Joe just texted me from a dinner. The Des Moines Register poll is the gold standard of polls for predicting what will happen in Iowa. All day the pundits were saying how important this poll is. The results are in. Obama increases his lead over Hillary, 32-25. Edwards is at 24.
Huckabee 32, Romney 26, McCain 13.
Obama was the choice of 32 percent of likely Democratic caucusgoers, up from 28 percent in the Register's last poll in late November, while Clinton, a New York senator, held steady at 25 percent and Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, was virtually unchanged at 24 percent.... Six percent were undecided or uncommitted.
I'm kind of looking forward to Ron Paul being the "what's that idiot's name, the enviro Green Party guy who lost us the election twice, oh yeah, Ralph Traitor Nader" of the Republican party. More from Markos.
Shocking. Who could even imagine the pharmaceutical industry being connected to such activities? At least we can be sure they will work with our new president in a fair manner when we overhaul the health care system.
And Joe and I have just recorded a New Years Eve podcast looking at where the presidential nominations stand on the eve (almost eve) of the Iowa Caucuses (coming this Thursday). You can listen to our latest podcast simply by clicking this link (it's an mp3). This episode is around 30 minutes.
As always, you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes here, or you can subscribe to the podcast's RSS feed here. And you can listen to any of our old shows via either of the two links in the preceding sentence.
If Obama thinks that it's only Edwards who thinks he's too nice/too soft to tackle the problems in DC, he's really living in a fantasy world. In any conversations I've had about Obama, right after praising his positive attitude, the first thing people mention about him is that he may be too nice. Whether he likes it or not and regardless of what Edwards is saying, this is what people are saying.
"The argument goes that the only way to bring about change is to be angry," said Obama at an event in a church hall here tonight. He quickly added: "I don't need lectures about how to bring about change because I have been doing it all my life."
How does "change" fit with cozying up to anti-gay bigots? I appreciate the fact that Obama has been against the Iraq war from the start. This is commendable and it is one issue that I like a lot about him.
More on the 2008 issues, after the jump.
When I look at the problems that we will face in the coming years, I have my doubts about just how strong he will be with changing our health care system or repairing a badly damaged economy. There is a lot of money at stake with both issues and anyone who thinks these will be resolved with debate team exchanges is nuts. We are looking at some of the wealthiest and most powerful special interests in America. They are the reason why we have these problems today. Who out there thinks they will accept change easily?
Take a look at the campaign contributions and think about how easily these groups will change. Numbers listed are from 1990 until 2008, which is still ongoing.
This is what we know about. One could argue that some of these contributions are fairly even between Democrats and Republicans. True. That is also part of the problem. Both parties rely so much on these funds so there is little incentive to go against the tide as will be required for change. It would be nice to think this would be a tough but fair negotiation with the special interest groups but this strikes me as incredibly naive. My heart says "yes" but my brain says "no way."
I like the positive attitude that Obama delivers and think we could really benefit from a return to the positives instead of the cynicism of recent years. (Cynicism for good reason, mind you.) Obama's venture into supporting a bigot in South Carolina didn't help. His wobbly attempts to respond to criticism and having it both ways hardly inspired confidence. For voters seeking a profile in courage, they may have been disappointed.
After the Bush years, a change in tone is refreshing and might help pull in new voters who would otherwise sit on the sidelines. Ultimately though, with the problems that the next president needs to face, I too wonder if Obama has the force to tackle the special interests. He can shoot the messenger all he likes, but that message is already out there and it did not just come out of thin air. Does he have what it takes for the burning issues of the day?
Very interesting development. While for months Hillary was the only Dem of any relevance, over the past month Hillary's camp started attacking Obama, big-time - a sign that Obama had suddenly become relevant. Well, now the transitive property of relevance (okay, I made that up) is making Edwards relevant - namely, Obama is now attacking Edwards when before he was mostly focusing on Hillary. That means that Obama sees Edwards as a threat as well, and that means Edwards is now officially relevant. It's actually turning out to be an interesting race.
I was talking with a friend this weekend about the Bhutto situation. He knows a little about foreign policy, though it's neither his vocation nor his avocation, and he asked, roughly, This isn't going to have any effect on the primaries, right? Probably not. And it ruins our Pakistan policy, but that policy was terrible to begin with? Right. Pakistan isn't going to fall apart? No. It's not going to affect the fact that Pakistan and Afghanistan are disasters when it comes to counter-terror? Might make it a little worse, but essentially that's accurate. So why, he asked, why the wall-to-wall coverage and focus? The answer after the jump . . .
It's primarily because Bhutto hits the trifecta for media attention paid to a foreigner: Westernized (attended Harvard, no less), attractive (was once named one of People's 50 most beautiful), and female (self-evident). The media has a habit of focusing on Westernized, charming foreign leaders -- and the US has a habit of backing them despite evidence that maybe we shouldn't -- and especially so when the subject is telegenic. Now, I'm not one to complain about media focus on foreign affairs, not *at all*; still, it's worth noting the particular reasons and inclinations behind this kind of media crush. It's interesting that now there's some real coverage of the events in Pakistan, beyond just Bhutto herself, and that's great -- though the actual situation apparently continues to deteriorate.
If US foreign policy for a particular country or topic depends on an *individual* rather than a system or structure or process, odds are it's a crummy policy. The very idea that our foreign policy for Pakistan could be utterly destroyed by the death of a single person, however tragically and unexpectedly, shows you how bad a policy it was in the first place.
Big gaffe. He was much pretty toast anyway, but still. It really is amazing to see how volatile the Republican side of the nomination still is. Not that the Democratic side isn't getting interesting, with Obama catching up (caught up?) to Hillary, and Edwards finally showing everyone that he still does have a chance. Also, it just goes to show you how these candidates have to be "on" for 24 hours a day, non-stop. That's hard. Any interview with a good reporter is challenging - good reporters have a way of poking you with questions that are hard NOT to answer, even when you know you shouldn't. And with the grueling schedule these candidates have, it's no surprise that they're sometimes just tired and caught off their guard. Every minute of every day is under a microscope. Really quite fascinating. And maybe a little disturbing.
There's been another bump in the talk of a third party run for president, mostly focused on New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg. It's pretty irritating, and it's largely led by media and political elites who talk a big game about democracy but seem to be horrified the actual process of it. Basically the people who promote "unity" or "coalition" third party presidential runs either don't understand the US electoral/political system, or they don't think it caters to their very particular desires, or both. Really, few things make me crazier than this stuff, for two reasons:
First, there are almost *never* actual policy positions proposed on these issues. Anybody know what, say, Bloomberg thinks about immigration? Choice? Guns? And let's not even get into how just a few years ago, every single talking head on my teevee told me no one could ever again be elected president without extensive foreign policy experience, but what might his views be there? It's insipid. Further, the third party possibilities proposed by the elites (as opposed to those who actually get votes, like Perot), tend to be Republicans who are . . . acting like Democrats. Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger are two prime examples: anywhere but NY and CA, these guys are Dems, and it's not like they're implementing a conservative agenda. But ultimately that means they wouldn't have any kind of national constituency. More after the jump...
The second reason it makes me crazy is a little more personal. You see, the people who support this kind of foolishness tend to be overwhelmingly like me, at least demographically speaking. In other words, the privileged: white, upper middle class, male, coastal. It's embarrassing! This is a group that largely wants everything to stay just as it is, except for maybe helping people in need a little better. To them, Edwards is a Commie and Hillary is too "polarizing," but all of the Republicans are insane. But fundamentally, they all agree with Democratic *positions*, they just don't like to be associated with the actual constituencies of the party (the great unwashed! /eye roll/). Despite being billed as some radical solution to all the "gridlock," what these people most want is for virtually nothing to change. Anyway, the whole thing is about filling air time on the 24-hour news channels, but seriously, if in 40 years I start pontificating about how we need to bypass the electorate by installing a billionaire "centrist" technocrat, somebody please kill me (or at least send me this post).
Great -- and disturbing -- editorial in today's New York Times:
The country and much of the world was rightly and profoundly frightened by the single-minded hatred and ingenuity displayed by this new enemy. But there is no excuse for how President Bush and his advisers panicked — how they forgot that it is their responsibility to protect American lives and American ideals, that there really is no safety for Americans or their country when those ideals are sacrificed.
Out of panic and ideology, President Bush squandered America’s position of moral and political leadership, swept aside international institutions and treaties, sullied America’s global image, and trampled on the constitutional pillars that have supported our democracy through the most terrifying and challenging times. These policies have fed the world’s anger and alienation and have not made any of us safer.
Well, it's the last day of the year. Start fresh tomorrow.
Seems like new polls are being released almost hourly from Iowa. Have to admit, I'm a little skeptical. The refusal rate for pollsters is pretty high. Given the deluge of calls to potential caucus goers from campaigns and pollsters, are people in that state still even answering their phones? Don't get me wrong, I love seeing the new polls. But, I'm having a hard time believing that the small poll of people in Iowa who will actually attend the caucuses on Thursday are being accurately sampled at this point. Although, if the Des Moines Register comes out with a new one, pay attention.
The British press has been increasingly critical of the position-for-life politics of the Bhutto family. In France, Eva Joly (famous and brilliant anti-corruption judge) referred to Asif Zardari (Bhutto's husband) as "Mr. 40%" referring to his cut on deals passing through the office of his wife during her term in office. There is no shortage of talk about democracy within the family. However, there has been little sign of actual democracy including the recent transition from student to leader of the largest political party in Pakistan, without a democratic vote.
Pakistan political commentator Tariq Ali is much more critical, calling it a "medieval charade." More from Tariq Ali including Bhutto-Kennedy comparisons, after the jump.
A triumvirate consisting of her husband, Asif Zardari (one of the most venal and discredited politicians in the country and still facing corruption charges in three European courts) and two ciphers will run the party till Benazir's 19-year-old son, Bilawal, comes of age. He will then become chairperson-for-life and, no doubt, pass it on to his children. The fact that this is now official does not make it any less grotesque. The Pakistan People's Party is being treated as a family heirloom, a property to be disposed of at the will of its leader.
Nothing more, nothing less. Poor Pakistan. Poor People's Party supporters. Both deserve better than this disgusting, medieval charade.
Benazir's last decision was in the same autocratic mode as its predecessors, an approach that would cost her – tragically – her own life. Had she heeded the advice of some party leaders and not agreed to the Washington-brokered deal with Pervez Musharraf or, even later, decided to boycott his parliamentary election she might still have been alive. Her last gift to the country does not augur well for its future.
How can Western-backed politicians be taken seriously if they treat their party as a fiefdom and their supporters as serfs, while their courtiers abroad mouth sycophantic niceties concerning the young prince and his future.
That most of the PPP inner circle consists of spineless timeservers leading frustrated and melancholy lives is no excuse. All this could be transformed if inner-party democracy was implemented. There is a tiny layer of incorruptible and principled politicians inside the party, but they have been sidelined. Dynastic politics is a sign of weakness, not strength. Benazir was fond of comparing her family to the Kennedys, but chose to ignore that the Democratic Party, despite an addiction to big money, was not the instrument of any one family.
Did we ever have political leaders that cared or am I just having flashbacks to a time that never existed? Whether we are talking about 79 million records or 162 million, that's a lot of lost records in 2007. I know this isn't easy but it's quite obvious that there are no plans in place to protect data or to protect consumers.
The loss or theft of personal data such as credit card and Social Security numbers soared to unprecedented levels in 2007, and the trend isn't expected to turn around anytime soon as hackers stay a step ahead of security and laptops disappear with sensitive information.
And while companies, government agencies, schools and other institutions are spending more to protect ever-increasing volumes of data with more sophisticated firewalls and encryption, the investment often is too little too late.
Funny, I don't recall America ever being in, on, around, or about Christ. There are lots of us Christians here in America. But taking America "back to Christ"? What does that mean? And where does that leave America's Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians? I suppose they're welcome to stay like guest-workers, or maybe we should call them "guest Christians." Huckabee is a creep. The man thinks that AIDS may be caused by casual contact - you know, like toilet seats and doorknobs and handshakes and sneezing, I suppose. We do know one way AIDS can be spread - through rape. But Huckabee doesn't have as much of a problem with rapists as he does Jews and gays and others whose only crime is to be different from Mike Huckabee, America's number one Christian. You'll recall that Huckabee recently told America that God wanted him to be number one in the polls. Then Huckabee used Jesus in a TV commercial. The man isn't running for president, he's running for preacher. And lest any Christians out there there be fooled by Huckabee's "aw shucks" Christianity, the man is a Southern Baptist. Southern Baptists think Catholics worship Satan - they quite literally think the Pope is an agent of Satan. Southern Baptists don't think Catholics are Christians. If Catholics, or any other non-Baptists out there, think Huckabee is a good Christian, I've got news for you. Huckabee's religion thinks you're not a good Christian - hell Huckabee's religion says you're not a Christian at all. So if you think he's going to be in favor of policies that push your Christian world view, you're in for a big surprise. The only world view he's pushing is one that doesn't include you.
Not to mention, has Huckabee been asked about this "Catholics worshipping a Satanic counterfeit" issue? I mean, the man keeps invoking Christ. I think we have a right to know just what his religious beliefs are.
Huckabee said Romney was "making up things not about just our records but making up things about his own in terms of things he saw, marches with Martin Luther King ... endorsements from the NRA that never happened."
Then again, Romney never helped free a convicted rapist who then went on to sexually assault and murder two more women, so I'm thinking they're about even.
It's actually kind of fun to watch the Republicans use their dirty tricks against themselves. It's also a reminder of what we'd better be ready for when the general election comes around. And reader Califlander points out this comedy gold in the article:
Those tactics backfire, said Warren Tompkins, a political consultant who ran George Bush's 2000 campaign in South Carolina and now is Romney's top consultant in the state. "Anything this outrageous and childish and nonsensical would have a significant fallout on whoever did it and on whose behalf it was done," Tompkins said.
What would the second largest insurance company know anyway? They're only a business that pays out (in theory, at least) after natural disasters.
There were 950 natural catastrophes in 2007 compared with 850 in 2006, the highest number since the group started compiling its closely watched annual report in 1974.
The total cost of disasters in 2007 was 75 billion dollars (51.5 billion euros), while the bill for 2006 was 50 billion dollars.
In the real world, one with a "candor gap" is usually called a liar:
As a presidential contender, Mitt Romney has the looks, the money and the campaign machine. He also has something of a candor gap.
"Something of a candor gap." That's just classic. More after the break.
Seems the AP has figured out that Mitt will say anything -- even if what Mitt says doesn't match reality:
When confronted with questions that might conflict with his message of the day or political record, the Republican candidate has shown a tendency to bob and weave or simply dismiss history. He has done so all year, providing an easy target for his opponents.
''If you aren't being honest in obtaining the job, can we trust you if you get the job?'' Romney rival Mike Huckabee asked on Sunday during an appearance on NBC's ''Meet the Press.''
If you aren't being honest, you are a liar. The Associated Press and Huckabee won't use the L-word, but clearly both think Mitt's been lying. Now, Mitt is lying. He just figured no one would call him on it.
Isn't that how the line went before? What will the right wing media and the White House say? Oh right, members of both political parties have done visits to Syria. It's happened on multiple occasions, no less.
His liberal record went right up until his final days in office as governor. Despite what he has said since leaving office, he was always there, ready to help out to keep abortions safe and legal. His new claim is that he would have blocked it if he had the chance. Of course, Mitt. Of course you would have done that. If only the track record didn't get in the way of facts. Why do facts always have to get in the way of a good story?
More hypocrisy from Mitt, after the jump.
Former governor Mitt Romney's economic development agency granted initial approval to a tax-exempt bond last year for a Planned Parenthood clinic in Worcester that will provide abortions, just two months before he left office and began highlighting his antiabortion position as a presidential candidate. more stories like this
Asked about the $5 million financial deal yesterday, the Romney campaign said the former governor was not aware it was under consideration when Planned Parenthood won preliminary approval in November 2006.
Romney repeatedly used the power of his office while governor to advance socially conservative positions, including restricting stem cell research, pushing abstinence-only sex education in schools, and vetoing a bill to increase access to emergency contraception in hospitals.
In the case of the abortion clinic funding deal, the Republican candidate's spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said Romney would have attempted to block it - if he had known about it.
"Mitt Romney is prolife," Fehrnstrom said. "He did not know about this loan. It was made by an agency that does not report to the governor. If it did, he would have told them not to do it."
In additon to providing abortion services, the 10,000-square-foot Planned Parenthood clinic planned for Worcester will offer Plan B emergency contraception, also known as the "morning after pill," which also is opposed by antiabortion advocates.
Jeffrey M. Berry, a political science professor at Tufts University, said he was surprised that Romney and his aides did not catch such a politically sensitive financial deal making its way through his economic development agency. Now, Berry said, the campaign will be put in the position of defending Romney at a time when he is heading into the most critical days of his candidacy.
"It is unusual that his people at the agency did not find a reason not to fund Planned Parenthood," Berry said. "His administration was clearly focused on his run for the presidency and making sure there was no embarrassment like this. It was an administration that was pretty efficient getting everyone operating on the same page and avoiding scandal."
