Wednesday’s political round-up

December 5, 2007

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* Mitt Romney may have slipped into second in Iowa, but he’s still running strong in New Hampshire. A new WaPo/ABC poll in the Granite State shows the former Massachusetts governor leading the GOP primary with 37% support. John McCain is second with 20%, followed by Rudy Giuliani with 16%. (Note: Romney’s support is stronger than McCain’s and Giuliani’s combined.) Mike Huckabee is fourth with 9%, Ron Paul is fifth with 8%, and Fred Thompson has dropped way back, garnering just 4%.

* As for the latest national poll, Bloomberg/LAT released its latest results this morning. Among Dems, while some national polls show the race tightening, this one doesn’t — Hillary Clinton leads with 45%, followed by Barack Obama with 21%, and John Edwards with 11%. Among Republicans, Giuliani still leads, but his support has dropped to 23%, followed by Huckabee with 17%, Thompson with 14%, McCain with 11%, and Romney with 9%.

* Huckabee was asked whether he supports teaching creationism in public schools, but he apparently didn’t like the question. “That’s an irrelevant question to ask me — I’m happy to answer what I believe, but what I believe is not what’s going to be taught in 50 different states,” Huckabee said. “Education is a state function. The more state it is, and the less federal it is, the better off we are.”

* CNN: “Bill Clinton said Tuesday that if reporters covered the candidates’ public records better, his wife’s presidential bid would be far ahead of her rivals…. ]One percent of the press coverage was devoted to their record in public life. No wonder people think experience is irrelevant. A lot of the people covering the race think it is (irrelevant),’ Clinton said to students at Keene State College.”

* Romney’s immigration problems continue: “Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney spent the day campaigning in New Hampshire. Between stops, he took care of some yard work. He fired his landscaper.” A year after facing criticism for his lawn-care company hiring undocumented immigrants, Romney acted yesterday — the day before a Boston Globe piece was poised to run on the controversy.

* Election Central: “Late yesterday the Hillary campaign sent out an email alleging that the Obama camp is engaging in dirty tricks of various sorts against her. The email claimed that Hillary supporters were reporting that they’d received a variety of strange phone calls from the Obama campaign, adding: ‘In both Iowa and New Hampshire, we have heard that Obama staffers are berating Hillary supporters on the phone with negative attacks against her.'” The campaign made a woman available to reporters yesterday who received a call, ostensibly from the Obama campaign, who criticized Clinton’s record on abortion and experience. But is this a “dirty trick”?

* Dennis Kucinich’s presidential campaign may not be around too much longer. The Ohio congressman told his local Democratic Party that he will seek re-election to the House, and will return to his home district shortly to campaign against multiple Democratic primary opponents.

* Rudy Giuliani’s new TV ad is based entirely on Reagan’s handling of the 1980 Iran hostage crisis. It’s extremely odd — it’s as if the ad is encouraging voters to vote for Reagan.

* Speaking of strange ads, a group called “Democratic Courage” has a new ad attacking Hillary Clinton for caving to Rudy Giuliani on baby bonds. Love Hillary or hate her, this is just not a good ad, and probably won’t persuade anyone either way.

* And on one more ad-related note, Tom Tancredo unveiled a jaw-dropper yesterday, arguing that immigrants are responsible for “pushing drugs, raping kids, and destroying lives.” It’s at least as bad as it sounds.

  • immigrants are responsible for “pushing drugs, raping kids, and destroying lives.”

    Jobs real white ‘mericans could be doing

  • They’re engaging in “negative attacks” against Hillary? That’s much, much worse than positive attacks. Or is it? I’m not sure….

  • Earth to GhoulChild—how did President Reagan handle that hostage crisis? The blasted thing was pretty much resolved before ‘nap-boy” was even inaugurated….

  • “Education is a state function. The more state it is, and the less federal it is, the better off we are.” -Huckster

    I completely disagree. I believe we need to have national standards and state standards so fools like Huckabee and Perdue and their ilk don’t turn individual states into indoctrination facilities.

    I guess I shouldn’t say fools. They may or may not believe the horse hockey they spew, but one thing they do know is that ignorance is hereditary and the more ignorant people are, the more likely they are to buy into the Republican party.

  • Re the Tancredo ad, the DM Register ran a breathless headline that the ad equates illegal immigration with “gang violence.” Of course I should look at the comments after the online story — the freakazoids probably came out in droves to agree with Tancredo.

    As for the Obama calls re HRC, I don’t know that it is a dirty trick, but it is unusual. I get a lot of calls since I remain uncommitted. If they ask about leanings and you say someone else, often surrogates will simply move on to their next call, or push their candidate’s positives. On Sunday afternoon I had a call from a kindly sounding older woman for Obama, when I said I was leaningDodd and Clinton, in that order, she ignored Dodd and her tone changed and she kind of went off on Clinton — not unlike the automated Huckabee “push-poll” — on the too many years of Clinton and Bush and how she just couldn’t bring about “real change” like Obama could. I don’t think it is “dirty” or even improper, but as a cultural matter I was sort of taken aback because this really isn’t how it normally happens. In over 20 years of making those calls, I know I’ve never done that nor has any candidate I’ve supported ever trained to that approach.

  • “Education is a state function. The more state it is, and the less federal it is, the better off we are.”

    Yeah, Huck, cause, you know, 2+2=4 in only 35 or so states.

    Look, I know certain things have to be done based on statewide or local considerations. Inner city schools will have different needs than rural schools for afterschool programs, field trips, etc. and the costs of everything from teacher pay to construction will differ by location. And local or regional history will be different to the extent it is taught. But the basic curriculum is going to be the same everywhere when it comes to math, language arts like reading and writing. So how is it that science should have one standard in Maine and another in Kansas? Clearly, we shouldn’t.

    I think that now that not-so-big Mike is gaining in the polls, he is dodging these kinds of questions so they don’t hurt him later if he gets the nomination. But one of the big stories that is part of Chuck Norris’ endorsement of him is that they are both working to have bible study in the public schools. Seeing as how these are ongoing national debates, how long does Huck think he can avoid the question?

  • Late yesterday the Hillary campaign sent out an email alleging that the Obama camp is engaging in dirty tricks of various sorts against her.

    They’ve got so much overwhelming evidence, it’s so hard not to believe. Insurmountable, incontrovertible proof like a single anecdote from a woman who isn’t quite sure if it was really an Obama supporter or how to cycle through her caller ID to look up the number.

    The woman said that the call had come from a New Hampshire number, though she said she didn’t make a record of it or remember it. Asked if she was certain that she’d heard the caller identify himself as from the Obama campaign, she said, “I couldn’t say 100 percent,” but added she recalled clearly that he had identified himself this way “immediately” during the call.

    Which is it: can’t say 100 percent or recalled clearly?

    More desperation from the Clinton campaign. Crashed and burnt.

  • doubtful, i’m a second data point – and i know you believe me. -Z

    Let me be clear: it’s not the existence of the call I am doubting,but rather its origin. I believe calls like this are being made but the Clinton campaign supplied Barb Therriault’s story as their proof that it was directly associated with the Obama campaign, but she didn’t seem entirely certain of what transpired during the call. That just seems lazy and desperate to me, like they are clinging on to one shaky piece of evidence.

    On the whole, I think the evidence supplied to level the charge of ‘sneaky tactics’ is very thin, whether true or not, and Clinton is grasping at straws to fulfill her promise of attacking the character of other candidates.

    And for what it’s worth, I do count you as a reliable source.

    • Comments are closed.