Presidential Politics 2004

Too long?

2004-03-13T18:12:00.000-08:00

Three days ago, the Bush campaign unveiled an ad attacking John Kerry for wanting to "raise taxes by $900 billion." The very next day, the Kerry campaign released an ad specifically refuting the exact claims made in the Bush ad. Either the Kerry campaign had advanced warning of the contents of Bush's ad, or they saw the ad on TV, decided to make a response ad, compiled the response ad, bought airtime and got the ad on the air in less than 24 hours. Either way, can we take 8 months of this?

This is the earliest that a Democratic nominee has been chosen, and it's the earliest that an incumbent president has started overtly campaigning for re-election. Can America stand 240 days of back and forth sniping? The paradox is this: neither Kerry nor Bush want to alienate voters with 8 months worth of attacks, but neither can afford to let the other's attacks go unanswered. What you end up with is a campaign that remains mutually positive (yeah right), or 240 days of attack/respond/attack/respond.

Just yesterday, Kerry called for monthly one-on-one debates with Bush. It's a smart political move: nothing can elevate the stature of a challenger (not to mention weaken the stature of a sitting president) than appearing on the same stage 8 times in the next 8 months. President Bush would instantaneously morph from commander-in-chief to just another candidate. Of course, the Bush campaign won't accept the offer, and they'd be stupid to do so. But expect Kerry to mention the challenge daily for as long as the press will print it.

There are essentially two quesitons to answer: will voters get tired of this campaign before it's over, and if they do which candidate will benefit?

What would Jefferson do?

2004-02-28T22:45:00.000-08:00

Now that Bush has taken a penchant to speaking of marriage as a historic institution that shouldn't be radically changed, maybe he should read what Jefferson thought.......

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

-Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson memorial

Politics of gay marriage

2004-02-27T22:23:00.000-08:00

With the unwitting help of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, Republicans have succeeded in employing their tried and true strategy: when the important issues turn against you, turn Americans against each other.

As both the job market remains stagnant, as progress in Iraq is stimied and as 43 million Americans still remain without healthcare, the President has decided that the issue that deserves his attention is an amendment to the United States Constitution that officially classifies one segment of the population as second class.

There are so many aspects of this issue that one hardly knows where to starts. Let's look at hypocrisy first. Can you think of ANY issue other than gay marriage where Republicans would say that the individual states have too much power and that the federal government needs to step in and regulate their actions? Did President Bush ever campaign on taking away educational control from local and state authorities? It seems that the only situation in which Republicans will stray from their states' rights doctrine is to impose their moral and religious values on the rest of the country.

But also, think about this amendment in a larger context. The 1st Amendment guarantees free speech, the 13th amendment freed the slaves, the 14th and 15th gave them citizenship and the right to vote, the 19th gave women the vote. And this one....codifies into law that gay people can't marry? Is that not the reddest herring imaginable? Wouldn't it be an embarrassment as an additional to the document that founded our nation, and wouldn't anthropologists scratch their head and eventually conclude that this long-gone country America had experieneced some wave of homophobic rage when this amendment swept through the country?

Finally, what the hell was Gavin Newsom thinking? There are so many political angles to this story, and almost none of them work out well for him. Of course the last thing national Democrats wanted was to talk about gay marriage for the next month and a half. The dynamic of the primary was working out almost perfectly: Democrats were coalescing around a candidate, the prior negativity of the race had subsided, and the ongoing critique of Bush had caused his poll numbers to drop to the lowest of his presidency. The AP wire read almost like a Democratic playbook: "Kerry talks Jobs in Wisconsin," "Edwards criticizes Bush on healthcare," "Deficits reach record levels," "Republicans worried about Bush re-election campaign." And now? "Democrats avoid gay marriage issue," "Poll shows country strongly against gay marriage," "Gay marriages continue in San Francisco," "Democrats split over gay marriage." Does Gavin Newsom have no political IQ? Doesn't Terry McCauliffe keep in touch with the newest Democratic mayor of one of the country's biggest cities?

The only possible explanation I can think of is that Newsom wanted to solidify his support in liberal San Francisco after a fractious and bitter campaign against Green Party candidate Matt Gonzales. But did he think the best way to do so was to sabatoge his party at the national level?

I don't know if I'm more angered by the bigotry of this amendment and the exploitation of Americans' cultural values for politcal gain that it displays, or by Americans' short-sightedness and hysteria that is allowing this ugly thing to dominate national discourse.

Kerry, Edwards top Bush by double digits

2004-02-18T18:22:00.000-08:00

A new Gallup poll shows both Edwards and Kerry beating Bush by a double digit margin. Kerry would get 55% compared to Bush's 43%, and Edwards would beat the president 54% to 44%.

Couple things to keep in mind. According to Gallup's data, every president who has been re-elected over the past 50 years has been beating his possible/actual opponent at this time in the year. Additionally, no president who has been trailing at this point has EVER won re-election.

However, remember that Dukakis was beating the first Bush by 17% going into the convention, only to get creamed on election day.

Facts about special interests

2004-02-16T16:57:00.000-08:00

The Bush campaign recently put out an internet video piece attacking John Kerry as "unprincipled" because of the amount of special interest money he's taken. Well here are just a couple facts that might put this situation in perspective:

-President Bush took more special interest money THIS YEAR ALONE than John Kerry has in his entire political career.

-President Bush has taken more money from Enron alone than John Kerry has from all special interests in his entire political career.

(from the Center for Responsive Politics)

Stay tuned....

Finally....

2004-02-16T15:43:00.000-08:00

CLICK HERE

The Elephant (or Donkey) in the room

2004-02-15T00:22:00.000-08:00

Say it isn't so

Kerry's Caravan

2004-02-09T20:39:00.000-08:00

If there's one theme that's been prevalent throughout this primary campaign it's the law of (positive) unintended consequences: how things ended up great, but not the way in which things were planned.

The first case is the story of John Kerry. If someone had told you a year and a half ago that John Kerry would be steam rolling through the caucuses, you probably wouldn't have been surprised. He had raised the most cash, had the best organization and the biggest endorsements (which, at the point, weren't that big however.) However, if someone had told you that same thing 4 months ago, you would have called them crazy. Kerry was plummeting in the polls, his donors weren't donating any more, and the media had written his eulogy. But a little luck in Iowa made him the front runner again, and he hasn't looked back since. In other words, this is exactly the position a lot of people originally expected Kerry to be in, but not the path they expected him to take.

The second and maybe even more surprising unintended consequence has been the political impact of the condensed primary schedule. Originally, DNC chair Terry McCauliffe organized the more compacted primary schedule in order to get a nominee sooner in the campaign so he/she (let's be real, "he") would have time to raise money, unify the party and be ready to respond to Bush's attacks. For one reason or another, the condensed schedule hasn't really finished the race much earlier. Kerry may have a commanding lead, but Edwards shows no signs of dropping out, nor does Clark. And Dean just reversed a previous statement and said that even if he loses Wisconsin he'll still stay in the race. One would think that McCauliffe is now slapping himself for failing so miserably, right? Well actually, the prolonged campaign is ending up helping the eventual nominee (which will probably be Kerry.) Reason being that ever since Iowa, the candidates have been afraid to attack each other, fearing the voter backlash that spelled the demise of Gephardt and Dean in Iowa. So, what you've had is weeks and weeks of coverage of a race in which there has been no negative attacks. As Kerry has piled up wins, he's piled up positive media attention.

All of this is evident in the President's drop ini the polls and Kerry's recent strength in head-to-head polls against Bush.

Democrats come to their senses (and I love Iowa again)

2004-01-19T21:00:00.000-08:00

Iowa Democrats came to their senses tonight and voted for the best two candidates in the Iowa field: Kerry and Edwards. It was a big loss for Howard Dean, as he finished third and received half the vote that Kerry did. Gephardt finished last and is dropping out tomorrow.

It seems that the buzz around Dean flamed out. Anyone who saw his speech after the results were in saw that this guy isn't the best candidate to beat Bush, by a long shot. He was angry, fired up, and promised to beat the Democratic field in "Massachusetts, in North Carolina, in Missouri, in Connecticut, in Arkansas!" Each of which are states from where his opponents are from. It was particularly mean to include Missouri there, as Dick Gephardt had just been trounced and was already out of the race.

This sets up a three man fight in New Hampshire between Kerry, Clark and Dean. If Dean wins, he still has hope. If he doesn't he's dead. If Kerry wins he'll have great momentum heading into Veteran-heavy South Carolina and could be posed for a win there. Same for Clark. The other big question mark will be whether or not Edwards can transfer the momentum from Iowa into success in New Hampshire, which for him would be a strong third. If he does, it'll be a three man race in South Carolina betwee Kerry, Clark (both veterans) and Edwards (the southerner.)

I hate Iowa (the caucuses, not the state)

2004-01-18T22:47:00.000-08:00

I hate Iowa.

I hate how the caucuses measure organization instead of popularity. The general election is not a measure of whether or not you can babysit the kids of your supporters so they have time to go to a two hour caucuses. So why should we be giving the majority of the momentum and media attention to the candidate who can do just that? A general election is about a candidate's message, his media strategy and his broad-scale policy positions, not whether his supporters are crazy enough to sit in a caucus for two hours on a cold night.

I hate how Iowa crowns a national candidate while it doesn't represent national demographics. 92% of Iowans are white. Their citizens are older on average than any other state in the country. Why should the oldest, whitest state in the country be the first test for Democrats, a party that was once about diversity and youth?

I hate how Iowa is so small. Why should so much media attention be paid to a candidate just because they got 2,000 more votes than another? The results aren't a test of a campaign's message or a candidate's appeal anyway; it's about how many busloads of people you can ship to their local high school gym.

I hate Iowa (the caucuses, not the state.)

I Give Up (for now)

2004-01-16T18:05:00.000-08:00

Anyone who tells you they know who will win the Iowa caucuses doesn't know who's going to win the Iowa caucuses. The candidates surging in the polls are the ones lacking in the organization, and the ones with the most "solid" support (who's supporters aren't going anywhere) seem to be stagnant.

The bigger question isn't who will win the caucuses, but rather who will "win" the caucuses. Because Iowa only has around 40 delegates to the national convention (and the eventual nominee will need over 1000) the empirical impact of the Iowa isn't that great. It is surpassing the expectations one has placed on them going into Iowa that is the real prize. Doing better than expected garners a candidate attention and money, which are the two most valuable assets to have in the primary season.

So what do the expectations look like now? Last month, either Gephardt or Dean were expected to win, and whichever one didn't would suffer from losing the expectations game (which in and of itself is ridiculous, since obviously only one candidate can win.) Kerry and Edwards were expected to battle it out for third. However, in the last week Kerry and Edwards have surged, making Iowa a 4 way race, statistically speaking.

The question is, do the Kerry and Edwards surges come EARLY enough to actually diminish expectations for Gephardt and Dean? In other words, will the story going into caucus day be "It's anyone's race" (expectations for Gephardt and Dean have been lowered) or "Gephardt and Dean fall behind in the homestretch" (expectations remained high and Gephardt and Dean simply didn't meet them.)

And the walls came crumbling down

2004-01-14T15:59:00.000-08:00

It appears that, finally, attacks on Howard Dean are starting to take their toll. Recent polls show him losing ground in both New Hampshire and Iowa.

In Iowa, he lost three points (apparently gained by John Kerry), and now leads by 3% over Dick Gephardt and John Kerry, who are tied for second. This is great news for the Kerry campaign, but obviously bad for Dean, as the Massachusetts Senator and the former Vermont governor compete for the same voters.

As I noted before, ground gained by Kerry is ground lost by Dean, and ground gained by Edwards is lost by Gephardt. This is due to the parallel messages of the respective candidates. So it makes sense that as Kerry surges, Dean falls behind. Gephardt just has to hope that Kerry will drag Dean down and Edwards will stay stagnant, giving Gephardt a chance for the victory he has to have.

And in New Hampshire, two new polls issues today show Wesley Clark just 10 points behind Dean, who long held a commanding lead in the state. This is at least in part due to the fact that Dean has been in Iowa for almost a month straight, during which time Clark has been in New Hampshire. If Dean comes out of Iowa with a win he will gain any ground he lost to Clark in NH. But if he gets second (or worse), he will stumble into NH and will probably give up at least a handful of points to Kerry (who will have presumably have done well in Iowa if Dean lost.)

This presents the scary prospect to the Dean campaign that they could possibly lose both of the first two states, both of which they have, in varying degrees, been expected to win. That would leave the doctor with almost no momentum going into the south and west, arguably his weakest regions.

Iowa Manuevering

2004-01-11T21:38:00.000-08:00

The Iowa caucuses have become a zero sum game. When someone picks up steam, someone else has to lose it. It's the law of conservation of votes. All of that has become increasingly apparent with the recent surges/struggles of candidates in Iowa.

For weeks/months it had been Gephardt v. Dean, with the rest of the pack struggling. However, in the recent two weeks or so, both John Edwards and John Kerry have been picking up momentum. Both present dangers to the frontrunners.

To understand this zero-sum mentality, you have to understand which voters respective candidates appeal to. In general, John Kerry and Howard Dean have appealed to the same demographic: well-educated, white, upper class liberals. John Edwards and Dick Gephardt have appealed to the working class, blue collar, culturally conservative voters who are more in tune with the populist theme. So, a surge for Kerry means a drop for Dean, and a surge for Edwards means a drop for Gephardt.

However, it doesn't end there. Think about this: If Gephardt and Dean are neck and neck, then each wants the other to lose momentum, right? The quickest way for Gephardt to fall back is for Edwards to pull ahead, since they both appeal to the same voters. So, the Dean campaign has gone out of its way to help Edwards do just that. In fact, when Tom Harkin endorsed Dean recently, he went out of his way to compliment Edwards in his endorsement speech. Additionally, Dean has held back from criticizing Edwards in public.

When the Des Moines Register endorsed Edwards yesterday, you can bet it was Gephardt who felt it the most. The same goes for Dean, whose rival Kerry picked up three newspaper endorsements yesterday.

Des Moines Register Endorses Edwards

2004-01-11T00:31:00.000-08:00

In a surprising move, Iowa's largest newspaper has endorsed John Edwards. This comes just 9 days before the caucuses and at a time that Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt have been garnering all the high profile support and media attention.

In making their endorsement, the Register's editorial board brushed off Edwards' seeming inexperience, saying he was one of those "naturally talented politicians" who don't need years in public service to be effective. They also made the point that Edwards, a telegenic former trial lawyer who rose from a poor southern family, could more effectively crystalize the argument against George Bush.

Of course, this couldn't come at a better time for Edwards. Previously struggling, his campaign picked up steam after a stellar performance in the last televized debate. He's still running fourth in Iowa, but if he somehow finish third he would pick up a strong boost in momentum that might let him survive through New Hampshire and into the south, where he's the strongest. However, finishing third will be no easy task. He's going to have to overtake John Kerry, who himself has been making quite a strong surge recently, picking up 4 or 5 points in recent polls. Also, the Massachusetts Senator has a better Iowa organization, which is crucial for turning out Iowans to the caucuses and educating them about what to do once there (it's a lot more complicated than a primary.)

Edwards has almost no support from organized labor, which has been instrumental in playing the get-out-the-vote game for Dean and Gephardt. He has to rely on his volunteers, which are fewer in numbers than the other contenders. If Edwards has a chance, he's going to have to convince Iowans himself, in a fury of townhall meetings, speeches, rallies and ads in the last week of the campaign.

Ironically, though Edwards has been lagging in the polls, he's got some of the best policies of all the contenders. He wants to roll back the Bush tax cuts only for the wealthy, and use the extra revenue to pay for a modest but substantive (and passable) health care plan that covers children first, and a whole bunch of mini-policies to help families. For example, he's got a tax credit for first-time home-buyers and a scholarship for young teachers. His college plan, however, is pretty weak. It pays for the first year's tuition at any state institution. If someone can't afford the first year, they're not going to be able to afford the next three. And what about private schools, where tuition is almost 4 times that of public schools? However, his "College for Everyone" plan's weakness does not negate some of his better policies, like helping businesses start up in economically-devestated areas.

Though he may have the best policies, he's got a ways to go to be able to implement them.

The General mounts an attack

2004-01-10T18:01:00.000-08:00

Wesley Clark is on the move, and the first casualty is John Kerry. A recent poll shows Clark moving ahead of Kerry and into second place in New Hampshire. Though he still trails Dean by 15%, a strong second place in NH could make it a Dean vs. Clark race going into the south and west. Not good news for Dean, who runs weakest in southern states.

Dean apparently fears Clark the most, and even mentioned the possibility of a Dean-Clark showdown in a written plea to possible endorsers (perhaps it worked with Harkin.) If Dean loses Iowa to Gephardt, and beats Clark by a single digit margin in NH, Dean could go grom the hands-down frontrunner to the desperate candidate clinging onto his evaporating lead and momentum. Everyone knows that you don't have to get the most votes in NH to "win." In 1992, Clinton finished second to Paul Tsongas, but was regarded in the "winner" of the NH primary because he beat expectations so thoroughly.

And seemingly, NH is the perfect state for Clark. Independents can vote in the NH primary, a huge boost for the moderate-outsider Clark, who hasn't spent years advocating party line positions. Independents won NH for John McCain in 2000 for precisely that reason: he wasn't a party-line Republican. Indepdents could "win" NH for Clark because he isn't a party line Democrat.

Jump on....

2004-01-09T19:30:00.000-08:00

As Howard Dean picked up the endorsements of Bill Bradley and Senator Tom Harkin, one could hear the door squeeking just a little more shut for the rest of the field.

Though the endorsements are more of a reflection of Dean's success than a cause, the Harkin nod could help substantially in Iowa. Harkin's one of the most popular/reliable Democrats in the state, whose liberal views are in keeping with the Democratic die-hards that vote in the caucuses. Also, his organization will help get people to the caucuses and teach them what to do once there.

Of course, the biggest loser in the endorsement is Gephardt, who is fighting tooth and nail to beat Dean in Iowa, an event that seems increasingly unlikely. Harkin's populist views on trade and entitlement reform (or lack thereof) are more closely aligned with fellow midwestern Gephardt, but undoubtedly Harkin saw that Dean is the direction that the party faithful are going in (at least in Iowa and at least this year) and didn't want to miss out on the good times. He wants to be there win Dean gives his victory speech on January 19th.

This comes at the same time that the right-wing group "Club for Growth" is taking out ads against Dean in Iowa. They lable him a "tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show." I think it's pretty clear that this is not an ad against Howard Dean; it's an ad for him. The Club for Growth knows that the caucus-goers in Iowa are mainly liberal, so they're not going to drive anyone away from Howard Dean by saying he drinks lattes, drives a Volvo and reads the New York times. Plus, why would they WANT to damage Dean with Democrats? The Club for Growth is salivating for Dean to be the nominee. He's the guy they want to run against. This ad is intended to anger Dean supporters and other undecided Democrats into fighting for the guy who is coming under attack from a right-wing group. If these guys hate him, I'm gonna vote for him, they think to themselves. It's just like when the DLC attacked Dean. His liberal supporters got pissed, and he had a fundraising surge.

This is the same reason it's been so hard for Dean's rivals to take him on. Whenever they do, it just excites Dean's supporters even more. It's like scratching a mosquito bite: instinctually, you think it will solve the problem, but it only inflames it in the end.

A Kerry Comeback?

2004-01-07T00:45:00.000-08:00

The latest "buzz" out of the Kerry camp is that the Massachusetts senator is looking to make a stand in Iowa. Ironically, if Kerry (who was once considered the front runner) wins the nomination, it would be a comeback that rivals the ascent of Howard Dean as the most astounding political story of the race.

Early on (very early on) Kerry was the de facto favorite, and was the frontrunner in New Hampshire. He was from neighboring Massachusetts, had the party establishment with him and had a crack campaign staff. Then, he crapped it all away. He ran too cautious of a campaign. It was like watching Al Gore navigate his way through a minefield. He took an unclear position on the war, and worst of all, spoke in the most vague, cliche, trite, hackneyed, tired, worn out pieces of political speech ever. "I want to say to America," "We need in America," "What America needs," "The American people," "We need a policy that moves us forward," were expressions that seemed to start almost every sentence Kerry uttered. The worst was this: "America should never go to war because it WANTS to. It should go to war because it HAS to." Great, then did we HAVE to go to war in Iraq? If we did, then what are you whining about? If we didn't, why the hell did you vote for the war resolution? Indeed, it was Kerry's vacillation on the war that gave rise to Howard Dean in the first place. Kerry has no one to blame for his downfall but himself.

So, can Kerry stage a comeback in Iowa? He's not going to win, that's for sure. Coming in third would be neither a plus nor minus. Dean and Gephardt are the frontunners, and John Edwards is the only serious candidate competing there (Lieberman and Clark pulled out of Iowa.) Third would be par for the course, and would leave him with no momentum going into New Hampshire. Finishing second, however, would be huge. If he finishes second to Dean, thereby beating Gephardt, the Kerry campaign could go back to their old theme of "a two man race: Kerry vs. Dean." Even better, he could beat DEAN, putting the former Vermont governor into third place. That would be devestating for Dean, leaving him struggling into New Hampshire.

However, the idea of a Kerry surge in Iowa is probably nothing more than spin from his campaign. He continues to trail Dean and Gephardt by about 10 points with only two weeks until the caucuses. And he has yet to find an issue that has given him any traction against the two Iowa front runners.

Look for a desperate Kerry to take out negative ads against Dean in Iowa in the next week. It's really the only way up the ladder.

Don't Nominate Dean

2003-12-31T03:15:00.000-08:00

Seriously, don't. It's not that I don't like the guy. I do. I think he'd be a pretty good president, and he's not as liberal as most make him out to be. But he won't win, and when Karl Rove gets his hands on Dean, it'll be Dukakis redux.

First, let's start off with civil unions. I'm in favor of civil unions. Why not let gay people get "unionized", or even married for that matter? The problem is that 75% of the country doesn't see things the way I do, and they're all in the electoral rich mid-west and south. So what, you might say. Bush isn't going to go out there and bash gays for 3 months, is he? No, he isn't. Doing that would drive away moderate, suburban families who are turned off by homophobia and hate. In other words, even if someone isn't in favor of gay marriage, they would be turned off by someone who was demagoguing the issue.

However, just because Bush wouldn't be screaming about the issue doesn't mean it won't resonate. There are a number of ways for Karl Rove to get the message across. The first is "push polling." This is a poll that really isn't a poll. For example, the RNC might commission a poll that poses the following question. "If you knew that Howard Dean was an ultra-liberal who wanted gays to be able to get married just like regular folks, would you be more or less likely to vote for him?" The point of polls like this is not to gather data, but rather to stealthily get a message out about a candidate that you don't want to say on TV (or in print, or on radio, or in person, etc.) The Bush campaign used this very effectively against John McCain in the South Carolina primary in 2000. ("If you knew John McCain were the father of an illegitimate black child, would you be more likely or less likely to vote for him?") The second way for the Republicans to crush Dean with the gay issue would be to send their talking heads on the talk shows. So, you wouldn't see Bush stumping against gays, but you'd see Robert Novak on Meet the Press saying "And now you've got Howard Dean wanting GAYS to get MARRIED!" Either of these ways effectively paints Dean as in favor of gay marriage (which technically he's not) without getting Bush's hands dirty.

Next comes the war. At this point, about 60% of Americans say the war in Iraq was "worth it." Another 10% aren't sure. So right there Dean's biggest issue is one that only appeals to 30% of the electorate. But, for the sake of argument, let's say the casualties mount even more in Iraq, and the rebuilding process goes down the drain. Will Dean's message play well then? No. if that's the case, voters want someone who can FIX the situation in Iraq, not someone who can tell them why it was a bad idea in the first place (think 1972). And as Saddam Hussein is facing trial, Bush will STILL be able to say "My opponent wanted to leave this man in power!" Not the best position to be in.

Finally, there's the northeastern factor. Vermont is literally the second smallest state in the country. To balance the budget there all you'd have to do is cut your kid's allowance. Success in governing Vermont doesn't necessarily translate into success at the national level. Also, with Dean's northeastern roots come a cultural gap with the rest of the country. When Dean says "We're not going to make this election about God, guns and gays!" he's alienating the third of the country that cares mostly about "God, guns and gays." That's why this week Dean changed course and said he would talk about his "relationship with God" when he goes to the south. What relationship with God? His membership in the Congregationalist church that was begun when he left the Episcopalians after a spat over a bike trail? (That's not a joke, he literally left the Episcopalian church beause they wouldn't give up land for a bike trail.)

So who SHOULD the Dem's nominate? Who has a message that appeals to the broadest cross section of America, and who has the ability to effectively communicate that message? Dick does. Dick Gephardt. He's a little too protectionist for my taste, but that protectionism is going to give him a chance in the midwest and south. No issue resonates better with textile workers in North Carolina or steel workers in Ohio more than "American jobs are being exported to China." It's money in the bank. So is Gephardt's position on the war. He was one of the most hawkish Democrats in Congress when it came to Iraq. He WROTE the House resolution authorizing the use of force. He cannot be painted as a peace-nik who "doesn't have the courage to defend America." (That's what Republicans said about Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia, who lost three limbs in Vietnam.)

Gephard't one (possible) liability is his position on taxes. He wants to repeal all the Bush tax cuts to pay for a slough of spending proposals. But, again, this could end out not being so bad. His healthcare proposal is big, but easy to understand. All employees get healthcare from their employer, with the help of government subsidies. It plays to the idea that you have to work for what you get. It's not a handout.

So, all you thousands of Iowans that read this blog daily, VOTE FOR GEPHARDT! If he doesn't win Iowa he's done.

Dude, where's my primary?

2003-12-27T00:57:00.000-08:00

If one thing is unique about this election in comparison to previous ones, it's that there is a general consensus that a candidate has almost locked up the nomination before a single vote has been cast.

Howard Dean is largely considered to be the de facto nominee, barring a catastrophic gaffe or a dramatic turn in world events. But even with the capture of Saddam Hussein, which was thought by many to be extremely damaging to the anti-war former Vermont governor, Dean remains on top. In a recent Washington Post poll, he garnered the support of 31% of registered Democrats, while no other candidate reached double digits.

How is it that all this can be determined before the first caucus or primary has even occurred. For one, money. In every presidential election in the last 30 years, the candidate with the most money has won the nomination. But before, the money was more of a result of a candidate's success, and now it's the cause. Dean's millions ahead of the other candidates, with Wesley Clark the closest behind.

This cycle is also unique in that the front runner is also the outsider. It almost always has come down to an establishment front-runner battling it out against an insurgent outsider (i.e. Gore and Bradley, Ford and Reagan.) This time, Dean is the outsider AND the front runner. He's also the most liberal of the serious contenders in the Democratic primary. Gephardt has tried to outlfank Dean on the left on issues like Medicare and Social Security, and has succeeded slightly in senior-heavy Iowa. But Dean's anti-war and anti-tax cut stances have left him the favorite of the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party."

So Dean has the most money, the most outsider appeal, the most fervent support from liberal activists, and the most buzz (which has lasted for months.) Can ANYONE beat him? The only possible scenario would be for Gephardt to beat Dean in Iowa, where the two are currently neck and neck, leaving Dean staggering into New Hampshire, where he's the favorite. Clark or Kerry would the either have to beat Dean or finish a CLOSE second. Dean would still have won, but with a smaller margin than expected. This would give someone else (whoever beat him or came in second) with the momentum coming out of New Hampshire, not Dean.

Then the primaries would move into the south, perhaps Dean's weakest region. Clark, Edwards or Lieberman could win a few of the southern states among them, diluting the buzz/momentum from Dean heading into the west/midwest. It would then be a dog-fight between Dean and whoever did the best in the south.

GORE ENDORSES DEAN

2003-12-08T16:11:00.000-08:00

Whoa. That's the only word that came to my mind when I read today that Al Gore plans on endorsing Howard Dean. The epitome of the Democratic establishment, Al Gore, has endorsed the epitome of the outsider, Howard Dean. Whoa.

Why would Gore do this? A cynic would say that he wants Dean to get the nomination so he will lose and Gore can run again in '08. But that would ignore the fact that endorsing a losing candidate would lower Gore's stature and hurt him politically. An idealist would say Gore is letting the political consequences go to hell and is endoring the candidate who has his heart. That would underestimate Gore's political sophistication. Gore is doing this for SOME reason, it just hasn't become clear yet.

One thing is certain: die hard Democrats in Iowa and other primary states still have a soft spot for Gore, and his endorsement could lend some sentimental advantage to Dean, at the least. On the other extreme, this could give Dean the bounce he needs to finish off the competition and grab the nomination early.

Super Tuesday

2003-12-08T15:53:00.000-08:00

As I've written before, the primary will boil down to the "winners" of the Iowa/New Hampshire primaries against the winner of the southern/western primaries. Iowa and New Hampshire, the two early states, will produce the candidate with the momentum. South Carolina, Oklahoma, Arizona and Michigan will produce the candidate who can (maybe) take on guy number 1.

Right now it looks like Howard Dean is poised to win Iowa and New Hampshire. If he does, it will be tought for anyone to stop him on February 3rd, when the flurry of southern and western primaries are. Dean is neck and neck with Gephardt in Iowa, a state which Gephardt MUST win. If Dean wins Iowa, Gephardt is gone and the doctor will have to compete with Kerry in New Hampshire. If Dean beats Kerry there, and the polls say he will, Kerry will be severely damaged probably beyond repair.

That will leave Dean to take on Edwards, Clark and Lieberman. One of those three will emerge from the Feb 3rd primaries as the victor, and will go on to take on Dean in the rest of the race.

However, if Gephardt beats Dean in Iowa, Dean will have a close race with Kerry in New Hampshire. If Dean wins there, he will still be in good shape moving into Super Tuesday. If he loses New Hampshire, however, he could be finished. That would throw the race up in there, leaving Gephardt and Kerry to compete with whomever wins the most southern primaries. Gephardt would have a distinctive advantage in this situation, having the positions on trade and economics that could play well with rural, blue collar voters in the south. However, he has to get passed Iowa to do this.

Calm before the storm

2003-11-29T02:19:00.000-08:00

It seems that the 2004 presidential election, or at least the Democratic primary race, has come to a standstill. No one has been gaining in any important states; no one has been dropping. None of the major candidates has chosen a new grand strategy, and none has really changed their position on any of the major isssues. No new ideas or plans have been offered, and no new lines of attack have been formed.

However, in the next 6 weeks leading up to the Iowa caucus, observers can expect the calm to turn into a storm. Dean and Gephardt will be going after each other harder and tougher in Iowa, and Kerry will be doing whatever he needs to do to knock out Dean in New Hampshire.

Right now the scenario looks just how it did a few weeks ago. If Dean beats Gephardt in Iowa, Gephardt's done and Dean will probably have enough momentum to win New Hampshire, leaving the nomination for him to lose. If Gephardt beats Dean in Iowa, Dean will have a tough race with Kerry in New Hampshire. If Dean loses again, he could be finished.

Of course, this all comes before the southern brawl with Edwards, Clark and Lieberman. All three are hoping the strong showings in southern and western states like South Carolina, Oklahoma and Arizona will leave them the alternative to whomever comes out of New Hampshire alive. Edwards looks the strongest in South Carolina, and has been leading in all the recent polls. But it's still possible that Clark or even Lieberman could win the state, effectively knocking Edwards out of the race. Oklahoma should be a free for all, and if Lieberman hasn't won a single state by Super Tuesday, it's hard to imagine how he could hope to win the nomination.

So, after Iowa and New Hampshire at least one of Gephardt, Dean and Kerry will be gone, and possible two is Dean can manage to win both states. The victor(s) will go on to face whoever emerges out of the southern primaries (out of Clark, Edwards and Lieberman.)

This is our ally?

2003-11-17T23:12:00.000-08:00

To step aside from politics for a minute and reflect on our position in the world, I couldn't help but think about the sad irony that as President Bush travels to England next week, the British are stepping up security to levels not seen since World War II in order to prepare for protests and violence against Bush. And this is a country that's our....ally?

When President Kennedy went to West Berlin in 1962, the streets were flooded with Berliners. But they weren't protesting; they were cheering. They were waiving American flags and chanting "Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy." Then, Kennedy stood up and said "...and I'm proud to say here today ich bin ein Berliner...I too am a Berliner." And the rest is history.

Simply put, what happened? England loved Roosevelt. West Germany loved Kennedy. Why do so many countries in the world hate our government? I think it boils down to this: Bush policies at the very least are controversial, and may in fact end up hurting American or global security more than they help, but it's the way in which Bush has executed those policies that has polarized the world against us. Bush and the people around him are so supremely confident in their positions that they see deliberations as pointless and diplomacy as annoying. It's full steam ahead, and anyone who disagreees be damned.

Regardless of whether a policy executed in this fashion is right or wrong, it won't gather much support from the world and, as we've seen, will probably end up turning our "allies" against us.

Jordan Jettisoned

2003-11-11T00:58:00.000-08:00

John Kerry has fired his campaign manager Jim Jordan. The move comes after weeks of struggling by Kerry to catch up to the still-surging Howard Dean.

Whether this will help the struggling Kerry campaign is obviously unknown, but one thing is clear: something had to be done. Kerry was long the de facto front runner in the lackluster field, having the experience both in foreign policy and domestic politics to potentially mount a strong charge against President Bush. But, as many frontrunners do, Kerry played it safe. Too safe. He waffled on issues, flip flopped a time or two, equivocated, and did nothing to excite Democratic primary voters. Meanwhile, Howard Dean was firing up liberal audiences with his denunciation of everything Bush. Dean surged; Kerry lagged.

A lot of observers are commenting that Kerry's campaign is too top-heavy. In other words, there are too many experienced, top-tier, ego-concsious advisors who think they're the be all and end all to campaign management. Like Al Gore's run in 2000, the campaign was more about careers than ideas.

Kerry has also struggled to develop a coherent message. It has seemed at times that the only thing that the Kerry campaign could agree upon was that their candidate was a war hero. Beyond that, no clear theme eminated from the Massachusetts senator's campaign.

Kerry will have to become more lucid with his ideas and political personality, or he'll lose to Dean in New Hampshire and be finished.

House of Labor

2003-11-08T19:48:00.000-08:00

Perhaps the best sign of Howard Dean's (still) growing strength is the pending announcement of a joint AFSCME-SEIU endorsement. For those of you who aren't literate in obscure labor union acronyms, that's "American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees --- Service Employees International."

The unions are two of the biggest in the AFL-CIO. Their endorsement of Dean is big for three reasons: 1. They're the two most politically active unions in the country, 2. They have a lot of members and a lot of influence in the two early primary states, and 3. They picked Dean over Gephardt.

Gephardt has been one of the most doggedly pro-labor politicians in the country, and the AFSCME-SEIU endorsement of Dean means that Gephardt won't be able to get the two-thirds-total from all the AFL-CIO unions needed to get the overall AFL-CIO endorsement. However, SEIU and AFSCME are service unions, which aren't as concerned about one of labor's traditionally big issues: trade. They are concernd, however, about health care. That's one of the reasons why Gephardt unveiled such an ambitious health care plan this summer. However, in the end, it wasn't enough to win over the two unions' support.

The Flag Flap

2003-11-05T17:11:00.000-08:00

Anyone looking for a perfect example of "much ado about nothing" need look no farther than the controversy surrounding Howard Dean and the confederate flag.

Last week, Dean said that he wanted to "be the candidate for southerners who have confederate flags on their pickups trucks." His opponents feigned some moral outrage, Dean refused to apologize, and PRESTO -- a campaign controversy. Al Sharpton criticized Dean for casually using a racist symbol in his outreach, and John Edwards jumped on the former Vermont governor for stereotyping southerners.

But anyone following the race knows that Dean has been saying the same exact thing for almost a year now, in almost every speech he gives. It is only now, when other candidates find themselves falling behind, that it is suddenly a serious issue. Please.

Primary Dynamics

2003-10-26T01:41:00.000-08:00

Howard Dean has become the first Democrat to use negative ads. He unleashed the piece (which doesn't mention any opponents by name) in New Hampshire, where he holds a commanding lead (40% to 17%) over John Kerry,

The spot features Dean highlighting his opposition to the war and contrasting that with his Washington-based-opponents indecisiveness. He also reminds voters that Democrats in Washington have so far failed to deliver a perscription drug plan (though one is in conference committee currently) while he, as Governor of Vermont, oversaw universal healthcare in the state.

The ads really aren't that negative though. They merely are a continuation of Dean's strategy: portray himself as a Washington outsider and his opponents as Bush-lite-Washington-insiders.

But the ads don't need to be that harsh to be effective. You see, Dean is getting almost as much free publicity from people TALKING about the ads as from airing the ads themselves. All the talkshows are running segments on how Dean is the "first to go negative." Those segments, by the way, usually feature at least part of Dean's ad.

Arnold and George

2003-10-13T15:07:00.000-07:00

Now that the turbulency of the recall has (at least temporarily) come to a rest, it's time to analyze the effects of the outcome.

So Arnold is Governor, and inevitably that will help the California Republican party. But the more important question is, What will it do for President Bush?

It's not secret that Karl Rove would like to put California in play in 2004, or at least make in competitive enough that the Democratic nominee will have to invest time and money campaigning in the state. Will Arnold help or hinder that effort?

On one hand, Arnold could resuscitate that California Republicans, and even bring new moderates into the fold of the party. On the other hand, Arnold could turn the state into a circus, fail to solve California's fiscal problems and make the Republicans even more unpopular in the state.

Either way, however, Bush doesn't have all that much to lose. Before the recall shakeup, he probably wasn't going to win the state in '04. Now, perhaps he will or perhaps we won't, but things can really only get better for him in the state.

Recall Draws Near

2003-10-06T01:00:00.000-07:00

Well things have changed drastically in the last week of the California recall. Arnold took the lead, then was hit by sexual harrassment charges and allegations that he admired Hitler.

However, the charges don't seem to have hurt the Terminator at all. He still is leading strongly in polls, as is the recall. But in this volatile election, nothing is certain.

One surprise that wouldn't be particularly surprising is a McClintock surge on election day. Republicans may step into the polliong booth and decide to vote their gut rather than their head. Or, many may assume Arnold is going to win anyway and just give their vote to McClintock. Neither of these would give McClintock enough votes to win, but they could split the Republican vote and give Bustamante the victory.

Perhaps even the recall could fail. This is looking increasingly unlikeley recently, but so have most other things that have happened in the recall. So stay tuned.

Cali Candidates Debate

2003-09-24T22:29:00.000-07:00

Tonight, for the first time, all the leading recall candidates got together under one roof and debated for 90 minutes.

The big story out of the debate was the dust-up between Arnold and Arianna Huffington. After being interrupted by Arnold, Huffington said, "We know that's the way you treat women, but not now." Arnold replied, "I think I have a role for you in Terminator 4."

This was dumb on Arnold's part. He had nothing to gain by engaging a candidate who was barely registering in the polls. By playing into Huffington's hands, he allowed her to elevate herself to his level. Schwarzenegger should have concentrated on going after Bustamante.

McClintock, in my opinion, came out of tonight better than he went in. He seemed to stay above the fray in terms of personal attacks, and offered plenty of nuggets for conservatives, and plenty of straight answers for independents.

Arnold did nothing more tonight than play the stereotype he'd been assigned. He used catchy phrases like "three strikes and your out" and "you guys in Sacramento have a [spending] addiction. You should check into a clinic." But that stuff isn't going to win over any voters who weren't already voting for him. He simply offered more of his same old stuff.

Prediction: McClintock will rise a little, taking votes away from Arnold. Bustamante will be the leading replacement candidate and, if the recall passes, will be elected governor.

Generally Speaking.....

2003-09-22T22:17:00.000-07:00

The entrance of Wesley Clark into the field this week has been the biggest news in this primary in a long time. Of course, Dean had been doing well, but that wasn't news. The media was looking for a story, and Clark stepped in at just the right time.

Amazingly, Clark is leading in several national polls of Democrats. This is quite an accomplishment, considering he hasn't been campaigning for more than two days. Of course, this is mainly due to the media hype surrounding his announcement. Clark's gaffes (including his ambiguity about the war resolution) will quickly bring him back to earth. Furthermore, once Democrats find out that he voted for Nixon, Reagan and Bush the first, they'll be more hesitant to get all dreamy eyed about the guy.

Clark's obvious strength is his national security credentials, but if he continues to flub basic questions like the one about the war resolution his star will quickly fade, and there will be no domestic positions to back him up. Of course, if Clark is the nominee it won't be because of his domestic policy positions.

There had been talk before Clark announced that Dean had made overtures to the general to become Dean's VP. However most knew (including probably Dean) that a move like that would be way too premature. Picking a VP usually gives a candidate a substantial bump in the polls, and Dean would want to do that when more voters are paying attention.

Many have remarked that Clark is incredibily telegenic. I disagree. He's an awkward speaker when he's put on the spot, and his career in the military has trained him to stick to dull and unoffensive language (or at least it seems that way.) Clark once said on Meet the Press that "this country was founded on the idea of progressive taxation." One can only assume that Clark meant that the country was founded on a government that looked out for the middle class, but that's a big stretch. Clark has to sharpen his tongue if he wants to have any mileage in this race.

Lieberman enters the fray

2003-09-13T23:26:00.000-07:00

For months Joe Lieberman's campaign has been going downhill - fast. His pro-war stance accompanied by his moderate to conservative position on many domestic issues has given primary-voting-Democrats nothing to get excited about. But Lieberman's making a move to position himself as the moderate opponent of the liberal front runner--Howard Dean.

At the Congressional Black Caucus's Debate last week, Lieberman directly engaged Dean on a number of issues. He said Dean's opposition to all tax cuts would turn the "Bush recession into the Dean depression." He criticized Dean for saying America shouldn't "take sides" in the middle east conflict and attacked his trade policy.

Everyone expected someone to take on Dean. Most people thought it'd be Kerry, who's locked in a horse race with Dean in New Hampshire. Gephardt was also widely expected to attack the governor, to whom he's losing his lead in Iowa. But in fact both Kerry and Gephardt stayed relatively silent, and instead Lieberman took up the cry. It appears that Lieberman has assumed Dean will knock off Kerry and take up the mantle as the nominal liberal in the primary. Lieberman wants to position himself as the moderate alternative.

Lieberman's strategy is necessary considering the primary schedule. If Dean wins Iowa and New Hampshire (polls show him leading in both) Gephardt and Kerry would likely be finished. That would leave Dean, Lieberman and maybe Edwards still in contention. The next primary states would be South Carolina, Oklahoma and Arizona -- all states that are more conservative than Iowa and New Hampshire. Lieberman's strategy is to concede Iowa and New Hampshire, and wait for the later primaries, where his moderate message might help him.

Democratic Debate a Snoozer

2003-09-06T15:06:00.000-07:00

Eight cautious candidates, limited time and sloppy moderation is a combination for disaster. That's exactly what the DNC-sponsored debate between the Democratic candidates was a few days ago.

Until the field shrinks, it's going to be nearly impossible to stage a quality debate. Giving eight candidates equal time is a tough task, and it makes for a boring and hard-to-follow and even harder-to-grade debate. At least Al Sharpton didn't show up (his plane was delayed due to weather.)

On top of that, the moderation was horrible. The debate, which targeted a large hispanic audience, was moderated by a newswoman from a Spanish speaking network. She stumbled through most of th questions, and once referred to John Kerry as the Senator from "Minnesota."

Futhermore, no one attacked anyone, except for Lieberman's shot at Dean. It was widely expected that Kerry, Gephardt and Lieberman would all pile on Dean, hoping to bring him down to earth. Yet most candidates seemed to be scared that attacking Dean would only energize his base, as it has in the past. All in all, if you didn't watch the debate, you didn't miss much.

Dean On a Roll

2003-08-31T00:31:00.000-07:00

Polls now show Howard Dean leading in both of the early priamry states, by considerable margins. In New Hampshire, the good doctor is ahead of John Kerry by 17%, and in Iowa he's inched ahead of Gephardt by 5%. So, is Dean unstoppable?

It's interesting to note that in both of these states Dean has come from behind to lead two ESTABLISHMENT candidates, raising money and followers along the way. But it's not only Democrats that are noting Dean's prowess. On Hardball last night, Republican pollster Frank Luntz and Time Magazine political reporter Jay Carney both said decidedly that the White House should be worrying more about Dean than any other Democrat.

Why? Wouldn't Karl Rove love to go toe to toe with a liberal insurgent during a time of war? One would think so. In fact, Rove even mockingly cheered Dean supporters at a parade he attended, joking "Yea! That's the one we want!" But should Rove be careful of what he wishes for?

There are two different theories of how Dean could or could not threaten Bush, and as of yet I subscribe to neither. One says that if the war becomes unpopular and the economy continues to sink, voters will be angry at both Bush's foreign policy and his tax-cutting strategy, and will opt for whatever candidate offers a stark contrast. In that situation, Dean would be a formidable opponent. The other theory says that if the rebuilding of Iraq continues to slide downhill, voters will want someone TOUGHER on foreign policy (i.e. Joe Lieberman) rather than a dove. Dean may get credit for having opposed a possibly unpopular war, but that wouldn't give any reason for voters to believe he could do the best job cleaning up the mess. And if the economy continues to slide, says theory #2, voters won't think it wise to give back the tax cuts that Bush gave them. In this case, Dean is screwed.

It's not clear what theory is more likely as of now. But at least among Democratic primary voters, Dean appears headed on the right track.

DEAN HAS DEMS "SLEEPLESS"

2003-08-27T00:29:00.000-07:00

As Dr. Dean kicks off his "sleepless summer tour" across America, it seems like its the other Democratic candidates that are sleepless these days.

Polls show Dean tied for the lead in both Iowa and New Hampshire, states in which wins could propel him to lock up the nomination by February (unlikely, but possible.) It's been widely remarked that all the other Dems are in "stop Dean" mode, but are simultaneously each preparing for a one-on-one showdown with the good doctor.

Kerry's campaign has long said that they would love a mano a mano with Dean, but such a scenario is unlikely. Kerry and Dean both HAVE to win New Hampshire, and whichever one loses will probably be knocked out. The idea that they could be the last two standing is not in keeping with the traditional political calculus.

Gephardt has also been gearing up to go toe-to-toe with Howard, but here too lies a problem. Like Kerry in New Hampshire, Gephardt has to win Iowa. If Dean wins Iowa, Gephardt is (in all likelihood) gone. Yet Gephardt has a more plausible chance than Kerry. Dean could come in a close second to Gephardt in Iowa, then win in New Hampshire and knock out Kerry. That would leave Gephardt and Dean as the frontrunners leading into South Carolina, an anti-trade state more favorable to Gephardt.

But where do Edwards and Lieberman fit into this equation? Well, if they don't do something soon the answer is NOWHERE. Edwards has been lagging in polls and has just begun to run ads in Iowa. If he doesn't gain any traction from that, many predict he may drop out and resume his re-election to the Senate in North Carolina.

Lieberman is even worse off. He's been trying to position himself as the moderate candidate that will be left to showdown with whichever "liberal" the field produces. But his strategy is based on winning big in the late primary states like Arizona and Oklahoma. By then, one of the other candidates (most likely Dean, Kerry or Gephardt) will have the clear momentum and, more importantly, the media attention.

Looks like it's more than Dean who's "sleepless."

Trouble in the Senate

2003-08-22T01:23:00.000-07:00

There's been much press in the recent months about the difficulty the Democrats will have in beating Bush. But there has been less attention paid to a staggeringly more difficult problem for the Democrats: the senate.

In an age where white males are fleeing the Democratic party, the south has become a Republican stronghold. Any remaining prominent Democrats in the south are crucial to the party's chance of regaining the majority in congress. Yet in 2004 the Democrats will face an amazingly difficult fight to keep southern Democrats in the senate. Zell Miller, a popular and conservative Democrat, has announced that we won't seek re-election to his Georgia Senate seat. The Georgia Republican party is infinitely more prosperous and popular in the state the the Democrats. In 2002, Republicans beat an incumbent Governor and Senator, and picked up seats in the congressional delegation. The chances of a Democrat winning a statewide election with Bush on the top of the ballot are slim to none.

Fritz Hollings, South Carolina's senior senator and a Democrat, has also retired. This leaves an open seat in arguably the most conservative state in the country. Needless to say, this is almost definitely a Republican pickup.

Florida Democrat Bob Graham is currently running for President, and even if he doesn't win the nomination he will likely be chosen as a VP candidate. This empties another southern senate seat that Democrats will have to fight to hold onto.

North Carolina freshman Senator John Edwards is also running for president. Edwards, who is so far barely registering in the polls, has been pressured by North Carolina Democrats to decide now whether he'll seek re-election to the senate or dropout in order to focus his attention on the presidential campaign. Either way, Republicans are salivating to pickup another senate seat in a conservative state.

That's four southern Democratic senate seats that could very likely end up in the Republican column in '04, especially with Bush, a hero in the south, on the ballot. And of course that's not taking into account incumbent Democrats like Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas who will also be facing an uphill battle.

There is some good news for the Democrats. They will likely take Peter Fitzgerald's senate seat in Illinois. Fitzgerald is retiring and Illinois is trending Democratic.

But all in all, Democrats will have to hope for the "perfect storm" in 2004 (bad economy, trouble in Iraq, insecure homeland) in order to weaken Bush and thus loosen up the south for Senate (not to mention presidential) candidates.

RECALL CRACKUP

2003-08-16T20:22:00.000-07:00

Well, the date's been set and the list has been finalized. One hundred and thirty five candidates will appear on the California recall ballot on October 7th (pending court decisions.) But those two things are just about all that's definite in the recall circus.

This week brought the formation and demise of Arnold's bipartisan coalition. Just days after uber-investor and economic guru Warren Buffet, a Democrat, joined Arnold's team, he was quoted in a Wall Street Journal story as being in favor of modifying or repealing California's popular Proposition 13, a law that limits property taxes. Republican candidates Bill Simon and Tom McClintock pounded Arnold for the Prop 13 snafu, and even Davis re-affired his support for the measure.

This is the first in what will probably be many examples of the problem with a "broad" coalition of supporters: they don't always agree with each other. That type of group could be helpful for a general election where it's important to attract independents, but in a recall election where only a plurality is needed it can be a recipe for disaster.

Arnold saw his lead in the polls fade and finally disappear as Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante took the lead. As the Arnold buzz faded, the Terminator's catch phrases grew old and his lack of positions became evident.

Facing firepower from both Davis and his Republican opponents, Arnold needs to start playing offense if he wants to be the one to say Hasta La Vista to Davis.

ACTORS IN POLITICS

2003-08-07T21:21:00.000-07:00

For years, conservatives have taunted and attacked actors who mouth off on the political issues of the day. Well, they attack the liberal onces at least.

Every time a conservative says "Why don't actors stick to acting and shut their mouths?" I feel like responding with "I agree. I mean imagine if one had the audacity to run for president?! Oh, wait.....Well, what if one was so obnoxious that they wanted to run for governor of the country's largest state?! Oh wait......Well, what if one wanted to be the head of one of the largest lobbying groups in national politics?! Oh, wait....."

Ronald Reagan, a former actor who made the transition to politics, not only is excepted from the wrath of actor-hating conservatives but is in fact the hero of those very venom-spewing conservatives. What's the deal? Case number 2: Arnold Schwarzenegger. Now a declared candidate in the California recall, he was not drawn the ire of Republicans, but rather is embraced as the anti-Davis. And for the trifecta, let's examine Charlton Heston. He's the head of the right's favorite special interest group: the NRA. Why does he not apply to the "actors should stay out of politics" ideology?

It all boils down to this: liberal actors who enter politics are just punching bags for conservatives who thrive off of pummeling and dismissing liberals as cultural elitists and wimps. A conservative actor just doesn't provide the same fodder.

Bustamente in Cali Recall

2003-08-07T00:37:00.000-07:00

California Lt. Gov Cruz Bustamente has declared that he will in fact run in the recall election of Governor Gray Davis. The announcement was a reversal of his earlier pledges not to run.

Bustamente quietly revealed his plan in a fax to various media sources just hours after Arnold Schwarzenegger announced his candidacy on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.

CLICK HERE FOR FULL STORY

HE'LL BE BACK....

2003-08-06T18:42:00.000-07:00

In a move that shocked observers, Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that he will run for governor of California in the upcoming recall election.

Schwarzenegger had hinted for weeks that he would not run. His decision today made waves across the nation in what has become one of the biggest political stories of the year.

But the Terminator's candidacy offers a wide target for Democrats. In a state that is notorious for its hardball politics, rumors have already arisen of Arnold's extra-marrital affairs, business failures and drug abuse.

Schwarzenegger's announcement also knocks Richard Riordan out of the race. Riordan, who had said that he would not run if Arnold did, is a liberal Republican, was thought to be an attractive candidate in a liberal state where every statewide office holder is a Democrat and the Democrats control both houses of the legislature and the congressional delegation.

In a few months, we'll know whether we'll have a victorious Schwarzenegger declaring "hasta la vista, Davis" or a loser promising that "I'll be back."

MORE GORE?

2003-08-03T21:20:00.000-07:00

The Hill newspaper recently reported that sources close to Al Gore think he might throw his hat in the ring for the 2004 race.

The prospect of a Gore candidacy has establishment Democrats shaking their heads and remembering the disaster that was election 2000.

Gore may be itching for another campaign, but most Democrats shudder at the prospect of a 2000 repeat.

Until now Gore probably assumed that Bush was unbeatable in 2004, and that he would let the other Democrats give it a go before running again in 2008 against a presumably weaker Republican. Yet there are several dynamics emerging so far in the campaign that have Gore rethinking his logic.

First, Bush's number's are dropping. The war in Iraq is messy and the economy is continuing to slide. This has Gore thinking that his assumption of an unbeatable Bush may not hold up, and he doesn't want to commit the mistake that so many Democrats (including himself) made in 1992 by assuming Bush 41 was a sure thing and not running.

Furthermore, Gore (like many insiders) most likely sees Howard Dean as the emerging frontrunner in the race. He's raising more money than any other candidate and is tied for first in polls in BOTH Iowa and New Hampshire. Gore may believe that if he jumped in the campaign now he could make it a two man race: Gore v. Dean. That is a race that Gore could likely win.

Yet there are obvious drawbacks of a Gore candidacy. Most obviously, running after he said he wouldn't only adds to the image the public has of Gore being a waffler and opportunist who is willing to say or do anything to win.

But even more damaging is the luke warm (if not downright cold) feeling many Democrats have to another Gore candidacy. Gore was a clumsy candidate who lost an election most thought he should have easily won. He was seen as tailoring his image to flow with the political winds, and a late entry would only contribute to that perception.

One can only imagine what Gore must be feeling at a time like this. If only he had gotten 500 more votes in Florida he would have been president during September 11th, and he would have been the heroic president that the country rallied around. What must be even more painful is the fact that had September 11th happened before the 2000 election it would have likely considerably helped Gore's candidacy, as he was perceived as being more knowledgeable of world events than Bush.

Gore has led a life of success. There has never been a time when the Vice President couldn't accomplished what he wanted or reach his next goal. Yet he must realize that, at least for now, Democrats aren't in the mood for more Gore.

DEAN MESSES WITH TEXAS

2003-08-02T02:48:00.000-07:00

He's running ads WHERE?!! Yup, Howard Dean is airing commercials in the heart of Bush country: Austin, Texas.

Last weekend the Dean campaign raised $508,000 in online contributions in what they billed as a fundraising drive to out-raise the Dick Cheney closed door, $2000 per plate fundraiser in South Carolina. Dean has now pledged to use that money to take his message to a state he has absolutely no chance of winning.

But the point of these ads is not to become competitive in Texas (and not even in the Texas Democratic primary.) This is merely a continuation of Dean's campaign strategy: bold, unafraid and unambiguous challenges to the powers that be.

Dean has built his campaign on his blunt and angry message. Running ads in Texas is a continuation of his bold style.

Dean started off his campaign by going after the Democratic establishment. He said he represented the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party" and lambasted congressional Democrats for voting with the president on too many issues.

In large part Dean's campaign has been built on (and has grown exponentially because of) his simple, clear and powerful message of standing up to the president and (all of) his policies. What better way to stand up to the president than to air commercials criticizing him in his home state while he's actually going to be vacationing just miles away (Bush will be at his Crawford ranch while the ads are airing in Austin.)

But there is another dimension of this shrewd political play that is nearly as, if not more, important than the excitement the ads will nourish within Dean's cult-like following. This move by the Dean campaign will automatically garner hours of free airtime on the cable news networks, during which pundits will marvel at Dean's gravitas and give plenty of gab-time to whatever spokesman the Dean campaign produces.

Well done Joe Trippi.

Democratic Man Problems

2003-07-31T01:09:00.000-07:00

The Democrats are having man problems. A new poll released by the Democratic Leadership Conference indicates that only 22% of white males now identify themselves as Democrats, down from 47% a half century ago.

There could be any number of reasons for this shift, but let me share my musings. In 1952, Democrats were the party of Harry Truman, and FDR's near heroic status as a champion of the working man still lingered in the air. Democrats were perceived as being tough. However, in the following 50 years Democrats continuosly morphed as they saw ideological shifts in their base and in society as a whole.

It started in the 1960's. When JFK was first elected in 1960, he nearly swept the south. As a party, Democrats (particularly racist Democrats) dominated southern states. Yet as the Democrats became champions for civil rights, and Republicans didn't, the south slowly moved from the Democratic column to the Republican one (when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 he told one aide that he feared Democrats had lost the south "for the next 40 years.") In 1968, Richard Nixon employed his infamous "southern strategy" to exploit racial tension in the south and grab the votes of conservative whites.

Richard Nixon's "southern strategy" marked the beginning of white males' migration to the Republican party.

Since then, white males nation-wide have been slowly migrating to the Republican party. Now, this isn't to say that all white males are racists. In fact, other social issues like abortion, gun control, gay rights, and more controversial civil rights issues like affirmative action and hate crimes legislation have been more monumental in driving white men from the party than the civil rights movement.

In a larger context, Democrats have become the so-called "mommy" party. That is to say, they emphasize issues more important to mothers and women (education, healthcare, gun control, abortion) while Republicans emphasize the "daddy" issues (defense, national security, tax cuts.) Allow me to become an amatuer sociologist and explain it this way: In the average family, which parent drops the kids off at school more often, cares for kids when they're sick and worries about safe neighborhoods? Mothers do, right? That's why women care more about education, healthcare and gun control. Which parent is more concerned with protecting the family and paying bills? Fathers are. Which parent goes hunting more often? The dads. That's why defense, tax cuts and opposition to gun control are "daddy" issues.

The Democrats' shift, I believe, can be traced back to the 1972 election. In that year George McGovern, a liberal, beat Ed Muskie, a hawk, for the Democratic nomination. From that year on Democrats have been more concerned with social issues and injustices than blue collar worries. When it comes to defense, they worried about human rights instead of military "strength." Republicans have downplayed the importance of social justice and have emphasized displaying strength and prowess abroad, appealing to the mentalities of working class men.

Yet the rift between the parties isn't wholly psychological. Republicans have been expert at exploiting middle class, white anger over issues like welfare and affirmative action, making the debate over the scope of government into an argument over giving tax dollars to allegedly lazy "welfare queens." And remember the infamous "white hands" commercial that Jesse Helms ran in his senate race? Think that was targeted at anyone other than middle class white males?

Largely, Republicans have become the party of males, particularly white males, by de-emphasizing social issues, characterizing Democrats as wimps (Mondale, Dukakis, etc.) and using divisive issues like welfare to advocate cutting taxes and government programs. All of these appeal to white males who feel that, in the crusade for social justice and civil rights, they have been left behind.

What can Democrats do to turn the tide? Well, they could take a page out of Bill Clinton's political playbook. When Clinton ran in 1992 he didn't run on the usual slew of Democratic, "big-government" ideas. Instead, he characterized his proposals in terms of how it would help the middle class. He called himself a champion for those who "work hard and play by the rules," and spoke of the "forgotten middle class." Until then Democrats had been champions for the poor and Republicans for the rich. Clinton's rhetoric and positions appealed directly to normal, middle class (and white) voters who felt that in past political debates they, and their problems, had been ignored.

In terms of the 2004 election, there are at least a few candidates who have Clinton potential. Most notably, John Edwards, Senator from North Carolina, has stressed these themes. He repeatedly says he is a fighter for "regular people," has criticized the president for "valuing wealth over work" and frequently reminds voters that his father worked in a textile factory and "never had any advocates on Capitol Hill like Ken Lay did." But when Edwards says that president "values wealth over work," the keyword is work. In other words, Edwards wants to help not just the poor, but those who work from 9 to 5 everyday and, though they may not be in the poor house, still have trouble making ends meet. Also, Edwards' southern accent and plain-talking style shields him from being perceived as a liberal elitist (like Dukakis.)

Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) is stressing the issues that might help get white males to vote Democratic.

Dick Gephardt also has potential. He's been a close ally of labor unions and an opponent of free trade, which appeals to blue collar workers' fears of losing their jobs. Yet Gephardt reaks of big government, New Deal programs that were part of the reasons why white males began to leave the party in the 70's and 80's.

Whoever they run and whatever they run on, the Democrats need to begin pulling white males back into the fold, or the Republicans will be the "daddy" party in Washington for a while.

SEE DICK RUN

2003-07-29T01:50:00.000-07:00

Dick Gephardt is at once one of the strongest and one of the weakest of the presidential candidates. His advantages are numerous, as are his drawbacks.

On the plus side, Gephardt's been in Democratic politics for over 20 years. On the negative side, well, he's been in Democratic politics for over 20 years.

Dick Gephardt offers an array of strengths and weaknesses as a candidate.

Gephardt's experience is both a plus and a minus. It has given him high name identification, strong support from Democratic interest groups like organized labor, and fundraising support from the Democratic establishment.

Conversely, his career in public service makes him appear as a "has been" or an "old hand," not the kind of candidate who could offer a fresh perspective or bring a lot of independents into his camp.

Additionally, his experience provides an ample record for opponents to attack. One of Gephardt's largest weaknesses: flip-flopping. In 1981 he voted for Ronald Reagan's historic tax cut. He vigorously opposed both of President Bush's. At the beginning of his career he supported a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. Now he's pro-choice. In 1991 he opposed the Gulf War. Last year he was one of the most hawkish Democrat's in congress and even wrote the resolution authorizing force in Iraq.

His flip-flopping smacks of political opportunism. His campaign is more likely to characterize it as the thoughtful evolution of a man dedicated to public service.

Yet it's not all bad for Gephardt. His healthcare plan is the clearest and most comprehensive of all the Democratic contenders. It would mandate that all large employers provide health insurance to employees and would provide generous subsidies to pick up the cost. Yet, though it is the most comprehensive, it is also the most expensive. It costs $214 billion per fiscal year, more than twice the price of the next most expensive proposal. This proposal allows Gephardt to argue against Bush's tax cuts as a matter of priorities ("You can have the tax cut or everyone in the country can have healthcare.") But the hefty pricetag of the plan forces Gephardt to give up the issue of fiscal responsibility.

Gephardt is essentially a mixed bag. His proposals are a combination of new ideas and old-school Democratic ones. His demeanor makes him appear reliable and steady, but not exciting. If he can pick up the fundraising pace, he may be able to appeal to traditional Democrats, who vote heavily in the primaries. If not, the public career of this career politician will draw to an end.

DAVIS' GOOD START

2003-07-28T19:29:00.000-07:00

Observers of California politics in recent weeks might think that California Democrats are in disarray and that Governor Gray Davis is running for his life. Not so.

In fact, Democrats seem to be much more organized as a party than their Republican counterparts. There are already a handful of announced Republican candidates, whereas Davis has managed to keep other Democrats off the ballot so far.

Darrell Issa, a Republican congressman from San Diego, and Michael Huffington, former congressman and senate candidate, are the two most well known Republicans in the race as of yet. The infighting has already begun. In an interview yesterday, Issa's spokesman said that Californians "aren't going to embrace the first bisexual gubernatorial candidate." (Huffington is gay.) Issa's communications director called the reporters involved and asked them not to print the quote, but it was to late.

The comment was printed, and anti-recall forces attacked. A spokesman for the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, said that "Gay baiting has no place in any campaign, no matter what the circumstances" and a spokesman for Davis said "the whole recall effort has anti-gay overtones."

Rep. Darrell Issa is off to a rocky start in his recall campaign.

This incident marks a pattern in California politics. In 2002, Davis took out ads against Republican Richard Riordan during the Republican primary, helping to defeat him and giving Davis the chance to run against conservative Bill Simon, who, for those of you outside California, is an idiot.

In literally the first day of the recall campaign, Davis has already seized on Republican infighting, causing the press to focus on Republican troubles rather than the unpopular Davis.

Additionally, the whole recall effort has taken on a circus-like atmosphere. Of the announced candidates so far, there is a 18 year old recent high school graduate, a 26 year old female computer programmer who sells "Georgy for Governor" thongs on her website, an elderly caretaked of an Interstate 280 rest stop, and a retired police officer who wants to legalize the domestic ferret.

All of this plays perfectly into Davis's strategy of portraying the recall as a right-wing effort to overturn a valid election and steal the governor's mansion. So far, that seems pretty accurate.

THE DISAPPEARING PRIMARY

2003-07-25T17:45:00.000-07:00

In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt received the Democratic nomination for President on the fourth ballot at the national convention. In 2004, the nominee will likely be clear 6 months before the Dems gather in Boston. What happened? Where have the primaries gone?

As time has passed, presidential primaries have become less and less a factor in the nomination fight, as silly as that may sound. Don't misunderstand me, Iowa and New Hampshire are crucial, but other factors like money and media coverage have turned electoral politics into an invisible and constantly shifting tornado of momentum. Think about this: so far not a single vote has been cast in the 2004 primaries, yet pundits have already separated the candidates into tiers and have outright eliminated a few.

A number of factors have contributed to this change. For one, campaigns are starting earlier, much earlier, than before. Bill Clinton didn't begin campaigning until October of 1991, less than 6 months before the first primary. This year candidates began running as early as last November, almost 14 months before New Hampshire.

Additionally, money, for better or worse, has become a paramount issue in judging a candidate's strength. There's a saying that "money begets money," and if a candidate doesn't show potential in fundraising he will quickly disappear from the radar screen.

Furthermore, with the proliferation of cable news and the internet, campaigns and candidates are being discussed at great length much sooner than they would be in a year like 1992, when the internet was in its infant stages and the TV networks had only a half hour each night to report the news. Nowadays, MSNBC, CNBC, CNN, and Fox News have 24 hours a day to fill with news, and the early developments of a presidential primary provide ample fodder for them to dish out to their political-junkie viewers.

Going back even further, incumbent presidents in the 19th century didn't campaign at all, merely allowing the voters to judge them on their accomplishments. It was considered beneath a president to hit the stump.

Those days are long gone, yet perhaps there is an upside to these developments. The proliferation of news sources allows voters to get closer to the action, to know more about what's happenin' 24 hours a day. But for better or worse, like any historical evolution, there's little that can be done to stop it.

TOTAL RECALL

2003-07-24T22:00:00.000-07:00

Today, California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley certified that recall backers garnered enough signatures to recall Governor Gray Davis.

The election will be held October 7th, giving Republicans yet another chance to lose a race in California.

Yet I have an inkling that nothing could be better for the Democratic party in the long run than to let a Republican take over the governorship, the more conservative the better.

Davis is gearing up for a battle, but it's one that Democrats should lose

Here's the reasoning: California has a $38 billion deficit. That's over a third of the entire budget. No governor, and I mean NO governor, is going to be able swoop into Sacramento and solve all our budget worries, especially a Republican who refuses to raise taxes (I mean c'mon, are we seriously going to cut nearly 40% of our budget?) Though Davis is undeniably somewhat of a cold fish, his extreme unpopularity at the moment is more due to voters' frustration over the budget situation, not due to anything about Davis in particular. Were a Republican to take the helm in this heavily Democratic state, he (or she) would likely become even more unpopular than Davis. First of all, voters would eventually became just as frustrated with the "do-nothing" Republican (as long as the budget isn't passed, all California politicians are "do-nothingers" in the eyes of Californians) as they were with Davis. Secondly, Californians' liberal tendencies would further add to the problems of any Republican.

But this has larger implications. Presidential implications, to be exact. It's a foregone conclusion that any Democrat who wants to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has to win California. There's no better way to cement a Democratic win in California in 2004 than to have an unpopular Republican as governor. This would turn the tide against Republicans as a whole in the state, hurting Bush as well.

Yet the impact doesn't stop there. It's well known that Bush's national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice, wants to be California's next governor. She's planning a run in 2006, but if there is a Republican governor she obviously can't. The last thing Democrats want is to have a popular, smart, black female as the governor of the country's largest state. Can you say "demographic shift?" How about "Rice for President" ? No, Democrats would bode well to do all they can to keep Rice out of Sacramento.

Democrats should do all they can to keep Rice from becoming Governor in 2006, including sacrificing Davis in the recall.

Let Schwarzenegger win. He's an easily caricatured figure who would have literally no clue how to solve California's budget woes. Soon, voters would realize what they'd done and would quickly return the governorship to whatever Democrat runs in 2006. Furthermore, the California Republican Party would spiral into an even more dismal state than it's in now. I can see The Terminator's campaign slogan now: Hasta la vista, Davis!

Dear Mr. McCauliffe....

2003-07-23T21:56:00.000-07:00

Terry McCauliffe
Chairman, Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003

Mr. McCauliffe:

The early stages of the 2004 Democratic primary have made one thing clear: the system ain't working.

For years now the Democratic primary has been frontloaded and has placed increased importance on the states of Iowa and New Hampshire. Because of their early primaries, the results of these two states often give one or two candidates clear momentum and set the tone for the rest of the primary.

The problem, Mr. McCauliffe, is that the choices of New Hampshire and Iowa usually aren't the best choices for the Democratic party. Iowa Democrats are extra-dovish on defense policy, and New Hampshire Dems are more socially liberal than the rest of the country. For any candidate to win these two states, he must move decidedly to the left to appeal to the liberals which dominate these early contests. You know as well as I that a liberal, dovish Democrat will not be the strongest candidate in any general election.

Terry (can I call you Terry?), as the DNC chairman you have a responsibility to help the party choose a nominee that will put up a strong fight against the Republicans and that can appeal to the moderate and independent voters that, as you know, decide all presidential elections.

My suggestions? Well I'm glad you asked. I was talking to Bill last week and he and I agreed that the party could greatly benefit from earlier southern and western primaries. Moving the South Carolina primary to the front of the lineup, for example, would be an excellent move. Currently it is the third, and by the time it rolls around all the candidates have had to dive leftward to do well in Iowa and New Hampshire. And as you know, and as Bill proudly reminded me, all of the Democratic presidents elected in the last 40 years have come from the south.

But don't get me wrong, I don't think the south should dominate the primaries. What about Michigan? It's one of the most important swing states in every election. If we can produce a nominee that Michigan Dems are excited about then we could increase turnout there in November, right?

Now I don't want to tell you how to do your job; your obviously a professional. But is seems to me that if we want to become the majority party again (and that is the goal, isn't it?) then we should try to select candidates that have broad appeal to all Americans, not just our liberal base.

Well, I've written enough. Thanks for reading this, and please consider my suggestions, OK?

Yours truly,
A Concerned Democrat

A SURGING INSURGENT

2003-07-23T00:15:00.000-07:00

At the beginning of his campaign, Dean had just over $100,000 and a campaign staff that could be counted on one hand. He had no name ID, had no "establishment" support and was hardly known outside of Vermont. Flash forward to today: Dean is statistically tied with Gephardt in Iowa. He trails behind Kerry in New Hampshire by less than 5 percentage points. He raised more money in the second quarter than any other candidate. A Field Poll that came out today showed him to be the leading candidate among Democrats in California. Can Dean surge no more?

Dean will have to expand his base to include centrists and indpendents in order to be successful

Indeed it seems that he has plateaud. Were his exponential growth in support to continue at the previous rate he would run away with the nomination. Yet with his newfound success comes a new burden: Dean is now a frontrunner. With that label comes increased scrutiny and higher expectations. His off the cuff remarks (i.e. "We won't always have the strongest military") will become increasingly dangerous, and the media will no longer overlook his gaffes for he is no longer a "darkhorse." He is now leading the race.

Dean desperately needs to start developing a stronger centrist message. He's already got the support of the liberal wing of the party, case closed. He now needs the moderates and independents that will determine the New Hampshire primary and, if he gets this far, the general election. Yes, yes, I KNOW he balanced the budget in Vermont and has an "A" rating from the NRA, but things like that will be overshadowed by his opposition to the war in Iraq if he continues with his current anti-war message. I'll say it again: He already has the anti-war crowd, he needs to move on to the center. His base won't abandon him, because they realize that for him to win he has to appeal to moderates, and his early success with liberals gives him the chance to move to the center months earlier than the other candidates, who still have to show their liberal bona fides, can. This headstart can give him a significant advantage with centrists who any plausible candidate needs.

Dean has reached a crossroads. Path one is to bask in his early success and keep firing up liberals. Path two is to start identifying himself as a moderate candidate, more of an "electable" choice than an inspirational darkhorse. This road leads to Boston. The first leads to Howard's End.

CRAPPY ANALYSIS 101

2003-07-22T12:19:00.000-07:00

This is the most nonsensical crap I've ever heard:

Read this to become an idiot

GET TWISTED

2003-07-21T20:08:00.000-07:00

Play the "George Bush Credibility Twister Game"

NEWS TODAY

2003-07-21T11:41:00.000-07:00

Check 'em out:

Washington Post: No frontrunner in Dem primary

LA Times: Republicans seek dominance

Miami Herald: Bad news for Bush

NY Times: Bush fundraising

LA Times: War criticism risky for Dems

Boston Globe: New primary calender for Dems

USA Today: Power brokers in NH, IA

Biden for President

2003-07-20T18:59:00.000-07:00

There's buzz that the nine person Democratic field may be soon growing even larger. Senator Joseph Biden from Delaware and General Wesley Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied forces for NATO, will announce in the coming weeks whether or not they'll seek the nomination.

Both would be positive additions to the field, yet Biden has real potential.

Blunt and tough, Biden is a no-nonsense Democrat in the mold of Harry Truman. And as the ranking member of the Foreign Relations committee, he's got the security credentials to take on Bush. In many ways, he encompasses the strengths of all the other nine candidates without the weaknesses. He's got the bluntness of Dean without appearing as liberal. He's got the security credentials of Lieberman without appearing as hawkish. He's got the stature of Kerry without appearing as aloof.

Biden's only drawback as a candidate is that he comes from an electorally inconsequential state (Delaware.) Yet no other Democrat brings much to the table in that arena either. Edwards and Graham are the only candidates from the south, but neither of them has been coming on strong in recent months, and their geographic strength could easily be added to the ticket in the VP slot.

When it comes to government experience, Biden's second to none. He was first elected to the Senate at the age of 29 ( he reached the Constitutionally required age of 30 for a senator only weeks before he was inaugurated.)

Democrats have been looking for someone who will stand up to Bush without necessarily going to the far left. Biden fits this description perfectly. He is as angry as Howard Dean but is more of a "raging moderate" (in the words of Al Gore) than a liberal.

After the 2002 midterm disaster, Democrats tried to decide whether they had to move to the left and stand up to Bush, or move to the center. With Biden they can have both: a moderate who won't cede an inch of ground to the president.

BUSH'S NUMBERS DOWN

2003-07-18T21:08:00.000-07:00

A new Zogby poll shows Bush's approval rating down and a lack of support for his re-election.

Only 53% of those polled approved of Bush's job as president, with 46% disapproving. This is down almost ten points from the end of the war.

But, even more importantly, only 46% of those polled said they'd vote to re-elect Bush, with 47% SAYING THEY'D VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE. This is down from a 49%/38% margin in favor of re-election just a month ago.

The "re-elect" number is widely regarded as most representative of a President's strength, since some may technically "approve" of his job but not want to re-elect him.

Just 50% of Americans believe the country is on the "right track," the lowest percentage since before 9-11.

Perhaps more importantly, support for the war in Iraq, previously one of Bush's strongest issues, is down. At the beginning of the war, 75% of Americans supported it. Now, when asked whether they'd support the war if they had it to do over again, only 59% say yes.

On the domestic front, things look really grim for the president:

Healthcare: 36% approve of the President's performance, 61% disapprove.
Environment: 31% approve, 64% disapprove
Taxes 45% approve, 54% negative
Jobs/Economy: 33% approve, 66% disapprove.

And last but certainly not least, Americans are evenly split on rating the President's job on the War on Terror, previously one of his strongest issues. 49% approve of his job, 50% disapprove.

It should be noted that this is not just a random poll. Zogby International, the company that conducted the poll, is one of the mose widely respected polling firms in the business.

For the complete results and writeup click HERE

CONGRESS GONE WILD

2003-07-18T18:49:00.000-07:00

In a Ways and Means Committee hearing today, chaos ensued. Democrats said they had not been given enought time to discuss amendments, and therefore demanded that the entire bill be read aloud so they would have time to leave the room and discuss.

While this happened, one Democrat, Rep. Pete Stark, stayed behind to prevent Republicans from ending the reading.

A Republican congressman told Stark to "shutup," to which Stark replied by calling the Republican a "wimp" and a "fruitcake."

Then, Chairman Bill Thomas called the Capitol Police to throw the Democrats out of their meeting room. WOW!

Chairman Bill Thomas (R-CA)

For the whole story, click HERE

Dean/Kerry vs. Gephardt/Edwards

2003-07-18T17:54:00.000-07:00

As in any campaign, the contenders for the Democratic nomination are beginning to separate themselves into clearly defined tiers, and the political dynamics that will shape the rest of the race are emerging.

Though early, it seems clear that there are four top tier candidates as of now: Dean, Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards. Though Edwards has been struggling in polls, this is because up to this point he has concentrated more on money than on message. Lieberman may well make a late charge, but as of yet he seems too conservative to appeal to primary voters, who tend to be more liberal.

Anyone who's followed the race knows that John Kerry and Howard Dean have been in somewhat of a pissing contest over the last few weeks. Of course, only one of the two will emerge out of New Hampshire still alive, so they've got much to piss over.

Dean and Kerry are not only competing for the same state, New Hampshire, but also for the same demographic: upper middle class white liberals (i.e. Volvo drivers and NPR listeners.) These voters tend to be "thinkers." In terms of this election cycle they are likely to be more dovish than hawkish on foreign policy and fiscally conservative on economic policy. Of Dean and Kerry, whoever wins this demographic will win New Hampshire and will emerge as the top "liberal" contender for the rest of the nomination process.

The victor of that skirmish will then take on whoever has emerged from the brawl of the moderates. As of now, that battle royale is more and more likely to be between Gephardt and Edwards. Both have slipped into populist mode: liberal on economic policy and hawkish on foreign policy. Just as Dean and Kerry are going for the affluent white liberals, Edwards and Gephardt are battling for the middle class, union member Democrat. Listen for these two to talk about economic opportunity, rolling back "tax cuts for the rich," strengthening unions and opposing free trade.

In both of these mini-elections (Dean v. Kerry and Gephardt v. Edwards) Democrats have a choice between a fresh face and an old hand. Someone reliable or someone refreshing. Kerry has been in the Senate for 18 years, Gephardt in the House for over 20. These two veterans will be facing off against Dean, who, though he was Governor of Vermont for 10 years, hasn't been in the national spotlight, and Edwards, a first term Senator.

If one had to place a bet now, Kerry and Gephardt would be the likely favorites due to organization, name ID and support from the "establishment." But that could all change very soon. Dean is making a ton in fundraising as of late and Edwards has been performing well in New Hampshire town hall meetings.

I should say that this is all obviously subject to change. One major slip-up or a scandal could ruin a top-tier candidate's chances in a second. But one thing is clear: by the time it's all over, there will be no love lost between the Dems.

TODAY'S NEWS

2003-07-18T11:22:00.000-07:00

Today's biggest political news:

Washington Post on White House's Iraq Politics

Boston Globe: Dems see a vulnerable Bush

NY Times: Democrats pander

AP: Lieberman attacking

LA Times: DNC Chief fights CA recall

Pat Robertson defends dictator

2003-07-17T20:19:00.000-07:00

Wow, talk about hypocrisy! Here's an excerpt from MSNBC:

" IN RECENT BROADCASTS of his cable TV show "The 700 Club," watched by an estimated 1 million households, Robertson has defended Taylor as a fellow Baptist and Liberia's "freely elected" leader. The "horrible bloodbath" taking place in Liberia, he has repeatedly said, is the fault of the State Department.
"So we are undermining a Christian, Baptist president to bring in Muslim rebels to take over the country. And how dare the president of the United States say to the duly elected president of another country, 'You've got to step down,'? Robertson said to his viewers on Monday."

So let's get this straight: Robertson is not only defending a murderer, but is also blaming America for the atrocities there. I wonder if any conservatives will call him a "hate America first liberal" ???

Pat Robertson

Here's the whole article:

CLICK HERE

Peter Beinart On "Lefties"

2003-07-17T19:39:00.000-07:00

Peter Beinart's latest TRB column from The New Republic is an interesting if not confrontational critique of what he calls "lefty" foreign affairs.

Entitled "No Answer," his article blasts ANSWER (Act Now to End War and Racism) for not speaking out against humanitarian offenses in Africa.

"In fact, [ANSWER's protest against human rights abuses] doesn't include Africa at all. answer has organized no protests and issued no statements on Africa's four most ravaged countries--Congo, Liberia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe--although they contain exponentially more oppression and suffering than the four targeted by the group's "International Days of Protest."

Answer is symptomatic of the left in general. A LexisNexis search going back to 2000 finds not a single reference to the crises in Congo, Liberia, Sudan, or Zimbabwe from Noam Chomsky, Arundhati Roy, Michael Moore, Michael Lerner, Gore Vidal, Cornel West, or Howard Zinn. In Congo alone, according to the International Rescue Committee, five years of civil war have taken the lives of a mind-boggling 3.3 million people. How can the leaders of the global left--men and women ostensibly dedicated to solidarity with the world's oppressed, impoverished masses--not care?

The answer, I think, is that the left isn't galvanized by victims; it's galvanized by victimizers."

I happen to think Beinart makes an excellent point. It seems that groups like ANSWER are more interested in blasting world leaders (Bush especially) instead of actually trying to solve humanitarian crises.

Yet I think there's another point that Beinart either misses or doesn't want to say. ANSWER, in my opinion, won't go after African leaders because they have a knee jerk reaction that no black leader can be evil. Similar to how a man like Al Sharpton won't acknowledge that there is reverse discrimination in some parts of society, ANSWER feels it would be betraying its pledge against "racism" if it were to attack an African politician. This stems from the fact that for years groups like ANSWER (and much more mainstream, reasonable groups) fought against European rule of African nations, bemoaning the practice as colonialism or racism. Now that blacks are in charge of most African countries, ANSWER feels like it would almost be taking the side of "whites" if it were to point out the abuses of people like Robert Mugabe or Charles Taylor.

Here is the link to the whole Beinart article:

CLICK HERE

BUSH THE KEYNESIAN

2003-07-17T16:46:00.000-07:00

"This tax cut will put more money in the hands of working Americans. This will lead to more spending, which will stimulate the economy and produce jobs." President Bush spoke those words when pushing his tax cut proposal in Ohio a few months back.

At least from those words, Bush sounds like a die-hard Keynesian economist who thinks that economic stimulus comes from the "demand" side (i.e. consumers) of the economy. But he isn't a Keynesian. He's a supply-sider through and through.

So what's the deal? The founder of Keynesian economics, John Maynard Keynes, said that there were two ways to stimulate the economy in the short run. Either you cut taxes or you increase government spending. Obviously, Bush isn't going to choose the latter. So, when its convenient, Bush slips into Keynesian mode and pushes tax "relief" that will put money in the "hands of working Americans." But there's one problem: Not all tax cuts are created equal.

The tax cuts Keynes had in mind were intended for the middle class. Why? Not just because it would be fairer that way, but because the middle class has a higher "marginal propensity to consume." In other words, middle class Americans will spend a higher percentage of the money they get from a tax cut because they NEED it more at the time. And while the rich may or may not deserve a tax cut, they don't spend as high a percentage of their portion because they already have most of what they need.

Sounds simple enough, right? Apparently not simple enough for Bush. He consistently presents a Keynesian justification for a very un-Keynesian tax cut. Tax cuts that focus on the supply side of the market (i.e. dividends tax cut, capital gains cut) and tax cuts for the wealthy were not at all what Keynes had in mind, and Bush is doing a disservice to one of the most brilliant economists of the 20th century.

TONY TRIUMPHS

2003-07-17T13:36:00.000-07:00

After hearing Tony Blair address a joint session of Congress, I have just one question: Why isn't this guy our president?

Articulate and passionate, Blair framed the war on Iraq (and the larger war on terror) in terms of human liberty and future security. It goes without saying that over the last few years America hasn't heard such eloquence.

Blair and Bush hold a joint press conference after Blair's speech

"Can we be sure that terrorists and weapons of mass destruction will join together?" Blair asked. "Let us say one thing. If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that at its least is responsible for inhumane carnage and suffering. And that, I'm sure, is something history will forgive. But to have hesitated in the face of this menace when we should have given leadership ... that is something that history will not forgive," said Blair.

Well said.

Bush and Blair

(Using notes instead of a teleprompter was C-L-A-S-S-Y)

Here's the entire speech:

CLICK HERE

TODAY'S NEWS

2003-07-17T12:53:00.000-07:00

Today's biggest stories:

Washington Post on Intelligence Politics

LA Times: Senate might widen investigation

LA Times: AARP may oppose Medicare plan

NY Times: OMB Director testifies to House

NY Times: Deficit Politics

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

2003-07-16T23:20:00.000-07:00

Has anyone heard a better definition of a liberal than this? I think not.....

“Because I believe in original sin, because I know that I’m capable of craving a cold beer in a village of starving kids, because I understand that selfishness vies for space in our hearts with compassion, I believe we need government – a government that forces us to care for the common good even when we don’t fee like it, a government that helps channel our better instincts and check our bad ones. But I also believe in containing government and tempering the claims we make for it. I don’t think government is good, just necessary. I’m a liberal who accepts limits.”

- George Stephanopoulos

TENET TAKES THE FALL

2003-07-16T21:44:00.000-07:00

CIA Director George Tenet says he was not informed of the controversial line in the President's State of the Union that suggested that Iraq attempted to purchase uranium from Africa. But he still takes "full responsibility." HUH?!

Full article:

CLICK HERE

NEW POLLING

2003-07-16T21:36:00.000-07:00

A new ABC News/Washington Post shows that the Democratic nomination is even more up for grabs than before. Lieberman and Gephardt, the two candidates with the best name ID, have dropped considerably, Howard Dean has gained slightly and others have remained fairly stable.

The poll is of 1,006 likely voters who "lean Democratic."

Results:

Lieberman: 13% (down from 29%)
Kerry: 12% (down from 14%)
Gephardt: 10% (down from 19%)
Dean: 8% (up from 3%)
Edwards: 6% (up from 4%)
Graham: 3% (same)

Complete results and write up:

Click Here

ABC NEWS: Dean Can Win

2003-07-16T14:16:00.000-07:00

In the online political journal "The Note," ABC News's political unit writes:

"The good news for Terry McAuliffe and the rest of the Eviction Crew is that, like a car owner in Adams Morgan looking for a parking space, or an apartment seeker on the Upper West Side, or a spinster political reporter who doesn't believe in her heart the old saw about the fish and a bicycle, they only need to find one.

Which is to say: in the end, they only need one presidential nominee who has the capacity to beat George Bush.

The biggest change in Howard Dean's life this year (and, believe you us, there have been many) is that it is now very hard to find anyone in politics who doesn't believe he CAN be that nominee."

Read the whole "Note" by clicking

here

BUSH VULNERABLE

2003-07-16T02:57:00.000-07:00

Dems smell blood on the Niger/Uranium issue. Check out this

Washington Post Article

explaining how the Democrats may get this one to stick on Bush.

Let Dean Beat Bush, Let Kerry Win

2003-07-16T02:52:00.000-07:00

The scuffle over the Niger/uranium mixup (lie?) has made one paradox clear: Americans may agree that Bush hyped the Iraq evidence and Bush may even see a substantial drop in his polls because of this, but at the same time Americans feel more comfortable with someone who is overly-hawkish than dovish. In other words, a war may become extremely unpopular, but voters will still support the hawk-in-chief (think 1972.) So what are the Democrats to do? Here's one idea: Let Howard Dean attack Bush on Iraq until the cows come home, and watch as his support slowly drops, but once the primaries come around give Kerry the nod.

Analysts suggest that Kerry may have the best chance to beat Bush.

Here's how it works: Polls show that Americans believe by about a 60/40 margin that Bush over-exaggerated the evidence about Iraq. Those same polls, however, show that Americans still support the war. The answer is to beat up on Bush now, before the general election, so his approval numbers drop. That will make him vulnerable in the election to a moderately pro-war nominee (i.e. John Kerry.) Dean has thus far been a powerful messenger on Iraq, and is making dents in Bush's numbers. KEEP THAT GOING.

This should get Bush's approval down to the mid to low 50's by next summer, just around the time the Dems will be picking their nominee. With a 52 or 53 percent approval, Bush will be open to attacks on the domestic/homeland security front. Think education (underfunding No Child Left Behind), economy (unemployment, deficits) and healthcare (41 million uninsured, prescription drug coverage gap).

Now, while this may seem easier said than done (an energetic Dean will make it harder for Kerry to win the nomination) it is nonetheless a strong strategy to get Bush out of the White House, which is, afterall, the Democrats' top priority.

SHIFTING DYNAMICS

2003-07-16T01:29:00.000-07:00

Until now, Howard Dean's success has been seen as most threatening to Senator John Kerry. First of all, they're both from the northeast (Dean from Vermont, Kerry from Massachusetts) and are therefore both expected to do well in the New Hampshire primary. Second, they're both courting the same political demographic: well educated and upper middle class white liberals. Thus, the rise of one spells the fall of the other, right? Not necessarily.

You see Dean hasn't only become more popular in New Hampshire. His support has spread to Iowa, the site of the first caucuses and, until now, firm Dick Gephardt country. Gephardt, who's from Missouri, is expected to win Iowa. In fact, anything worse than a top place finish would most likely mean Gephardt's demise. A recent poll shows Gephardt statistically tied with Dean, 21% to 20% in favor of the G-man. If Dean takes the lead, Gephardt will be almost forced to take out ads in Iowa, thus wasting funds that could and should be spent in other states (namely New Hampshire and South Carolina.)

Gephardt might not be smiling if Dean keeps surging in Iowa

Yet the Iowa factor isn't the only way in which Dean threatens Gephardt. Both have tried to make healthcare their signature issue. Gephardt came out with a staggering $250 billion plan, hoping that voters will assume that you get what you pay for. Dean, who was a medical doctor before becoming governor of Vermont, has bragged that there is near universal healthcare in his state and that, as an MD, he is uniquely qualified to make the healthcare case against Bush. Like states, issues tend to become identified with a certain candidate. Dean is threatening to take healthcare from Gephardt much the same way he's taking Iowa.

This week Gephardt audaciously attacked Dean for being inconsistent on free trade. Gephardt, a staunch opponent of NAFTA and other trade agreements, told a group of Iowans (to whom free trade is the devil) that both Dean and Kerry had flip-flopped on the issue.

Dean, who is running ads in Iowa, is facing increased scrutiny from the press and his opponents as his fundraising increases. Yet for the time being he poses a much greater threat to Gephardt than Gephardt does to him.

Howard Dean: Man of Character

2003-07-15T21:26:00.000-07:00

Howard Dean started his Presidential bid almost 18 months ago with a handful of staffers and an obscure campaign headquarters in Burlington, Vermont. Today he's got more buzz than a nitro-boosted bumble bee and has raised more money than any other candidate in the 2nd quarter. So how did he get from point A to point B? By telling it like it is.

In November 2002 being against the war wasn't a very popular position. It put you with the likes of France and Germany, and was surely no way for a presidential wannabe to boost his numbers. Yet there was Howard Dean telling anyone who would ask that "this is the wrong war at the wrong time." Nine months later, it looks like he might have been right. Yet it isn't only Dean's anti-war message that has the Democratic base riled up, it's his attitude. A blunt, honest politician, Dean is the Democratic John McCain.

Yet Dean's popularity in the early stages of the campaign doesn't mean he's a lefty-liberal. As Governor of Vermont he cut social spending to balance the budget, and got liberal Democrats so angry at him that they started an entire new party to challenge him. Yet he persevered. He expanded healthcare to all children in Vermont and 90% of the total population, saw a dramatic drop in child abuse and balanced the budget every year he was in office.

But perhaps the biggest reason for Dean's success thus far is his ability to embody the anger of Democrats. They're angry about the war, about tax cuts, about civil liberties and, most of all, about the 2000 election. Dean's fiery oratory and hard-charging style have connected him with his party's base in a way no politician has in recent memory. Each month over 60,000 people gather in cities across the country to "meetup" and, well, just talk about Dean. And though he received more money in the 2nd quarter than any other Democratic candidate, his per-contribution average was the LOWEST of the bunch: a real sign of grassroots support.

Howard Dean may become president, or he may not. But one thing's certain: The guy's got guts.

PRESS CLIPPINGS

2003-07-15T14:49:00.000-07:00

Today's biggest stories:

Washington Post Article On Inconsistent Iraqi Intelligence

David Broder thinks Bush is in trouble

NY Times: White House tries to fight off attacks

LA Times: Deficit swells to over $450 Billion

Washington Post: "Trickle down" tax increases

USA Today: Internet politics

Lieberman dumps finance director

NAACP Blasts No-Shows

POLLING

2003-07-15T14:13:00.000-07:00

Here are the latest approval/disapproval numbers for President Bush:

CNN/Gallup/USA Today - Approve: 62% ; Disapprove: 34%
(July 7-9, Error: +/- 3%)

The Ipsos/Cook Political Report - Approve: 60% ; Disapprove: 38%
(July 8-10, Error: +/- 3.1%)

CBS News - Approve: 60% ; Disapprove: 32%
(July 8-9, Erorr: +/- 4%)

ABC News/Washington Post - Approve: 59% ; Disapprove: 38%
(July 9-10, Error: +/- 3%)

Newsweek - Approve: 55% ; Disapprove: 37%
(July 10-11, Error: +/- 3%)

These numbers don't show any significant drop in the recent weeks, but after the Niger/Uranium story works its way through the media and starts to saturate in the public, a drop will be almost inevitable.

RANKINGS

2003-07-15T00:28:00.000-07:00

As of now, here is how I see the Democratic field breaking down.

1. In first place is Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts. He's lost momentum due to Howard Dean's surge, but he still has the most money total, the best organization and the support of the establishment. He's had trouble refining his message and has lost support among some anti-war Dems for appearing to waffle on the Iraqi issue.

2. Howard Dean is a close second. He raised $7.5 million in the second quarter, over $2 million more than the next nearest contender. Plus, most of his money came from small, online contributions, illustrating his grassroots support. He's caught on fire in the Democratic base due to his strong anti-war position and harsh rhetoric against Bush. But if he moves too far to the left to win the nomination, he'll have even more trouble beating the well-funded and popular president. Analysts are alreading comparing Dean vs. Bush to McGovern vs. Nixon.

3. Dick Gephardt has struggled to raise money, but due to strong labor support and great organization in the early primary states he ranks third. Some insiders have criticized him as an old face that represents the past failures of the party, but his high name ID and affection from core Democrats keeps him in the top tier.

4. After John Edwards posted an impressive $7.4 million in the first quarter of fundraising some experts labeled him the early leader. However, his inability to climb in Iowa and New Hampshire polls combined with personnel scuffles have left him without momentum. Plus, most of that early money came from trial lawyers, illustrating that Edwards may have more support from special interest groups than from actual voters.

5. Joe Lieberman's campaign has been struggling pretty much from the get-go. The $5 million that he raised in the second quarter helped keep him in the running, but his centrist politics and strong pro-war message have left little for Democratic primary voters to get excited about.

6. Bob Graham is most likely running for the VP slot, but if he IS running for the top spot he isn't doing a very good job. He ranks last in fundraising among the top contenders and has demonstrated no signs of life on the campaign trail.

THE REST: Al Sharpton, Carol Moseley Braun and Dennis Kucinich may have support among very small niches of the party, but they aren't going to win the nomination and, in my opinion, are hurting the party by running (that especially goes for Sharpton).

WELCOME

2003-07-15T00:25:00.000-07:00

Welcome to Politics2004! This blog will faithfully and meticulously follow the 2004 Presidential election, with a special focus on the Democratic primary. It is not dedicated to any particular candidate, yet that does not mean I will remain impartial. Enjoy!