddam was a "homicidal maniac."

This line received applause from an audience of New Hampshire Democrats. Lieberman: "I repeat, we are safer with Saddam Hussein in prison than in power." Howard Dean was not among those clapping his hands.

Brit Hume told Edwards that some people think, since he has not yet completed his first and only Senate term, it might be a little "too early" for Edwards to seek the White House. Edwards smiled: "Thirty-two percent Iowans said they didn't think it was too early." And another line we've heard before: "They're hungry for change."

Kerry boasted: "I'll be able to raise a lot of money to answer them [Bush administration] back." He listed his endorsements, including that of Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina.

I turned it off twenty minutes into the second hour. I've given the Dems entirely too much of my time this week.

It was, however, refreshing to see them debate in a different environment. By that, I mean that the figure of Howard Dean hovered over the Iowa debates; this time, he was a little man. (I'm sorry, but I have to repeat: "YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!")

The most annoying feature of this debate was that the moderators allowed John Edwards to speak for almost as long as he sought. He arguments were precise and persuasive, though much of what he said was garbage.

I do not think I'll watch the next debate. There were times I wanted to pull out my hair and holler, "YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"

Seriously, if the debate is to help anyone, it should help Edwards. Kerry wasn't hurt that I could detect. Clark wasn't helped. Lieberman did very well, if it still matters, and Dean made a strong case for pathos.

In the interest of fairness, my wife wants me to disclose what music I listened to while writing this. When writing about the State of the Union, I listened to Aaron Copeland, an excellent American composer. While writing this, I'm listening to Jacques Offenbach, and 18th century French composer best known for his comic operas.

"YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"
0 comments

John Edwards's Junk Science

Matt Drudge took his best shot at candidate Edwards today in a "report" which he'd been hyping all week. He tagged Edwards for changing his mind about social security privatization between 1998 and 2003. It's times like these, and they are not that many, I wish that Drudge had stuck to reporting Hollywood gossip and the top-grossing films of the week.

The Cybercast News Service (CNS.com) weighed in with something a little more interesting.

Although he was involved in other types of personal injury litigation, Edwards specialized in infant cerebral palsy and brain damage cases during his early days as a trial lawyer and with the Raleigh, N.C., firm of Edwards & Kirby.

Then they point out that:

The cause of cerebral palsy has been debated since the 19th century. Some medical studies dating back to at least the 1980s asserted that doctors could do very little to cause cerebral palsy during the birthing process. Two new studies in 2003 further undermined the scientific premise of the high profile court cases that helped Edwards become a multi-millionaire and finance his own successful campaign for the U.S. Senate.

His entire career could have been a lucrative fraud. (The article coverse the science, or lack thereof, very nicely.

Then there is the argument that Edwards relied more on his oratorical skills than the iffy science to earn his fortune:

The [Boston] Globe cited an example of Edwards' oratorical skills from a medical malpractice trial in 1985. Edwards had alleged that a doctor and a hospital had been responsible for the cerebral palsy afflicting then-five-year-old Jennifer Campbell.

'I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her (Jennifer), I feel her presence,' Edwards told the jury according to court records. "[Jennifer's] inside me and she's talking to you ... And this is what she says to you. She says, 'I don't ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don't ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage.'"

Edwards' emotional plea worked. Jennifer Campbell's family won a record jury verdict of $6.5 million against the hospital where the girl was born -- a judgment reduced later to $2.75 million on appeal. Edwards also settled with Jennifer's obstetrician for $1.5 million.

Edwards oratorical gifts should be our main concern. The man is the single best liar to take part in politics in a generation. As I've said, Clinton's lies may have been more frequent and doubly venal, but they were not as well told.

In essence, Edwards was an ideal trial lawyer. He caught the ambulance. Now, he's using his tremendous gift in his new career as an Air Force One chaser.

Keep an eye on this man. John Edwards will do it with a smile.

Here comes the debate. They can go after Dean, and he can't respond. They will take their shots at Kerry, maybe knock him off a little. Clark will say stuff.

This week has cast Sharpton in a whole knew light. He and Edwards, according to FNC, were tied for first in a Playboy magazine poll for "Most Sexually Active," or some such.

0 comments

Edwards Promises the Dems Congress

If elected President, said candidate John Edwards, he will have coattails. To his 100th New Hampshire town hall meeting Edwards said:

"I have a proven record of having won in a very tough place against a very tough political team. I can do it; I can go every place in America and campaign with each candidate and strengthen our senate numbers and strengthen our house numbers. It’s enormously important to bringing real change to this country."

This is a new part of his strategy. He is urging Democrats to think not only of his chances to defeat President Bush in November, but also his coattails. He is making himself the Democrat Candidate of the Big Picture.

This is a smart strategy, and he's the man to pull it off. He's great off the stump, and there are enough Democrats around who want to be promised the moon and the stars by a charismatic candidate.

I'm getting way ahead of the game here, but it is a shame for Dems that he will not become an "elder statesman" after losing in November. (Aside from the fact that he does not look the part, and at his age doesn't qualify.) That party needs not only a leader, but also an elder statesman, a senior guide. They have rejected Clinton, and Al Gore has been -- to borrow a term from the departed -- a "miserable failure."
0 comments

The Frontrunner

So much is being said -- by the political press, by my fellow political blogmeisters -- about candidate John Kerry. He's evidently the story, the chosen frontrunner.

Okay, Kerry won in Iowa. He is leading and will no doubt win New Hampshire, and he'll have been the media's frontrunner for 72 hours a few hours after the sun goes down tonight.

I found an interesting bit about a Kerry appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, May 6, 2001. The story is that Tim Russert played on audiotape for the Kerry, one on which the frontunner answers a question -- April 18, 1971 -- on war atrocities thusly:

There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant Calley, are war criminals.."

In all fairness, found this on the Internet. I cannot recall the exchange on Meet the Press and I cannot vouch for the partial transcript available HERE, and HERE, and HERE, and various other places. These are all the same article submitted by presumably the same anonymous poster.

I've found a longer version and more contemporary version of the transcript HERE, in which Kerry makes excuses for what he had said then faults the Bush Administration for backing out of the ABM treaty.

This more complete version of the transcript turned up in the comments section of ScrappleFace.com last September with the added note: "I ask you people, would you vote for a self-avowed, arrogant commiter of warcrimes and atrocities? Something that every other Vet keeps in their own private journeys. This from a peace activist, much like hanoi jane."

Kerry's self-defense to Russert in 2001 included an appeal to the Nuremburg Defense (following orders):

I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down."

The big question is, can the man be touched on his war record? It is bad form to attack a man who put his life on the line for the United States, as did Kerry, on these matters, but it is Kerry who is making his service an issue.

If Wes Clark is without sin in this regard, perhaps he can cast the first stone.

This is the start. John Kerry is not the frontrunner for the Dem nomination, and unless Edwards or Clark catches fire soon -- and one is beginning to fizzle -- there will not be one until late, if at all.
0 comments

The Reverend Al in South Carolina

Conventional wisdom has it that Al Sharpton has to win the South Carolina Dem primary to have any hope of securing the Democrat nomination. Be that as it may…

"Obviously, his strongest support is the African-American community," [University of Alabama political science department chairman David] Lanoue said. "If nothing else, I'm sure he considers it important to be in the race for president just so that the liberal and African-American vote is represented."

That quote was lifted from an article in today's edition of that school's The Crimson White student paper. The article asked a question in the headline: "Sharpton too liberal for 'conservative' South?"

Let's think of South Carolina, where over half of the voters are expected, by someone, to be black. Can Sharpton win the State, one which John Edwards needs to win and Joe Lieberman almost has to.

I have recently made the case that a good candidate with enthusiastic support can trump an organization considered "strong" by conventional standards. There are, however, limits. Sharpton's South Carolina campaign staff is Roderick Scott, a fellow from San Francisco who really digs Shartpon. He is driving around the State, the Washington Post reports, swigging soda and talking to black voters.

But Sharpton is facing an electorate -- black voters included -- that is largely unfamiliar with him and doubts his electability.

The reason for the rosier forecasts for Sharpton in that State are two Jesse Jackson victories, in 1984 and 1988.

Jackson, sixteen and eighteen-years-ago, was perceived as a serious black leader, bringing up issues dear to black voters. Often, no one else would push affirmative action and such with the sense of purpose as did Jackson.

Jesse Jackson was a product of the social revolution, led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. which affected empowerment and necessary change. Sharpton is the product of the welfare-state mentality of "entitlement," the opposite of empowerment.

Given a choice, do South Carolinans wants a New York limousine liberal with his own personal filmmaker or a smooth man who tells them, in his accent, that he is the son of a South Carolina mill worker?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTE: For all it's worth, former New York City Mayor David Dinkins has endorsed Wes Clark and hopes to campaign for him in South Carolina.
0 comments

Howard Dean tells New Hampshire:

"YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"

Howard Dean sent a clear message to the voters of New Hampshire.

A fellow named David Tell writes in the subpages of WeeklyStandard.com today that, though he once chirped about the possibility of Howard Dean defeating President Bush to "sophisticated" political journalists, he's had a change of heart.

SO, OKAY, NO: Howard Dean cannot beat George W. Bush in a head-to-head general-election match-up for the White House. What's more, Howard Dean will not get a chance to lose that race, because he cannot win his party's nomination in the first place. Not any more; Dean's blown it. As a matter of fact, if I had to bet, I'd say it's likely Dean will finish fourth in the primary here on Tuesday, behind John Kerry and then, in some order, John Edwards and Wes Clark. That's how badly Dean's blown it.

Howard Dean has imploded.

"YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"

In last night's telephone surveys--results that won't be fully reflected in publicly distributed tallies until sometime this weekend, since the tracking polls are tabulated as 48- or 72-hour averages--Dean was running 5 to 10 points behind Kerry. That's a 30-plus-point swing in two and a half weeks. There's never been a New Hampshire primary-poll avalanche even remotely like the speed and scope of this one--except perhaps what happened to Bill Clinton after the Gennifer Flowers business in 1992. But Gennifer Flowers was survivable; Clinton could claim the story was a lie, that he was being smeared. How is Howard Dean going to pull off a trick like that in the present instance? Videotape's been broadcast all over the country showing a contorted-faced Dean hollering his way through a list of states and then whooping like a deranged homeless person. A vast right-wing conspiracy? I don't think so.

(Actually, Dean sounded more like Teddy Kennedy on the stump, but the senior Senator from Massachusetts can blame brain cells deadened by years under the bottle.)

Nobody even had to mention his name. John Edwards' mere allusion to "the speeches that were given after the Iowa caucuses" called Howard Dean--unflatteringly--to mind.

Edwards was attempting call to mind Dick Gephardt's concession speech as a way of saying he would seek Gephardt's counsel when nominated. However, ""I'm sure you all saw a lot of the speeches that were given after the Iowa caucuses…" became a reference to Howard Dean.

"YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"
0 comments

Saudi Reaction

Out of curiousity…

Geopolitics.

I've found a UPI description of a Saudi editorial reaction to the President's State of the Union address. The editorial in the Saudi Arabic daily Okaz was reported by UPI to reflect the opinions of the Saudi government, that medieval hereditary dictatorship better know to the world as the House of Saud.

"Bush threatened the world with war ... He did not stop beating war drums," the daily Okaz said in a front-page editorial.

It said the U.S. president was not satisfied with menacing the world and threatening international peace if he is re-elected, "but also warned to wage wars without notifying the United Nations, or U.S. allies and friends and without taking into consideration the cost of wars politically, economically and morally."

The editorial also threatened the American people: "The American people will be roasted by the blaze of war before their president burns the world."

The House of Saud had no official comment about the President's speech, but this Okaz editorial was its reaction. (See their Board of Directors for their unanimous use of the honorific: "His Excellency.")

The editorial did not reflect the speech, but it was intended for those who did not see the speech, who speak only Arabic.

The problem is the regime, but advocating a change in the Saudi regime (House of Saud) would be playing right into the hands of the House of Saud and their allies in the Democratic Party here in the United States. The Saudi monarchy understands what a democratic Iraq will do to their subjugated populace, and that is contrary to their bloated interests.

The President mentioned V.O.A. and Radio Liberty in his State of the Union speech, but they can be easily labeled as anti-Muslim, end of story. How do we bypass the mullahs?
0 comments

Kerry Surges

Good morning. The new Boston Herald poll has candidate John Kerry surging to a ten point lead in New Hampshire.

Candidate Kerry - 31%
Candidate Dean - 21%
Candidate Wesclark - 16%
Candidate Edwards - 11%

501 LV - /- 4%

Again, for what they're worth.

This does further show, at least adequately to me, Dean's done. He does not have the proper demeanor to climb into anything, and YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!. Kerry is having his post-Iowa, New England bounce.

Skipping Iowa, for Clark, was not a good idea. Contrary to what his people must have been telling him, Iowa was not simply an exercise in warming up for New Hampshire. The race to the Dem nomination was altered there, and Wes was absent.

Edwards will not win this primary; Kerry is a "favorite son" with momentum. But if Edwards passes Clark, that candidacy is doomed. And there is a slight chance that the smiling tort attorney could bypass an undynamic, undead Howard Dean, looking more like a ragged retread than a real radial.

Though still out of striking range in head-to-head match-ups, Sen. John Edwards is also apparently enjoying a strong push after his third-place Iowa finish, the poll found.

Edwards had a huge jump from 5 percent in pre-Iowa surveys, is nearly catching Clark for second place and saw his favorable rating jump from 52 percent to 69 percent."

Actually, the poll claims that Edwards is nearly catching Clark for third place, but as Dems get to know Edwards, they seem to be falling for his schtick.

Mark Noonan at Blogs for Bush has a good profile of Edwards, and Drudge says he's working on something.
0 comments

Dean's Apoplexy: ACT II of The End

With Act I being the humiliating defeat in Iowa, finishing in the bottom tier with Dick Gephardt, there's talk that his "enthusiastic talk" Monday night in Des Moines might mark the end of the Howard Dean over whom the media fawned for half a year. (NRO's Byron York put the speech into prose splendidly on Tuesday.)

This from the Associated Press:

Political analysts and pollsters are watching to see if Monday night's enthusiastic, fist-pumping speech becomes one of those famous presidential campaign moments etched indelibly in the public's mind. Dean's own advisers privately acknowledge the speech was a major blunder that has hurt his standing in polls.

. . .

"I think it crystallized a lot of the concerns voters in Iowa had as well as voters in New Hampshire had about Dean's potential temperament as a president," added Andrew Smith, a political scientist and pollster at the University of New Hampshire. "My sense is that this will go down with Edmund Muskie supposedly crying in front of the (Manchester) Union Leader (in 1972) and Bob Dole telling George Bush to 'stop lying about my record.' (in 1988)."

"YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"

Where were the man's handlers? "Howard, the world will be watching you, here and now, to see how Presidential you look in defeat. Whatever you do, don't make an arse of yourself."

He is a man who would be President, and he is a figure of fun, an object of ridicule.


President Dwight David Eisenhower: "You do not lead by hitting people over the head - that's assault, not leadership. YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"

President John Fitzgerald Kennedy: "My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you: Ask what you can do for your country. YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"

President Lyndon Baynes Johnson: " Yesterday is not ours to recover, but tomorrow is ours to win or to lose. YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"

President Richard Milhous Nixon: "Always remember others may hate you but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself. YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"

President Gerald Rudolph Ford: "I am acutely aware that you have not elected me as your president by your ballots, so I ask you to confirm me with your prayers. YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"

President James Earl Carter: "We should live our lives as though Christ were coming this afternoon. YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"

President Ronald Wilson Reagan: "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"

President George Herbert Walker Bush: "America is never wholly herself unless she is engaged in high moral principle. We as a people have such a purpose today. It is to make kinder the face of the nation and gentler the face of the world. YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"

President William Jefferson Clinton: "Now listen to me, because I'm not going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"

President George Walker Bush: "For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible – and no one can now doubt the word of America. YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"


A man cannot be President unless enough voters can picture him being President. Just as it strains the mind to imagine such outbursts as those listed above, so it is difficult to envision a President Howard Dean.

Many Democrats are so entrenched in their parallel universe of freakish hatred that they have difficulty understanding that America does not want rid of President Bush. Because of this misapprehension, they believe that their candidate can win in November, and thus they feel they need to elect someone whom they can imagine as a President.

Candidate Kerry, perhaps. He suits their mood. Candidate Edwards? Easily.

Dean is done. He has been a frontrunner and has imploded. Do you know what a genuine implosion sounds like? "YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"
0 comments

Fund on Labor Unions

Erich over at Confessions of a Political Junkie has been busy with real life work of late, and he says that he is just now beginning to catch up with some reading. Today, he references a John Fund piece, in which the "Political Diarist" points out, pre-Iowa, that the major trade unions up there supported candidates Dean and Gephardt.

If John Kerry or John Edwards score a surprise win [in Iowa] without having major union support, it will call into question how much clout labor's vaunted ground troops really have.

We all know what happened.

I've long held that organized labor was one its way out as a political force, but could be palpable proof. There was a time when organized labor could elect a bum candidate, and they can now no longer do so. Gephardt and Dean were both very bad candidates, and labor couldn't push them through.

This also speaks to labor as an organizational, get-out-the-vote force.

But then again, this is reflective of the dynamic I suggested before the Iowa caucuses, that the paradigm could be flipped and a "good" candidate, from a political perspective, with momentum could trump organization. And that's what happened in Iowa.

(Dean's organization was clearly overrated. I'd compared it unfavorably to Ross Perot's grassroots organization in '92, this when the errant political press was ga-ga for "Grassroots Howie.")
0 comments

Michigan Internet Voting

Several weeks ago, I had mentioned that the State of Michigan was about to open their polls to internet voters, making them the first State in which primary votes were to be cast. Well, it's back in the [Fox] News, seemingly as a filler story.

"As a party, we've really long believed in making voting as easy and accessible as possible, and as we looked at Internet voting, it seemed to us to be the next step in meeting those goals," said Mark Brewer, executive chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party.

The there are the complaints:

"The white community has 46 percent of households with that capability, and in minority communities, there's only 23 percent," said Joel Ferguson, a member of the Democratic National Committee.

That argument is that by making voting easier for computer owners hooked to the internet than those otherwise inclined, you tend to encourage more whites to vote than blacks. I could see a better argument made over internet voting favoring people with money of those without it. It is really a class problem rather than a racial one.

Internet voting should not even be discussed. I have, pictured in my mind, a crazed group of hackers who think Dennis Kucinich should be the nominee of the Democratic Party. They can spread a virus directing infected computers to vote for him, or they can hack the system themselves and flood it with votes for Dennis. This might render Karl Rove so confused as to be incapable of rational thought…
0 comments

New Hampshire Tracking Polls

American Research Group, January 18-20, 718 Likely Voters, Margin of Error plus or minus 4.

Dean - 26%
Kerry - 24%
Clark - 18%
Edwards - 9%
Undecided - 13%


Suffolk University-WDHD-TV, Jan. 19-20, 400 LV, MoE plus or minus 5

Dean - 22%
Kerry - 20%
Clark - 15%
Edwards - 6%
Undecided - 29%


Boston Globe-WBZ-TV, Jan. 19-20, 400 LV, MoE, plus or minus 5

Kerry - 27%
Dean - 24%
Clark - 17%
Edwards - 9%
Undecided - 16%



CNN-USA Today-Gallup, Jan. 18-20, 644 LV, MoE plus or minus 4

Dean - 30%
Kerry - 28%
Clark - 19%
Edwards - 9%
Undecided - 4%


[source: Associated Press]


What can we draw from these? That they're early tracking polls, useful mainly as something about which to talk.

Dean's slipping. Kerry's gaining. Clark has slipped a little. Edwards has tripled his support, but so what? Most stories I've seen say that Kerry and Edwards are drawing the best crowds, but they're hot right now. Will that last?

We need to see the phrasing of the questions to get to the bottom of the low percentage of undecided voters in the CNN poll,

Note also that I discounted Lieberman, who stats can be read at the linked site, because he is trailing. He and his family have been living in a New Hampshire apartment for a few weeks, but he has said that he's counting on February 3rd to make his season. Are his polls telling him something which we cannot see?

NOTE: A 3rd place finish for Clark helps Edwards going south.
0 comments

The Tone

At a routine cleaning, my dentist decided that a tooth would have to come out.

Anyway, after watching the President speak last night and the Democrat candidates react today, it is clear to me that President Bush will set the agenda this year, for both the Dem primaries and in the General Election.

He owns national security and war on terrorism. Against the "unilateralist" charge, he finally called their bluff, listing country after country, after country after country, after country after country, so that the list should be embarrassing to the Dems. But they do not become embarrassed, for to be so requires shame.

The President acts and they will be forced to react. Sure, to be certain, that comes with the power of the incumbency, but not to the extent that I foresee.

Question. Will a desperate Dem decide that his only recourse is to run a MoveOn.org-like campaign, with swastikas and concentration camps?
0 comments

Dean Chills in New Hampshire

In 1991, candidate Howard Dean admitted to People magazine that he occasionally gobbles sleeping pills:

"You know, once in a while, I take stuff for sleep," Dean told People. "That makes sense."

After his lunatic tirade following his humiliating defeat in Iowa Monday, Dean was more sedate when speaking to "older crowd than usual," tell them that he would give "a different kind of speech."

"Those of you who came here intending to be lifted to your feet by a lot of red-meat rhetoric will be a little disappointed," he said.

The treatment would seem to have been effective.

In all due seriousness, though, I'm in the process of attempting to distill something of a pulse from New Hampshire. I have a feeling this one won't be clear until after the weekend.
0 comments

Lieberman: "Not going anywhere"

In this mornings Manchester Union-Leader we see a piece on Joe Lieberman in which he evidently said that he will not drop out of the Dem race even if he finishes below third place in New Hampshire.

He believes that he is the best candidate and that everyone should vote for him:

“They [Republican opponents] can’t say I’ve flip-flopped . . . they can’t say I’m weak on defense . . . they can’t say I’m a big spender . . . they can’t say I’m weak on values.”

There's a great sketch from Monty Python's Flying Circus -- Interesting People -- in which Michael Palin plays the compére, Hughie, and Eric Idle plays his guest, "Mr. Thomas Walters of West Hartlepool who is totally invisible."

Mr. Hartlepool is not physically invisible, but his monotonous cadence renders him so dull that everyone's attention drifts away from him.

Walters (droning on) ". . . Even now, you yourself, you do hardly notice me . . . ."

And that's Joe Lieberman.
0 comments

Comments?

I added the comments this morning because I've a question to ask you later. A friend asked me something this morning which makes sense, but…

Either way, dialogue is nifty.
0 comments

State of the Union - more reaction

My review and analysis for the Rightsided Newsletter is here, but there is a lot of really good material on the speech to be found in the blogosphere.

These are a few I've found, and drop me if you'd like a mention:

Miller's Time has an A-1 look at the points and themes of the speech as his Wictory Wednesday post.

Patriot Paradox has a splendid point-by-point look at the address.

Jay Reding.com has a good review of the speech, another post with comments from the blogosphere, and a look at the Dem response. Scroll down to catch all that's there.

Blogs for Bush contains Jettison's worthy comment and response.

NRO has the reactions of John Derbyshire, Michael Ledeen, and Kate O'Beirne, three minds I'd sooner not do without.
0 comments

Post-Iowa Wictory Wednesday

The President had a positive caucus in Iowa Monday night, some of which has been re-aired on C-SPAN. After the acrimonious Dem caucus that night, President Bush gave a positive, reinforcing State of the Union address Tuesday evening. The Democrats invented remarks for the President and responded to their own invention. It's entertainment, but let's keep those clowns out of the White House. Help to reelect President Bush.

Click RIGHT HERE to be directed to the page where you can become a Bush Team Leader, an official part of the campaign. You can also join by donating at the campaign's SECURE SERVER. You can make a habit of visiting Political Annotation on Wednesday and sending the President a few dollars every week.

And here is the official Blogroll of the Willing, those who've taken the time and space to spread this important word:


0 comments

Good Economic News

According to an ABC News consumer confidence poll -- ARTICLE -- 44-percent of Americans say the economy is in good shape and 34-percent say its getting better. (Twenty-seven percent have decided that it is getting worse. The rest think its about where it's going to be.

AND:

The ABCNEWS/Money magazine Consumer Comfort Index, based on views of the current economy, buying climate and personal finances, now stands at -3 on its scale of +100 to -100. As Bush prepared to address the nation last year, it was a dismal -27.

The index — and the individual rating of the national economy — are their best since April 2002. The index is up from -7 last week and -11 last month; it’s now six points better than its 18-year average, and 16 points above its average last year.

These figures should come as good news to Howard Dean's supporters, since the more likely it appears that the President's reelection is inevitable, the more likely disgruntled Dems are going to throw their votes away on an angry loser who will be send a message but be crushed in November.
0 comments

State of the Union: in hindsight

Well, there's not much of that. We just saw the speech.

My commentary for the Rightsided Newsletter is HERE, and there's a bit of a story behind that. It's over 1,000 words, and t's something I've done every year since January of 1998. Probably because of the desire to get something posted in this space, this is the first year I mailed it from the wrong address. It was bounced back and didn't reach the global Inboxes until this morning, so those of you who followed the link here read it before did the subscribers.

Okay, what impressed me most was the President's optimism. It was as if I heard: "Listen, those bad things you've heard from the Dems? They have no basis in reality. Here's what we've done…" And by phrasing it in such a way as to make the accomplishments and achievements the doing of the American people, not of George W. Bush acting alone (!), he turned the Democrat mud-slinging at him into a scene of the Democrats insulting the American people.

I could hear the undertone: "My fellow Americans, they are saying that you have failed."

I'm now going to look for a blog with a review of what other blogs said about the speech. There were several simul-postings going on as well, and I'll want to read those.

It's morning in America.
0 comments

State of the Union

I'd have posted here sooner, but...

I've written a review and instant-analysis of the President's speech which has been delivered to the various global Inboxes. You can read the online version HERE.

Underlying the speech I heard was a theme to which he gave words toward the end: "We sense that we live in a time set apart." Early in the speech, he said that "we have faced a serious challenge together, and now we face a choice." We could either go forward, as he is leading, or fall back to the old ways of, say, Kerry, Edwards, Clark, Lieberman, or Dean. At the end of his speech, he noted: "We now move forward with confidence and faith."

It was a good speech. He described his successes, rebutted his critics, and outlined his agenda for the future.

He offered a choice: Keep moving forward with my program or slip backward with the opposition.
0 comments

My first Edwards Post

I began this blog after watching Tony and Will from the Shouting 'Cross the Potomac blog appear on C-SPAN's Washington Journal. They became blogfathers on Friday, August 15, 2003, the afternoon after their morning television appearance.

It wasn't until six days later, on August 21, that I mentioned my own pick for the Democrat nomination. The post was called John Edwards is Still Running, and it began:

John Edwards rulez, man. I've been on the guy's "bandwagon" -- if that's what you want to call it -- since early 2001, long before members of the media had mentioned him in a Presidential context. I was one of the first "true believers," and I have a feeling that I'd better explain myself quickly.

Senator John Edwards (D-North Carolina) is, by most Dem accounts, a good looking fellow. A trial lawyer by trade, he is very articulate and comes across as a personable, accessible human being. He knows the issues and he plays well to the cameras when speaking about them. That being said, of all the candidates in the Dem field, he has the two qualities most important to a Dem nominee post-Clinton: he is an incredible fundraiser and he splendidly lies with a smile. He was the only one Democrat, I figured, that the White House had legitimate reason to fear.

So innocent. So naïve. I quoted from a Foxnews.com piece, in part:

He [Edwards] argues that trailing in the polls at this point is actually part of his strategy to wait until the real voting gets closer. Aides say rivals like Dean risk peaking too soon, and with the first caucus still more than four months away, Edwards has a way to go before crunch time.

"I think crunch time is when it always is — a month before the primary, because hopefully people are starting to pay attention now," Edwards said.

While Edwards claims he has deliberately waited to kick his campaign into high gear, he has already started airing TV commercials, only the second candidate to do so.

The story was about Edwards's strategy of waiting until late to break out his campaign.

I concluded:

Keep an eye on Edwards. Let's see what John-Boy can pull off. And remember, per a tort lawyer's ad, Edwards will not accept a fee unless he collects money for YOU!"

Okay, fine. But this is not about me tooting my own horn; rather, I am putting what I've written about Edwards since then in perspective.

No one should have been surprised by John Edwards's performance Monday night. No one should be surprised that he is suddenly a major player in the race for the Democrat nomination. He never was a lightweight, a throwaway, a hairstyle.

There is one other thing on which it would be our duty to keep an eye should he receive the Democrat nomination: the man is the best liar we've seen in a generation. His lies are neither as frequent nor as contemptible as were Clinton's, but John Edwards can do it with a smile on his face, convincing all and sundry that he is telling the squeaky, clean truth. We should be prepared to catch him.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDENDUM: A caller to a local radio talkshow pointed out, in saying why she though Edwards could be dangerous, that Edwards most certainly knows that the Book of Job is in the Old Testament.
0 comments

Recalling the DC Mayor

Save Our City, a coalition of DC voters, served notice Tuesday with the city's Board of Elections and Ethics that they intend to put the issue of the recall of DC Mayor Anthony Williams (D) on the ballot in the district in November.

Recall proponents say the closure of D.C. General Hospital is one of several reasons Williams should be removed from office.

…

Other reasons outlined in the petition include problems with public safety, underfunding of public education, a lack of affordable housing and the hiring of administrators without verification of their credentials.

Williams said he takes it seriously but it is nothing but "political heat."

Save Our City needs the signatures of 37,000 registered voters.
0 comments

Gay Democrats at Odds with Iowans

That's the headline over this story on gfn.com, the Gay Financial Network.

The piece opens:

In a surprise upset in the race for the Democratic candidate for president, John Kerry came out in the lead in the Iowa Democratic caucuses last night, throwing into light the disparity between a growing public support for Kerry and a recent endorsement for
Howard Dean from a prominent gay Democratic group.

Kerry's victory came on the heels of an endorsement Friday for Dean from the National Stonewall Democrats, or NSD. The NSD is considered the most powerful and visible organization of gay Democrats in the country.

To be honest, I'd never heard of the NSD, perhaps because I'm a straight Republican or maybe because they aren't that prominent.

The article explains that the NSD's support for Dean was no surprise, as it was Dean who signed that domestic partnership law in Vermont, but it then goes on to compare similarities of the positions of "current frontrunner John Kerry" with Dean's.

Subsets. Subgroups. Subdimensions.
0 comments

Confederate Flags

Candidates Al Sharpton and Wes Clark have demanded that the Confederate battle flag be removed from the Statehouse grounds in Columbia, South Carolina.

Dean, of course, seeks voters who want the flag to remain.

Cutting edge stuff.

It's too bad Dean doesn't have Gephardt to blame, and vice-versa. Perhaps Kerry will fill the gap. It would be fun if Clark now does the negativity thaang with Dean, as they both are prone to "saying stuff."
0 comments

Punditry and Iowa

Eric at Viking Pundit asked me this morning to forgive him for his hasty, tongue-in-cheek request that I turn in my pundit badge for the Edwards prediction yesterday.

There's nothing to forgive, Eric. What I forecast was a reversal of what the fleet of mainstream pundits predicted: that stump work and motivation would trump organization, organization, organization.

What did surprise me -- let's see if you agree -- was that the bottom fell out on Dick Gephardt. I thought he and Dean would be much closer in the bottom tier.

Let's see what happens to Wes Clark now that the Iowa results begin to have their effect and the spotlight is on New Hampshire.

I heard Gil Gross subbing for Paul Harvey this morning saying that Edwards still had to prove that he was a serious southern contender like Clark. Since when has Clark proven that he's anything but a buffoon with his foot either in or near his mouth? (I don't buy the theory that the Clintons are quietly but actively backing his candidacy. Even if they were, though, that would not change his nature.)
0 comments

The Bush Campaign Begins Tonight

Make no mistake about it.

Word on the street is that he will open his speech with words about foreign policy talk: success in Iraq, success in the war on terror, rogue states falling in line. The presidential President has presided over an historic set of events, and he's done very well with it. He'll have to talk that up without exaggeration, for as he knows too well, anything he says can and will be lifted, distorted, taken out of context, and used against him.

He'll surely mention his tax cuts and the subsequent recovery from the Clinton recession, perhaps pointing out to his biggest audience of the year that he inherited the recession.

Communications Director Dan Bartlettsaid on ABC's Good Morning America that the President will discuss a federal retraining program for people who have lost their jobs, thus addressing the "jobless" aspect of the recovery.

Interestingly, word is that he will refute accusations made by campaigning Democrats, including third-place-finisher Howard Dean's assertion that the United States was made no safer by the capture of Saddam Hussein.

It's his show, his positive outlook, and let's see if he can bring it home.

I have a sense that we're in for a treat. This President is doing a great job, despite depections from the errant political press. He has every reason to be upbeat, again despite such depictions. At this point in his Presidency, if polls be your guide, President Bush is the most approved of President since Dwight David Eisenhower in the 1950s, when things were, by many accounts, much simpler.
0 comments

Post-Iowa Dems

My instant-analysis remains here, and the race for the Dem trophy -- for what it will turn out to be worth -- has begun on a track to a correction.

My analysis, as expressed in here, has been that Dean would not win the nomination, that he was an overblown media story and an implosion waiting to happen. All he has -- and this "all" is a lot if used correctly -- is of money, an organization in all 50 States, and a lot of Deaniac dead-enders who are not done playing politics.



Kerry won the State. I heard a lot of pundits sticking a fork into the man, and I agreed that he looked like his pulse was fading but that anything could happen on the road to New Hampshire, where he was an early frontrunner and could become one again. I don't see him winning the Dem nomination, as how can he compete with Edwards and Clark in the South. He's a Massachusetts aristocrat a lot of Pennsylvania ketchup money.



Edwards. I picked this man to win the Dem nomination long before I began blogging, long before the glossy magazines and the big press coverage of several years ago. You see, I had checked the man and learned that he was not just a nice hairstyle, a dizzbot who said "shucks" a lot and talked about his mother. When you hear Democrat operatives calling him "the next Bobby Kennedy," then Bobby's brother Ted commenting that he more resembles his brother John, you know something is up. Keep an eye on this man. He is a much better liar than was Clinton, and he's a heck of a lot smoother. (Fortunately for the Dems, he lacks Clinton's soulless sleaze and innate, only-me rottenness.)

Edwards took federal matching funds, though, and Kerry did not. This could also be big.



Dean was rejected and compounded matters by throwing a fit [see Drudge]. With the operation his hype-driven money has put together, he is like a 16-year-old with a new Porsche: nice car, kid, now what are you going to do with it? He's not equipped to be President, and he most certainly is not of the nature to be a frontrunner. Dean is not for real.



Gephardt dropped out. My wife found this sad for him, and no one likes to see a dream go bye-bye. I'm reminded of him the then-minority leader wearing Braveheart makeup and declaring war on the President's first budget.



It does not look like blind anger, opposition to the war, and hatred of the President was the overriding concern of caucus attendees. By all accounts, these caucuses drew real people, not simply the crazed party lunatics. Deans less-than-serious campaign message melted when it met the real world.

One key ingredient to Dean's continued implosion will be the makeup of the primary electorate in upcoming States. If only the angry dead-enders participate, Dean could find new life.
0 comments

The Iowa Results

Two Tiers

1. Candidate Kerry -- 37.7-percent.
2. Candidate Edwards -- 31.8-percent.
----------------------------------------------------
3. Candidate Dean -- 18.0-percent.
4. Candidate Edwards -- 10.5-percent.

As almost every pundit predicted, the voters divided the Dem candidates into two tiers. Conventional wisdom had the candidates with the strongest organizations -- Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt -- doing better than the candidates who had generated the most Democrat enthusiasm: John Kerry and John Edwards.

I saw it happening differently. I deliberated discarded conventional wisdom because this was most certainly not to be a conventional caucus. Too many factors: wartime, lunatic insurgent and his infusion of kids and money, and a strong President. The Democrats had to have someone they believed would win, thus I wrote that enthusiasm would trump organization this year. The top tier, as I saw it, would be Edwards and Kerry (in that order, I speculated) then Dean and Gephardt.

I was close. Kerry won. Edwards finished a close second. Drop a ways, and Dean finished third. Dick Gephardt, it seems, will hold onto his lead over Dennis Kucinich for fourth place.

Please note that I couched my forecast in conditions. No one can tell for sure how the caucus voters would vote. I did not rely upon the media, as they seem not to understand the process. (I followed my first Iowa caucus as an bright little eleven-year-old, when my man lost to President Ford. Jimmy Who? won the Dem caucuses that year)

Now it is on to New Hampshire. Kerry should receive a sizable boost there, and this should spell the end for Joe Lieberman, if he hasn't dropped out already. I don't know what to expect from Edwards, but conventional wisdom says that there are two tickets out of Iowa. (Conventional wisdom, as I've said, will be turned on its side during the Dem primaries.)

Geography. Edwards can compete in the North, but Kerry will be a fish flopping on the beach below the Mason-Dixon line.

If Dean does not win New Hampshire, this could be the beginning of the end. He has a fifty State campaign, he's fond of pointing out, but so might Lyndon LaRouche.

The big winner, in the end, should be President Bush, as nothing strong enough to defeat him can emerge from this nonsense.

And now I wait for the final numbers the send out tonight's special RIghtsided Newsletter.
0 comments

Dean concedes

Howard Dean, on Larry King Live, has just conceded to Kerry and Edwards.

He said he has a fifty State organization, he's on to New Hampshire...
0 comments

Bad Night...

According to FNC's Major Garrett, no one in the Dean campaign is answering the phones...
0 comments

Early Results…

Early results from Des Moines, heard on Fox.

With 20% in…

Kerry - 36%
Edwards - 34%
Dean - 18%

They said Gephardt was at about 13%.

So far, it looks like the conventional wisdom which I discarded for a reason was wrong. The reason, folks, is that this is not a conventional race. This is wartime, this race was led early by a lunatic created by the media...
0 comments

Looking at Kerry...

Early, it looks like Kerry. Looking ahead to New Hampshire, I just saw one of my personal heroes on CNBC. What's his name? Bozo?

George McGovern? Okay, scratch the hero bit, but McGovern, as I reported yesterday, is backs Clark.

If Kerry does win tonight and then does well in New Hamphire, what will he do south of the Mason-Dixon? What is his plan? Is there anything that will work?

Dean has the money to do whatever the heck he wants no matter how well he does or does not do.

Edwards -- this is a jumpstart to his real campaign, beginning February 3rd in South Carolina.

Kerry is the undead. Dean is a crank who won't go away. Gephardt is finished. Edwards...

If it turns out, as most have guessed, DGKE, then my theory that organization was not everything this year in Iowa was garbage.

We shall see...

(ABE.)
0 comments

Caucus Breakdown

I'm watching Chris Matthews, and he has a reporter named John something inside a caucus in a high school, two miles from downtown Des Moines. It was described as one of the larger caucuses in Iowa.

They've split into their first groups, and as "John" described it, Kerry has 70+ people, Edwards has 60+ people, Dean has 40+ people, Kucinich has 7, Gephardt has 4, and 12 are undecided.

I can't stomach Matthews for long, so I may never know how that one turns out…

0 comments

Turnout...

Lots and lots of people.

"He seems like a nice guy."

"His campaign didn't bother me as much."

Hey, voters need not be sophisticated; all they must do is vote.

My father rejected my proposal to allow only voters with political science degrees, and my brother proposed allowing only coders in C++. Anybody can vote, because everybody has to live with these people.
0 comments

Edwards and the Dennis

Candidate John Edwards and candidate Dennis Kucinich have formed a pace where if one does not meet the 15-percent threshold, his delegates will go to the other.

"Both of us believe in a lot of the same things, and we like each other very much," Edwards said. "But both of us also recognize at the end of the day, caucus-goers will have to make their own decisions about this."

I guess you take whatever you can get.
0 comments

Clinton's Dunderheaded Utterance

He is trying to help.

Fom a Reuters piece, we learn that Clinton is telling Saudi Arabia to get with the times. I'm with him on that, as the Saudis have a skillion backward ideas and practices which should go by the wayside if they wish to join the civilized world, but Clinton might have taken it a bit to far for a few angry mullahs.

In a challenge to traditionalists in the birthplace of Islam, where women cannot drive and say they are marginalized, Clinton said if cars had been around 1,400 years ago Prophet Mohammad would have let his wife get behind the wheel.

``He probably would have made Saudi Arabia the first automobile producing nation on earth and put her in charge of the business,'' Clinton told a conference in Saudi Arabia's Red Sea city of Jeddah.

Back in late 2002, as Nigeria was about to host the Miss World competition, Nigerian journalist Isioma Daniel wrote the following tongue-in-cheek line about the contest's contestants: "What would Mohammed think? He would probably have chosen a wife from one of them."

The ensuing riots left 200 dead, and Ms. Daniel had a fatwa decreed against her life.

Columnist Ralph Peters in the New York Post today writes:

As America pioneers the human future, much of what we must do will excite resentment, fear and envy overseas. A president who's popular abroad is probably failing America. Yet the calls we hear for more effective American "public diplomacy" can't be disregarded: We need to make our nation's case to the skeptical and even the hostile.

Bill Clinton is the perfect man for the job.

Not if they issue a fatwa against the man, or if he continues with such dunderheaded utterances.
0 comments

"Khatami must go…"

A mullah on every corner.

Iranian human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi -- in Mumbai (Bombay), India, for the World Social Forum -- has tried to call Iranian President Mohammad Khatami's bluff, according an article in the Sydney Morning Herald.

"President Khatami said himself that if he couldn't pass measures because of the Guardian Council he would resign," she said. "But still he has not. I think he should fulfill his promise."

The Iranian Council of Guardians of the Constitution (Guardian Council) is a group of six mullahs and six civilians who have the power to nullify any law passed by the legislature (majils) or presidential decree.

If Khatami were to stay true to his word and resign, she said she hopes this would not lead to violence: "I hope this does not happen, because Iranians have tried to use non-violent ways to change Iran. But if the door of violence is opened it will not be the people's fault."

The Guardian Council recently disqualified some 3,000 political candidates from running from Parliament next month. Just like that. They said that these folks were not consistent with their own Islamic principles.

Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who appoints the mullahs to the Grand Council, put a public show of asking the GC to be more lenient, but they refused.

Situations like these are the extreme end of why the Framers of the First Amendment wrote the Establishment Clause, not to stop a bunch of little kids from saying "one nation under God." Methinks the situation in Iran is proof that American liberals need to get out more often.
0 comments

Kucinich Watch

Move over, Elvis, Sasquatch, and Mullah Omar: Candidate Dennis Kucinich has been spotted in Iowa. Reporter Tom Diemer of the Cleveland Plains Dealer reports from the hinterlands:

Rep. Dennis Kucinich campaigned across central Iowa Sunday.

Most Iowa polls put candidate Kucinich's support within the margin of error. Literally. If the margin of error is +/- 4.5%, it's a good day if he gets 3.
0 comments

Martin Luther King Holiday

I am a tad uncomfortable addressing this betwixt so much triviality, but I want to say something. The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a revolutionary, in the truest, non-violent sense of the word. Take a "before-and-after" snapshot of the society -- both in the South and in the North -- before Dr. King's work and after. Think of all the proud and talented people who lived but were restrained by a culture before Dr. King, and think of all the proud and talented people who may legally prosper after Dr. King.

Our country is a better place right now for each one of us. Our lives are affected by the goods and services we utilize in a given day; to what degree are these thinks superior now to what they would have been had the best people been legally prohibited from creating and maintaining them? We cannot quantify this, because most of the people who affect our lives do so anonymously to us.

Many of us would like to think we'd have marched with Dr. King had we been of the right age at the right time and place; if his work were being done now, I'd be with him in an instant. That being said, I did not grow up watching such abhorrent, unthinkable discrimination as existed at that time and in that place. I don't know what would have influenced my thinking at that time and place, but I'm very glad it's hypothetical. I live in a world wherein blacks can succeed at whatever they choose to do, and I'm the better for it. We all are.

I might add, it's added a beautiful new dynamic to our politics. And a decidedly regressive one, as well.

And after those thoughts, we will return to what we were discussing...
0 comments

Campaign Nastiness

CNN reports that candidate John Kerry is losing his cool and has begun trashing candidate John Edwards:

Asked by a young woman at an event at Des Moines Area Community College why she should vote for him and not for Edwards, the 60-year-old senator from Massachusetts talked about his experience and then said, "When I came home from Vietnam in 1969, I don't know if John Edwards was out of diapers then yet or not, I'm totally not sure. I don't know."

Remembering that Iowans supposedly want nicey-nicey from their candidates at this date, Kerry quickly retracted, saying that his statement was negative and he is really not a negative kind of guy.

Edwards responded:

Edwards quickly fired off a response. "I have tremendous respect for Senator Kerry's service to our country in Vietnam," he said in a written statement.

"The truth is, in 1969 my family spent a lot of time sitting around the kitchen table trying to figure out how to pay for me to go to college, as so many Iowa families do every day."

This is comical. Karl Rove would have these clowns for lunch.
0 comments

An Eye on Edwards

Radio talker Michael Graham has penned a piece for today's NRO which makes similar arguments to my own thoughts about candidate John Edwards last night, but then falls back on the conventional wisdom:

Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean have larger organizations in Iowa, a fact that cannot be overstated. Organization beats enthusiasm almost every time.

There's an observation about the caucuses which mirrors my own, though:

Dean's caucusers are going to be obnoxious granola-crunchers. Dick Gephardt will have thick-armed union members menacing the crowds. Kerry's team will share anecdotes they heard on NPR. But John Edwards is a trial lawyer — he will be represented at many of the caucuses by fellow lawyers.

Trial lawyers, particularly experienced litigators, make their living persuading small groups of civic-minded people dealing with difficult decisions. It's very possible Edwards could start the evening in fourth place and end up in first.

We shall see.
0 comments

Predictions from the Blogosphere

Eric at Viking Pundit has assembled the Iowa predictions of the various blog-meisters, complete with links to their posts with the reasoning. Most go with conventional wisdom and call the race for candidate Dean.

Remember, I'm still hoping for the best but expecting the worst.
0 comments

Dr. Judith Steinberg becomes "Judy Dean"

Good morning. Aloof and intensely private candidate Howard Dean, yesterday, brought his cute, little wifey to the campaign trail yesterday, as the aloof and intensely private Dr. Judith Steinberg became Judy Dean for the Iowa masses.

From the Washpost:

"I have not been here with Howard as much as I would like," she said. "We have a son in high school and a daughter in college, and I have a medical practice . . . with patients that depend on me daily. But I wanted to come today to say thank you to Iowa, and to support my husband for president, Howard Dean."

From the Associated Press:

"For those who may be wondering, my name is Judy Dean," she began. "I wanted to come here today and to say thank you to the people of Iowa for being so kind and gracious to my husband, Howard Dean."

Isn't she a mosey little thing, this Judy Dean?

At least we know that Dr. Steinberg is aware that Howard has been out of the house a lot lately and is running for President. You might now begin to notice that your son in high school and college-age daughter don't need your constant care.

Well, this was a Trippi orchestrated move, one which candidate Dean obviously did not want to be forced to use. Now that the aloof and intensely private Dr. Steinberg Judy Dean has been shown to the press, it's time find out more about her. The press will doubtlessly gush, as they did for Hillary Rodham Clinton, but Ms. Rodham Mrs. Clinton was not aloof and intensely personal.

If Howard Dean wins the Dem nomination -- CAVEAT: I still don't think he will -- the media is going to demand that the aloof and intensely personal Dr. Judith Steinberg become a full-time Judy Dean, Can the doctor bake cookies?
0 comments

And the winner is…

The conventional wisdom is that organization trumps enthusiasm. That's how it's always been.

This caucus looks to be unconventional and not how it has always been. And the same people who talk about "organization, organization, organization" turn around and preach about how enthusiastic the Deaniacs are. Well, which is it? I'm going with enthusiasm over organization this year, precisely because enthusiasm will get the people to the caucuses to vote. They don't need the Deaniacs with their training driver's licenses are Gephardt's thugs with their muscle.

The fanatical Deaniacs. How many of them are their in Iowa? The busloads Trippi has shipped into the State probably outnumber the diehards who haven't cruised over to the Kerry or Edwards columns.

What about these enthusiastic but politically braindead Deaniacs when they are inside the caucuses themselves, as they rave, wild-eyed, about their candidate, not really knowing what anyone wants to hear? Five'll get you ten that these punks turn off most of the normal voters, turning them away from Howie. They don't know how to caucus. That'll hurt where Dean doesn't reach the magic 15% threshold, and the Deaniacs can march home in a huff rather than commit elsewhere. That is how they will no doubt play the game.

Of all opinions about who will win the Iowa caucuses, I am prone most to respect David Yepsen's, and on Fox News Sunday this morning, he went with Dean. That being said, we don't know. These predictions don't mean much of anything. I can make an educated guess, but how truly educated can it be when I have not been on the ground in Iowa?

When conventional wisdom could very well be wrong, it often is. I don't put a lot of stock in these predictions; it doesn't matter who wins so long as Edwards loses; so here are my predictions, subject to change after we know the results:

1. Candidate John Edwards
2. Candidate John Kerry
3. Candidate Howard Dean
4. Candidate Richard Gephardt

With great regrets and many tears, Gephardt leaves the race with his dream forever deferred. And it's on to New Hampshire, where Edwards will most definitely not win.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDENDUM: Eric over at Viking Pundit has requested that I turn in my "Pundit Badge" at VRWC HQ for "guessing" that Edwards will win the primary. Eric, I've worn this badge for far too long…

Eric calls it Dean/Gephardt/Kerry/Edwards, which is the way it should go if, as the saw says, organization trumps all. Dean has the A-1 organizational outfit, while Gephardt and his thugee muscle has the next best. Kerry's organization is a tier below, but it's no slouch, while Edwards's is said to be the weakest of the four. But again, I've explained why I've thrown out that "organization trumps" model this time.

We'll see. My model in previous primary elections of either party has been "bottom line." With a lot of money, you can do anything. Dean, however, is a burr under that saddle.
0 comments

John Edwards is Russ Feingold

I found THIS Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel piece on the site of the Biloxi Sun-Herald, and this was yesterday.

Democrat John Edwards, the candidate who has climbed from furthest back into a four-way free-for-all in Monday's Iowa caucuses, is trying to do something familiar to many Wisconsin voters.

He's trying to pull a Feingold.

Russ Feingold's vault from long shot to runaway winner in a three-man 1992 Democratic Senate primary occurred when two rivals with far more money unleashed a barrage of attack ads against each other.

Voters recoiled and flocked to Feingold.

And there's:

"Absolutely, it's a direct parallel to what happened in Wisconsin in 1992 between Joe Checota and Jim Moody," said [Wisconsin State legislator and Edwards supporter Mark] Meyer, referring to the two Feingold rivals who essentially destroyed each other in a concentrated, two-way exchange of negative ads, propelling the low-budget Feingold candidacy to a stunning two-thirds majority.

Okay, I'm stalling. I will predict the finish of this race before the night is through, but I'm wrestling with a few factors.

I will say now that the conventional wisdom is not worth squat this year.
0 comments

The Iraqi government and the U.N.

With Iraq Shi'ite Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani demanding direct elections rather than a government selected via the complex U.S. designed method, the United States is said to be prepared to ask the U.N. to send a team to check the U.S. plan for fairness. The U.S. plan would have regional caucuses select a general assembly which would then select an interim national government. [link]

In Afghanistan, they were dealing with a tradition-rich society with a readily available means (Loya Jirga) of selecting an interim government. With Iraq, we're dealing with an artificial conglomeration of varied ethnic and religious groups joined only by law. And these people have lived under an absolute dictator for the past thirty years.

On the upside, Sistani is said to be nothing like the Iranian kooks, and he is also said not to be seeking the formation of an Islamic state operating under sharia.

U.S. officials have been urging the U.N. to expand its role in Iraq, hoping that its imprimatur would increase Iraqi acceptance of the transition plan. Washington is particularly eager to tap U.N. expertise in drafting a new constitution, preparing for elections and possibly monitoring caucuses.

I'm going to put on my Joe Biden cap, but only for a second: "Thanks for listening, Mr. President. What took you so long?"

Okay, I've escaped from the Biden gear. You cannot rush the United Nations in too soon, lest you run the risk of them controlling and botching the operation. The United States has offered its framework, and internal Iraqi questions have arisen. The United States can either concede to Sistani and let the Iraqis try something for which they are not ready or they can go ahead and force their model on the Iraqis. The third option is to bring in an outside party.

The U.N. is a suitable organization for many things, and this could be one of them. This? Let them come in, study the plan, suggest a few tinkers, and stamp the plan as valid.

Any trouble would be the fault of the United Nations, and we could again bail them out.

The goal is providing an Iraq government for the Iraqi people and concentrating on ending the insurgency and going home.
0 comments

McGovern for Clark… Dukakis? Mondale?

The Democrats' supremely unsuccessful 1972 Presidential candidate, George McGovern, has endorsed candidate Wes Clark.

McGovern said any of the eight Democrats would wage a good fight against Bush but said, "I think the best of the lot is Wesley Clark."

WRONG. There are nine Democrats in the race: Clark, Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Kerry, Kucinich, LaRouche, Lieberman, and Sharpton.

If McGovern's half-arsed, lukewarm support is to buttress Wes's chances, we need the other failed Dem candidates -- Mondale and Dukakis -- out there, in the ring, buttressing.

Gore famously backed Dean, of course, but there is the chance he will change his mind if his candidate fails on Monday.

You know his cadence: "There are many good candidates in the Democratic race right now, and I was being impulsive and hasty backing Howard Dean to the exclusion of everybody else. Tipper tells me that it was my wild side acting up again. I will back whoever is the nominee, and Tipper says she will serve as Secretary of State. Thank you for your consideration as the globe warms because of human consumption. "

posted by Mark Kilmer : 1/18/2004 05:59:00 PM [permalink]

0 comments

Joe Klein on John Edwards

Joe Klein, a TIME Magazine journalist best known to the world as the "anonymous" author of the names-were-changed Clinton exposé Primary Colors, was one of the journalist prattlers on the Meet the Press roundtable this morning.

He noted that several months ago, when candidate John Edwards was in single digits in Iowa, most voters looked at him and thought: "What a nice young man!" Now, he says, they take him seriously.

He suggested, as I offered last weekend, that the Des Moines Register prompted undecided voters and voters who were on the verge of supporting Edwards but for the fear that he was not a serious candidate to move to the Edwards column. It gave him credibility among voters.

On ABC's This Week this morning, former Clinton staffer Steph asked RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie to offer a few words about each of the "major" Dem candidates, including Lieberman as a point of curiousity.

When he came to Edwards, all he could say was that he was a "tort lawyer." That's not the way Edwards will portray it. To John Edwards and to those he can convince, he is a champion of the little guy against the big corporations. And any tort lawyer who can convince a conservative jury to award $3.5-million to a drunk whose doctor had prescribed him too high a dosage of Antabuse has some serious persuasive talents.

ABE - Anybody But Edwards.
0 comments

The Wisdom of the President's Policies:

A Japanese View

This editorial from Monday's edition of the Japanese paper The Daily Yomiuri sees the link between American action in Iraq and subsequent diplomatic overtures of several "rogue states": Iran, Libya, and Syria.

It opens:

"That could have been me."

It is not beyond the bounds of belief that the leaders of those countries named by the United States as "rogue states" sponsoring terrorism might be thinking that when observing the situation former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein now finds himself in.

It reviews the situation of each of the three listed countries and concludes:

For those countries who seem to be unable to learn lessons, the continued application of intense pressure is the only option.

Give it a look.
0 comments

Former President Jimmy Carter

After being exiled to Plains by Ronald Reagan after the election of 1980, former President Jimmy Carter has, from time to time, taken steps to make a nuisance of himself, both here and abroad.

They cut into CNN's Late Edition to show footage of Carter walking down concrete paths with candidate Howard Dean, Carter carrying a Bible, Dean without. Then they went live for the join announcement.

Dean talked about what an honor, etc.

Carter said that he and Dean had "a chance to worship together." Of that morning's Biblical lesson, Carter said: "It just so happened our lesson was from the Book of Job, which I hear is one of Governor Dean's favorites." If you'll recall, Howard Dean recently referred to it as the New Testament Book of Job, and mentioned which of the alternate endings he preferred. The Book of Job is in the Old Testament, and it has only one canonical ending.

He said that he was not going to endorse any candidate, but that he was particularly grateful for Dean's opposition to the liberation of Iraq. He spent the rest of his talk regaling against the war, applying a lot of extreme adjectives to it. He talked of it as a sustained tragedy.

One wonders if Dean used a doddering Carter for a campaign pick-me-up, or if a cunning Carter used Dean to draw a front-and-center media spotlight to his anti-war rant.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDENDUM:

From the Associated Press:

"I have been strongly opposing the completely unnecessary and unjust war in Iraq," Carter said. "It has proven to be, not only based on erroneous information and misleading statements, but a sustained demonstration of tragedy.... We've had 500 Americans killed and 3,000 others injured, some of them seriously."

Should the President have sent an under-fueled helicopter flying off into the desert, Jimmy?
0 comments

The Candidates on the Morning Shows

I've noted that the this afternoon's Rightsided Newsletter, the one with the review and analysis of this morning's Talk Shows, was not posted to the web when I said it was in the earlier post. It is now, and it is HERE. The e-mail version is a lot better in many ways, but there is time to subscribe for free before the next one comes out late Wednesday night (ET).

For my more complete review/analysis of the candidates on the Talk Shows, visit the RSN web site, but here are a few things which caught my eye in particular.

Gephardt owned NBC's Meet the Press (MTP), seemed a desperate candidate, and he complained about seemingly random things. (How does one connect bringing back family farms, however that is done, with Saudi-funding of Madrassas and the need to raise incomes in the Middle East?)

He talked of his strong organization in Iowa, implying that Iowa voters needed to be forced to vote. Who better to do it than Gephardt's union thugs, then? He would not even consider, on MTP or CNN's Late Edition, what would happen if he lost Iowa. He's simply not going to lose in Iowa. Gephardt campaign manager Steve Murphy, appearing on Fox News Sunday, suggested that Gephardt, after winning Iowa, is going to win the most delegates on February 3rd, he said, perhaps conceding South Carolina to candidate John Edwards, though that call would certainly be early.


Kerry was a guest on ABC's This Week, where he seemed agitated. Host Steph called him "the new frontrunner," based on this morning's Des Moines Register poll -- reported in this space last night -- and Kerry ducked away from that. Steph then compared him to racehorse "Sea Biscuit."

Iowa voters won't base their votes, probably, on an appearance a the Steph Show, but he looked certain to wither in a real race against an bona fide candidate in the person of our President.

.
Candidate Edwards, appearing on CBS's Face the Nation was another matter. He talked about how the American people are optimistic and wanted an optimistic President, and it was been a while since President Reagan sat in the Oval Office.

He talked about how the Democrat candidate had to win at least five southern States to defeat President Bush in November, and he listed several which he and he alone had "a very good shot at," in his view: North Carolina, Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia, West Virginia, and Tennessee. He's thinking ahead.

He complained that the other Democrat candidates are afraid to take President Bush on in the arena of values, where Edwards says the President is vulnerable. (He said he could "beat George Bush like a drum" on values.) Instead, he said, the other candidates change the subject to health care.

Schieffer asked him a values question, gay marriage. Candidate Edwards replied: "I'm not for gay marriage." He is for "a while lot of [other] rights" for homosexual couples, a few of which he listed. Then he promptly changed the subject to health care, and he did it without blushing, batting an eye, or missing a beat. The man is a superb liar.

Remember, for those of us who support the President, ABE: Anybody But Edwards.
0 comments

The Newsletter is Finished

This Sunday's Rightsided Newsletter -- the one with my review and analysis of the Sunday morning talk shows -- has been delivered to the global Inboxes. You can read the web version by visiting its page on the RSN web site. There is a look at candidates Gephardt, Kerry, and Edwards are the Talk Shows, as well as the campaign managers of Dean, Kerry, and Gephardt. Plus a look at Jimmy Carter and Howard "New Testament Book of Job" Dean in Plains.

I'll revisit those subjects in here as well as a mention of RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie's appearance on ABC's This Week.

Plus, TIME Magazine's Joe Klein agrees with me on something, so I could well be wrong.

I'll be back, and not as Governor of California.
0 comments

The Sunday Shows

Good morning. My attention for the next umpteen hours will be give over to the pre-Iowa Sunday morning talk shows. With the polls, these are part of the "naked ladies and party hats" I summoned on Friday night.

Here's the key I use for the RSN:

KEY:
MTP: NBC’s Meet the Press with Tim Russert
FNS: FOX’s Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace
FTN: CBS’s Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer
TW: ABC’s This Week with former Clinton staffer George Stephanopoulos
LE: CNN’s Late Edition with Wolfgang Blitzer


And candidate Dick Gephardt gets the whole of MTP, and he also gets a few minutes on LE. Candidate John Edwards is the entire show for.

Candidate John "F" Kerry gets part of the Steph show, TW, which will also have as a guest RNC Chair Ed Gillespie.

Rudy Giuliani, Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, and the Hagel & Levin Show will talk to Wolfgang on LE.

On MTP, Russert will talk to candidate Howard Dean manager Joe Trippie; candidate Kerry's manager Mary Beth Cahill, who is also Teddy Kennedy's chief of staff; and Gephardt manager Steve Murphy, whom Trippi accused of "sleazy" things a week ago.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As supporters of President Bush, we have to hope ABE: "Anybody But Edwards."
0 comments

New Des Moines Register Poll

The article is HERE.

The numbers, real quick, are:

Kerry - 26%
Edwards - 23%
Dean - 20%
Gephardt - 18%

The margin of error is +/- 4%. But:

It takes more than popularity to win the caucuses, however. Campaigns must get supporters to their meetings Monday and keep them on board while recruiting other candidates' supporters and undecided voters.

"Let us surprise you." (That statement has special significance… another campaign, another time.)

0 comments

Dean's Second Wind?

Martin Sieff, "UPI Senior News Analyst," wrote this afternoon -- web-published at 5:52p ET -- that candidate Howard Dean's campaign, after faltering, is back in gear in Iowa.

Friday, the candidate and his audiences took fire again, right where he needed them to, in the heart of Dick Gephardt country in north central Iowa.

It started Friday when Dean campaigned in the United Auto Workers stronghold of Newton, former Democratic Rep. Dave Nagel told United Press International.

"All of a sudden, the place erupts," Nagel said.

…

"This should be Gephardt country," Nagel said." All of a sudden, the momentum's back with him [Deam]."

Lest we think that former Democrat Rep. Dave Nagel is setting the bar for momentum for the UPI boyz, Sieff is quick to add that Dean "still exudes enthusiasm."

His prose is almost purple:

President Bush is most comfortable as a Texas rancher and a good ol' boy despite his elite background and Yale education, Dean, who also enjoyed both, appears happiest as an angry populist, an average guy with an average family from an unpretentious rural state. He adopts President Harry Truman's scrappy persona easily. And it seems to work among Iowa Democrat [sic]."

Forsooth.

I'm done for this eve. Tomorrow, I'll watch the Sunday shows then encapsulate and analyze them, from my libertarian-conservative perspective, for the billion millions, in the Rightsided Newsletter. It's free, and you can subscribe by visiting the web site or by sending a blank e-mail to rsn-subscribe [AT] topica.com. It's most certainly not a dry read.
0 comments

In New Hampshire…

Candidate Wes Clark's campaign is accusing candidate John Kerry's campaign of negative attacks in New Hampshire while candidate Kerry is in Iowa whining himself about negative attacks.

A full-color Kerry brochure accuses Clark of being a Washington lobbyist and a Republican supporter, both of which Clark has been.

Reuters says:

The brochure, which also questioned former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's fitness for the White House, used newspaper clippings to point to Clark's past votes for Republicans Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan and his former status as a lobbyist.

Clark's campaign whined:

"It's a daily practice of the Kerry campaign in New Hampshire ... while Sen. Kerry is sitting in Iowa crying about negative attacks," [Clark campaign national press secretary Bill] Buck said. Clark is not contesting Iowa.

Kerry's campaign countered:

The Kerry campaign denied the brochure amounted to negative tactics. "Calling a duck a duck is not negative," said Mark Kornblau, Kerry's New Hampshire press secretary.

So Clark is a duck, and as such, perhaps he was hunted in Louisiana by Justice Antonin Scalia and Vice President Dick Cheney, supposedly in violation of judicial ethics which say nothing about duck hunting. (See this Political Annotation.)

Then again, Scalia recused himself from the Pledge of Allegiance case for less.
0 comments

Organization vrs. Momentum

Traditionally, a good political organization builds consistency and can withstand fleeting momentum. In Iowa, candidate Howard Dean has the money and press-bestowed prestige of "front-runner," and he's built himself an organization laced with out-of-staters who rushed to New Hampshire to be a part of what they believed was the next-big-thing. It's a line on the resume.

Candidate Dick Gephardt has the muscle. Literally. His organization is build on his blue collar base, union men and women who vote the union ticket. Union thugs who cart voters to their caucuses, through the ice a drifting snow. Get-out-the-vote!

The candidates named John, Edwards and Kerry, have the late enthusiasm. Some pundits say this momentum is too late, while I say it is arriving just in time for those two. They would not have pried more voters away from Dean and Gephardt given more time, as D and G would have time to tone down their attacks, as they have, and steal the shtick from K & E. The solid support for D (Deaniacs) and G (blue collar) pretty much made up their minds long ago.

The Associated Press' Ron Fournier has a nifty story on this matter:

"This race is wide open, with a lot of people rethinking. If enough people just get a sense of, 'Wow. Something big is going on,' then momentum can override organization," said David Redlawsk, political science professor at the University of Iowa.

"Organization is historically everything in the caucuses, but I get the sense that all bets are off this year," Redlawsk said. "We could be seeing huge numbers of new people coming into the system."

"Something big." That does not apply to Kerry, who's so old-hat as to resemble a Slouch Hat from 16th century English. (The name fits.)
0 comments

The Zogby of the Moment

To keep these matters interesting, I'm taking this first from a story taken of the Al-Jazeerah Info Center web site. (It's a little outfit run by an Anti-American academic out of Georgia, not the public access channel for terrorists run out of Qatar.) The piece is from Reuters:

Democrat John Kerry slipped and Howard Dean gained ground in Iowa in a tightening four-way presidential race ahead of Monday's state caucuses, according to a Reuters/MSNBC/Zogby poll released on Saturday.

Kerry held a slim lead over Dean, 22.6 percent to 22.1 percent, in the latest three-day tracking poll, with Gephardt in third place at 19.1 percent and Edwards moving up to 17.9 percent.

Be that as it may, the story on Zogby's site shows Kerry at 23-percent, Dean at 22-percent, Gephardt at 19%, and Edwards at 18%.

I've noticed that many still seem incapable of taking Edwards seriously. It might be a mental block of some sort. Steven Taylor at Poliblog has posted his informative and entertaining Toast-O-Meter -- a review of the standing of the various Democrat campaigns and candidates from his perspective. He's never rated Edwards very high, believing him to be a human hairstyle, the Democrats' answer to Dan Quayle.

This week, of Edwards, Dr. Taylor writes:

That leaves fourth for Edwards, despite the Des Moines Register endorsement. Who bases their voting on newspaper endorsements?

According to David Yepsen, Iowa's undecided voters do. I've said that Edwards's largest obstacle was that people saw him as a TV Tort lawyer, a hairstyle. He had to be taken seriously, and the Register's endorsement surely helped in that respect.

As recorded by the Associated Press, Edwards said Saturday:

"We've been organizing for this all year, and on Monday we're going to shock the world," Edwards told supporters at a Des Moines rally, one of a series he was staging around the state.

Now, the AP piece claimed that Edwards had "predicted an upset victory," but that is not what he said.

Zogby said of his latest 3-day tracking results:

“Edwards had his best night ever, and Dean had a solid night. Kerry had his slowest night in a while, and this was not Gephardt’s finest hour."

We shall see.
0 comments

The Ethics of Duck Hunting

Mr. Justice Antonin Scalia and Vice President Dick Cheney, avid duck hunters both, went duck hunting not only at the same time (last week) and in the same place (a private Louisiana camp), but together!

I don't mean to diminish the scandal and appearance of impropriety, etc. You see, 't was not three weeks ago that the Supreme Court agreed to hear the veep's motions of appeal covering various lawsuits regarding his SUPER TOP SECRET ENERGY TASK FORCE. (Candidate Howard Dean had his own SUPER TOP SECRET ENEGRY TASK FORCE up in Vermont, so perhaps he should study-up on the differences between ducks and mallards.)

From CBSNews.com:

While Scalia and Cheney are avid hunters and longtime friends, several experts in legal ethics questioned the timing of their trip and said it raised doubts about Scalia's ability to judge the case impartially, the newspaper [LATimes] pointed out.

Read the CBSNews piece to get your ducks in order, because the ethics of duck hunting seem to be beyond me. (Little is. Trust me. ;) )
0 comments

Protesting Martin Luther King

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has published this particular bit about the obscene name-hijackers who trashed a Presidential ceremony honoring the late Dr. Martin Luther King with an extraneous protest of the liberation of Iraq and of President Bush himself in general.

"No protester has ever been that close to Bush," crowed organizer Kelli Potts on Friday afternoon as she recalled the Thursday protest when about 1,000 people shouted "Bush Go Home" and waved antiwar placards as the president laid a wreath beside the crypt of Martin Luther King Jr.

They were obviously impressed that they were able to remember Dr. King with hatred.

The article contains insight into how the clever protestors figured out when the President would arrive, and how they assembled their band of shrieking protestors via e-mail.

Their eyes are boarded shut; they cannot see what they are doing with and around the memory of the great man. He's not here to defend himself from those who'd drag his name into the very gutter from which they arise with their placards and their catcalls.
0 comments

Kerry Opposed Bureaucracy

Good morning. I just noticed a Washington Times report telling me that in 1996 -- on January 6 -- candidate-in-waiting John Kerry said in a speech:

I think we can reduce the size of Washington," Kerry said Jan. 6, 1996. "Get rid of the Energy Department. Get rid of the Agriculture Department, or at least render it three-quarters the size it is today; there are more agriculture bureaucrats than there are farmers in this country."

The WashTimes got the quote from Drudge.

Dean spokeswoman Tricia Enright spat tersely:

Teachers and farmers in Iowa will be disappointed to hear that Senator Kerry wanted to dismantle the Department of Agriculture and gut the Department of Education."

Kerry said nothing of the Department of Education, which also has to go, but offing Energy and Agriculture would be a good start.

I'd like to talk to Kerry about the Commerce Department. That's another one which should go.

Perhaps we can get candidate Kerry to pledge a top down review of each cabinet department with a promise of gutting at least a third.

I wish President Bush would listen to candidate Kerry on these matters. Or at least to candidate Kerry's wisdom in a past life.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ADDENDUM, Saturday at 1:05p - I just learned from FNC that Howard Dean is now using this in his campaign against an allegedly surging Kerry. Dean is, of course, arguing that Iowa's farmers need government to tell them what to do and how to do it.
0 comments

A Long Week…

I wrote this evening… until a few moments ago. It's dark outside, but the street light it glaring its lonely protest, staring defiantly at the stars as if to say: "I also am light!"

Scratch that.

I found an amusing article from CBS News.com: Carter-Kennedy Redux. They could not pass up the faux-ironic fact that candidate Dean is angling for an endorsement from President Carter while candidate Kerry has Senator Kennedy stumbling around Iowa and passing out on his behalf.

You know, none of the four candidates currently in contention can finish with a "better than expected"? We talk about a candidate receiving a bounce from receiving a "better than expected" XY-percent of the vote, or coming in x-teenth in the field. But right now, I'm not sure anyone knows what to expect.

Gephardt has the organization, Edwards's numbers are soft, Dean's supporters use cell phones instead of landlines and thus cannot be reached by Zogby… there are so many factors.

Is everyone not voting for one of the top four in the UNDECIDED category? Hell, no. There have to be Kucinich supporters, Lieberman supporters, Clark supporters, LaRouche supporters, and even Sharpton backers. (Quick note on Sharpton. Campaign 2000 just polled him at a 65-percent unfavorable. Let's assume that 0.8% support him, which would mean that 34.2% are merely amused by him. Do amused Democrats vote for the candidate who makes them laugh? Then again, given the current sounds from the present landscape, "amused" and "Democrats" make for an oxymoronic combination.)

Did I just digress, or what?

If the people who support the cellar-dwellers go to their precinct caucus and show that support but their candidate gets less than the threshold 15-percent, to whom do they switch? If Edwards is "everybody's number two," then he'd be the choice, but not so fast. That's just a goofy and almost meaningless press saying, intended probably to mean that everybody likes Edwards but not enough to vote for him.

Maybe the press doesn't like Edwards because he has been able to convince people that he has not been nasty. They want a nasty campaign. Heck, I want a nasty campaign, but not this junior-league Dean vrs. Gephardt garbage.

I know I've seen a lot, even written a lot, about this Democrat race. That's because it's the main story most of the time, but that does not change the fact that it is intrinsically dull.

Bring on the naked ladies and party hats.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CLARIFICATION: I am now asked to clarify what I meant when I posted that this Democrat even was instrinsically dull. Listen, I too am caught up in the tactics (Dean and Gephardt have pulled the negative TV ads, for instance) and the perceived closeness of this race. It is prima facie fun and exciting, and as long as we operate solely on that level, we're fine.

It's essential nature, however, is dull. The candidates are dull and most of them will be footnotes in a few months. The winner will almost certainly lose in November, adding his name to the list of McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Dole, Gore...

I wrote, "Bring on the naked ladies and party hats." And that's what we're getting: the show. John Kerry's throwing snowballs, forpetesake.

Live for the moment. Next stop for the Dems: New Hamsphire.
0 comments

Another Day, Another Zogby…

The Zogby three-day released today shows:

Candidate Kerry …………. 24%
Candidate Dean …………. 19%
Candidate Gephardt …….. 19%
Candidate Edwards ……… 17%

"The issue will be, as it always is, turnout," Zogby said. "Gephardt has arguably the best team on the ground."

This about Gephardt teams is what I had heard and reported, as well. Gephardt has bused in scads of union thugs from Illinois and his home State of Missouri to facilitate dragging people to the caucuses to vote for their man. 4.5% margin.

Edwards's support is said to be the softest amongst the four.

Why the Zogbys all the time, Kilmer? Either I talk about them or I talk about my own little guesses from here in the chair in my office, nowhere near Des Moines, Ames, or even Altoona, Iowa.

Last night, I called for Edwards; the night before, for Kerry. This race shows how difficult it is for even Democrats to select from a mediocre and talentless pool of candidates.

Tonight, I call it a draw: between Lyndon LaRouche and Jacko.
0 comments

On Pickering: Hijacking Dr. King's Name Again

Yesterday, President Bush laid a wreath at Dr. Martin Luther King's tomb in Atlanta while some civil rights activists protested the President and the liberation of the Iraq war. Speaking for a man who has been dead for over 35-years and thus never spoke publicly about the matter, these protester hijacked King's name and declared that that would have opposed liberating Iraq. Thus the President was wrong for honoring the man, their story goes.

Earlier today, the President nominated Judge Charles Pickering to the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals -- see this Political Annotation -- bypassing what was broken in the process. Courtesy of the Associated Press, we have the words of Representative Bennie Thompson, a Democrat from Pickering's home state of Mississippi:

"It is quite unfortunate that the president has chosen to seat Judge Pickering only days before the nation celebrates the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.," Thompson said in a statement.

Thompson said while on the federal bench in south Mississippi, Pickering sought to "limit minority voting strength and to stifle the rights of women - counter to everything Dr. King and the civil rights movement were all about."

We do not know what Dr. King would have thought and said given the evidence and the circumstance, but we can be fairly certain he would not have shot his mouth off like Representative Thompson.

Hijacking a man's name and falsifying his thoughts to further a partisan political sentiment is reprehensible, and I call on Representative Thompson to resign from Congress.
0 comments

Recess Appointment

President Bush has just appointed Judge Charles Pickering to sit on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. This is a recess appoint, bypassing the Senate. Judge Pickering will serve at least until the next Congress, beginning in January of 1995 when new confirmation hearings will be held.

This is a direct launch at Daschle, Schumer, Leahy, Boxer, et al. The President is confident that this will not turn public opinion against him, and it will not. The networks and liberal pundits, and no doubt the lefty bloggers, will react poorly, but the American people will see a President willing to overcome annoying obstruction for the benefit of the nation and the Courts.

In one move, he's scored a direct hit on Democrat partisanship.

More later…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The washpost story: LINK.
0 comments

Research 2000 Poll

We have another Iowa poll, this one the weekly Research 2000/KCCI TV-8 DES MOINES which shows 22% of likely Dem caucus voters backing candidate Howard Dean, off 7-points from last week's figures in the same poll. Candidate John Kerry was up 3-points, to 21%. Candidate Dick Gephardt was at 18%, down 7 points. Candidate John Edwards was up ten points, to 18-percent.

This poll, for what it may or may not be worth, shows a statistical dead heat, nearly identical to Zogby's little exercise. However, this one shows Dean and Gephardt falling, with Edwards rising dramatically and Kerry also lifting. But the figures statewide can be misleading.

In each of over 600 individual caucuses inside Iowa, as I explained last week, a candidate must receive at least 15-percent of the vote to receive anything. Those in a caucus who voted for a candidate who received votes less than that threshold amount are then asked to commit to another candidate. If Edwards is indeed "everyone's second-favorite candidate," this augurs well for him also.

A caucus could be comprised of primarily Kerry supporter, Dean supporters, LaRouche supporters, etc. And any of the candidates could be excluded, making for some strategic moves by those near the 15-percent level.

The survey also asked favorable/unfavorable, and the results are on the site linked above. Kerry and Edwards had the highest favorables, at 70% and 65% respectively, while, interestingly enough, the two highest unfavorables were Shartpon at 64% and Lieberman at 45%. Lieberman's number might reflect that he skipped the caucuses, opting instead to move into a New Hampshire apartment.

Now, historically of late, winning the Iowa caucus in a truly contested race likely means losing your party's nomination, but there is the boost going into New Hampshire and the other States.

No one talks about the delegates one could win, so here goes. Of the 4,322 total delegates to the Democratic National Convention, the larger Iowa caucuses allocates 45 delegates. (To be nominated, a candidate needs 2,162.) Eleven Iowa delegates are soft delegates, not committed to the winner of the caucuses, for a total of 56 delegates.

However, Monday's precinct caucuses -- some 2,000 of them -- serve only to choose delegates to the County Conventions. Though these delegates are bound by the precinct results, Monday's precinct caucuses will not directly allocate any delegates to any candidate.

I'm still waiting for the LaRouche juggernaut to sawy into motion.
0 comments

Harris won't seek Bob Graham's seat

The Associated Press reports that Representative Katherine Harris (R-Florida) will not seek the Republican nomination to replace retiring Senator Bob Graham (D-Florida).

Harris, as Florida Secretary of State, certified the 2000 Presidential vote in Florida, and is thus one of several Republicans Al Gore and his temporary acolytes blamed for the former veep's defeat that year. (Note: I used the adjective "temporary" to qualify Gore's acolytes because the man had no permanent followers besides Tipper and the girls.)

The White House backed former HUD Secretary Mel Martinez to run for Graham's seat, but I look for Harris to run against a vulnerable Senator Bill Nelson in 2006. By then, there will have been an intervening election and Florida '00 will be old news; President Bush could then actively support her without weird accusations of "payback for services rendered." And the voters will have tuned out Gore's shrill whining about that election.
0 comments

Dean and Clark lead California

A new Field Poll of California voters, released today, shows candidate Howard Dean in front with 25-percent of respondents giving him their early nod. Candidate Wes Clark places with 20-percent, followed by candidate Joe Lieberman with 12-percent. The rest were below 10%, and 20% said that they had not made up their minds.

Meanwhile, the poll showed that California voters are divided over whether to re-elect Bush, with 46 percent inclined to vote in favor of re-election while 47 percent saying no. In the 2000 presidential election, Republican Bush lost badly to Democratic Vice President Al Gore in California, winning just 40 percent of the vote. … [But] Bush would beat Dean by a margin of 47 to 43 percent, according to the poll; he would beat Clark 43 to 41 percent.

The California primary is to be held on March 2nd, at which time the field will be different, the candidates better known to California Democrats, and…

Oh, that's the poll, for what it's worth.
0 comments

Al Gore Speaks

It's a stupid piece of wood!

Good morning. The dateline is New York, and former Clinton Veep Al Gore -- the qualifier remains -- spoke to the Holocaust-trivialization group MoveOn.org was to speak of the environment. Yeah, right.

It turned, of course, into a Bush-bash for his low-wattage audience, in which he called the President, among other things, "a moral coward." He did not compare the systematic slaughter of six-million Jews to the Patriot Act, though that's what his MoveOn.org crowd may have wanted.

Follow the link to read the piece at NYTimes.com. I'm going to tell you why he did it. And it is for the same reason that he backed candidate Howard Dean some weeks ago: He wants to be a player in the Democrat Party. He envisions himself as the elder statesman on whom the young'ns rely for comfort and counsel.

Only in the modern Democrat party can he hope to accomplish this by making an ass of himself.
0 comments

Good night, Iowa

At least I'm not about to nod off on election night eve. The political scientist in me likes to be a tad more certain. Zogby's all we've got, for what that's worth, and he's telling us that he cannot tell us.

Here is one from Friday's Christian Science Monitor:

Iowa race this year: closest in decades

I've followed, to varying degrees, primary elections since 1976, and then I was eleven-years-old with questions about why, exactly, we let Iowa vote. I don't remember anything this close, this tense, when the actual outcome meant any less.

Well, 1984 was at least a little similar to that extent. Then again, there was not a visceral, almost surreal hatred of President Reagan. That dynamic in and of itself makes this version of the Iowa caucuses all the more unique: the President is a major factor in this contest, but there is nothing he can do either way to affect the outcome. (He is not about to endorse anyone, I hope!)

I miss 1988. That was a fun year. The Dem's don't have an Al Haig.
0 comments

None of the Above

I was reading through a bit in USA Today, when a paragraph brought a thought, an answer, to mind.

Here's the paragraph:

Dennis Goldford, a political science professor observing his fifth caucus season, says he's never seen this level of uncertainty. "Democrats are certainly shopping for someone who can take on (President) Bush and the Republicans," he says.

Who could take on President Bush? Well, absent something tragically disastrous going down near Baghdad, opposing the war will be a losing issue. Scratch Dean. Clark with his military background, maybe - but he's not running in Iowa. Neither is Lieberman.

Gephardt is too limited to defeat the President, and I don't know if LaRouche has campaigned in Iowa.

Kerry has nothing to suggest him over President Bush. Edwards would have an outside chance do it if he turned into his trial lawyer self for the general election, but…

The answer is None of the Above. And that's not a queue for Senator Clinton. She has her own problems.
0 comments

Arnold to Endorse Jones

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is set to endorse former California Secretary of State Bill Jones in the race for the Republican nomination to challenge Democrat Senator Barbara Boxer this fall.

This theoretically could backfire, sending the conservative base away from Jones in the primary because of Schwarzenegger's concessionary tones toward State Democrats, but Jones's main opposition if former U.S. Treasurer Rosario Marin, a decided moderate. Jones has a history of conservatism. (Of the two, he'd receive my vote, all else being equal.)

And there is no guaranty that a Schwarzenegger endorsement would backfire with California conservatives. At least the governor is still the Anti-Davis.
0 comments

The Candidates and the Dead Heat

The latest three-day Zogby is out, as I reported below, and candidates Kerry, Gephardt, Dean, and Edwards are locked within the margin of error of each other. This is probably the most accurate the 3-day has been, as the impression is that it's anybody's race.

Candidate Dean's numbers in the Zogby three-day tracking have been steadily declining. People in Iowa tell me that Dean's campaign rallies currently seem to be a very youthful affair, with the older supporters flocking. All he has left, perhaps, are the Deaniacs, and for all their naïve energy, one cannot ride to victory on their backs. His organization is said to be solid. Almost every pundit but this one had said that Dean was a lock for Iowa and for the nomination.

Candidate Gephardt's have been steady, and he can count on the most steady support. His numbers have been solid since he won the caucuses in 1988. His union backers are said to comprise the best get-out-the-vote/voter transportation machine in the State, so that's going to play in his favor.

Candidate Kerry has been surging, taking on a new life. Almost every pundit but this one said that his campaign was dead. I agreed that this was how it looked, but don't count out the man with the ketchup. The Vietnam hero bit should play well if he uses it right in Iowa, and he is.

Candidate Edwards has the most sustainable momentum. Almost every pundit but me dismissed him as a nice haircut and a sleazy tort lawyer, but I assume they just glossed over him, didn't study his candidacy. The main knock on him these days is that his campaign staff is comprised of kids, few hardened veterans of past battles. Well, we'll find out how good these kids are.

Two stories on Edwards. The first is from Wednesday's Houston Chronicle. It begins:

With less than a week until the Iowa caucuses and the polls not looking so good, an outwardly ebullient Sen. John Edwards stood waiting to be introduced to a gathering of senior citizens Tuesday, taking the measure of the crowd.

Something has changed in Edwards over the past few weeks. While his lagging numbers calcified into a disappointing fourth place in the polls, Edwards has insisted he felt a surge of support that polls couldn't measure.

Cut to Thursday and this from Reuters:

Sen. John Edwards, pounding on his theme of a country divided by wealth and privilege, said on Thursday his campaign is gaining new energy in the final days before the first major test of the Democratic presidential field.

"We have five days to change this country," the North Carolina senator told a noisy, packed ballroom at a Des Moines hotel. "I can't do it alone but you and I can do it together. There is so much energy and excitement around this campaign ... it is everywhere."

"You give me a shot at (President) George Bush. I'm gonna give you the White House!" he shouted.

I hear that his campaign in Iowa seems the most energized, alive. Dean is back to harping on the war, and that's not what the caucus voters want to hear 24/7.

And this from the Los Angeles Times:

Most polls show a dead-even race between Dean and Gephardt in Iowa, with Kerry and Edwards gaining momentum and battling for third, or better. The results here could tilt New Hampshire's follow-up contest, which, in turn, could shape the dynamic for the rest of the Democratic nominating fight.

Most polls? There's only one, and the results described were from yesterday's Zogby.

Is there life on Mars? Yep. We put it there.
0 comments

The Latest Zogby Three-Day

For what it may or may not be worth, here is the latest Reuters/MSNBC/Zogby three-day tracking poll. The margin of error is 4.5%, and candidate Kerry leads the group with 21.6%, with candidates Gephardt and Dean trailing with 20.8%. Trailing the field again, but gaining two points, is candidate Edwards at 17.1%. That is four candidates in a statistical dead heat, with Edwards beginning to surge and Dean, to use one of my favorite phrases, withering on the vine.

If the race is really right now a statistical dead heat, I have to go with Edwards to win the thing. Seriously.

Granted, last night it looked like Kerry had the best shot. Tomorrow, it may be Gephardt. Maybe Saturday, it will be LaRouche.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remember, Gephardt has the most loyal support in Iowa, stuck at 22-percent since Ronald Reagan was President. His support has fluctuated the least. That says something if there is a low voter turnout, since one would think Gephardt's union supporters would brave the conditions to be there for their man.
0 comments

Wesley Clark's Case for War

On Thursday, April 10, 2003, as the liberation of Iraq was ongoing, the Rupert-Murdoch-owned Times of London published an Op/Ed by Wesley Clark in which he tells us what he really thought of the war. The man saw the situation clearly.

That there would be ongoing resistance to the Coalition forces:

Whatever caused the sudden collapse in Iraq, there are still reports of resistance in Baghdad. The regime’s last defenders may fade away, but likely not without a fight. And to the north, the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Mosul are still occupied by forces that once were loyal to the regime.

Wes Clark most certainly did not think we rushed to war without consulting our allies:

American and Brits, working together, produced a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call.

He blamed Germany and France for their opposition, but knew that they would come around:

Germany has already swung round from opposition to the war to approval. France will look for a way to bridge the chasm of understanding that has ripped at the EU. Russia will have to craft a new way forward, detouring away, at least temporarily, from the reflexive anti-Americanism which infects the power ministries.

Wesley Clark foresaw the dynamic which brought Qadhafi around to seeing things our way, and that has caused a stir in Tehran and Damascus.

Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns.

President Bush should be proud, wrote Wesley:

As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt.

The complete CLARK OP/ED can be read at the Common Dreams web site. They advertise themselves as "Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community." This "progressive community" makes a large part of the Democrat base.

Matt Drudge reports today that Clark had his eyes wide open in testimony before Congress before the war:

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."

His remarks are a stunning advocacy for invasion. Read them from Drudge linked above.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOTE: Also, here is a postfrom BLOGS FOR BUSH concerning Clark's pre-war testimony in support of the war.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here is candidate Lieberman's statement on this matter, after being accused by Clark of having had "six different positions" on the war:

"Yesterday, Wesley Clark attacked me for pointing out his multiple positions on the war in Iraq. It is no longer credible for Wesley Clark to assert that he has always had only one position on the war - being against it. His own testimony before Congress shows otherwise.

"He may think it is 'old-style politics' to point this out, but the only thing old here is a candidate not leveling with the American people. If we want to begin anew and replace George Bush, we need to level with the American people, which is what I have done in this campaign and throughout my career. You may not always agree with me but you will always know where I stand."

I've long maintained that Dean and Clark would implode, and that is happening. Whether it happens to the extent it would need to, well, it's more likely for Clark than it is for Dean. Dean has some traction with people who could not care less what he says or does; Clark, as I see it, lacks that devoted base.

A fun, shorthand saying in the press is that candidate John Edwards is "everybody's second choice." If there is some truth to that…

A rejuvenated Kerry is another possibility, but I can't see him matching Edwards in the south.

Not a vote has been cast, but it seems these candidates have been casting their own votes.
0 comments

Door-to-Door Deaniacs

There are running jokes about Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses banging the door, asking to come in a talk to you about their message. Iowans now have to live through a flood of imported Deaniacs hawking their secular religion based around one man: Howard Dean. (That Dean is nothing more than hatred of President Bush is another matter.)

There's a story in today's Chicago Tribune which begins like this:

INDIANOLA, Iowa -- The blaze-orange stocking caps give them away. Not pheasant hunters, but the hundreds of Howard Dean supporters from around the country who have poured into Iowa in recent days.

Armed with cell phones, voter lists and political leaflets, they're part of what the Dean campaign calls the Perfect Storm, a corps of true believers hitting doorsteps from Council Bluffs to Davenport.

(The story is a good read, but the Tribune is a subscription site. Your best bet, if you're a political junkie who loves news from many sources, is to subscribe to all of these sites and save the cookies. There are a lot of good programs for storing cookies you want to keep, but I use a program called Empty Temp Folders. Just 'cos.)

These masses of Deaniacs with their glazed eyes would have been a hit at airports in the pre-terror days. "Hare Krisha Deanie Rama."
0 comments

Yepsen A-Go-Go

About this time in the quadrennial scheme of things, I remind myself to remember to read David Yepsen's column in the Des Moines register during real time, not just before his State's caucuses. I like his stuff.

In today's episode, Yepsen questions frontrunners Dean and Gephardt for fleeing the State in the days prior to the caucuses.

The only upside to Dean's and Gephardt's journeys outside Iowa is that it gave their organizations in the state time to harvest votes rather than advancing events and moving a candidate around. Since Gephardt's organization is the best while Dean's is the largest, each man probably figured he could play hookey from Iowa for a day or two.

But given how tight this is, Dean and Gephardt may someday wish they'd have spent more time in places like Burlington, Ia., instead of Burlington, Vt., this week. That will become clear to them on caucus night, when only a few thousand votes are likely to separate the first-, second- and third-place finishers.

But, Yepsen points out, John Zogby says it is a three-man-race.

Last night, I wrote that "[i]f the election were being held tomorrow, and if I had any faith at all in the polling in the wild world of Iowa this year, I'd call it for Kerry." That wasn't so much discounting Zogby's three-day tracking as it was an expression of how dynamic the caucuses seem to be so far.

Yepsen writes:

Caveat: The svengalis at ABC News and some major papers don't like Zogby's tracking. One ABC guru calls this poll "crack for the weak." Perhaps. But, since it's the only crack on the street right now, political junkies - like the people who have read this far - have come to at least enjoy a small toke. It does square with the gut feelings Iowa insiders and local politicians have about the contest.

He probably refers to ABCNews.com's The Note. Who knows what those zany, madcap, hijinx-prone funsters will say next? I don't. God help us if they shape our political discussion.

Enough of me. You ought to read Yepsen's column. Again: LINK.
0 comments

President to Lay Wreath

This President today will lay a wreath at the Atlanta grave site of the late Reverend Martin Luther King, a man who never pushed discrimination or quotas of any sort. (Though Jesse Jackson claims that he was about to.)

From the AP:

"The president is coming because he called to say, 'I'm coming by to lay a wreath on the 15th. Mrs. King, will you join me?' And as we do for all the presidents and dignitaries who come through ... out of respect for that office and out of respect for Dr. King, he's coming," said Lynn Cothren, special assistant to Coretta Scott King at The King Center.

Some folks are outraged, however:

"For him to have entered the war in the manner in which he did and now to come to lay a wreath for Dr. King is the epitome of hypocrisy," said the Rev. Tim McDonald of Concerned Black Clergy, which was planning a protest.

McDonald said the president's appearance shows "that he wants black votes, that he wants to give the appearance that he's not a racist, that he's not a war hawk, but we can see through that veil."

Okay. President Bush has his own dream, of a free world without terrorist dictators. The charge that the President is a racist trying to fool people into thinking otherwise exposes the venom to which we've become used by now.

This from Coretta Scott King on Tuesday:

"I do believe, as much violence in the world as there is today, that more people have embraced a nonviolent lifestyle than we really know of. Those people are not in charge of making the policies of their nations," King said Tuesday. "If they were, I think we would have more peace and more justice."

I agree. The world would be a better place if the terrorists adopted a nonviolent lifestyle, but it is utter insanity to sit back and take hits while hoping that they extend the olive branch and agree to work with us in peace and harmony. This is jihad, a holy war waged by the terrorists with the intent of wiping us from the face of the Earth. Nothing less will suffice from them, and sanctions and inspections are not going to change their minds.

The racists against whom Dr. King peacefully fought were also at war with the law of the United States, backed by force. The laws of civilization also have to be backed by force.
0 comments

Mosley-Braun to endorse Dean

There's not much too this. Candidate Carol Mosley-Braunwill drop out of the Dem Presidential race and pledge to support candidate Dean. [washpost story] The two talked privately, and she liked what he had to say about "various issues, including affirmative action."

I don't know what he said to her, but his campaign will doubtless have to change his mind and clarify it this afternoon.
0 comments

But will they vote in Iowa?

Good morning. All that is on my mind for the moment is half a foot of snow. If I lived in Iowa and this were Monday evening, I would not want to climb in my Subaru to meander through all this snow to hear some crazed Deaniac prattle on for half an hour about the merits of Saddam Hussein. Then again, I'm not an Iowan.

And this is not Monday evening.

One cannot imagine snow deterring the average LaRouche or Dean voter, as they are the true believers. I've heard that this is also true of Gephardt voters.

I want Zoby to further classify "likely voters" with a sub-category: "Likely to vote with six feet of snow on the %@*^'ing ground."

I've to shovel.
0 comments

Carter-Dean meetup No Big Deal

Candidate Dean is got the wrong idea. President Carter practically stated: "Now listen to me, because I'm not going to say this again: I did not endorse that candidate, Howard Dean." From the AP:

Carter issued a statement, described as a clarification of news reports about Dean's visit Sunday in Carter's hometown of Plains, Ga.

"This meeting is not an endorsement of his candidacy, but an opportunity for me to learn more about the candidate and his views," Carter said.

AND:

Carter said he previously has met with Dean and with retired Gen. Wesley Clark, another Democratic presidential hopeful.

"These meetings were arranged at the request of the candidates. As in the past, I welcome meetings with any Democratic presidential candidate."

I saw reports that Dean's boyz were intimating that their may be an endorsement, now it turns out that Dean asked Carter to meet with him.

I want the headline front-and-center: CARTER WILL NOT ENDORSE DEAN.

Perhaps Dean is feeling the heat from the other nine pests in the Dem Field of Ten. (I am still including Kucinich, LaRouche, Sharpton, and Mosley-Braun.)
0 comments

Latest Iowa Three-Day

A three-day tracking poll requires polling every day. The three day result is the result of the last three days' of polling combined. As a new day is added, the oldest is dropped. It's a nifty way of detecting gradual trends. At least trends of those surveyed, and needless to say, the same people are not polled each day.

The latest poll -- today, yesterday, and two days ago -- shows candidate Dean holding the lead with 24-percent. Candidate Gephardt and candidate Kerry are each at 21-percent, and candidate Edwards is back at 15-percent. The margin of error is +/- 4.5-percent, and according to Zogby's page, "[s]light weights were added to party, age, education, union, and gender to more accurately reflect the voting population." [Note: This is the margin of error for the combined three days. The one-day margin would be something ridiculous.]

Compared with the results of three-days-ago, everyone is within a point of where they were except for Kerry, who has gained six-percent.

If the election were being held tomorrow, and if I had any faith at all in the polling in the wild world of Iowa this year, I'd call it for Kerry. That would be big going into New Hampshire.

From tomorrow's Christian Science Monitor, we have this:

Certainly, analysts say, this campaign has been far more intense than anything Iowans have seen in a long time. Voters have been inundated with ads, phone calls, and mailings. They've seen more candidate visits than ever before - due to the number of people running, and the tightness of the race.

"There is no precedent for this," says Gordon Fischer, chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party. The closest comparison, Mr. Fischer says, would be the 1988 campaign - the last time seven candidates were on the ballot. But even that year didn't have the energy and visibility of the current race. "Everything's been kicked up several notches," he says.

0 comments

O'Neill on NBC's TODAY

The Media Research Center (MRC) has published a CyberAlert today [LINK] which details former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's talk with hostess Katie Couric on NBC's TODAY show Tuesday morning. It's the one in which O'Neill backpedals from the book and from his earlier statements.

The MRC then reports how the TV networks treated O'Neill's retreat, and they contrast Couric's treatment of Bush-insider-turned-critic O'Neill (forthright and candid) with her treatment of Clinton-insider-turned-book-writer George Stephanopoulos five years ago when he wrote a book about the Clinton White House ("creepy," "a turncoat, a Linda Tripp type).

It's good stuff. Follow the link above.
0 comments

Ted Kennedy continues talking…

…and the press keeps listening.

First, credit where due. Reuters refers to Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) as "the U.S. Senate's leading liberal Democrat." CNN calls him "an elder statesman among liberal Democrats." The Associated Press, as carried by the Boston Globe, has him pegged as "Sen. Edward M. Kennedy."

In this case, the description is relevant, because he's gone on another of his seemingly drunken raves about the President and Iraq, this time to the liberal Center for American Progress. (Here is their transcript of Kennedy's rantings.)

(Click HERE for a piece about the Center for American Progress, former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta's new "battle think tank." Click HERE for an Andrew York piece from National Review, web-published on NRO, concerning comedian Al Franken's appearance at the Center for American Progress late last year.)

From the AP version:

Laying out a broad critique of the administration, Kennedy said Bush's arrogant march to war in Iraq has given Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida new life and made the war on terrorism harder to win.

''The war has made America more hated in the world,'' Kennedy said. ''And it has made our people more vulnerable to attacks both here and overseas.''

Those are lies, and they should be obvious. Bin Laden and al Quaeda have been decimated, and their acts of terror are pretty much limited to a relatively small patch of Iraqi soil, trained against professional soldiers who hunt them down and kill them. OBL is hiding out in caves on the Iranian or the Pakistani borders with Afghanistan. The elimination of Saddam and the Iraqi regime was a major victory in the war against terror.

From Reuters:

Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts said President Bush and his advisers capitalized on the fear created by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and put "a spin on the truth to justify a war that could well become one of the worst blunders in more than two centuries of American foreign policy."

"If Congress and the American people knew the whole truth, America never would have gone to war," Kennedy said in a speech to the Center for American Progress.

Congress and the American people knew the truth as did the Administration. They saw the same proof as did the Administration. As did the world. Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N.S.C. could not have been more clear, complete with taped cell conversations and satellite images. What lie? What spin?

Ted Kennedy claimed that removing Saddam Hussein from power "could well become on of the worst blunders in more than two centuries of American foreign policy." He is sounding wilder that Howard Dean on his most crazed evenings.

From the CNN bit:

The senator insisted the Bush administration built the case for war as a distraction from the failed search for Osama bin Laden and the failure to roust al Qaeda in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks.

In going to war, Kennedy said, the administration made the United States "a lesser and less respected land."

If the administration had sought war against Iraq from the start of the Administration, it could not have done so as a distraction from OBL and al Qaeda. September 11 was ten months after the President took office.

The United States is more respected around the world than at any other time in its history, at least in the past decade. More so than ever before, the world -- even the nay-sayers -- look to the United States of American for leadership and resolve. Because that is what this President has given them. And us.

Ted Kennedy ought to sleep it off.
0 comments

Who's Afraid of John Edwards?

With a tip of the hat to Erick at Confessions of a Political Junkie, I note that the Los Angeles Times profiled candidate John Edwards today.

While the piece highlights his legal career, the hidden, unmentioned highlight is how good the man is at the art of convincing. (And the related talent, lying.) The man is not just a hair style or a mindless trial lawyer. He's not a "Dan Quayle," a la the media's description of Vice President Quayle, with a giant "D" on his diapers.

I'm hoping beyond hope that candidate Kerry can find new life in Iowa and that candidate Clark's media-momentum translates into votes, and that he does well despite himself.

I'm not rooting for Dean. Besides all the flaws in his campaigning and policy, it has become visceral with me: I don't like the guy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ADDENDUM: This from an Edwards campaign e-mail of this afternoon:

It's Happening in NH Too!
The Edwards surge has reached New Hampshire. At last night's town hall meeting in Exeter, our staff gave out over 500 copies of the Edwards' plan for change. Voters packed the floor, spilled out into the hall, hung from the balconies, broke the room's 391-person capacity, and cheered on John Edwards through two standing ovations.

For some perspective, this is the same place - the same building! - where Edwards stopped in August for a town hall meeting with about 65 people on the front steps.

There's no need to be concerned just yet. But if he shows some real momentum, he'll be difficult for the other Dems to shove in the meat grinder.
0 comments

Paul O'Neill's Problem

He says stuff.

In February of 2001, he declared: "We are not pursuing, as often said, a policy of a strong dollar. In my opinion, a strong dollar is the result of a strong economy." Global financially markets began immediately selling the dollar, resulting in its plummeting value. The next day, the Treasury Department was forced to clarify: "The secretary supports a strong dollar. There is no change in policy." O'Neill himself then backed down:

"I guess I made a mistake in thinking it was okay to talk beyond simplistic things. So I'll make it very clear: I believe in a strong dollar, and if I decide to shift that stance I will hire out the Yankee Stadium and some rousing brass bands, and announce that change in policy to the whole world."

He has backed away from some of his statements regarding President Bush, going so far as to say that he would probably vote for the President in November.

Like candidate Wes Clark, Mr. O'Neill seems to have a Howard Dean problem.

He says stuff.
0 comments

DC Primary Results

Before I forget, candidate Dean was victorious in yesterday's zero-delegate Democrat primary in Washington, DC. The Washington Times reports:

With 124 of 142 precincts reporting, Mr. Dean had 42 percent of the vote and Mr. Sharpton had 35 percent. Among the other major candidates on the ballot, former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois had 12 percent and Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio garnered 8 percent.

Sharpton blamed his loss on Dean's "institutional support," and went on to claim victory for himself: "For someone who never held political office to get a third of the vote in the nation's capital is a huge story."

The primary being behind them, the District will pick the candidate they support caucuses on February 14. They pick their delegates to the Democrat National convention at a caucus on March 6.

Organizers had wanted a huge turnout to bring the spotlight to their issue: DC's lack of voting Congressional representation. Turnout was said to be 8-percent of eligible voters.
0 comments

Wictory Wednesday

It's important to remember that the President has to campaign against whatever dross the Democratic Party nominating process deals us, and any of the ten would turn the country dramatically in the wrong direction, whether it is Howard Dean or Lyndon LaRouche.

The more we get to know the Democrat candidates, the more apparent it becomes that the solution is simple: help to reelect President George W. Bush. That's what "Wictory Wednesday" is about The name, though not my invention, is catchy enough to make these Wednesdays stand separately a reminders that we have to do our part. The undersigned blogs are all spreading the word today and each Wednesday.

Click RIGHT HERE to be directed to the page where you can become a Bush Team Leader, an official part of the campaign. You can also join by donating at the campaign's SECURE SERVER. You can make a habit of visiting Political Annotation on Wednesday and sending the President a few dollars every week.

And here is the official Blogroll of the Willing, those who've taken the time and space to spread this important word:


0 comments

Down to Georgia

As mentioned in this space earlier, former President Jimmy "The Malaise Man" Carter will be running around with candidate Howard Deanin what will not be an official endorsement. We have from Reuters, however, that Carter's song Chip is backing Dean, and that Carter and Dean will go to church together on Sunday in Georgia.

The ghost of Georgia past.

But also according to Reuters, another former Georgia Governor, Senator Zell Miller, will campaign for the President in Georgia.

"He (Miller) will serve as a top surrogate for the president this year and help spread the word about the president's leadership," Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said.

Miller, accompanied by other Georgia Democrats, is to introduce the president at a Bush campaign fundraiser in Atlanta on Thursday, Stanzel said.

Dean should at least cop an endorsement from the old guy.
0 comments

Housekeeping…

…or keeping house.

I have been perusing the blogosphere, as is my wont, and I feel somewhat inadequate. We'll call it "Blogroll Envy." My blogroll is, alas, much smaller than most. So who can I add?

If you operate/edit/manufacture/create/own a weblog and put me in your own blogroll, let me know so I can reciprocate. The same is true if you link to anything in here.

Should I do trackback?
0 comments

The State of the Democrat Party

I received an e-mail earlier from my friend Jim McCaffrey, and his observation is important:

The Democrat conundrum: The hate-Bush Party activists who control the primary action, have given up on the "regular" Dems like Lieberman, Gephardt, Kerry, Edwards. But the American electorate won't ever buy shallow, loose-cannon, loose-lipped, radical opportunists like Dean or Clark.

Did I say death wish?

As I've said, the Democrat Party is directionless and leaderless, united only by an abject hatred of the President at the base. Since the hatred drives them, their thoughts tend toward the incoherent, and they are attracted to candidates who give that incoherence a voice.

A blind hatred of President Bush is as reality-based as are some of the wild-eyed comments of candidates Dean and Clark. And the Democrat Party is being fueled by naïve neophytes like the Deaniacs, enthusiastic but clueless. (This description also fits Moveon.org.)

We, my friends, are watching the self-destruction of the Democrat Party.

Let us smirk.
0 comments

Daschle's Primary Opposition

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) looks to face former Congressman John Thune (R-South Dakota) in his bid to be reelected, but he will have a fight for his own party's nomination with which to contend first.

I found this report in the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader as soon as I could:

Tim Giago, an Oglala Lakota and editor/publisher of the Lakota Journal newspaper in Rapid City and the Pueblo Journal in Albuquerque, N.M., said Friday that he will seek the Democratic nomination against Daschle.

Last month, Lakota Media Inc., owner of both publications, was sold to the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe.

"My basic reason for running is that for the past 50 years, the Indian vote on the Indian reservations has been taken for granted in this state," said Giago, 69.

This is an interesting statement, as South Dakota's junior Senator, Democrat Tim Johnson, defeated Thune in 2002 by the margin of 500 dead South Dakota Sioux. This could hurt Daschle's standing with deceased Native Americans to the extent that the vote tallies cannot be rigged such that he would defeat Thune.

There's more:

But Bert Tollefson, a Watertown native who has been living in Arizona, said late last year that he will run in the Republican primary.
Tollefson, 73, also ran in the Republican House primary in 2002, getting 1 percent of the vote. He served as assistant to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ezra Taft Benson in the Eisenhower administration, as assistant administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development in the
State Department and as U.S. Aid Mission director in Nairobi, Kenya.

The Eisenhower Administration. Okay.

The primary, if either or both of these two make it onto the ballot, will be held on June 1.
0 comments

A Strange Alliance

Utah's Deseret News reports today that something called the Human Rights Campaign, self-described as "America's largest gay and lesbian organization," and a conservative org called Citizen Outreach have joined forces to oppose, via print and radio advertising.a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

According to the article, the gay and lesbian organization is essentially using the conservative group to push their agenda on Utah's conservatives, including Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).

"Think it's conservative to amend the Constitution to ban marriage for gay and lesbian couples? Plenty of conservatives across America don't. They believe that even if you oppose gay marriage, you don't amend the Constitution to deal with every social issue," a transcript of the radio ad provided by the groups said.

It then quotes such conservatives as former Sen. Al Simpson, R-Wyo., columnist George Will and former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., in opposition to the amendment.

It ends:

"Real conservatives agree: Be conservative with the Constitution — don't amend it."

So the gay rights group has hijacked a conservative message to promote their cause.

Activist Chuck Muth, the founder of Citizen Outreach, said in a statement:

"Marriage has traditionally been and should remain a state, not federal, issue."

I agree, although an argument can be made for federal uniformity because of the "full faith and credit" clause; however, this message should not be hijacked by those who do not agree with it.

Article IV, section 1: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. …"

This alliance is a case of the ends justifying the means, and we'll see if it amounts to much.
0 comments

Tear Down that Wall!

We interrupt the banter about primaries and caucuses for some news that matter. From Best of Iran:

Plan for the peaceful removal of the Islamic Regime:
This Sunday, January 18, 2004

A Plan for the peaceful removal of the Islamic Regime of Iran will be announced during a live program broadcast on many Iranian satellite TV and Radio stations. The program starts at 10 AM PST [7 AM ET] from NITV studios in Los Angeles and will last for 6 hours, including a fundraising segment to support the plan. Other media who have confirmed the live broadcast of this program include Pars TV, Radio Sedaye Iran, Radio Yaran, Radio Sedaye Emrooz, Rangarang TV, Apadana TV, and Lahzeh TV.

This program can also be seen live via the Internet at www.IranRadioTV.com who will provide a FREE link on that day.

We'll see how they plan to remove the mullahs without a shot Will the United States have a role?

This impacts of U.S. foreign policy and the war on terror. But we'll have to see what they say.
0 comments

Jimmy Carter and Howard Dean

Memories of the late '70s and the national malaise. Offering no endorsement as yet, former President Jimmy Carter will be running around Georgia with candidate Howard Dean soon.

The two men plan to have a private meeting and then make a joint public appearance in Carter's home town of Plains, Ga., on Sunday, according to Dean advisers speaking on a condition of anonymity.

The advisers said they don't expect Carter to make an endorsement as they anticipate that the former president will remain officially neutral. The former Democratic president said he will not express any preference about who should be the nominee.

It is possible that Joe Trippi and the rest of Dean's boyz begged Carter not to endorse their guy, as most American voters well remember what Carter put this country through.

Then there is this quote from the Associated Press story linked above:

A show of support from Carter could boost Dean's appeal in the South. Carter, a Baptist, also could help Dean in his recent effort to appeal to religious voters.

That was written by one Nedra Pickler, who has just backed up my theory that most journalists would be better if they stuck to reporting and leave the politics to the the sensible.
0 comments

Wes Clark Says Stuff…

He has Dean-mouth, in that he says things which have to be explained, retracted, or both, by harried campaign stuff. The other day, he took the Infanticidal tack, saying that a woman had the right to kill her baby from the second she decided to engage in actions by which she might be impregnated until it was wholly delivered from the womb. Disposable life. He's aids went into "what he meant" mode, but the man proved himself to be without a soul.

Not as bad, in a Boston Globe article today, we find the following:

Yesterday, Clark -- who served during the Clinton administration in several high-ranking Army positions -- went into further detail than he has in the past, saying Clinton's national security team had compiled a lengthy intelligence record on Al Qaeda, accelerating its efforts in 1998 after a bin Laden lieutenant issued a fatwa, or religious directive, calling for the killing of Americans.

After the bombings at American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and the attack on the USS Cole, Clark said, the Clinton team spent months devising a detailed special operations plan to dismantle Al Qaeda that was in place in 2000.

"They built a plan and turned it over to the Bush administration," said Clark, who said the plan was ignored. "This administration failed to do its duty to protect the United States of America before 9/11." A spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee shot back at Clark yesterday, questioning whether the Clinton administration should have acted on such a plan, and pointing to rumors she said Clark has cited as truth. In October, for example, Clark said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had leaked his own memo charging that the United States had no strategy for dealing with terrorism. When questioned, Clark said he had heard rumors to that effect.

He heard a rumor.

Howard Dean heard a rumor that the Saudis had warned the President about September 11.

If baseless rumors are repeated to intellectually incurious people who would want to believe them, they have a tendency to become uncorroboratable fact. This is especially true of the press, who came up with the oft repeated notion that the President sought to invade Iraq because Saddam possessed WMD stockpiles and/or was an imminent threat to the United States. That's not what the President said, but it was repeated enough to become true.

These new, false "truths" lead to media tizzies about the President going into office prepared to invade Iraq and to act once we had. It would have been folly otherwise.

Clark and Dean, Dean and Clark -- they may not both implode on the campaign trail, as those who vote for them would have to be out-of-touch to begin with, but they cannot win the White House with that nonsense. Remember, neither of them can lie as splendidly as can candidate Edwards.
0 comments

The Dem Veep?

I just heard a scary thought from a friend: Dean/Breaux. John Breaux is the retiring but not shy senior Senator from Louisiana, the Mullah of the Moderates, the Sultan of the Centrists. He preaches the middle as gospel, extreme on nothing. He's the Baron of Bipartisanship.

He's leaving the Senate because of Dem extremism, and I suspect he is too principled to run on the same ticket as Dean, if Howie gets the nod.

A great veep choice of Dean would be Senator Evan Bayh (D-Indiana). His rep is that of a moderate, he is a popular Midwestern Senator, and he has a calm and reasonable demeanor. That would balance Howie on several counts, and Bayh has been staying in the national public eye via the Sunday shows.

He sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, something which Dean seems to lack.

His real name is Birch Evans Bayh, III, which is a nifty political pedigree; his father, Birch Evans "Birdh" Bayh, II, was a longtime Indiana Dem Senator and sought his party's presidential nomination in 1976.

If the economy sours and Iraq refuses to reconstruct, a Dean/Bayh ticket could be somewhat problematic. Of course, no one but the Dems and the Deaniacs are hoping for a national nosedive.
0 comments

The Green Party Convention

No Ralph Nader this time, but the Green Party will hold its quadrennial nominating convention from June 23 through 28 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, they announced Monday. This is relevant to us only insofar as the Green Candidate could have a Nader-like draining effect on the eventual Dem nominee.

The Greens thusly assembled will choose from one of four possible Presidential nominees. The Associated Press article asserts that two are from California and two are from New York, but someone is telling someone sweet nothings.

David Cobb [web site] is former Texas attorney general candidate, and here is a Dave Cobb quote:

"The Green Party is the electoral arm of the movement for social justice in America. We the people are demanding control of our government. We are building a democratic movement that will take this country back from the corporate hooligans who have hijacked it from us."

That's the typical, tired nonsense from those types, nothing exciting to be found there.

Kent Mesplay, PhD [web site], is a Californian with a doctorate in biomedical engineering. According to his bio, Mesplay "grew up among indigenous people in the eastern highlands of Papua New Guinea." I see no other potential candidate who can make that particular claim.

On his web site, he equates the dangers of the "global warming" bogeyman with those of terrorists:

Without "keeping it simple," the horrendous problems that our generation must face are either over-whelming or all but invisible. In an age of terrorism we talk about physical protection through military means and we respect those service personnel who act to keep us safe. The theater of Global Climate Change also requires knowledge of what to do about an elusive "enemy" that threatens our physical security.

Not much of a Greenie siphon in that guy.

Paul Glover of New York [web site] is running for Green Party prez or veep slot to "build on critiques of capitalism to celebrate grassroots solutions to local, national and global problems." He explains on his web site:

My preferred candidates would be Michael Moore and Ani DiFranco-- dedicated celebrities who'd inspire sufficient registration and voting among the disaffected to ensure 5% nationwide for Green Party federal funding. Corporate media could less readily ignore them. Moore's website, books and movies connect to millions independently.

Moore is that junk filmmaker, and DiFranco is a folk singer who may or may not wear a nose ring.

Finally, they have Lorna Salzman from Ohio [web site], who tells she is running " to promote an ecological vision and and environmental program with in the Green Party, and by so doing to help bring environmental activists and the broader environmental community into our party." She complains that this vision has been lacking in the Green Party. (It is fundamentally an environmentally anal party which happened to be hijacked in 2000 by washed-up consumer advocate.)

She writes on her web site:

Above all we need a new Green slogan: Think globally, Act globally. The time to stop the onslaught against the undeveloped world and against the planet is long overdue. We must focus our efforts on getting Greens into the US Congress, where these policies can be reversed and where our issues can be publicly presented without the funnel of a corrupt press squeezing us into nothingness. All this must be done with the understanding that the same things that threaten our freedom threaten our survival: corporate-directed economic growth and political domination. These forces are destroying both democracy and the planet.

This rhetoric is familiar enough.

So the Greenies look to return from the fringe to the sub-fringe.
0 comments

DC Primary Today

Good morning. "Here's some Mozart on this Primary Day in the Nation's Capitol." So said Classical 103.5's morning announcer James Bartel to DC's drivers this morning. And so it is for Washington's Democrats, though I doubt the music made the choice any more palatable: they must selected between Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinichm Carol Molsey-Braun, and Al Sharpton. Sharpton is the only candidate who has campaigned in DC of late, and if African Americans are to be considered a voting bloc, he has worked the hardest in motivating them. (The Washington Post online today features a profile of Sharpton today.)

The Post reports this morning that the leaders inside the beltway want a protest vote:

But D.C. political leaders from Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D) on down say the city's voters should turn out anyway and use the opportunity to register displeasure at their lack of representation in Congress. The voting here will be the first of the 2004 presidential nomination season.

The mayor said even those who support a candidate who is not participating should cast a blank ballot. Elections officials intend to count blank ballots among the totals to measure participation. There is no designated space for write-in candidates on the Democratic ballot, but voters who do write a name will be counted as having taken part in the primary. Polls are open from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m.

Blank ballots. They were a form of protest in many places back in the stone ages of the 1970s, and where permitted remain a sort of "None of the Above."

Blank ballots also speak more loudly as a protest than do votes for an actual person, so the race could well be between Sharpton and No One.

No delegates will be chosen today, though its advertisers bill the primary as "advisory."

It's something about which to read and write.
0 comments

Baucus Watch

On New Year's Eve, I predicted that Senator Max Baucus (D-Montana) would switch parties. Forecasts like that are guesses based on facts, knowledge, and intuition (or just dumb guess), but they are basically novelty.

Anyway, according to the Associated Press via the Billings Gazette, our potential party switcher is doing well after surgery to relieve fluid pressure on his brain (subdural hematoma).

A CAT scan on Sunday was positive, he said.

"The doctors are saying he's going to have to have quite a bit of rest the next couple of weeks, which for a guy like Max may not be easy to do. The goal is for him, hopefully, to be able to go back to work when Congress goes back in session Jan. 20, at least on a limited level."

Kaiser said doctors will continue to monitor Baucus for a couple of weeks and do further CAT scans.

"They feel the procedure was a success and he is on the road to full recovery," Kaiser said.

Here's to a filibuster-proof 60 in '05!
0 comments

Dean tried to appoint minorities…

… to his Vermont cabinet.

So says Vaughn Carney, a lawyer and executive with a financial services company and frequent Vermont delegate to the Democratic National Convention, to the architects of this Associated Press article.

"He asked if I had an interest or if I knew of anyone who had an interest," said Carney…. "I myself was constrained by other commitments. I wasn't aware of anyone who would be qualified or would be available."

Affirmative Action is designed to help perhaps less qualified minorities gain entrance into workplaces such as gubernatorial cabinets. Dean is not a friend of affirmative action.

Another excuse offered:

Minorities comprise 2.1 percent of Vermont's population of 608,827, according to Census Department figures for 2000. Less than 1 percent of the population — 5,504 — are Hispanic. Even fewer — 3,063 — are black.

They still deserve representation, according to the thought-process behind affirmative action schemes.

"It wasn't that Howard didn't try," said Kathy Hoyt, Dean's former chief of staff. "He asked everybody to recruit for us in the minority community."

Hoyt said one effort to recruit a black man to the Cabinet fell through because he would not be paid as much as he was making in Massachusetts. She could not recall the man's name or the position he was offered.

The man was anonymous. Such was the plight of minority voices in the Dean Administration.

Fred Barnes thinks only candidate Gephardt can stop candidate Dean from winning the Dem nomination. Mort Kondracke believes that only Wes Clark can do the honors. (Neither seemed possible a week ago, I'll offer.) Good guesses, guys, now let's count some votes.
0 comments

The Politics of Immigration Proposals

This is tomorrow's (Tuesday's) Christian Science Monitor:

The hope will be to peel away 4 or 5 percent of the Hispanic vote from the Democrats, and if it works, Mr. Bush may be preparing for his second inauguration next November.

In 2000, the president captured 35 percent of the Hispanic vote, impressive for a Republican. But by some estimates, he needs 40 percent this time. If he can put the Hispanic vote in play, he may help tip Florida into his column and force the Democrats to spend resources to defend states they should feel comfortable about, such as New York, Illinois, and California.

As politics, it's hard to argue with the plan. It's simple, direct, and is couched in the kind of feel-good rhetoric Americans generally love. "America is a stronger and better nation because of the hard work and the faith and entrepreneurial spirit of immigrants," he said at the rollout last week. Cue "America the Beautiful."

Sure, he upset, from his presumed base, some of the "SEAL THE BORDER" types who, like all of us including the President, had seen the plan only in its vague, theoretical form, but they can also be counted on to support the President in general, perhaps in hopes that Congress, as seems likely, to allow measures conciliatory to the closed-border folks.

As for the 4 or 5-percent to get to, by some estimates 40-percent of the Hispanic vote, a lot will depend on how the initiative is developed and treated by Congress. A "D.O.A." initiative will help him little, so he has something to gain by disavowing Congressmen of the notion that this program is somehow rewarding illegal aliens rather than fixing a broken law.

No matter how you personally stand on the issue itself.
0 comments

Candidate Edwards Watch

Things have a way of sneaking up on you:

The first-term North Carolina senator remains a long shot to win the leadoff nominating contest on Jan. 19, but he has picked up support in the past month.

"He could very well be one of the big stories to come out of this," said John Zogby, president of independent polling company Zogby International.

A third place finish will keep his corps happy going into New Hampshire and on to South Dakota.

Hopefully, candidate Dean will regain his juggernaut-hood, candidate Kerry will somehow become the phoenix, or Gephardt's union thugs will muscle plenty of people.
0 comments

Rowland and Resignation

Connecticut Governor John Rowland, a Republican, is getting it from both ends for receiving gifts from politically connected friends and contributors. And for lying about it. Connecticut Dems are calling for his impeachment, and that is up to State House Speaker Moira Lyons, also a Dem.

According to the Associated Press, Ms. Lyrons has her bowels in knots, twisting in the gravity of the situation:

The decision, she said, will be based on whether the governor can continue to govern, and whether he can to hold office with honor and work with the legislature.

"Those are the parameters with which I have been wrestling, the most monumental of my life," Lyons, D-Stamford, said.

Now, Representative Chris Shays (R-Connecticut) has joined a half a dozen GOP State senators in demanding Rowland's resignation.

"I am not prepared to stand by a governor, even a friend, who has done wrong, lied about it and then refused to account for his actions," said Shays, who is serving his ninth term in Congress.

Let's discuss Rowland and resignation. He sits on two White House Advisory Panels, one on Trade Policy and Negotiations and another committee on homeland security comprised of local and State officials.

The campaign says that there are no plans for removing him from the advisory committees, but this won't last. If he resists resignation from his day job and is impeached, he will have to go.

I have a natural aversions to politicians who lie and are too delusional to know to resign for the good of the people they serve. That's self-service, and it is contemptible.

posted by Mark Kilmer : 1/12/2004 03:54:00 PM [permalink]

0 comments

Dean, Race, and DC

Last night, candidate Sharpton challenged candidate Dean on racial matters in what appears to have been another "debate in the series." That it was the final one before next Monday night's Iowa caucuses means only: ENOUGH ALREADY.

[For a look at what went down last night, read this piece from Byron York at NRO.]

Mark Noonan at Blogs for Bush insists that "Dean should have gone off on Sharpton's lack of honesty and decency." He wanted the pot to call the kettle black:

Faced with a cretin like Sharpton, Democrats simply quiver in their boots. They have raised this (and other) corrupt race-baiters up to be the supposed leaders of America's black community, and now they dare not criticize them for fear of being called a racist. Dean flunked as badly as any of them. Rather than confront, he went on to hem and haw about his views on race - as if race was actually an issue involved.

Them's the rules in Democrat politics, Mark, where a candidate is judged by such warped criteria. It's how they evaluate candidates, as it reflects their agenda.

Sharpton and Dean will face off on race tomorrow in the DC primary.

Polls open at 7 a.m. EST for what is expected to be low voter turnout for a ballot that includes only four of the nine Democrats vying for the party's nod.

Against the national Democratic Party's wishes, organizers moved the primary up from its usual date in May to bring more attention to the city's lack of full voting rights in Congress. Washington residents pay federal taxes but are not represented in the Senate and have a limited vote in the House.

The four Dems taking part are Sharpton, Dean, Kucinich, and Mosley-Braun. No delegates will be selected in the non-binding primary.

The Associated Press article linked above excuses the candidates' lack of focus on the DC "advisory primary," as they are wont to call it, because of more pressing engagements in Iowa and New Hampshire.

I assert that it is not racist to think in terms of voting blocs, and one such bloc has a chance to send the nation a message regarding Dean tomorrow. If Dean is trounced in this otherwise meaningless little primary, that's the message I'll draw and the headline I will trumpet.
0 comments

Christie Vilsack: Political Activist

Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack, a Democrat, is keeping quiet about his druthers for his party's Presidential nominee this year. He was quiet four years ago, as well.

His wife, Christie Vilsack backed Al Gore four years ago, and Al Gore defeated Bill Bradley in that year's Iowa caucuses? Coincidence? Of course.

This year, her man is candidate Kerry:

Vilsack said she backed Kerry in part because she was impressed with his relationship with his daughter and wife, whom she called "a strong-willed woman."

"Lots of times Iowans choose not just on policy but on intangibles," she said. Still, Vilsack said she thought Kerry's policies on education, health care and foreign policy were best in the field.

It makes one pause to wonder about the weak-willed women Ms. Vilsack sees associated with the other candidates (We'll assume she passed over candidate Mosley-Braun as part of the Sharpton-Kucinich-LaRouche-Mosley-Braun tier of candidates for the nomination.)

I suppose I should conclude with the obligatory "recent polls show" remarks, as did the Associated Press. Ready? Recent polls show the race is fundamentally fluid, with Dean's support steadily eroding and Edwards's gaining. Of course, over 90-percent of those surveyed said that they might change their minds before moving into the corners of the caucus rooms with the special interests about which Howard Dean complained to the Canadians.
0 comments

Howard Kurtz and the "Media Experts"

The WashPost's Howard Kurtz, this morning, tells us how the nation's political press handicaps the Presidential race.

Joe Lieberman "desperately needs at least a third-place showing in New Hampshire Jan. 27 to survive," says the Hartford Courant. For John Kerry, a second-place finish in Iowa "would probably be enough" to keep his "hopes alive," says the Los Angeles Times, although "a strong third might even do." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution agrees that "a strong second or third in Iowa could help Kerry rebound in New Hampshire." John Edwards needs a "good finish in Iowa, a surprisingly strong finish in New Hampshire and victory in South Carolina," declares The Washington Post.

Says who? Party strategists, unnamed insiders and the journalists themselves, who, like Olympic judges, set the degree of difficulty and rule on whether the competitors have performed well enough to move on to the next round.

It is fun stuff for journalists to take what they have heard from various sources and attempt to apply it all in a cogent manner intended to give their readers the impression that they have more than a patchwork of guesses. The good ones do, while the dross offer up brainless speculation under the guise of sound, "insider" knowledge. One name in particular springs to mind, but the real shame is when the readers buy this nonsense and attribute understanding to the reporter.

Or is it a shame? Not if the reader is smart enough to see through the veneer of certainty. The more we claim to know, often, the less we do.

Some of the handicapping may well turn out to be accurate. Dick Gephardt says flatly that he has to win the Iowa caucuses. Edwards, who was born in South Carolina, acknowledges that it is a must-win state for him.
But the media's emphasis on the early states is sometimes overblown. Gephardt won Iowa in 1988 and soon dropped out. George H.W. Bush won Iowa in 1980 before being routed by Ronald Reagan. Pat Buchanan won New Hampshire in 1996 and promptly imploded. And John McCain's trouncing of George W. Bush in New Hampshire last time around didn't stop Bush's march to the presidency.

All that is easily forgotten when we're having too much fun thinking about the "Big Iowa Bounce" or the "Strong Third Place Finish in New Hamsphire."

Getting off this subject, Kurtz then writes about the Bush Administration's belief that the media does not speak for the public and the press' plaint that the Bush Administration does not like or trust them.

Kurtz complains about blogs which serve to critique individual journalists.

The media is a sinking ship?

The survey of 1,506 adults was not as encouraging for traditional media outlets. Pew found a significant decline in Americans who regularly get their campaign news from local television (42 percent, down from 48 percent in 2000); nightly network news (35 percent, down from 45 percent); newspapers (31 percent, down from 40 percent), and newsmagazines (10 percent, down from 15 percent). One exception was cable news networks, which are regularly consulted by 38 percent (up from 34 percent).

The greatest defections were among those under the age of 30, nearly two-thirds of whom say they are not even somewhat interested in the Democratic campaign. Only 15 percent could say which candidate served as an Army general (Wesley K. Clark) or which one was House majority leader (Richard A. Gephardt). …

Those most knowledgeable about the campaign: Internet users, National Public Radio listeners and newsmagazine readers.

Have any of you noticed that Kurtz is a very introspective writer? I suppose these things happen when one is a media columnist writing columns about the media.

A strong eighth place finish in Iowa, followed by a seventh or eighth place showing in New Hampshire, could propel the Mosley-Braun campaign…

Into the footnotes, too small to be legible.
0 comments

California's Senate Race

Good morning. I shall work on a bit springing from Howard Kurtz's column regarding media handicapping of the Presidential race, but for now, we have the LAT on the GOP primary to take on Senator Babs Boxer this fall.

Former legislator and Secretary of State Bill Jones, a GOP veteran who ran for governor in 2002 against millionaires Bill Simon Jr. and Richard Riordan, has announced that he's in the Senate race.

He has former California Governor Pete Wilson, fresh from "Arnold Schwarzenegger fame," as his campaign's co-chair, though he also has an admitted charisma deficit.

Former U.S. Treasurer and Huntington Park Mayor Rosario Marin expected to get Wilson's endorsement, but is now

remarking on her "personal disappointment" and declaring that she wished she had "learned about the governor's endorsement of my opponent from him personally, especially in light of the fact that we had spoken last year about this primary. I understand Politics 101: Politics is not personal."

Then:

The other candidates in the primary include Los Altos Hills Mayor Toni Casey, former legislator Howard Kaloogian and Moorpark Assemblyman Tony Strickland.

But it's the Jones vs. Marin fight card that's drawing blood. Marin already has used the dreaded f-word about Jones, chastising him for having "flip-flopped" in switching his support from George W. Bush to John McCain in the 2000 primaries. And she threatened to sue over her accusation that the secretary of state had illegally extended the deadline for candidates to file ballot statements.

Interesting. The article also teases about a House race between incumbent Representative Dana Rohrbacher and former Congressman Bob Dornan, who briefly sought the GOP Presidential nomination in 1996.
0 comments

Dem Debate

The Dems debated this (Sunday) evening, and I intentionally missed it. (I was listening to De Falla's Three Cornered Hat.)

Here it is from ABCNews.com:

Under fire in a campaign debate, Howard Dean conceded grudgingly Sunday night that he never named a black or Latino to his cabinet during nearly 12 years as governor of Vermont.

"If you want to lecture people on race, you ought to have the background and track record to do that," Al Sharpton snapped at the Democratic presidential front-runner in an emotionally charged exchange in the final debate before next week's kickoff Iowa caucuses.

"I will take a backseat to no one in a commitment to civil rights in America," Dean said moments later, eager to have the last word.

Did we miss anything?

Said candidate John Edwards: "We're past all this preliminary stuff. It's time to choose a president."

There he goes again, acting as if he's taking the high-road.

The other candidates won't touch him. They want his caucus goers if he falls under the 15% threshold.
0 comments

Bush Wanted Rid of Saddam

The French wire AFP reports on ousted Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's allegation that President Bush wanted rid of Saddam Hussein long before September 11:

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told the CBS television program "60 Minutes," in an interview broadcast Sunday.

I guess now we know the real truth.

Clinton wanted rid of Saddam. The President's dad wanted rid of Saddam. Clinton knew that Saddam possessed WMD, and he even bombed him for a little while. Going into office, President Bush knew that Saddam possessed WMD and was a danger to the United States. And he probably would have acted sooner had September 11 not altered the dynamic.

This is not a story.

Bush took office in January 2001 -- and in his first three months in power, officials were already looking at military options to remove Saddam from power, according to documents that O'Neill and other White House insiders gave author Ron Suskind.

Officials were looking into including post-war contingencies such as peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals and the future of Iraq's oil, according to the documents.

One of the memos, marked "secret," says "Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq," Suskind told "60 Minutes."

Okay, they had planned in advance for post-war Iraq. There goes that media theory.

Some editor somewhere isn't thinking.
0 comments

New Zogby

Here's the latest Reuters/MSNBC/Zogby tracking poll for Iowa:

Dean ------- 25%
Gephardt -- 23%
Kerry -------- 14%
Edwards ----13%
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Undecided - 14%

That was 500 "likely caucus goers," Thursday through Saturday, and the margin of error is 4.5-percent.

And

Gephardt's backers were the least likely to change their mind, with 31 percent calling their support "very strong." Twenty-six percent of Dean's support was "very strong," with Edwards at 18 percent and Kerry 14 percent.

Let's translate that. Of Gephardt's supporters, 69% say they could change their minds; 74% of Dean's might switch; 82% of Edwards's; and 86% of Kerry's.

We don't know how many of those respondents were answering that way merely to foster the independent/last-minute image of the "IOWA VOTER," but it alters the figures:

Gephardt ----- 7.13% (31-percent of 23-percent)
Dean ---------- 6.50% (26-percent of 25-percent)
Edwards ----- 2.36% (18-percent of 13-percent)
Kerry ---------- 1.96% (14-percent of 14-percent)

That puts things in perspective.

But it appears that Dean is cooling and Edwards is on the rise. Maybe those two mundane commercials I mentioned last week (with links to the streaming vid) are helping.

Voters I've heard discussing Edwards say that they like his ideas but want to know if he's a serious candidate. The poll was taken before the Des Moines Register's endorsement may have allayed their fears.

[NOTE: The above linked story is from Reuters. The same poll results report on the Zogby site puts Kerry at 15% and Edwards at 14%.]
0 comments

This President Knows Politics

The New York Times today published an article describing President Bush as "wholly absorbed by the [reelection] race," according to his advisors.

The president personally made the decision to hold the Republican National Convention in New York City, one adviser said. He talks daily to Karl Rove, his chief political aide, about the ups and downs of his Democratic competitors. He keeps a close eye on his fund-raising totals, which now amount to more than $130 million.

Asked by CNN's Wolfgang Blitzer what he knew about the conversations with Mr. Rove, Commerce Secretary Don Evans explained that the President has known Rove for a decade.

Further:

"It's not a matter of turning everything over to Karl," said one top adviser, who asked not to be named for fear of angering the White House. "Karl is brilliant, but in terms of political strategy, there's no question that the president is intimately engaged. When he comes into a state, he will know exactly what his numbers are, whether people think the country is moving in the right direction, what his approval rating is."

And Mr. Bush kibitzes about the strengths and weaknesses of Howard Dean with advisers who are still anticipating a campaign against the former governor of Vermont, but who have covered their bets by continuing negative research on the entire field of Democratic contenders.

As I've noted in the past, this is probably the most politically astute President we have had since Nixon, even more so when one considers that this President has scruples.

The myth of "Bill Clinton: Master Political Strategist" should have been put to rest long ago. He never won a Presidential election with at least 50-percent of the vote, he got himself impeached, and he lost the House of Representatives for his party for the first time in half a century.

0 comments

David Yepsen from Iowa

Every four years, we see political columnist David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register, who has been covering Iowa politics for two decades. His column of this morning deals with the likely effect of the Harkin endorsement on Howard Dean's campaign:

An endorsement of a guy who is a front-runner isn't exactly courageous. Nor is the endorsement likely to deliver tons of votes to Dean at this late date because we don't have machine politics in this state. Personal endorsements - as opposed to those special-interest ones - don't "deliver" much. Most of the people in Harkin's organization are already working for candidates of their own choosing.

And the effect of Friday's revelation that Dean does not much care for Iowa voters or their caucus:

Howard Dean's bashing of the Iowa caucuses on Canadian Public Television four years ago isn't the sort of thing that's going to cost him much support in Iowa today, but it is just one more thing that makes undecided Democrats wary of him. For a guy trying to close some sales here, NBC's story about his comments couldn't have come at a worse time.

Undecided Iowans were on Mr. Yepsen's mind when he appeared briefly this morning on ABC's This Week with Steph.

Asked about his paper's editorial endorsement of candidate John Edwards, Yepsen pointed out that the Register was "left-of-center editorially," and was well respected by Iowa Democrats. His verdict? "I think it will help John Edwards" with undecided Iowa voters. This is what I suggested this morning, though Mr. Yepsen's acknowledgement is made with a much more than passing understanding of Iowa voters.

Yepsen said that the Harkin endorsement could aid Dean somewhat with undecided voters, echoing what I wrote on Friday.

He and Steph agreed that the working theory is that any vote for Edwards will come out of candidate Dick Gephardt's total, in regards to the 15-percent threshold and vote swapping which I discussed on Saturday.

On a side note, my wife reminds me that I once owned a Marvin the Martian wristwatch, so that augurs well for candidate Dennis Kucinich.

Not even a Grade-D spoiler.
0 comments

Sunday Morning Review

The Rightsided Newsletter with my summary and analysis of the Sunday Morning Talk Shows has gone out to the sundry global Inboxes, and the online version can be found: HERE. Mexican President Vicente Fox, Treasury Secretary John Snow, Commerce Secretary Don Evans, and several Dem hopeless hopefuls, including Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, and Edwards. Gone missing was Wes Clark, perhaps because he (like Lieberman) is not competing in Iowa, perhaps because his campaign does not want to risk emphasizing his Dean-like propensity to "say things."

What didn't make it in, and will be in this space later, was the Des Moines Register's David Yepsen's brief appearance on ABC's This Week. There was also talk about the President's hands-on approach to the campaign, which validates something I have been saying for some time.

Also, on TW, Steph showed a clip of Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) speaking of Howard Dean in remarks to a dinner a year ago. Harkin, who Friday endorsed Howard Dean, referred to him at least twice on that occasion as John Dean, the infamous Watergate tattle.

On CBS's Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer showed a clip of an interview with Bob Dole in which Dole talked about his own experience running in Iowa in '96, when opponent Steve Forbes laid it on thickly. Commented Dole: "Steve Forbes and Newt Gingrich took a lot of votes from me." Forbes by spending so much money on the attack and Newt just by being Newt.

I'll post Yepsen in a while.
0 comments

Edwards Endorsement

The Des Moines Register today endorsed the candidacy of candidate John Edwards:

Iowa's largest newspaper endorsed North Carolina Sen. John Edwards for the Democratic presidential nomination while three other Iowa newspapers went for Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry in weekend editions

The Des Moines Register backed Edwards and called him a cut above several well-qualified candidates despite the fact that he doesn't have as much experience as other Democrats.

"John Edwards is one of those rare, naturally gifted politicians who doesn't need a long record of public service to inspire confidence in his abilities," the newspaper said in Sunday's editions.

I'll give them credit for one thing: they did not take the intellectually uncurious and lazy route, writing Edwards off as a tort lawyer with a pretty hairstyle. I'll fault them for not acknowledging that Edwards is one of the better liars to campaign in a while.

Newspaper endorsements have traditionally done very little for a candidate; they're more an exercise of the editors' using their platform to let their opinions be known. People generally do not vote based on what they see on an editorial page, much less in a weblog. This could help Edwards with undecided voters, though, because his main obstacle is his campaign's need to be taken seriously. This could help him in that regard.
0 comments

If it's Sunday…

KEY:
MTP: NBC’s Meet the Press with Tim Russert
FNS: FOX’s Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace
FTN: CBS’s Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer
TW: ABC’s This Week with former Clinton staffer George Stephanopoulos
LE: CNN’s Late Edition with Wolfgang Blitzer

]That's the KEY I use for my Sunday review and analysis of the Sunday Morning Talk Shows, for the free Rightsided Newsletter. If you are interested, please visit our web site or send a blank e-mail to rsn-subscribe [AT] tripod.com.]


Russert's show begins each week: "If it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press." The show is easily the highest rated of the five shows listed above…

This morning, his show will be devoted to an interview with candidate John Kerry. No newsmakers, just Kerry.

On FNS, host Wallace will talk to Mexican President Vicente Fox, zoom in on the President's immigration proposal, and to candidate Joey Lieberman, by all accounts a wonderful man but a lousy candidate.

Steph looks to be busy this morning on TW, with little time for anything if he wants to do his inane "The List" segment. He'll talk to Treasury Secretary John Snow, and he'll probably bring up the accusations of Snow's predecessor, former Yankees Right Fielder Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill.

Steph then talks to candidates Dean, Edwards, Kerry, and Gephardt. Steph's is the safe show for Dean, as any of the other hosts are trained interviewers and would goad him into spewing something silly.

At noon, Blitzer hosts LE. He will talk to Commerce Secretary Don Evans, but it is doubtful that he will mention abolishing the commerce department. He'll talk to Senators John Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) and Trent Lott (R-Mississippi), probably about intelligence matters. (Both sit on Senate Intelligence.)

Just as I have every Sunday since late February of 1997, I will review and analyze the shows this morning for the Rightsided Newsletter. You can subscribe for free at the web site. Also, keep an eye on this space later for additional analysis.
0 comments

The real Howard Dean

One of these days, I might decide that being a lifelong student of politics has taught me that I learned more after school than in school, and maybe I can quantify and qualify all of politics in a few succinct phrases.

Until then, and until my self-imposed 6-month-blogging-trial-period, dashes and all, expires and I have to make up my mind, there's always this, from a piece in this AM's Dallas Morning News. The story dealt with Texans who share names with Presidential candidates, including the POTUS. Here, we hear from a man who was born Howard Dean, and how he copes:

Howard Dean
Marshall

A Republican since his first vote, Mr. Dean said a "shot of fear" went through his body when he thought he might be related to the presidential candidate.

Like the Democratic hopeful and former Vermont governor, Mr. Dean, 30, has family connections in the Northeastern state.

"I've had this horror that we might possibly be related," said Mr. Dean, a truck driver.

He said his friends recently "put two and two together" about the name.

"They razz me some about it," he said. "I ham it up. It's been fun."

Because of the shared name, Mr. Dean said he has followed the candidate for some time, even before he entered presidential politics and became the Democratic front-runner.

"When he threw in his hat for the presidency, I knew this was going to be a riot," he said.

Will you vote for him?
No.

The only person interviewed who pledged to vote for their namesake was a truck driver named George W. Bush.

I'm done for the evening. Remember, tomorrow morning, the AM Talk Shows are on. If you want to know what went on, read my summary and analysis in the free Rightsided Newsletter. It will be delivered to your inbox early tomorrow afternoon (ET). To subscribe, visit the web page and submit your e-mail address, or send a blank message to RSN-Subscribe [AT] topica.com.

Check here also for even more on the Sunday shows and whatever else happens.
0 comments

The Dean Campaign Slows

For diversion, I turned for the first time to Howard Dean's Blog for America, whereon reside the unsophisticated Deaniacs. While there, I noted this post:

How come the number of Americans for Dean is increasing so slowly?

That can't be right, can it? (Can the campaign confirm that number? It's hardly budged this quarter.)

Let's go recruit more people and not lose the momentum.

Go Dean people! Go Crazy Iowa!!

Posted by 450,000 to 563,227?? at January 10, 2004 02:32 PM

Howard Dean is yesterday's news. There comes a point when the novelty wears off, and that usually happens shortly before the point of implosion.

"Move along. There's nothing to see here."
0 comments

AP: MoveOn.org is a Flying Toaster

The Associated Press today invented a bit for today about what a potent political force MoveOn.org is becoming, blah, blah. But it told us something about the founders of the amateurish outlet:

MoveOn was founded by Wes Boyd and Joan Blades, computer entrepreneurs who also created the flying toaster computer screen saver, during the Clinton impeachment debate as an online petition urging Congress to censure him and move on to other business."

I checked the biographies of Blades & Boyd on the Moveon.org web site -- best known to the world for the recent attempt to trivialize the holocaust -- and I found nothing about the flying toasters.

Between this and Deaniacs, we have the new fabric of the Democrat Party.
0 comments

Weekly Radio Address

Tax cuts. That's the glue that binds and bonds the conservative base. That's what President Bush discussed in his Weekly Radio Address, from the ranch in Texas [transcript].

In my budget for the upcoming fiscal year, I will call on Congress to make permanent all the tax relief we have delivered to the American people and our nation's small businesses. If Congress fails to act, this tax relief will disappear and millions of American families and small businesses would see tax hikes starting in 2005. For the sake of our economic expansion, and for the sake of millions of Americans who depend on small businesses for their jobs, we need Congress to act to make tax relief permanent.

Every American who pays income taxes got a tax cut: They should keep that tax cut in the future. American families saw the child credit double to $1,000 per child: They should keep that higher credit. American investors, including millions of seniors, saw taxes fall on dividend income and investment gains: They should keep that tax relief. American small businesses received new tax incentives to invest in equipment and software: They should keep those incentives. Every American family, including every farmer, rancher, and small business owner, will see the death tax disappear in 2010, then reappear in 2011. But the death tax should stay buried.

Did you catch the advocacy of trickle-down? "[F]or the sake of millions of Americans who depend on small businesses for their jobs, we need Congress to act to make tax relief permanent." If small businesses keep their tax cuts, they can afford to keep you on the job.

I like these battlelines. They are clear, distinct, and they favor Republicans. This will obviously be a major theme of the President's upcoming reelection campaign.
0 comments

Vote-Swapping in Iowa

As I've pointed out previously, candidates at each individual caucus in Iowa must receive at least 15-percent of the vote in that caucus to be recognized as receiving any. The threshold is 15%.

Here's where vote-swapping comes into play, as described in a Boston Globe piece:

With candidates required to win at least 15 percent of the voters in each precinct to survive, strategists assume a number of candidates will fall short -- freeing their caucus voters to support other campaigns.

…

Where the supporters of the low-performing candidates wind up, and whether the leading candidates have spare delegates to throw to other campaigns, depends entirely on how the numbers break in the first round of voting.

Dean voters, for instance, could be directed to shift to Senator John F. Kerry as part of a strategy to knock Richard A. Gephardt out of contention and create a more competitive race in New Hampshire.

The problem is, in my view, that this would be almost impossible for a campaign to pull off in any grand, election-tilting manner. On top of that, by all accounts, Iowa voters do not much care to be traded like heads of cattle.

What we're looking at is a system wherein supporters of under-15% candidates are effectively undecideds, making that figure higher than the polls indicate. That this will be done caucus-by-caucus makes it difficult to predict accurately based on State-wide figures.

Dean says this system is stupid. It makes things more interesting, and it evidently suits Iowans.
0 comments

Dean sees Clark as chief rival

Good morning. Too see the political world through the eyes of Howard Dean, with tangerine trees and marmalade skies, must be a wonderful thing.

According to this Associate Press jotting out of Concord, Dean sees as his chief rival the Supreme Allied Commander, General Wesley K. Clark (ret.).

"We think General Clark does have a little momentum here and I think that's understandable," Dean told reporters Friday while campaigning in New Hampshire. "He has not been for the most part in the fray of all the attacks that have gone on. But we don't find that our support, our core support, is eroding."

Dean has mentioned Clark in his pitch encouraging potential endorsers to sign on before the Iowa caucuses, according to sources who spoke to The Associated Press on a condition of anonymity. Two people who have heard Dean make his case said he expresses concern that if he loses Iowa and Clark gets second in New Hampshire, Clark could win the nomination.

It's a pretty picture for Dean. He's got it all over Clark, who is essentially just as insane as he is. They are both prone to same, bizarre, radical, off-the-cuff policy positions and mouth-running mistakes. Move the magnifying glass from Dean to Clark, we'll uncover the same spotty spots.

It's convenient to believe the going story, momentum is all, etc. Right now, we have Iowa and New Hampshire. Six weeks from today, these contests will likely be forgotten footnotes.

I think it was in Daily Kos that I read a non-sequitur piece by someone else a few months ago about how important national polling was, and it's not. Good national polling numbers for a candidate could be a fundraising tool, but not a very effective one.

"Okay, smarty pants, who do YOU think is number two in the Dem field right now?" No one. I don't think anyone is leading the Dem field right now, because no one is. The notion of an "invisible primary" was created for people who enjoy writing and reading about elections, and that's all it is. I also like writing and reading about politics, and I think the invisible primary is a fun exercise, but one cannot win the nomination with invisible delegates, a few kegs, and a busload of Deaniacs. (Unless that busload is filled with out-of-staters imported by the Dean camp to rig the caucuses.)

It does not matter who the Dem nominee will be. Barring bad news on the economic and the war fronts, President Bush should be comfortable against any of the potential nominees save candidate Edwards, and John-boy is still longshot.
0 comments

President Doing Well in New Poll

A new AP/Ipsos-Public Affairs poll tells us that 41-percent of those surveyed, 77% of whom were registered voters, say that they will definitely vote for President Bush next November, and 33% say that they will definitely vote against him. Those 33% are almost all for which a nominee Howard Dean could hope.

The Associated Press story is a strange affair, to whit:

Men, evangelicals and rural voters are supporting Bush by big margins at the start of this election year, while traditionally Democratic-leaning groups such as women have more divided loyalties, according to the poll.

"Traditionally Democratic-leaning groups such as women"? That is painting with a broad brush, as women have always had divided loyalties. (This poll shows, for women, 35% definitely for, 39% definitely against.) Traditionally Democratic-leaning groups are such as labor union members, ethnic minorities, and terminally bitter people.

Note that this was not a job approval poll, which have historically been indicative of how a President will fare in is reelection. (If a President has been over 50-percent approval at the end of a year prior to an election, he has been reelected every time save once since President Roosevelt's first term.)

Note this:

Bush is in significantly better shape with the public than either Clinton or the first President Bush were at this stage in their re-election bids and about the same as Ronald Reagan before his landslide re-election victory in 1984.

People were about evenly divided on Clinton and the elder Bush at this stage of their presidencies.

In job approval terms, the elder Bush was at 50% approval and Clinton was at 51% approval at the third year mark of their first terms. In this poll, President Bush's job approval was 56-percent.

Here's the match-up against some potential Dems:

In the AP-Ipsos poll, Bush had a 49 percent to 42 percent lead over Wesley Clark and bigger margins when matched against several other Democratic candidates. He led Howard Dean by 54-39 percent, John Kerry by 54-37 and Dick Gephardt by 56-35.

This figures are less meaningful than the definitely for/against and job approval numbers, as the individual Democrats are largely unknown and are not involved in a one-on-one campaign against the President.

This poll was of 1,000 adults, 774 of whom registered voters, was taken January 5-7 and had a margin of error of +/- 3-percent.
0 comments

Racial Epithets from Dean's Boyz

Steven Ybarra, a DNC official and supporter of Howard Dean, has referred to former U.S. Treasurer and current Senate candidate Rosario Marin as a "house Mexican for the Republicans."

This is similar to the way in which some lefty-oriented African American leaders have referred to Secretary of State Colin Powell or National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice:

Ybarra was using a variation on a derogatory slave term used to denigrate blacks perceived to be following a white agenda. Historically, slaves who labored in the house rather than in the fields were said to have received better treatment and to have been more loyal to the slave owner.

Responded Ms. Marin:

"Apparently, according to Mr. Ybarra and many of his fellow Democrats, if you are not a liberal Democrat, then you shouldn't be considered a legitimate minority. It doesn't matter that I'm an immigrant, the daughter of a janitor and a seamstress, or that I had to teach myself English because my first language was Spanish," she said in a statement.

The FOX.com story linked above contains a negative reaction from the Hispanic community, of which Ybarra is also a part, and a reminder of singer Harry Belefonte's insults directed towards Powell and Rice a few years ago -- plus some additional insults from Ybarra and more reaction from Marin.

To many liberal leaders who belong to ethnic minorities, no member of their group may thrive without a reliance upon the federal government. It's really an unfortunate and hateful legacy of decades of American liberalism.
0 comments

From Al Gore

Dean’s mailing list sent this to its Iowa subscribers:

Dear Constituent,

Democracy is a team sport. This weekend, join me as we come together in support of Governor Howard Dean, M.D., the Democrat who can beat George W. Bush in 2004.

We need to remake the Democratic Party. We need to remake America, and to take it back on behalf of the people of this country. We can beat George W. Bush, but it will take every single one of us. Join me Friday, January 9, in Des Moines, and Saturday, January 10, in Burlington, Davenport, Dubuque, and Mason City.

This nation cannot afford to have four more years of a Bush-Cheney administration. Together, we can beat George W. Bush and restore the American people to the White House.

Meet me this weekend, but pledge your support for Governor Dean today:

Sincerely,

Al Gore

I don’t know how I would respond if I were a Democrat or from Iowa; neither do I know how I would respond to Harkin’s endorsement, but Harkin also called Dean the Democrat who could beat Bush.

He’s not. He share of the vote is limited to those who hate the President, and to yellow dogs who bother voting, and that is well under fifty-percent. If the Democrats want a shot at victory this November, they must nominate a palatable and charismatic candidate and hope for bad economic and war news.

First, they need the candidate.
0 comments

TIME’S Man of the Year: Don Rumsfeld

Almost, but not quite. This was mentioned on Bowcowgill.com, but the CNN story is HERE. Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld was almost the TIME magazine Man of the Year.

Rumsfeld, in a Pentagon meeting with Time's top executives late last year, had correctly suspected he was among the candidates for the magazine's honor, and offered what one participant called some "free advice" as the meeting came to an end.

Time Managing Editor James Kelly told CNN that Rumsfeld's unsolicited suggestion to honor the troops was the "first time in my recollection that someone who was obviously a candidate has volunteered someone else."

Kelly said the troops were already in the running, but that Rumsfeld's unprompted comment helped tipped the scale. "In my mind, there were two leading candidates," Kelly recalled, "the American soldier, and the secretary of defense. He did not know that, and in my meeting with him, he volunteered" that the honor should go to the American soldier.

The Secretary’s sentiments were in the right place.
0 comments

Harkin to Endorse Dean

From Reuters, citing “political sources”:

An announcement [for Dean by Harkin] is scheduled for 3 p.m. CST at Dean's Iowa headquarters, sources said. The endorsement, coming as Dean is under heavy attack from his rivals, could put Dean over the top in his battle with Missouri Rep. Richard Gephardt.”

It could help Dean with undecided Iowans and/or voters who were not sure Dean could defeat the president. A Harkin endorsement carries the message that the respected (in Iowa Democrat circles) Senator believes Dean could win in November.

It’s not going to push him over the top if he’s not there already.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDENDUM: And from the New York Times:

"He's the Harry Truman of our generation," Senator Harkin said in an interview with The Associated Press. "Howard Dean is really the kind of plain-spoken Democrat we need."

Arianna Huffington just called him Bobby Kennedy. McGovern, Dukakis -- who is the real, the head Deaniac?
0 comments

A New Religion for Dean

With candidate Howard Dean stumbling over the basic tenets of his newly-adopted Christian religion, perhaps it is time for him to alter his position. He has done so successfully many times with many issues.

On the BrightSurf.com science news site, I may have uncovered the perfect religion for Howie: Study suggests life on Earth sprang from borax minerals.

Specifically, a borax-containing mineral known as colemanite helps convert organic molecules found in interstellar dust clouds into a sugar, known as ribose, central to the genetic material called RNA.

And Howie could site this primordial borax sludge as the prime mover behind is many puzzling policy positions.

I’m told that the Borax God loves bike trails!
0 comments

Gore ’08?

Donald Lambro writes in today’s Washington Times that Al Gore “is keeping his options open about running for president again in 2008” by sending Christmas Cards to party activists nationwide.

"This was a mass-produced Christmas card, with a picture of his family on the front, that a lot of people here [New Hampshire] received," Mr. Demers said. "I think that any people who receive these cards would conclude that he is keeping his options open in the event that George Bush wins the election."

Presidential speculations grab headlines. I’ve said that I thought Gore endorsed Howie Dean as he did, expressing the strange (for Al) ideological views which he did, because he wanted to establish himself as an elder statesman, a go-to guy, in the Democrat Party.

Bill Clinton as elder statesman is not working out. Gore thinks he will, so he latched on to the candidate he thought would be the certain, runaway winner of the nomination.

Merry Christmas, Democrats. Al will be there if you need some advice.
0 comments

Dean on Vid

Last night at about a quarter ‘til midnight, I excerpted from a New York Times story concerning Howard Dean’s savage attack on the caucus system in general and the Iowa caucuses in particular.

My good friend Jim McCaffrey this morning sent me the link to vid of the footage shown on NBC’s 6p Tom Brokaw Show last night. Check it out HERE.

You see, four years ago he lacked a presidential campaign team to give him the benefit of a muzzle.
0 comments

TNR Endorses Lieberman

The center-left political journal The New Repubic has editorially endorsed candidate Joe Lieberman for the Dem Presidential nod:

The Democratic Party is racing back to the '80s, with interest groups enforcing litmus tests on everything from partial-birth abortion to steel tariffs, and party activists dangerously out of touch with a country that feels threatened by terrorism, not Donald Rumsfeld. … A Democratic president may have to defy both America's allies and his domestic political base to aggressively fight terrorism and defend freedom. So far, at least, Dean's record on the national stage suggests he doesn't understand that."

On Lieberman, they wrote:

On domestic policy, Lieberman has his failings. His infatuation with Silicon Valley has sometimes blinded him to the necessity of tough, fair government regulation of the financial markets, especially on the expensing of stock options. But, unlike some of his fellow Senate "moderates," Lieberman's overall economic record is progressive and responsible. He voted for Clinton's 1993 budget and against both Bush tax cuts.

That Lieberman supports the federal confiscation of earned incomes is good enough for TNR.

Will this endorsement be enough to put Lieberman over the hump in New Hampshire? (Damn. I'm amusing myself again.
0 comments

Pick the Apples

A hat tip this morning to David Johnson at Blogs for Bush for this gem from 1977, when even I was a pre-teen. It is a radio address from none other than the father of modern conservatism, Ronald W. Reagan, himself pre-presidency.

On November 29 of that year, he delivered the following radio address on the matter at hand:

"Apples -" November 29, 1977

I don’t know whether an apple a day keeps the Dr away but this year the Labor Dept did it’s best to keep the apples away—from us I’ll be right back

From time to time on these broadcasts I’ve discussed the unemployment Situation and given evidence that at least some of the unemployed prefer to remain that way, it would seem they have an ally in the U S Labor Dept.

This last Oct the apple growers of New England who had seen a late Spring snowstorm knock the blossoms off the trees and a Sept rainstorm do the same to about 10% of the apples faced further trouble. The rain had delayed the harvest of the $50 mil, crop until the fruit was ripe & ready to fall but there were no workers to pick the apples.

The U.S. Labor Dept. has been making it harder & harder to bring in foreign labor insisting that the farmers hire unemployed Americans. Now that makes sense providing you can find Americans who’ll do the work. And with a 7+% unemployment rate you’d think that wouldn’t be too difficult since a fellow can earn $50 a day picking apples.

But the apples kept on ripening, the growers kept on recruiting and the apples stayed on the trees. The Labor Dept. itself staged a recruiting drive in one of N.Y. City’s areas of high unemp. Spending $10,000 in the effort. They signed up 75-15 of whom reported for work all & all of whom quit the 1st week.

Still the growers had to appear before 5 district courts in 5 states, 2 U.S. courts of appeal & the U.S. Supreme Ct. before they could get permission to hire foreign labor. They were able to prove they had engaged in an intensive recruiting drives among the unemployed in Vermont & in the Eastern cities with high unemployment—Boston, N.Y., etc.

Finally in the last minute nick of time they were permitted to import Jamaicans & Canadians. The crop was saved and the imported laborers seemed pretty happy to get the work. They averaged about $1500 apiece for the few weeks.

In view of the reluctance of Americans to take those jobs it’s interesting to see what kind of workers crossed the border & the Ocean to pick New England Apples. Some of the Jamaicans have counted on this work for a number of years. Their jobs at home have to do with the tourist trade and are therefore seasonal. They come here, pick apples in New Eng., sugarcane in the South and go home to their seasonal work.

From Canada come Nova Scotia lobstermen & clam diggers who go south after their own seasons wind up at the end of July. Some of these bring their families down on weekends and make the job a kind of expense paid vacation.

When the Labor Dept. is forced to relent and let these visitors do this work it is of course all legal. But it makes one wonder about the illegal alien fuss. Are great numbers of our unemployed really victims of the illegal alien invasion or are those illegal tourists actually doing work our own people won't do?

One thing is certain in this hungry world; no regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in the fields for lack of harvesters.

This is RR. Thanks for listening.

When something in government was broken, when some law needed to be changed, Reagan sought to change or fix it.

No regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in the fields for lack of harvesters. No item should be left on the conveyer belt because there's no one to assemble it. But there are people to harvest the crops and assemble the items, and they'll do it regardless. Why continue wasting money enforcing a law which does not work and harms our economy?

But Mr. Reagan was talking about legal immigration, not illegal? So is President Bush.
0 comments

Howard Dean Attacks Iowa Caucuses

From the New York Times:

Videotapes of the [Canadian television] show were broadcast on the NBC Nightly News on Thursday, less than two weeks before the Jan. 19 caucuses, the first contest of the Democratic nominating race. The tapes show Dr. Dean arguing that the lengthy caucus process in which neighbors gather to debate their preferences is inconvenient for ordinary people.

"Say I'm a guy who's got to work for a living, and I've got kids," he said on the show on Jan. 15, 2000. "On a Saturday, is it easy for me to go cast a ballot and spend 15 minutes doing it, or do I have to sit in a caucus for eight hours?"

A moment later, he added, "I can't stand there and listen to everyone else's opinion for eight hours about how to fix the world."

Also of note, the tapes show Dean saying of the thinking that President Bush's Presidency would be a one term affair: "That is going to be a mistake."

The show was taped in December of 2000, and Dr. Dean had Presidential aspirations, having a year earlier announced that he would not see his party's 2000 nomination.

I refer you to this post regarding Dean's impending implosion.
0 comments

Dean's Found Religion

From the Associated Press, we have word that candidate Howard Dean is blaming religion for his signing of the Vermont Civil Unions bill, to wit:

"The hallmark of Christianity is to reach out to people who have been left behind," Dean told reporters Tuesday night. "So there was a religious aspect to my support of civil unions."

The hallmark of Christianity is the belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God sent to redeem humanity of its innate sinfulness, but Christ taught that least would be exalted the highest.

I don't know what that has to do with Civil Unions.

He gave a better explanation when he signed the thing in April of 2000:

"I choose to sign this bill because I fundamentally believe in the long run it's the right thing for the state of Vermont and the United States of America," he said that April afternoon. "I believe this bill enriches all of us, as we look with new eyes at a group of people who have been outcasts for many, many generations."

Whether you agree or disagree with his beliefs concerning the bill, that explanation is a lot better than invoking Christ.

Of course, maybe he took this support for Civil Unions from the Sermon on the Bike Path from the New Testament Book of Job. These things exist in Howard Dean's universe.
0 comments

Bush to Send Man to Mars

From the Associated Press:

President Bush will announce plans next week to send Americans to Mars and back to the moon and to establish a long-term human presence on the moon, senior administration officials said Thursday night.

Okay, the Mars objective is said to be for the next decade, but he will talk about expanding the space program, a resumption of lunar flights, a permanent presence.

This is good stuff, and it will give his Presidency a romantic edge, and I do not mean impractical. Windswept hair, the new frontier.

The Dems will whine about spending the money at home on social programs, wherein the money will disappear never to be seen again. There's no vision in that.

Maybe we'll discover whether candidate Dennis Kucinich really is Marvin the Martian. (Erich, over at Confessions of a Political Junkie, has called him that. It fits.)
0 comments

My Gripe with the President

Some conservatives were apoplectic regarding the President's immigration initiative. I can understand that, as any type of immigration can be touchy to some people. But now permit me my gripe with my President.

From Bloomberg.com:

President George W. Bush will seek a 48 percent boost in education funds in the next fiscal year, compared with four years earlier, as he campaigns for re-election against Democrats who say he broke his promise to improve U.S. schools.

The budget Bush sends Congress next month for fiscal 2005 will include $36.7 billion in total kindergarten-12th grade funding, compared with $24.8 billion spent in Bush's first year in office, an administration official said.

I'll save most of my noise for when or if this is actually proposed, but the thought of letting that doddering Bumblesaur we call the Department of Education further gorge itself on taxpayer's earned incomes is disheartening. It is wrong.

Do you remember 1980, when Ronald Reagan referred to the Education Department as "President Carter's new bureaucratic boondoggle"? It applies doubly today.

He took one Democrat issue, and we have this prescription drugs entitlement. He's taking another Democrat issue…

The more the federal government becomes involved with funding and supervising education, the more power and influence that educators' lobby garners. And our education system deteriorates further, so they throw more money at it.

This will not change my vote. I think I'll write him a letter. Better yet, I'll go on the Internet and complain. It's a free 'Net, and I love it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A friend of mine asked me if I would support this immigration initiative if it had been proposed by Clinton. The question is invalid. Clinton did not have the balls to propose something like this. And if he had, his version would have included fast track to citizenship, blanket amnesty, and single-payer health care.

WHAT IF... WHAT IF... WHAT IF... Since it's a bizarre hypothetical, I'll humor the notion. Let's say Clinton proposed what President Bush just proposed. Would I support it? Probably not; it wouldn't work for me politically. But neither would I go into overdrive in opposition.

I'm more concerned with abolishing the Department of Education.
0 comments

Howard Dean's Impending Implosion

It's happening.

I've been saying it since his campaign began to show a pulse: Howie Dean is a living pending implosion. The mass media picked up on this notion a few weeks ago then discarded it: it wasn't going to happen.

It's happened. The conglomeration of the aspects of Dean being Dean is beginning to slap him, and we have to see just how much damage will be done.

Here's this from an Associated Press (Ron Fournier) piece contained in the WashPost today:

Aides say the former Vermont governor will weather the storm by ducking out of it; he'll refuse to respond to each criticism while cautiously sticking to his antiestablishment, anti-Bush script.

"It's not so much the attacks that are hurting us. None of this is sticking," argued Dean campaign manager Joe Trippi. "But they are hurting us because we're not getting our message out - standing up to President Bush and health care - because it's hard to do that when you're constantly answering charges."

The strategy is to have Dean's staff and supporters defend the former governor while Dean dodges the political media and remains in the safe embrace of friendly audiences. But now that the campaign has silenced its most potent asset, there is a risk that criticism will carry more weight when not answered directly by Dean.

If you've seen the old Jack Nicholson flick The Shining, you'll get this paraphrase: "Howie's not here, Mrs. Torrence."

He's not. Here's Howie from a Q&A with MSNBC's Felix Schein on December 22:

Q: Do you think you can get away with not responding to the attacks [from the other Dem candidates]?

A: No. You cannot get away without responding. You have to respond. The question is how you respond. Do you respond in kind or do you just point out that they are wrong and move on to the next thing.

Howard Dean is losing it. He has been put in a box.

The rage now, amongst a press which is incapable of looking at more than one or two candidates at a time and always needs a frontunner, is Wes Clark Clark has Dean-like problems with gaffes and misstatements, so he will go next.

Maybe they ought to recognize the reality of this election and bring back Fritz Mondale.

0 comments

Hillary's South Florida Fundraiser

According to the Lakeland Ledger, Senator Hillary Clinton is scheduled to raise Democrat funds in Broward and Miami-Dade counties, Florida, in February.

"She's going to do a whirlwind tour down here," said Miami-Dade chairman Ray Zeller, who said the gala and a reception would raise about $100,000 for the party.

Broward chairman Mitch Ceasar said the party's event at the Wyndom Hotel at Bonaventure will create excitement heading into the election year.

"She will not only raise us money but create a lot of momentum for our base," Ceasar said. "There are few Democrats who can excite us like Hillary Clinton."

While there, she is scheduled to tell a Cuban-American audience that she knows pre-Castro Cuban statesman Francisco Arango y Parreno as the man behind the counter in a Manhattan Quik-Stop Mart.
0 comments

Howard Dean as Bobby Kennedy

Or so says dizbot Arianna "Remember Me" Huffington in her Wednesday scribble, lifted from a web site about which we needn't care. Here's the quote:

Dean is electable precisely because he's making a decisive break with the spinelessness and pussyfooting that have become the hallmark of the Democratic Party.

So, please, no more hand-wringing about Dean being "another Dukakis". And no more weepy flashbacks about having had your heart broken by George McGovern, whose 1972 annihilation haunts the 2004 Democratic primaries like a political Jacob Marley, shaking his chains and warning about the Ghost of Landslides Past.

There is a historical parallel to Dean's candidacy. But it's not McGovern in 1972, as the DLC-paranoiacs would like us to believe -- it's Bobby Kennedy in 1968.
Like Kennedy, Dean's campaign was initially fueled by his anti-war outrage. Like Kennedy, Dean has found himself fighting not just to represent the Democratic Party but to remake it. Like Kennedy, Dean is offering an alternative moral vision for America, not just an alternative political platform.

Where are the "Democratic honchoes" she derides in her opening paragraph of raising questions about Dean's electability? The older ones should be front-and-center, telling her: "I knew Bobby Kennedy. I worked for Bobby Kennedy's '68 campaign, and dizzbot, Howard Dean is no Bobby Kennedy." Or is reworking that Lloyd Bensten line from '88 too tired?

True story. I talked to some southern Democrat ops in '01 who insisted that John Edwards was the next Bobby Kennedy. The line made it to mainstream press, and it was repeated to Ted Kennedy. The drunken one, according to a contemporary report, replied that Edwards reminded him more of his brother John.

Look, these people need something about which to be excited. If Howard Dean as Bobby Kennedy does it for them, who are we to rain on their parade? Reality will take care of that matter just fine.
0 comments

New Edwards Commercials

Candidate John Edwards began running two new 30-second commercials.

The first is viewable by clicking HERE. It depicts Edwards standing in front of a shed which he tells us was his boyhood home. His parents worked heard, salt-of-the-Earth, never forget your roots, etc.

The second -- HERE -- is a split screen. Edwards talks about how there's two this, two that, two the others, two America's, and Edwards is going to fight for the common citizen and make it work.

Maybe it might work in Iowa, but I can't see it doing anything with the wild-eyed and unwashed Deaniacs. He's not going to start a two-week revolution in this manner.

But we have THIS from the Des Moines Register:

Edwards, who has run behind Dean, U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sen. John Kerry in the race for Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucuses, claimed he would "shock the world" on Jan. 19. But he declined later to say what he meant by that, or to disclose where he thought he needed to finish in Iowa's tally to keep his campaign afloat.

The candidate opposes the President's "No Child Left Behind" education policy, but with his youthful appearance and apparent standing with voters, he just may turn out to be the child left behind in Iowa.
0 comments

Gary Hart: The Comeback

As a conservative Republican minder of elections, I cannot help but feeling a touch of nostalgias during this season for 1984. Some of it has been coming back in miniature, what with Fritz Mondale's embarrassing defeat to Norm Coleman in 2002.

Now, former Senator Gary Hart (D-Colorado), according to the Associated Press, is considering a run for Senator Ben Nighthorse-Campbell's seat:

"It's serious enough that he's pondering the 'how to' aspect of the campaign," one Democratic official said. "He thinks if he got in this race he would win, but he's got a lot of other factors that weigh into this and this is obviously a big jump."

(The requisite hat tip goes to Taegan Goddard,)

The Democrats seem to have trouble finding anything new and interesting.

0 comments

Immigration and Mexico

First, I like the President's plan. It would exploit foreign workers in menial jobs that Americans are unwilling to take at market wages, increase documentation of these foreign workers, and add to and benefit the American economy. It would alter outdated and ineffective immigration law.

The arguments against "jobs American's won't do" do not claim that Americans will do any job at the market wage and in market conditions. They require additional and otherwise unnecessary costs to business, as I discuss briefly here in response to a Mark Krikorian commentary in NRO.

Let's try an exercise. Picture an illegal alien crossing the Rio Grande from Mexico in the dark. We'll called him Juan Gonzalez. Now, we all know that Senior Gonzalez is here illegally to benefit from the American welfare state. And Juan knows that hospitals are required to give him free emergency care. Plus, there are Walmarts in the United States where he can purchase luxurious baubles with money he's made in the traffic of cocaine.

We're Americans and we should be for America.

The President has proposed amending the immigration law, which is not working as it stands now, in order to allow some primarily Mexican immigrants to work in jobs that Americans will not take as is. The exercise we tried above does not apply, but the problem lies in that we might think it does.

What is your image of an illegal alien? What would your image of him be if he were working long hours picking lemons, paying taxes, and putting food on his table? And what if the immigrant were not Mexican. What if he were French? Bad example. Seriously, though, does the country of origin play a role for the opposition?

The President's proposal is neither a free ride nor a get-rich-quick scheme. And if the argument is that we should concentrate on solving our problems here in America, that seems to be what the President is doing.

It's worth a shot. Let us see what Congress does with it.

The question is, who is going to play along? If a business owner is willing to break the current law, why would he obey the modified one? If he can hire undocumented workers for below minimum wage, why would he pay to have them documented then pay them a higher wage? One cannot legislate scruples.

Perhaps this is naught but more "boob bait for bubbas," to paraphrase the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-New York), for Election Year 2004. The "politics" (sing., concept) is there.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ADDENDUM: Poliblogger has some early morning insight on the matter. He does point out that one of the arguments against the policy is that it rewards people who break the law. Think. By proposing the new law, the President is maintaining that the current law does not work. The law being broken, for which the rewards will supposedly be given, should not be the law today. We are changing the law and requiring these prospective guest workers to go through a legal process. We are thus rewarding adherence to the law.
0 comments

Daschle wants to label meat

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) has a cure for Mad Cow disease:

"Put this country of origin labeling on our meat," he said. "Allow consumers the opportunity to know from where their products are coming."

If you're curious, the link is to a nice V.O.A. story.

Such a bill has already passed the House. It's HR 3083, if you want to go to Thomas and look it up.

A Bill to amend the country of origin labeling requirements of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to specify the model upon which the certification program for producers shall be based, to facilitate verification of compliance with the requirements, to impose a schedule of penalties for violation of the requirements, and for other purposes.

It was introduced in the House by Representative Colin Peterson (D-Minnesota), whose life ACU rating was 44 out of 100.
0 comments

Flogging by the Church Police in Saudi Arabia

This one is from MEMRI:

"It must be known that we protect the confidentiality of the families. If any youth is flogged in a public place, we do not reveal his last name, so as not to harm the family's reputation and to preserve its honor… Under no conditions will we flog before the guilt of the accused is proven. The Authority operates not according to suspicions, but according to facts."

I call it compassion.

The piece contains a bit about the history of flogging, arguments for and against flogging, academic opinions of flogging, and the various flogging committees in Saudi Arabia.

Back in the 1980s, I tried to explain to my undergrad Constitutional law professor the efficacy of public flogging, but he wasn't buying. It was mostly tongue-in-cheek on my part, as my man, Justice William H. Rhenqist, was in the process of his hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I'd hear the tirades about conservatives and the police state, and I played along for effect.

On the other hand, Dr. Abd Al-Ilah bin Sa'd bin Sa'id of King Saud University said that "in most cases, flogging is an effective punishment because it causes the offender pain and humiliation. Yet there are some cases in which flogging is not effective. However, it is always young men who are flogged; what about the women, if it is proven that they are the cause of the harassment? Should these girls be punished by flogging?"

He asks an interesting question for 17th century societies.
0 comments

Against the President's Immigration Plan

Mark Krikorian writes aGuest Comment in NRO against the President's program to convert criminal aliens into legal participants in the U.S. economy, his main gripe being with the notion that there are some jobs which U.S. workers will not do.

His premise, in his simplest terms, is thus:

If the supply of foreign workers were to dry up (say, through actually enforcing the immigration law, for starters), employers would respond to this new, tighter, labor market in two ways. One, they would offer higher wages, increased benefits, and improved working conditions, so as to recruit and retain people from the remaining pool of workers. At the same time, the same employers would look for ways to eliminate some of the jobs they now are having trouble filling. The result would be a new equilibrium, with blue-collar workers making somewhat better money, but each one of those workers being more productive.

He goes to some lengths to back up his assertions.

I can argue with his premise. Why should our government force businesses to adapt in these ways? I can argue that an artificial means will necessarily create a situation with better paid workers who are more productive. Greater productivity with a stable demand means fewer workers are needed, as is being borne out by our current economic situation in the United States. A company paying additional costs for its labor means that the consumers pay higher prices for the goods produced.

If no American perform a task at the market wage, our economy requires someone who will. And these workers should not be here illegally.

If there are no jobs which an American will not do at the market wage, then the President's plan will do nothing.
0 comments

Dean’s New Tax Plan

Adapt, improvise, overcome. That is what our soldiers are taught, and though he was skiing rather than serving, it is what candidate Howard Dean is attempting to do. He’s got the first two parts down, and considering the folks he has to overcome, he’s had no problem with that either.

In debates on Sunday and Tuesday, Dean’s rivals hammered him about his desire to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the middle class. Dean wants to repeal the entire thing, arguing that they actually raise taxes on the middle class because they also cut government services, etc. The argument is implausible, but so often is Howard Dean. (A cut in a government service cannot be a tax increase.)

Now, from the Associated Press, comes word that Dean wants to raise middle taxes only to cut them again.

Gina Glantz, a Dean advisor, told the AP: “He's [Dean] going to have a strategy to balance the budget and provide tax fairness of the middle class.” No one is saying what this might be, however:

Dean declined to comment on his plans. Campaign spokesman Doug Thornell said the plan is still being developed and the campaign would not provide details, including when the plan will be made public.

"Clearly it makes some sense to wait for the president's budget," Glantz said. The president is scheduled to send his fiscal 2005 budget to Congress on Feb. 2, after voters in Iowa and New Hampshire choose a Democratic candidate.

According to a Boston Globe piece on Dean’s hypothetical tax cuts:

A top Dean official said yesterday that the campaign has made a "strategic" decision for Dean to refrain during the primaries from revealing details of a proposal to trim middle-class taxes, preferring to announce it during the general election.

Confident that they have the nomination locked up, which is beginning to look like a self-fulfilling prophecy, Dean’s people decided to sit on the plan until the General Election. Or, more likely, the plan does not exist and they are trying to cover. Dean campaign spokesman Doug Thornell told the AP that the plan was still being developed. So the campaign cannot keep the story straight: does he have a plan yet or doesn’t he?

Dean Baker, a member of Dean's team of economic advisers, criticized Dean to the Globe: “In setting up a clear opposition to Bush, the easiest thing to say is, `I'm repealing the tax cut.' But I think it wasn't thought out carefully, not just for the politics, but for the policy. That wasn't what you wanted to do." Again, that was one of Dean’s own advisors.

The Boston Globe puts the reason for Dean’s pseudo-conversion nicely:

Some advisers worried that stance [Dean’s position on the Bush tax cuts] could be politically fatal in the general election if Dean is the Democratic nominee.”

The Dems would do well to cut that entire ship of fools adrift.
0 comments

Dem Superdelegate Supports the President

From this Associated Press story about Howard Dean's lead amongst superdelegates to the Democrat Convention, we learn that "[o]ne superdelegate, conservative Democratic Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia, has endorsed Bush."

A superdelegate is a party leader or elected official whose vote at the convention is not determined by the results of the State primary. Of course, Senator Zell Miller (D-Georgia) is such a delegate from the State of Georgia.

The AP identifies no other superdelegate, so it is possible that Miller was not one of those asked. His support of President Bush is well know at this point.

By creating their aura of inevitability around candidate Dean, the political press is working hard to get their chosen nominee.
0 comments

Polling Data DOWN on Kerry

Hoping for a nice finish in Iowa to help him firm support in next-door New Hampshire, candidate John Kerry appears to be a miserable failure at rising from the ashes. With a hat tip to Andrew Sullivan, we have the results of a three-day New Hampshire tracking poll conducted by the American Research Group.

From January 2-4, it shows Kerry leading Wes Clark, 14%-12%. From January 3-5, the two are knotted at 14%. Emerging from January 4-6, Clark has a 16%-13% lead. (Both trail Howard Dean, declining with 39-37-36.

From this data, Sullivan sees Clark "quite obviously emerging as the un-Dean."

No. It shows Dean trending over Kerry, but there is no surprise there, and without probably a second place finish in Iowa, Kerry will finally feel the fork he's been dodging since before he turned down matching funds. Kerry will be fortunate to finish third in Iowa.

This does not make Wes Clark the Anti-Dean. The same tracking polls show Undecided leading the race for the status of Anti-Dean, 1716-17.

For the slightly broader trend, let's go back to the same poll's results, December 26-28. Undecideds then were 18%, so we've not seen a rush to make up their minds. It's a dull, unqualified field. Clark, on the other hand, was at 12% (he's now tracking at 16%). Kerry, at that time, was at 19%, and he's now at 13%.

Kerry's falling off a cliff.

While Wesley Clark's 16% and John Kerry's 13% in the ballot preference are within the margin of error giving them a tie for second place, Clark was in front of Kerry by 4 percentage points on Sunday and by 6 percentage points on Monday.

Kerry has found the cliff and he is falling. "There's nothing else to see here. Move along."
0 comments

Lest we forget…

…It's Wictory Wednesday

The more we get to know the Democrat candidates, the more apparent it becomes that the solution is simple: help to reelect President George W. Bush. Click RIGHT HERE to be directed to the page where you can become a Bush Team Leader, an official part of the campaign. You can also join by donating at the campaign's SECURE SERVER. You can make a habit of visiting Political Annotation on Wednesday and sending the President a few dollars every week.

And here is the official Blogroll of the Willing, those who've taken the time and space to spread this important word:


0 comments

Immigration: the Illegal become Legal

President Bush is set to unveil a new immigration policy this afternoon -- AP -- which will match illegal immigrants with jobs Americans do not want. It will grant them three-year legal status which can be renewed. They'll be documented and will pay taxes.

It is to be a broad set of principals rather than specific points of policy, and do we smell politics? Naturally.

"The Latino community knows the difference between political posturing and a real policy debate," said Cecilia Munoz, vice president for policy at the National Council of La Raza.

She said the initiative was crafted by Bush's political strategist, Karl Rove, and that the immigration-policy community was excluded from the deliberations.

"We know of no one in the immigration-policy community, business groups or Latino groups who has been consulted," she said.

What happens when the White House consults energy groups about energy policy?

If illegal workers are a problem, it should be dealt with. Rounding them up and sending them back, as a policy, has not worked. If it did, we would not have a problem. Putting them to work for our economy, rather than someone else's, is a better solution.

This from a Boston Globe:

The White House program, which borrows from bills proposed by Republican senators John McCain of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas, would be open to undocumented workers currently in the United States, as well as citizens of other nations who choose to come here. Participants would enjoy the same basic rights as American workers: They must be paid no less than the minimum wage, and their employers would have to provide the same health and safety precautions they do for citizens.

Administration officials say the program does not amount to amnesty for illegal immigrants because there is no link between participation and a permanent resident green card, which allows holders to become citizens after five years.

Still, guest worker participants could apply for a green card, but the wait, administration officials said, would probably be longer than the program's three-year period.

Undocumented workers in the United States will be required to pay a so-far undetermined registration fee; applicants in other countries will not have to pay. Guest workers would pay federal taxes, administration officials said. Some of that money would be returned to them once they go back to their home countries.

This is not a fast-track to citizenship; rather, it's a means to document and exploit the workers who would be here anyway.

I've heard no estimation of how large a segment of illegal workers can be expected to participate in this program. Let's see how this plays.

This will also test a personal theory: Anything that ticks Pat Buchanan off is ultimately good for conservatives in the Republican Party.
0 comments

Another Opinion

Good morning. Radio talker Mark Davis, a Texan out of Fort Worth (WBAP/820), "whose soul is not a clod/ Hath visions and would speak if he had loved/ and been well-nurtured in his mother's tongue."

The quote is Keats writing about the human propensity towards poetry, but Davis has his say in today's Fort Worth Star-Telegram. I have a soft spot for Mr. Davis, whose weekend syndicated gig was carried by my local talkshop. It's a thought.

He talks of candidate Howard Dean stating that he will not impose because of "some horrible gaffe or misstatement.

I would suggest that we rein in that expectation. If it hasn't happened already, I don't know if it ever will.

Granted, the Deaniacs, those starry-eyed denizens of democracy's Kiddie Section, have a psychological need to believe in someone. They bought into Dean to fill this psychological need, and to take him away would be to crush their political spirit. Dean's right: most of them won't vote when he's finished.

Davis lists many of Dean's recent "gaffes and misstatements and suggests:

He has drawn to within five points in a head-to-head poll against President Bush.

Last week's 51-46 result was just one poll, and it is considerably narrower than other recent results suggesting a Republican landslide were Dean to face Bush in November.

Don't know where he found those poll results, but I'll suggest that they are implausible.

This election will turn on President Bush, with those who hate the President comprising virtually all of Howard Dean's vote. This suggests a possible ten-point victory for the President, but we're probably looking at something in the mid-to-high single digits.

Then Davis makes a curious assertion:

Meanwhile, the Democratic power structure would prefer a less erratic candidate. It is no secret that Bill and Hillary Clinton seek to boost the fortunes of Wesley Clark.

Enough people have said that the two Clinton's seek to boost the fortunes of Wes Clark, but there is no evidence of this. It's purely dimwitted speculation based on implausible conspiracy theories.

But if some Dems would "prefer a less erratic candidate," Clark is not their man, and surely they see this. Like Dean, Clark's stated opinions have been all over the political map, and he hears voices. These voices tell him things, like that the White House wants him to make it look like Saddam Hussein instigated September 11 and that the President has drawn out plans to invade most of the countries of the Middle East.

Opines Davis:

In Iowa next week, if Democratic voters seek a more stable and viable standard-bearer, they will opt for Richard Gephardt. In New Hampshire, Clark will begin his run in earnest, providing another alternative. This is already a three-man race, barring some shock by month's end.

It's a three-man race where? In Iowa, it could be Dean vrs. Gephardt for first and second, and Kerry and Edwards for third and fourth. New Hampshire looks like Dean vrs. Kerry. Where does Clark fit into all this? Is there a specific State he will win?

On Feb. 3, Dean will face a certain stumble in South Carolina, where he is too Northern and secular to win. But he could do quite well in other states that day -- Arizona, Delaware and Oklahoma.

Too "northern and secular" for South Carolina is certainly to secular for your neighbor, Mark, in Oklahoma. Plus Dean has promised to lose his secular image, quoting the New Testament Book of Job. (He put the tale of the long-sufferer in with the covenant of Jesus Christ. Hallelujah, Deacon Dean!) But Davis sees Dean in if he's not stopped on February 3rd.

I have a different take. "Can Dean be stopped?" Will Dean be stopped? Yes. And it does not matter if it is by another Democrat in the trivial pursuit of that party's nomination.
0 comments

Hillary Clinton Knew Gandhi!

Yes, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-New York) today claimed that she knew former Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi, the man who taught that non-violent opposition/passive resistance was the most noble way to promote change.

"He [Gandhi] ran a gas station down in St. Louis," Hillary quipped.

It is possible that she was referring to an immigrant gas station owner who vaguely resembled the Indian leader, and who she and her chums used to taunt and belittle.

After being approached by The Associated Press to clarify the remarks, Clinton suggested in a statement late Monday that she never meant to fuel the stereotype - often used as a comedic punch line - that certain ethnic groups run America's gas stations.

I ask the usual suspects to join me in calling for this bigot's immediate resignation from the United States Senate.

Or doesn't it work that way?
0 comments

Dem Debate this Afternoon

I did not see it. I had planned to listen to it on NPR, as it was to interrupt the music to which I usually listen while working in the afternoon, but business took me elsewhere. I found this report from the AP which suggests that the candidates piled on both Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt, the presumed frontrunners.

On FNC's Special Report with Brit Hume, there was some talk amongst the panelists that John Kerry could slip in front of either Gephardt or Dean into 2nd place in Iowa, but Rollcall's Mort Kondracke mentioned an Edwards surge. This struck me as a way to minimize the talk of a Kerry surge.

"Kerry probably won't be satisfied with a third-place finish. He wants a second or first, and in order to do that you have to drag down the one or both of the front-runners," said Democratic strategist Jeff Link, who is not affiliated with any campaign.

The attack-Gephardt-too strategy has the added benefit of forcing Dean to share the spotlight a bit.

Kerry advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the front-runner stands to benefit from all of the attention heaped upon him when he is the sole target of attacks. The criticism tends to underscore his front-runner status, they said, reminding voters that he has the whiff of victory.

0 comments

Texas Redistricting

The Hammer's plan stands. Texas State Democrat legislators fled to Oklahoma (Texas House) and New Mexico (Texas) but finally caved when one surrendered to the inevitable.

At the point, the Dems took it to court. Today, a three judge panel decided today that the Texas plan did not violate the Voting Rights Act: "We know it is rough and tumble politics, and we are ever mindful that the judiciary must call the fouls without participating in the game."

The outgoing map gave the Democrats a 17-15 advantage in the Texas delegation to the U.S. House while the Texas GOP forecasts that the new plan could give them a 23-9 advantage in the next delegation, including last weeks party-switch by Ralph Hall. Marty Frost, one of the more notorious Dems in Texas, sees his 24th district blasted to bits. He's not long for his current day job.

This is a victory for the man called The Hammer, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), the chief architect of the victorious plan.

We're looking at a GOP gain of seven seats in the House, in order to form a more perfect majority

State GOP Chairwoman Tina Benkiser said the opinion "reaffirmed the will of the Texas Legislature."

"In 2004, the people of Texas will finally have a congressional delegation that reflects their votes and their views," Benkiser said.

0 comments

The DC Primary

With all this talk of the upcoming Iowa Causes and the New Hampshire Primary, the political world seems to be ignoring the nation's first primary: The DC primary, to take place one week from today. After all that effort to move the primary up in order to showcase the fact that the city has no voting representative in Congress, there is nothing.

There is nothing for good reason. It is a nonbinding primary, meaningless, so the DNC does not recognize it. (They'll select their delegates at the usual February 14 caucuses.) Most of the Democrat candidates have taken their names out of the field, citing Party rules which say that no votes can be taken before Iowa and New Hampshire.

1. Howard Dean.
2. Dennis Kucinich
3. Carol Mosley-Braun
4. Al Sharpton

Those four, the craziest of the Dem field save Lyndon LaRouche, will be on the ballot. No one else. Dean is said to be favored, but as an analyst, I have to consider this primary make-or-break for the Sharpton candidacy. He essentially has to win this thing if he is to have any hopes of moving on to win the Democrat nomination.

I've succeeded in amusing myself, no small feat.
0 comments

As Charlie Cook Sees Iowa

In today's Off to the Races column, Charlie Cook wonders "whether these Dean 'newbies' in Iowa will show up on that cold Monday night and know what to do once they are there." That's one of the hazards when the bulk of a candidate's support consists of the unwashed clueless, as is the case with Howard Dean and his enthusiastic-but-addled Deaniacs. This is also a diversion from the "common wisdom" that a large turnout would benefit Gephardt.

If the newcomers don't show, then expect Gephardt or Kerry to do much better, as they are the favorites of the party regulars.

But isn't Kerry's candidacy dead at this point?

Is John Kerry's candidacy really dead, with any movement that we see being what Wall Street calls a "dead cat bounce" (that even a dead cat thrown off a building will bounce at least once, appearing to be alive)? Or is he actually the Lazarus of this field? Insiders say that, organizationally speaking, Kerry's Iowa campaign is in excellent shape,
and that he will be able to get his vote out. The only question is how many Democrats will there be who are going to get out and vote for him.

I do see something happening in Kerry, but that is my fifth sense speaking, and it is not deafening.

And there is the 15% question factoring itself into the matter:

If Kerry is not surging, the question then is in how many individual caucuses will he fall short of the requisite 15 percent level to remain "viable?" In each caucus, if a candidate does not receive 15 percent of the vote of those attending that caucus, that candidate's caucus is declared "not viable" and dissolved, with the supporters of that candidate forced to "re-align" to a new candidate, join an uncommitted
group or leave."

Remember, we have Gephardt and Dean figuring to take over 60-percent of the caucus vote between them, which would leave room for a maximum of two other candidates. One would think they would be Kerry and Edwards, but a fourth place finish in a contest sans Wes Clark and Joe Lieberman is essentially meaningless for Kerry. For Edwards, again, it would put him in double digits, something he's been lacking almost everywhere else.

The issue of Kerry and Edward's ability to garner 15 percent is very important for Gephardt, because he was most often listed as the second choice for most Kerry and Edwards supporters. At the same time, Kucinich backers are more likely to go with Dean. But if Kerry and Edwards get enough support to remain viable in most caucuses, then their backers will not be forced to support another candidate or leave. If all of this is rather confusing, then you have it right -- it's not a very tidy process."

It's a quagmire, but we wouldn't have it any other way.

0 comments

Iowa: the Race for No. 3

In debate analysis Sunday, I reiterated:

The real battle here is between Dean and Gephardt for win and place, and Gephardt needs the win. The other battle is between Kerry and Edwards for 3rd. Kerry needs it going into Iowa, and it would help break Edwards out of the poor standing illuminated by the polls.

In today's Washington Post, Adam Nagourney writes about this:

But this maneuvering also underlines the vagaries of the caucuses in Iowa, where one does not need to get the most votes to win, and where sometimes a win is not a win, and a loss is not a loss.

Mr. Edwards, of North Carolina, is looking to sneak onto the field with a surprise showing behind Mr. Gephardt and Dr. Dean.

No matter how well Mr. Edwards did on Sunday night, polls continue showing him toward the back of the pack. And, more significantly, he does not have the kind of get-out-the-vote organization that is critical to winning the caucuses here, particularly compared to Dr. Dean, Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Kerry.

A third-place finish in Iowa, and there is that chance, will establish Edwards as one of the pack going into New Hampshire. For Kerry, it would give him a boost going into New Hampshire, where a strong second-place finish would catapult his candidacy from dead but dreaming status to potential Anti-Dean-iosity.

It's the race within the race. Who is to be the Anti-Dean?

One state Democratic official who has not endorsed a candidate described Mr. Edwards's performance at the debate as "great," but added: "I find it hard to believe that at this late stage of the game that Edwards could actually pull it out at No. 2. But he doesn't need it. Three would be a huge win."

This is the other scenario which frightens me.
0 comments

A.M. Endorsement

Good morning. Former Senator Bill Bradley (D-New Jersey) endorsed candidate Howard Dean at an 8 am (ET) press conference this morning. Why so early? It could have been an 8a press conference so no one would see it, saving them both the pathos of the curious. It could also have bee so early in order to allow Dean to best build on the incredible momentum stirred by the Bradley endorsement. Right?

On a side note, I've heard that Senator Harkin will endorse Dean in Iowa (see yesterday's post). As I said yesterday, this might lend to Dean the guise of being able to defeat the President in November. To Iowa Dems, a Harkin endorsement could be seen as a vote of confidence for Dean's electability, thus giving Dean credence amongst voters with that concern.

The more popular Iowa Senator, Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, has long since endorsed President George W. Bush. This might also serve in Dean's favor, as Iowa Democrats who like Senator Grassley and President Bush might persuade themselves to vote for Dean as the most eminently beatable candidate in November.
0 comments

Simon Wiesenthal Center

[LINK]

“Politics and preparing for a presidential election is one thing, but comparing the Bush Administration’s fight against Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein with the policies of Adolf Hitler is shameful, beyond the pale and has no place in the legitimate discourse of American politics,” said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the Center’s founder and dean. “Adolf Hitler was responsible for the greatest crime in the history of mankind – the Holocaust. To compare Hitler to an American President is not only ludicrous, but defames the Holocaust,” he added.

“This ad is not about Democrats or Republicans – it is about lies and a distortion of history,” he said. “Move On.org has a responsibility to publicly repudiate such lies as do all political leaders,” he concluded.

The MoveOn.org ads were the work of people who do not recognize the significance of the evil of the holocaust. To them, Hilter, the Third Reich, and SIX-MILLION JEWS SYSTEMATICALLY SLAUGHTERED is fodder for political snowballs because they just don't get it. Nothing is sacred to them.

It seems they have exposed themselves, and one would have to think that their credibility as an opposition group has been shattered. We know that they are political neophytes who might be prone to such vileness with childish motives, but they had to have hired professionals to produce those ads.

I call on them to disband, for what that is worth. They foul political discourse with their presence.
0 comments

Harkin to Endorse

It looks like Tom Harkin will endorse a candidate for the Democrat nominee. (Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack says he is remaining mum on the matter of his druthers.)

In 2000, Harkin backed Al Gore, but he won the primary as heir to Clinton.

This time around, his endorsement could mean something, especially to Howard Dean. Iowa Democrats who might be reluctant to vote for Dean because they fear he cannot defeat the President in November might be willing to back Howie if Harkin does. A Harkin endorsement could seem to Iowans like a Democrat sign from on high that Dean could defeat Bush.

Will Harkin back a Senator who will serve next year: Kerry or Lieberman? Selecting one would risk alienating the other.

John Edwards has a lot to gain, because a Harkin endorsement would give his Iowa campaign a legitimacy I don't now see. He needs to be considered a contender to force people out into the cold on a Monday night to vote for him.

Perhaps the most could be gained, though, by Howard Dean. For all those Democrats afraid to vote for the ex-Vermont governor because of fears he could not defeat President Bush in November, a Harkin endorsement might allow them to believe Dean is not a throwaway candidate.
0 comments

And the big spender is…

Spending. Iowa aside, Wes Clark has spent almost $4.7-million on TV commercials in States with early contests. Also without Iowa, Howard Dean has put down $3.5-million for television; with Iowa, he's at about $6.4-million in Iowa, NH, and South Carolina.

John Edwards is spending $150,000 in Iowa and $110,000 in South Carolina on TV this week, in an attempt to make a name for himself. To catch fire when Dean dwindles...

When spending in Iowa is excluded from overall totals, Democratic front-runner Howard Dean has spent $3.5 million on TV advertising, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has spent $2 million, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts has doled out $1.5 million and Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri has spent about $800,000.

Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who also has decided to bypass Iowa, has spent about $1 million. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio went on the air with ads in Iowa and New Hampshire this week.

On the air currently in more states than any other candidate, Clark is running spots heavily in New Hampshire and in all but two states with primaries Feb. 3, Missouri and Delaware. He also is running ads in Tennessee.

Also, Dean's people have backed off their pledge to own the airwaves in the seven States with February 3rd primaries; they're not running ads in Oklahoma, Missouri, North Dakota or Delaware, with minimal exposure in Arizona and New Mexico. Dean manager Joe Trippi said: "We made the judgment we could afford ... to come off the air in several states."

Perhaps he thinks he can afford to do without them. He could squeeze the life out of Clark's campaign with wins in all seven of those contests.

But there's still time for a change of hearts.
0 comments

California's Ballot of Death

The underbelly of the ballot for California's March Presidential 2nd primary is a roster forwarded from hell. Or at least a circus sideshow. (See this story from the Los Angeles Times.)

The Republican on the ballot is possibly the only truly serious candidate on the ballot: President George W. Bush. The Democrats, alphabetically, are Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Lieberman, Lyndon LaRouche, Carol Mosley-Braun, and Al Sharpton. (HERE, with tongue in cheek, I suggest the 81-year-old LaRouche as the Anti-Dean.)

From the LAT story:

A candidate who will have to campaign from a prison cell this time is Peace and Freedom hopeful Leonard Peltier, the American Indian activist serving a life sentence in Leavenworth, Kan. He was convicted of killing two FBI agents in 1975 near Wounded Knee, S.D. He has been trying since 1986 to get a parole hearing.

Making a brief appearance on the candidate list — but pulled from it at the last minute by his own party, Peace and Freedom — was Mumia Abu-Jamal, a Pennsylvania death row inmate controversially convicted of murdering a police officer.

Abu-Jamal is the Philadelphia cab driver who killed a police officer in very cold blood, changed his name in prison, and managed to write poetically enough to build a following amongst death penalty opponents, the French, and other assorted losers.

Felons on the ballot. California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley says he is "repulsed and outraged," but he hasn't a choice in that matter except to push for a legal change, which he says he intends to do.

Although Shelley finds the Peace and Freedom Party's lack of action "repugnant," at least they pulled the plug on John Cook's "candidacy." (Cook is the cop-killer who calls himself "Mumia.")

It sounds like there are a few potential Dean voters out west.
0 comments

No Longer Alone

I have been saying all along that Howard Dean will not be the Democrat nominee. Who am I to argue with polls and perceived "inevitability"?

I am not alone, as the Free Congress Foundation's Paul Weyrich writes for the Cybercasts News Service site (CNSNews.com) today:

So is Dean guaranteed the nomination? Not in my book, he isn't. In fact last week I went on record on the Mark Larson show on KCBQ in San Diego as saying I believe he would not be the nominee. I mention this because if I am wrong I will never hear the end of it from Larson, so I might as well say it again.

So why -- when Dean is ahead of even Dick Gephardt from neighboring Missouri, in Iowa and has a double digit lead over neighbor John Kerry, Senator from Massachusetts, in New Hampshire, and is leading in every national poll -- do I think he will not be nominated?

Dean is wrong on middle class tax cuts, and he is DEAD WRONG on national security.

His analysis is not mind, but it is pretty good. He sees Dean winning the nomination only if he wins early and sweeps or if the process produces a "gaggle" of anti-Deans, and that much is obvious, although Mr. Weyrich depicts Al Sharpton taking the field in South Carolina.

Barring either of those scenarios, he sees the emergent anti-Dean as being either Dick Gephardt or Wes Clark. I don't see Clark contending, but I'll admit that my fears go against the wisdom of the poll-watchers.

Weyrich does not mention candidate John Edwards, avoiding him to the extent of having Sharpton instead being a potential goose in the gaggle by taking South Carolina, the State wherein Edwards expects to emerge.

His silence is deafening. Perhaps he fears the same thing as do I.
0 comments

Naziism, George Soros, and MoveOn.org

In today's Wall Street Journal, as quoted in an e-mail from RNC Research, American Jewish Congress president Jack Rosen condemns MoveOn.org for trivializing the evil that was Hitler by comparing the President to the mutant despot:

The Holocaust was the worst crime in history. The Nazis killed … millions … in a systematic genocide. …
The last survivors of that horror will soon pass from among us. … It is for them that we guard against the danger that the memory of the Holocaust will be trivialized. That danger is abetted when people devalue this monumental evil for political gain.

Today, MoveOn.org is doing just that, using the memory of that genocide as a political prop. … their actions cheapen the memory of a horrific crime. …

The lessons of the Holocaust era loom larger than ever, but not as portrayed by MoveOn.org. It was from the backbenches of Britain's Parliament in the 1930s that Churchill warned of the "gathering storm," arguing that the great threat had to be confronted before it was too late. …
Comparing the commander-in-chief of a democratic nation to the murderous tyrant Hitler is not only historically specious, it is morally outrageous. …

That's my point, as well. And Mr. Rosen concludes:

The MoveOn.org ad was inexcusable. Political figures such as Al Gore … have a special responsibility to condemn these ads; donors … such as George Soros have the same responsibility.

George Soros is the problem, as I suggested last November. Then, I quoted a contemporary Washington Post article:

Soros believes that a "supremacist ideology" guides this White House. He hears echoes in its rhetoric of his childhood in occupied Hungary. "When I hear Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us,' it reminds me of the Germans." It conjures up memories, he said, of Nazi slogans on the walls, Der Feind Hort mit ("The enemy is listening"). "My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me," he said in a soft Hungarian accent.

He, I think, is insane in such a way that he believes it. MoveOn.org does not understand it.

This is seriously disturbing.
0 comments

The Left Speaks

The left has found its answer to what it perceives as "right-wing hate radio," and it is literally left-wing hate radio. The Say Anything blog has a good post conserning the DNC-funded show by Ed Schultz, which I think is hitting 15 markets in the midwest today.

Senator Hillary Clinton will join me on my first new show Monday. Howard Dean arrives in Fargo on Monday afternoon and is also scheduled to join us live on the program between 4pm and 5pm central time.
We are picking up Dick Gephardt at the airport in the Cruiser on Sunday night when he comes to Fargo. Dick is a great guy and we'll have him on the program as well. Next weekend we'll be in Bismarck to visit with General Clark.

All of these visits by the candidates can't hurt North Dakota. Vern Thompson deserves the credit for motivating the party to move forward with this project. Thanks to the Dems, North Dakota is on the map with positive news.

That is a Schultz bit quoted by Say Anything. It starts at 2p this afternoon, and I'll hunt for a live stream. If one is found, I'll post it here as an addendum.

With DNC backing, this show does have a shot at capturing a niche audience, but don't expect anything near the magnitude of a Limbaugh or a Hannity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ADDENDUM: I found a post on Blogcritics.org from last November: Ed Schultz As Incoherent As Ever. It's also worth the read.

If you listen to Schult's current radio program, News & Views on KFGO out of Fargo, you will soon learn of his intense hatred for conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh. He accuses Rush of being a pawn for the conservative right.

With DNC backing for his new project, perhaps the real pawns can pose for the footlights.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ADDENDUM: Also from a Say Anything, a blog out of Schultz's home state of North Dakota, we learn that Schultz began as a conservative talk host. From a post last October:

Originally Schultz had a decidedly conservative bent to his radio broadcast. For whatever reason he switched.

I posit that Schultz switched because he knew he couldn't be bigtime as a conservative host, so he opted to go lefty and try to catch a ride in that direction. It's all a put-on, but that's the game.
0 comments

Dean not a Dictator

Ralph Peters takes a look at Howard the Coward in a New York Post Op-Ed this morning:

Dean began his campaign as an uncompromising Lenin. Now that his Bolsheviks have been organized, he's trying to pose as Gorbachev for the masses. But for anyone who pays attention to what this power-hungry huckster says and does, he comes off as a down-market Brezhnev.

Of course, I don't really see Howard Dean as a potential dictator - just another hollow man soiling the halls of power. And this is America. Our system is far stronger than any individual. Besides, even the vilest dictators have a vision of something greater than themselves. Howard Dean has nothing beyond ambition.

He also used the "Dean's alternate reality," something I sounded early last autumn -- for both Howie and Wes Clark. This column does an excellent job of drawing on that.

Also of note, Peters's column opens by drawing on the similarities between Dean and Hitler, something I find discomforting from either side. It's shows a naiveté towards the gravity of history, but an argument can be made that they're taking only certain aspects of the Third Reich for their analogies. One must not compartmentalize different aspects of Nazism.

He switches to an analogy between Dean and the Soviets," he writes, in order to "cast the drama with characters closer to their [the left's] hearts." Specifically, he uses Lenin and Gorbachev, both seen as heroes, to one degree or another, by most of the American left.

Is Howard Dean a hero? To anyone?
0 comments

The Establishment Candidate

Good morning. Another Democrat establishment type has endorsed Howard Dean: former New Jersey Senator and NBA start Bill Bradley. It's interesting to note that Howie's drawn both Bradley and Al Gore -- the two who fought bitterly early for the '00 Dem nomination -- to his side.

These two former enemies, Gore and Bradley, are united behind Dean's theme: hatred of President George W. Bush. That's what Dean has going for him.

This election is shaping up to be the President's approval ratings. Keep an eye on the solid negative number, because that is about what Dean would get if he is the nominee.
0 comments

Sound Familiar?

We've hopefully all seen old footage of Adolph Hitler exhorting the German masses to his madness in that chilling cadence, with emphatic gestures and menacing eyes. This morning, RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie told Fox News Sunday that MoveOn.org had produced a commercial in which the President morphs into Hitler. It sounds more goofy than anything else.

Well, HERE is a MoveOn.org commercial, and it is chilling. [You must have QuickTime installed to view it.] Hitler's voice over English captions regarding God telling him to attack Saddam Hussein, etc. The images of Hitler appear on screen, then they are replaced by images of President Bush.

The caption reads: "Sound familiar?"

This is sick.

I remind you that billionaire currency trader George Soros recently told the Washington Post reminded him of what it was like to grow up Jewish in Nazi occupied Hungary, as he had.

If this commercial makes it to air, I hope the gloves come off.
0 comments