07/08: Don't Break Out the Champagne Just Yet, but the poll numbers are not as dismal as they were...
But I should correct my statement from earlier this week when I identified myself as part of the twenty-something percent of Americans who approved of George Bush. I now have some more company. According to Gallup, President Bush is in the midst of a "slight uptick."
His current approval rating is 34 percent. Alas, those aren't Clintonian numbers, but they are less Nixonian than they were a few weeks ago.
The Gallup article (here) also identifies the upward creeping numbers of Americans optimistic about the "surge" in Iraq, which Gallup credits to the positive tone of press coverage over the past fortnight.
Of course, before you get too excited, the number of Americans who feel the surge is working is only 31 percent (but 31 percent with a "bullet").
I agree with the analysis. The good news on the surge has lifted the pall over the WH and the President's supporters. I feel a sense of hope reforming among the faithful.
Very funny but also instructive: According to the Gallup piece, NYT pollsters found similar numbers in their own sample. Astounded, they redid the canvass, coming up with an identical finding the second time around.
My Own Analysis: one other reason for the "slight uptick," however, has got to be the return of the temporarily disaffected immigration conservatives who rallied back to the flag as the partisan standoff over Iraq returned to the forefront and potentially comes to a head soon in the near future.
All in all, a little good news today.
The Gallup piece in full here.
His current approval rating is 34 percent. Alas, those aren't Clintonian numbers, but they are less Nixonian than they were a few weeks ago.
The Gallup article (here) also identifies the upward creeping numbers of Americans optimistic about the "surge" in Iraq, which Gallup credits to the positive tone of press coverage over the past fortnight.
Of course, before you get too excited, the number of Americans who feel the surge is working is only 31 percent (but 31 percent with a "bullet").
I agree with the analysis. The good news on the surge has lifted the pall over the WH and the President's supporters. I feel a sense of hope reforming among the faithful.
Very funny but also instructive: According to the Gallup piece, NYT pollsters found similar numbers in their own sample. Astounded, they redid the canvass, coming up with an identical finding the second time around.
My Own Analysis: one other reason for the "slight uptick," however, has got to be the return of the temporarily disaffected immigration conservatives who rallied back to the flag as the partisan standoff over Iraq returned to the forefront and potentially comes to a head soon in the near future.
All in all, a little good news today.
The Gallup piece in full here.
Category: Texas 17
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
I have given my Congressman, Chet Edwards, plenty of grief for abandoning his stalwart support for the President and the war to vote with Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership on several crucial measures over the past few months (here and here). However, I am pleased to cheer his support for the recent FISA legislation, passed by the Senate last Friday and approved by the Lower Chamber on Sunday.
Explanations from the Congressman’s office concerning many of these critical votes have been spare, obligue, or nonexistent, so I am happy to quote from this press release at length:
“Given that Al Qaida friendly websites have recently threatened more terror attacks on American soil, I agreed with the President’s request to allow information about suspected terrorists to be gathered more quickly, so that we can prevent such attacks,” said Edwards, a member of the House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee.
The update to the 1978 FISA law was expedited at the request of the White House and was purposely written to expire in six months to give Congress more time to write permanent legislation while granting the Bush Administration the ability to pursue pressing intelligence matters.
“This bill gives the President the flexibility he asked for in the short term, and with a 180 day sunset provision, it gives Congress and the Administration time to determine the most effective tools to prevent terrorist attacks while safeguarding the civil rights of all Americans,” said Edwards.
President Bush signed the bill into law Monday.
Full press release here.
Important Note: Edwards was one of only 41 Democrats to support the President’s request.
Well done, Congressman.
Roll Call here.
I have speculated previously that the Speaker and Democratic Leadership are likely exerting extreme pressure on Edwards to squeeze out these anti-war votes. I suspect that Congressman Edwards did not willingly reverse himself on these issues. I would like to know the back-story details, as I think this individual political journey likely tells a larger tale in microcosm.
As for this particular confrontation, Paul Kane of the Washington Post indicates Speaker Pelosi felt forced to take off the handcuffs on this vote (his analysis here).
What does all this really mean?
Only time will tell whether this engagement presages a return to a more regular pattern of voting for my Congressman and other center-right Democrats representing traditionally conservative districts. But with the palpable change of momentum in Iraq, even settling in on Capitol Hill, we may see a much less unified front on the part of the Democratic caucus.
Explanations from the Congressman’s office concerning many of these critical votes have been spare, obligue, or nonexistent, so I am happy to quote from this press release at length:
“Given that Al Qaida friendly websites have recently threatened more terror attacks on American soil, I agreed with the President’s request to allow information about suspected terrorists to be gathered more quickly, so that we can prevent such attacks,” said Edwards, a member of the House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee.
The update to the 1978 FISA law was expedited at the request of the White House and was purposely written to expire in six months to give Congress more time to write permanent legislation while granting the Bush Administration the ability to pursue pressing intelligence matters.
“This bill gives the President the flexibility he asked for in the short term, and with a 180 day sunset provision, it gives Congress and the Administration time to determine the most effective tools to prevent terrorist attacks while safeguarding the civil rights of all Americans,” said Edwards.
President Bush signed the bill into law Monday.
Full press release here.
Important Note: Edwards was one of only 41 Democrats to support the President’s request.
Well done, Congressman.
Roll Call here.
I have speculated previously that the Speaker and Democratic Leadership are likely exerting extreme pressure on Edwards to squeeze out these anti-war votes. I suspect that Congressman Edwards did not willingly reverse himself on these issues. I would like to know the back-story details, as I think this individual political journey likely tells a larger tale in microcosm.
As for this particular confrontation, Paul Kane of the Washington Post indicates Speaker Pelosi felt forced to take off the handcuffs on this vote (his analysis here).
What does all this really mean?
Only time will tell whether this engagement presages a return to a more regular pattern of voting for my Congressman and other center-right Democrats representing traditionally conservative districts. But with the palpable change of momentum in Iraq, even settling in on Capitol Hill, we may see a much less unified front on the part of the Democratic caucus.
A Texas Folk Tale*
Not many people know this, but George Washington was originally a Texan.
But one day Washington's father called him in to ask whether he had cut down the mesquite tree in the backyard.
"I cannot tell a lie," said George. "I took my hatchet and chopped down the mesquite tree."
At which point George's father told him to pack his bags--they were moving to Virginia.
"But why?" asked the boy. "Because I chopped down the only shade tree within fifty miles?"
"No", his father said, "Because if you cannot tell a lie, you'll never make it in Texas politics."
My President and His Faults
Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows that I like and admire our President. I am a part of the twenty-something percent of Americans who approve of the job he is doing. Having said that, sometimes I wonder if his Attorney General would rather obfuscate and stonewall when the truth would make a better story.
In re the US Attorneys: if the administration had come clean and faced the incident honestly, my hunch is that the President's operatives could have made a compelling case for their actions and come away with their dignity and honor intact.
I am still waiting for the explanation in re Scooter Libby and the entire Valerie Plame imbroglio. What really happened? And why? Like the firing of the US attorneys, my sense is that the administration could have made a convincing case for their actions early on. Or, barring that, they could have told a tale of human passions and errors in judgment, pled for understanding among reasonable people, and moved on.
But that is not the Bush style.
And, of course, I have other more much important objections to this President:
He misunderstood the grotesque magnitude of the task in Iraq. He did not prepare for the worst-case scenario. He has allowed the military to deteriorate to an alarmingly weakened state during a period of great risk. He did not ask the American people to engage and sacrifice. And there's more...
So, I don't approve of the President because I think he is perfect, but I think he is a good American attempting to do his duty (which happens to be the hardest duty on the planet). On the whole, President Bush has done an acceptable job confronting an exceedingly challenging set of circumstances. He is not perfect, but, then again, the "perfect" is the enemy of the good.
In other words, in our futile search for leaders without fault--we sometimes cast aside great statesmen for inconsequential reasons. And, more often, we fix our gaze on the human imperfections in those elected officials whom we are already predisposed to dislike for partisan reasons. To paraphrase George Washington's observations from long ago, "the spirit of party...is inseparable from our nature," but the blindness of factional enmity sets us on the road to the "ruin of public liberty."
MY PLEDGE to the next President:
My faith in the institutions of the United States is still very strong. I am anxious to support the next president, who will likely be a Democrat. Although I will vote for her opponent in the general election, I am actually rooting for Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination--but not because I think she would be the easiest Democrat to beat. I believe that she offers the best alternative from the opposition party. If elected, Mrs. Clinton will have my support. If elected, my sincerest wish will be that she proves to be the wisest president in our history--for we need a great leader at this particular moment in time. Her success will be my success and mean more security for my children. If elected, I will pray that she prospers. She will be my president.
*The Old Texas Folk Tale was famously told over the years by many a Lone Star politician (including John Connally and Ann Richards).
Not many people know this, but George Washington was originally a Texan.
But one day Washington's father called him in to ask whether he had cut down the mesquite tree in the backyard.
"I cannot tell a lie," said George. "I took my hatchet and chopped down the mesquite tree."
At which point George's father told him to pack his bags--they were moving to Virginia.
"But why?" asked the boy. "Because I chopped down the only shade tree within fifty miles?"
"No", his father said, "Because if you cannot tell a lie, you'll never make it in Texas politics."
My President and His Faults
Anyone who reads this blog regularly knows that I like and admire our President. I am a part of the twenty-something percent of Americans who approve of the job he is doing. Having said that, sometimes I wonder if his Attorney General would rather obfuscate and stonewall when the truth would make a better story.
In re the US Attorneys: if the administration had come clean and faced the incident honestly, my hunch is that the President's operatives could have made a compelling case for their actions and come away with their dignity and honor intact.
I am still waiting for the explanation in re Scooter Libby and the entire Valerie Plame imbroglio. What really happened? And why? Like the firing of the US attorneys, my sense is that the administration could have made a convincing case for their actions early on. Or, barring that, they could have told a tale of human passions and errors in judgment, pled for understanding among reasonable people, and moved on.
But that is not the Bush style.
And, of course, I have other more much important objections to this President:
He misunderstood the grotesque magnitude of the task in Iraq. He did not prepare for the worst-case scenario. He has allowed the military to deteriorate to an alarmingly weakened state during a period of great risk. He did not ask the American people to engage and sacrifice. And there's more...
So, I don't approve of the President because I think he is perfect, but I think he is a good American attempting to do his duty (which happens to be the hardest duty on the planet). On the whole, President Bush has done an acceptable job confronting an exceedingly challenging set of circumstances. He is not perfect, but, then again, the "perfect" is the enemy of the good.
In other words, in our futile search for leaders without fault--we sometimes cast aside great statesmen for inconsequential reasons. And, more often, we fix our gaze on the human imperfections in those elected officials whom we are already predisposed to dislike for partisan reasons. To paraphrase George Washington's observations from long ago, "the spirit of party...is inseparable from our nature," but the blindness of factional enmity sets us on the road to the "ruin of public liberty."
MY PLEDGE to the next President:
My faith in the institutions of the United States is still very strong. I am anxious to support the next president, who will likely be a Democrat. Although I will vote for her opponent in the general election, I am actually rooting for Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination--but not because I think she would be the easiest Democrat to beat. I believe that she offers the best alternative from the opposition party. If elected, Mrs. Clinton will have my support. If elected, my sincerest wish will be that she proves to be the wisest president in our history--for we need a great leader at this particular moment in time. Her success will be my success and mean more security for my children. If elected, I will pray that she prospers. She will be my president.
*The Old Texas Folk Tale was famously told over the years by many a Lone Star politician (including John Connally and Ann Richards).
05/08: McCain: He Just Can't Win
A few days ago Tocqueville pointed me toward this story in which, according to the headline, John "McCain change[d] course on immigration."
From the AP story:
"WASHINGTON - Republican presidential hopeful John McCain on Thursday backed a scaled-down proposal that imposes strict rules to end illegal immigration but doesn't include a path to citizenship.
"The move away from a comprehensive measure is an about-face for the Arizona senator, who had been a leading GOP champion of a bill that included a guest worker program and would have legalized many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S. It failed earlier this year.
'"We can still show the American people that we are serious about securing our nation's border," McCain said in a statement, adding that the new bill would "provide an essential step toward achieving comprehensive reform in the future."'
Alluding to previous conversations on this blog, Tocqueville submitted this development as further evidence that McCain is "a complete and shameless opportunist."
Call me stubborn--but I would say that this alteration indicates McCain's pragmatism much more than it proves his opportunism.
There is no doubt that his position on immigration did enormous damage to him politically, completely killing his already slim chances of winning the GOP nomination (although the Senator, evidently, disagrees). Inarguably, this reformulation is the only option for candidate McCain.
An aside: My opinion, nevertheless, is that it really does not matter at this point, rearranging deck furniture on the Titanic and all that (but, again, the Senator seems to disagree).
Regardless, McCain is merely taking a very practical position. He still wants comprehensive immigration reform--but he is admitting the obvious: cultural conservatives must be placated before any larger reform is possible.
One can argue that McCain continues to advocate the same policy--but he has shown flexibility in his approach to accomplishing his long-term goal.
Of course, the practical question becomes: will anyone who counts for anything buy into that reading of the situation? Not likely.
From the AP story:
"WASHINGTON - Republican presidential hopeful John McCain on Thursday backed a scaled-down proposal that imposes strict rules to end illegal immigration but doesn't include a path to citizenship.
"The move away from a comprehensive measure is an about-face for the Arizona senator, who had been a leading GOP champion of a bill that included a guest worker program and would have legalized many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S. It failed earlier this year.
'"We can still show the American people that we are serious about securing our nation's border," McCain said in a statement, adding that the new bill would "provide an essential step toward achieving comprehensive reform in the future."'
Alluding to previous conversations on this blog, Tocqueville submitted this development as further evidence that McCain is "a complete and shameless opportunist."
Call me stubborn--but I would say that this alteration indicates McCain's pragmatism much more than it proves his opportunism.
There is no doubt that his position on immigration did enormous damage to him politically, completely killing his already slim chances of winning the GOP nomination (although the Senator, evidently, disagrees). Inarguably, this reformulation is the only option for candidate McCain.
An aside: My opinion, nevertheless, is that it really does not matter at this point, rearranging deck furniture on the Titanic and all that (but, again, the Senator seems to disagree).
Regardless, McCain is merely taking a very practical position. He still wants comprehensive immigration reform--but he is admitting the obvious: cultural conservatives must be placated before any larger reform is possible.
One can argue that McCain continues to advocate the same policy--but he has shown flexibility in his approach to accomplishing his long-term goal.
Of course, the practical question becomes: will anyone who counts for anything buy into that reading of the situation? Not likely.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Excellent analysis from good friend of the Bosque Boys:
Guest Blog: Tocqueville
Quin Hillyer is always interesting and trenchant. In his piece this morning (here) he rather hits the nail on the head:
"In short, the unpopularity of Republicans right now gives Democrats the first time in 12 years a chance to win, say, 70% of what they want on some issues; but, instead, they are holding out for 95 or 100% and instead earning nothing but headlines."
He next notes that Feinstein's vote for Judge Southwick signals a smart political path for the Democrats -- episodic accommodation that raises with the voters a presumption of equanimity in dealing with the opposition. But will the Democrats catch the hint? The confirmation of Southwick offers the Democrats much political cover for 2008, if they are rational enough to seize it. In all probability, a rousing confirmation of Southwick would "cover" a virtual stonewall on confirmations in 2008. But will the Democratic nutroots and moonbat factions sit still for anything less than ideological purity?
Of course, below the surface is Feinstein looking at the attention paid to the rather pedestrian Pelosi, coupled with the obvious floundering and flummoxing of the preposterous (and corrupt) Harry Reid. If Reid's "leadership" continues to yield middling results, Feinstein stands to challenge Reid for the post that he doubtless never deserved (and I prefer Feinstein's solid and womanly voice to the pathetic, wimpish whining of Reid -- and Daschle before him). I wonder if Harry Reid sees Feinstein's vote for Southwick as a challenge? He should. Everyone else will.
Again, Hillyer's article here.
Guest Blog: Tocqueville
Quin Hillyer is always interesting and trenchant. In his piece this morning (here) he rather hits the nail on the head:
"In short, the unpopularity of Republicans right now gives Democrats the first time in 12 years a chance to win, say, 70% of what they want on some issues; but, instead, they are holding out for 95 or 100% and instead earning nothing but headlines."
He next notes that Feinstein's vote for Judge Southwick signals a smart political path for the Democrats -- episodic accommodation that raises with the voters a presumption of equanimity in dealing with the opposition. But will the Democrats catch the hint? The confirmation of Southwick offers the Democrats much political cover for 2008, if they are rational enough to seize it. In all probability, a rousing confirmation of Southwick would "cover" a virtual stonewall on confirmations in 2008. But will the Democratic nutroots and moonbat factions sit still for anything less than ideological purity?
Of course, below the surface is Feinstein looking at the attention paid to the rather pedestrian Pelosi, coupled with the obvious floundering and flummoxing of the preposterous (and corrupt) Harry Reid. If Reid's "leadership" continues to yield middling results, Feinstein stands to challenge Reid for the post that he doubtless never deserved (and I prefer Feinstein's solid and womanly voice to the pathetic, wimpish whining of Reid -- and Daschle before him). I wonder if Harry Reid sees Feinstein's vote for Southwick as a challenge? He should. Everyone else will.
Again, Hillyer's article here.
~~Tocqueville
04/08: Mrs. Clinton? No.
Category: Campaign 2008.4
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Compelling theater on the floor of the United States Senate tonight (Friday PM).
The Good News: Comity, pragmatism, and the national interest reigned within the Upper Chamber this evening, as the Senate passed the President's FISA bill.
An AP account of the proceedings here.
Watching the drama play out on C-SPAN2, one could not help but notice that the production appeared skillfully orchestrated. Even as the Democrats were voting against the Republican-crafted version of the bill, certain members seemed designated to raise the total to the needed sixty votes for passage. Red-state Democrats (Southerners like David Pryor and Mary Landrieu and lower Mid-Westerners like Claire McCaskill) provided the needed margin, while all the Democratic candidates for president voted against the measure.
Another wrinkle: Although the Senate website has not posted the roll call vote yet, I distinctly heard Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Mikulski, and Bill Nelson, all Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee, vote in the affirmative for the bill.
A humorous aside: I think I heard Mary Landrieu change her vote twice, voting in the affirmative initially, re-voting in the negative, and then casting her third and final vote in favor.
All in all, well done. The mission was accomplished, the Democratic leadership saved face, Russ Feingold scolded, and almost everybody seemed to exit the chamber smiling and friendly, happily headed home, and deservedly proud of one another--having done their duty.
Good show.
One last thing: The junior senator from New York waited until near the end of the vote to cast her "thumbs down," and I was holding my breath wondering if she was going to further set herself apart from her nearest rival, the junior senator from Illinois. I really wanted to title this post: "Mrs. Clinton? Aye!" What a fitting end to a week in which candidate Clinton advocated an adult foreign policy, while Barack Obama seemed adrift. But, alas, not tonight.
The Good News: Comity, pragmatism, and the national interest reigned within the Upper Chamber this evening, as the Senate passed the President's FISA bill.
An AP account of the proceedings here.
Watching the drama play out on C-SPAN2, one could not help but notice that the production appeared skillfully orchestrated. Even as the Democrats were voting against the Republican-crafted version of the bill, certain members seemed designated to raise the total to the needed sixty votes for passage. Red-state Democrats (Southerners like David Pryor and Mary Landrieu and lower Mid-Westerners like Claire McCaskill) provided the needed margin, while all the Democratic candidates for president voted against the measure.
Another wrinkle: Although the Senate website has not posted the roll call vote yet, I distinctly heard Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Mikulski, and Bill Nelson, all Democratic members of the Intelligence Committee, vote in the affirmative for the bill.
A humorous aside: I think I heard Mary Landrieu change her vote twice, voting in the affirmative initially, re-voting in the negative, and then casting her third and final vote in favor.
All in all, well done. The mission was accomplished, the Democratic leadership saved face, Russ Feingold scolded, and almost everybody seemed to exit the chamber smiling and friendly, happily headed home, and deservedly proud of one another--having done their duty.
Good show.
One last thing: The junior senator from New York waited until near the end of the vote to cast her "thumbs down," and I was holding my breath wondering if she was going to further set herself apart from her nearest rival, the junior senator from Illinois. I really wanted to title this post: "Mrs. Clinton? Aye!" What a fitting end to a week in which candidate Clinton advocated an adult foreign policy, while Barack Obama seemed adrift. But, alas, not tonight.
This headline in the Washington Post today:
"Three Top Democrats Share Lead In Iowa Poll;
Clinton, Obama, Edwards Are Tied"
Jon Cohen and Dan Balz report:
"Less than six months before Iowa voters open the 2008 presidential nomination battles, the Democratic contest in the Hawkeye State is a deadlock, with Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards in a virtual tie for first place, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll."
The full story here.
My Analysis in brief:
1. It is still very early--but this race (especially in Iowa) seems to be taking shape. These polls are starting to count.
2. Bad news for Edwards. This is the state in which he is best-positioned for success. He is well-known, popular, and a proven vote getter in Iowa. More importantly, this is the state on which he has placed all his chips.
I have already recorded my skepticism on this strategy, but Edwards is hoping to win in Iowa, generate a groundswell of momentum, and ride the wave of victory in the caucus to victory in the other state primaries that closely follow.
To review: this is a long shot at best, as the caucus in Iowa will probably have much less positive influence on underdogs as in times past. Why? The primaries are configured in a completely different way this time around. They are frontloaded and compressed, which requires a massive and powerful organization to compete everywhere simultaneously. This is not good for insurgent campaigns.
Having said that, Edwards is now losing momentum in Iowa--where he must emerge as surprisingly strong to have any chance. You may ask if this is the chicken or the egg, but, ironically, this new three-way poll affirms the recently emergent storyline of a two-horse race.
3. Good news for Hillary. A few weeks ago she was squelching rumors that she would not contest Iowa. As the Post story contends, and as the Okie Gardener's onsite reporting asserted, Iowa is not a good fit for the Clinton candidacy. She does not play well in Peoria. That is, Iowans seem unimpressed, suspicious, and unfriendly to her personally.
However, she is grinding this one out: four yards and a cloud of dust. There was much discussion a while back regarding Bill's coming to Iowa. The punditry wondered: Was this too soon? Probably not. Switching sports analogies: start your ace in game one, and you can possibly start him again in four and seven. Bring the heat early and often. All that to say, the Clinton team realizes Iowa is big. Bill Clinton might make the difference in a close race; it would be foolish to leave him on the bench.
The bottom line: Candidate Clinton can overcome a loss in Iowa, because she has the best organization. She is prepared to compete in every state primary over the following three weeks. However, a win in Iowa would be huge for her. She can overcome a loss in Iowa--but a win might clinch the aura of inevitability.
With Certainty: If John Edwards does not win Iowa, he is finished.
Less Certain: Barack Obama. If the Illinois senator, a favorite son from a neighboring state does not win in Iowa, he will be damaged. However, he will have plenty of money with which to dust himself off, get back in the race, and go on to New Hampshire et al with vigor.
One other note of interest: Bill Richardson broke through to double digits in this poll. Insiders see Richardson as a serious person. Perhaps this gives him hope in the VP derby or for a top cabinet slot.
UPDATE: A big Texas welcome to Instapundit readers. Browse around and make yourself at home. For other stories of possible interest, click above on "Campaign 2008" or here and scroll down.
Also, for a view of the FISA vote in the Senate last night, see here.
"Three Top Democrats Share Lead In Iowa Poll;
Clinton, Obama, Edwards Are Tied"
Jon Cohen and Dan Balz report:
"Less than six months before Iowa voters open the 2008 presidential nomination battles, the Democratic contest in the Hawkeye State is a deadlock, with Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards in a virtual tie for first place, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll."
The full story here.
My Analysis in brief:
1. It is still very early--but this race (especially in Iowa) seems to be taking shape. These polls are starting to count.
2. Bad news for Edwards. This is the state in which he is best-positioned for success. He is well-known, popular, and a proven vote getter in Iowa. More importantly, this is the state on which he has placed all his chips.
I have already recorded my skepticism on this strategy, but Edwards is hoping to win in Iowa, generate a groundswell of momentum, and ride the wave of victory in the caucus to victory in the other state primaries that closely follow.
To review: this is a long shot at best, as the caucus in Iowa will probably have much less positive influence on underdogs as in times past. Why? The primaries are configured in a completely different way this time around. They are frontloaded and compressed, which requires a massive and powerful organization to compete everywhere simultaneously. This is not good for insurgent campaigns.
Having said that, Edwards is now losing momentum in Iowa--where he must emerge as surprisingly strong to have any chance. You may ask if this is the chicken or the egg, but, ironically, this new three-way poll affirms the recently emergent storyline of a two-horse race.
3. Good news for Hillary. A few weeks ago she was squelching rumors that she would not contest Iowa. As the Post story contends, and as the Okie Gardener's onsite reporting asserted, Iowa is not a good fit for the Clinton candidacy. She does not play well in Peoria. That is, Iowans seem unimpressed, suspicious, and unfriendly to her personally.
However, she is grinding this one out: four yards and a cloud of dust. There was much discussion a while back regarding Bill's coming to Iowa. The punditry wondered: Was this too soon? Probably not. Switching sports analogies: start your ace in game one, and you can possibly start him again in four and seven. Bring the heat early and often. All that to say, the Clinton team realizes Iowa is big. Bill Clinton might make the difference in a close race; it would be foolish to leave him on the bench.
The bottom line: Candidate Clinton can overcome a loss in Iowa, because she has the best organization. She is prepared to compete in every state primary over the following three weeks. However, a win in Iowa would be huge for her. She can overcome a loss in Iowa--but a win might clinch the aura of inevitability.
With Certainty: If John Edwards does not win Iowa, he is finished.
Less Certain: Barack Obama. If the Illinois senator, a favorite son from a neighboring state does not win in Iowa, he will be damaged. However, he will have plenty of money with which to dust himself off, get back in the race, and go on to New Hampshire et al with vigor.
One other note of interest: Bill Richardson broke through to double digits in this poll. Insiders see Richardson as a serious person. Perhaps this gives him hope in the VP derby or for a top cabinet slot.
UPDATE: A big Texas welcome to Instapundit readers. Browse around and make yourself at home. For other stories of possible interest, click above on "Campaign 2008" or here and scroll down.
Also, for a view of the FISA vote in the Senate last night, see here.
Category: Campaign 2008.4
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
The Washington Post is currently featuring this video clip (view here), in which Michele Griffin, a waitress in a New Hampshire diner, confronts Mitt Romney regarding healthcare.
Although the Post headline frames the exchange broadly, "How 'Bout the USA? Romney Is Asked In Emotional Exchange on Health Care," the confrontation is much more personal. "What are you going to do for me and my family?" Ms. Griffin demands, making clear her core concern is immediate. How is the government going to solve my problem? She also wants to know about Romney's individual plan (co-payments, deductibles, etc.) implying that her care and his care ought to be equal.
The exchange is uncomfortable to watch. I felt bad for Romney, and I felt embarrassed for Ms. Griffin. It is one of the reasons I would never want to run for President.
An aside: Increasingly, I am inclined to ask: who would want this job? Who would be willing to go through this kind of humiliation (and plenty of other kinds) to get this job? God Bless the candidates--each and every one. I cannot help but believe that they all possess out-sized portions of civic responsibility and love of country.
Perhaps even more alarming, the exchange spotlights a culture in which we expect the government to solve our problems. Ms. Griffin is the pony-tail guy of 1992 in a slightly different guise. I am hurting. You need to fix it. We continue to look for a candidate who can feel our pain.
My heart goes out to folks who are struggling. Ms. Griffin appears to be a sympathetic mother in genuine despair. Nevertheless, how did we get to the point in our national culture in which we expect a random candidate for president to come in off the street, wave a magic government wand, and make our lives better? My hunch is that the Lotto offers Ms. Griffin better odds for amelioration than waiting for government to transform her life.
This is not a healthy dynamic. I think I am going to be ill...
Although the Post headline frames the exchange broadly, "How 'Bout the USA? Romney Is Asked In Emotional Exchange on Health Care," the confrontation is much more personal. "What are you going to do for me and my family?" Ms. Griffin demands, making clear her core concern is immediate. How is the government going to solve my problem? She also wants to know about Romney's individual plan (co-payments, deductibles, etc.) implying that her care and his care ought to be equal.
The exchange is uncomfortable to watch. I felt bad for Romney, and I felt embarrassed for Ms. Griffin. It is one of the reasons I would never want to run for President.
An aside: Increasingly, I am inclined to ask: who would want this job? Who would be willing to go through this kind of humiliation (and plenty of other kinds) to get this job? God Bless the candidates--each and every one. I cannot help but believe that they all possess out-sized portions of civic responsibility and love of country.
Perhaps even more alarming, the exchange spotlights a culture in which we expect the government to solve our problems. Ms. Griffin is the pony-tail guy of 1992 in a slightly different guise. I am hurting. You need to fix it. We continue to look for a candidate who can feel our pain.
My heart goes out to folks who are struggling. Ms. Griffin appears to be a sympathetic mother in genuine despair. Nevertheless, how did we get to the point in our national culture in which we expect a random candidate for president to come in off the street, wave a magic government wand, and make our lives better? My hunch is that the Lotto offers Ms. Griffin better odds for amelioration than waiting for government to transform her life.
This is not a healthy dynamic. I think I am going to be ill...
02/08: Obama Foreign Policy
Category: Campaign 2008.4
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Appearing presidential may be the most essential element in the art of running for president. The Foreign Policy theater is often the toughest venue for aspiring presidents, and sometimes desperate actors do take desperate measures to demonstrate their capacity for the role.
I have not read Barack Obama's major foreign policy address delivered Wednesday at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C. I will read it soon, and I will report on anything I find significant that is not completely obvious and/or already well covered.
Before I do that, however, I will assess the speech as a campaign event, keeping in mind that the vast majority of Americans who will pick the next president did not, nor will they ever, read the statement.
Therefore, much more important than what Obama said yesterday is how it is reported and received in the coming days.
How was it covered?
The conservative blogosphere and talk radio played up the speech, focusing on Obama's promise to invade Pakistan and taking the freshman senator to task for his naive bravado.
The mainstream media initially softened the hard edges of the speech, concentrating on the broader themes of Bush incompetence, missed opportunities, and the current unpleasantness.
However, the Washington Post, holding the same story over night, changed its headline to reflect the tough talk toward Pakistan.
More importantly, the bridge collapse story pushed all things Obama (and Campaign 2008 in general) off the front pages--in fact, as of this morning on their website, the New York Times had not even updated their coverage since Obama actually delivered the speech.
Any likely impact?
1. For Republicans: very little. The speech was merely another act in an entertaining side show. Obama did not sway one Republican yesterday (either way). However, if Obama were to win the nomination, the speech gave the opposition something meaty to chew on, dissect, scrutinize, and further build a case against the candidate.
2. Impact on Move-On Democrats: They can't be all that impressed. Aside from the harsh rhetoric against the war (reminding voters of his early opposition to invading Iraq and his rival's initial support), the candidate cannot hope to help himself with the peace wing of his party by advocating an invasion of Pakistan.
On the other hand: Obama's best shot at wresting this nomination away from the Clinton organization is hammering his commitment to disavow US policy on Iraq. Perhaps this major speech is designed to resonate with the "out of Iraq caucus" more than anyone else. Perhaps he is hoping that the the base will ignore the bellicose language directed at Pakistan, while he reminds them of his consistently anti-war stance.
Perhaps Obama believes that every time he can remind primary voters that Hillary is an adult and part of the vast bipartisan international relations policy-making complex, he wins. Look for him to play that note frequently and with increasing intensity in the days to come.
I have not read Barack Obama's major foreign policy address delivered Wednesday at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C. I will read it soon, and I will report on anything I find significant that is not completely obvious and/or already well covered.
Before I do that, however, I will assess the speech as a campaign event, keeping in mind that the vast majority of Americans who will pick the next president did not, nor will they ever, read the statement.
Therefore, much more important than what Obama said yesterday is how it is reported and received in the coming days.
How was it covered?
The conservative blogosphere and talk radio played up the speech, focusing on Obama's promise to invade Pakistan and taking the freshman senator to task for his naive bravado.
The mainstream media initially softened the hard edges of the speech, concentrating on the broader themes of Bush incompetence, missed opportunities, and the current unpleasantness.
However, the Washington Post, holding the same story over night, changed its headline to reflect the tough talk toward Pakistan.
More importantly, the bridge collapse story pushed all things Obama (and Campaign 2008 in general) off the front pages--in fact, as of this morning on their website, the New York Times had not even updated their coverage since Obama actually delivered the speech.
Any likely impact?
1. For Republicans: very little. The speech was merely another act in an entertaining side show. Obama did not sway one Republican yesterday (either way). However, if Obama were to win the nomination, the speech gave the opposition something meaty to chew on, dissect, scrutinize, and further build a case against the candidate.
2. Impact on Move-On Democrats: They can't be all that impressed. Aside from the harsh rhetoric against the war (reminding voters of his early opposition to invading Iraq and his rival's initial support), the candidate cannot hope to help himself with the peace wing of his party by advocating an invasion of Pakistan.
On the other hand: Obama's best shot at wresting this nomination away from the Clinton organization is hammering his commitment to disavow US policy on Iraq. Perhaps this major speech is designed to resonate with the "out of Iraq caucus" more than anyone else. Perhaps he is hoping that the the base will ignore the bellicose language directed at Pakistan, while he reminds them of his consistently anti-war stance.
Perhaps Obama believes that every time he can remind primary voters that Hillary is an adult and part of the vast bipartisan international relations policy-making complex, he wins. Look for him to play that note frequently and with increasing intensity in the days to come.
31/07: Hillary and Obama: Part II
Assuming Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, and she wants Barack Obama to fill out the ticket, will he accept?
The question is predicated on two BIG assumptions, especially in the midst of a campaign in which nobody knows anything--but here goes nothing...
Some things to think about:
1. As a general statement, nobody turns down the vice presidency. Off the top of my head, I can think of only two American statesmen who have demurred. Gerald Ford in 1980. John McCain (from Kerry) in 2004. Both of those instances were extraordinary cases: Ford a former president and McCain a member of the opposition party with presidential aspirations within his own caucus. Any others?
An Update: Thinking about things, Silas Wright declined to run with James K. Polk in 1844. Surely there must be others who famously declined. Help me out. Let's make a contest of it.
2. Why do American statesmen so often accept the VP?
--most American statesmen are committed to service above self aggrandizement (that's their story anyway). The VP is a lowly job but somebody's got to do it. Turning the job down smacks of too much ego and seems almost unpatriotic. Turning the job down would also be seen by many partisans as betrayal of party.
--the VP is a lowly job (John Adams called it "the most insignificant office that ever the Invention of man contrived or his Imagination conceived"). Having said that, the VP is a heart beat away from ultimate power.
--the VP is a platform for ambitious men. True, the office is a gamble. Sometimes the VP prospers and sometimes he fails miserably. But the potential for elevation (both literally and metaphorically) strikes most young men in a hurry as an irresistible gambit.
3. Even in the case of Al Gore, whom both the Gardener and I cite as a person damaged by the administration to which he attached himself, the VP opened up a plethora of opportunity for the former senator from Tennessee. Gore is Gore, Inc. today because he was VP. His association with the Clintons may have lost him the presidency in 2000 (or it may not have), but it is hard to argue that Gore would have even made a run for that nomination without his VP connection. The cult of Gore depends mightily (albeit indirectly) on his eight years in the second slot.
In closing, the VP is hard to turn down for a number of reasons, especially for a young man. If Hillary wins, and if she decides to tap Obama (two big ifs), I say he takes it. He has no real choice.
The question is predicated on two BIG assumptions, especially in the midst of a campaign in which nobody knows anything--but here goes nothing...
Some things to think about:
1. As a general statement, nobody turns down the vice presidency. Off the top of my head, I can think of only two American statesmen who have demurred. Gerald Ford in 1980. John McCain (from Kerry) in 2004. Both of those instances were extraordinary cases: Ford a former president and McCain a member of the opposition party with presidential aspirations within his own caucus. Any others?
An Update: Thinking about things, Silas Wright declined to run with James K. Polk in 1844. Surely there must be others who famously declined. Help me out. Let's make a contest of it.
2. Why do American statesmen so often accept the VP?
--most American statesmen are committed to service above self aggrandizement (that's their story anyway). The VP is a lowly job but somebody's got to do it. Turning the job down smacks of too much ego and seems almost unpatriotic. Turning the job down would also be seen by many partisans as betrayal of party.
--the VP is a lowly job (John Adams called it "the most insignificant office that ever the Invention of man contrived or his Imagination conceived"). Having said that, the VP is a heart beat away from ultimate power.
--the VP is a platform for ambitious men. True, the office is a gamble. Sometimes the VP prospers and sometimes he fails miserably. But the potential for elevation (both literally and metaphorically) strikes most young men in a hurry as an irresistible gambit.
3. Even in the case of Al Gore, whom both the Gardener and I cite as a person damaged by the administration to which he attached himself, the VP opened up a plethora of opportunity for the former senator from Tennessee. Gore is Gore, Inc. today because he was VP. His association with the Clintons may have lost him the presidency in 2000 (or it may not have), but it is hard to argue that Gore would have even made a run for that nomination without his VP connection. The cult of Gore depends mightily (albeit indirectly) on his eight years in the second slot.
In closing, the VP is hard to turn down for a number of reasons, especially for a young man. If Hillary wins, and if she decides to tap Obama (two big ifs), I say he takes it. He has no real choice.
