Monday’s political round-up

December 3, 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:

* The Des Moines Register poll showing Barack Obama taking the lead in Iowa shook up the landscape, but it’s not the only poll. The Clinton campaign is noting this morning that there are two other polls released today — one from the AP, the other from Iowa State University — that show Clinton ahead by five and seven points, respectively, among Iowa Dems. The DM Register poll is generally considered the most reliable, but these additional numbers are a reminder that Clinton remains in a strong position. (Update: Several readers have noted that both of these polls were conducted a few weeks ago, and the landscape in Iowa may have changed since. The Register poll released yesterday was completed more recently, and therefore, may be more reliable.)

* In New Hampshire, the conservative Union Leader, the state’s most widely-read newspaper, endorsed John McCain’s campaign yesterday, calling him Republicans’ “most trustworthy, competent, and conservative of all those seeking the nomination.” That will likely give McCain a boost in the Granite State, though I would add that the paper endorsed magazine publisher Steve Forbes in 2000, and he nevertheless finished a distant third.

* Dems met in Iowa for a tradition called the Black and Brown Forum, which is devoted to the concerns of the African-American and Hispanic communities. As for substantive differences, John Edwards and Barack Obama agreed that not only should drug sentencing laws be changed to end the disparities between crack and powder cocaine, but also that sentences should be changed to apply to those who’ve already been convicted. Clinton disagreed, saying, “On principle, I have problems with retroactivity.”

* Also this weekend, progressive activists hosted the Heartland Forum in Des Moines, where Clinton received a less-than-warm reception. Asked if she would “make a decision to give undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship” during her first 100 days in office, Clinton responded saying, “I have been favoring a plan to citizenship for years. I voted for it in the Senate, I have spoke out about it around Iowa and the country and in my campaign. And as president comprehensive immigration reform will be a high priority for me.” But because she wouldn’t commit to a new policy within her first 100 days, the audience booed. Given that she’d have to work with Congress, the harsh treatment seemed wildly unfair.

* Don’t look now, but the ever-sleazy Dick Morris has been chatting quite a bit with Mike Huckabee lately. (Morris has been praising Huckabee in print columns, without disclosing his regular talks with the former Arkansas governor. Morris, of course, is not known for his unimpeachable ethical standards.)

* Obama got a boost in Iowa yesterday, when Des Moines Mayor Frank Cownie, recently re-elected with 80% support, threw his support to the Illinois senator.

* Speaking of helpful Iowa endorsements, U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley (D), whose support has been widely sought after, announced yesterday that he is backing John Edwards’ campaign.

* Pro-Huckabee push-polls in Iowa? “A newly-formed group claiming to support Mike Huckabee hit the phones of Iowa Republicans tonight with an automated push-poll attacking Huckabee’s GOP opponents and praising the former Arkansas governor…. For each target, the pattern was the same — a recorded message using voice recognition technology asked the recipient if they would participate in the caucuses, considered themselves pro-life and thought marriage should be between a man and a woman. Then the dirt came, right after those called were asked which candidate they were backing.” The dirt was apparently directed at Romney, Thompson, McCain, and Giuliani.

* The LAT editorial board noticed Giuliani’s dishonesty problem: “Campaigns are not known for their strict fidelity to the truth — Mitt Romney, another contender for the Republican nomination, has piled up some doozies of his own, and the Democratic field has produced its share. But Giuliani’s stretches are noteworthy for at least two reasons: His candidacy is predicated almost exclusively on his record as mayor — the same record he’s misrepresenting — and he likes to set himself apart from his rivals by claiming greater precision — this while being imprecise. That pushes Giuliani’s misstatements beyond mere inaccuracy and into the dicier realm of hypocrisy.”

* WaPo: “At a gathering of the Iowa Christian Alliance here last night, James Bopp Jr., a leading social conservative activist and supporter of Mitt Romney’s presidential bid, said that a vote for any candidate other than Romney in next month’s Iowa caucuses was a de facto vote for former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. ‘Either a conservative is going to emerge’ with the financial and organizational power to take on Giuliani, predicted Bopp, or ‘Giuliani is going to be the nominee.'” Bopp said he likes Huckabee, but added, “Something I know for sure [is] he does not have the resources to compete.”

* Not surprisingly, Michigan Democrats were stripped of all 156 delegates to their party’s national convention as a result of moving its primary to January 15.

* Alabama AP: “Perry County Commissioner Albert Turner praised Obama’s qualifications, but urged the group to support Clinton. ‘The question you have to put forth to yourself is that whether or not in this racist country a black man named Obama — when we are shooting at Osama — can win the presidency of the United States?’ Turner said. Turner said Clinton is the Democrat most likely to win in November ‘because of her husband and because of some other things, mainly because she’s white.'” Oh my.

Michigan Democrats were stripped of all 156 delegates to their party’s national convention as a result of moving its primary to January 15.

What better way to get that 50% of the American public who do not vote to participate in our representative democracy than by making their votes worth exactly nothing.

Like Rudolf W. Giuliani said, the two-party system has “served us well” –I just can’t do the lisp service.

Lisp service. Hehe. I made a pun.

  • Clinton disagreed, saying, “On principle, I have problems with retroactivity.”

    So, we agree it is wrong to put some people away for ages while others serve much lighter sentences for the same crime but we won’t do anything to rectify the situation?

    Christ.

  • JKap

    The reason they’re doing it is to try to enforce some discipline on the primary schedule; otherwise all the states would just keep trying to leapfrog each other with earlier and earlier dates. Apparently it’s impossible to do the right thing (pick one: a single national primary, regional primaries, or going by lot to give other states a chance to be first), so they are left with this.

  • If McCain is the “most trustworthy, competent, and conservative of all those seeking the nomination,” what does that say about the rest of the field? Talk about damning someone with faint praise…

    If the LA Times starts to spread the word among the mainstream media that hypocrisy is “dicey” for candidates, a lot of pols are going to be in deep trouble. Some Dems, but a lot more Republicans.

    Obama and Edwards are both gaining ground in Iowa. I hope they don’t cancel each other out. Either one is attractive as the anti-Hillary.

  • …calling [McCain] Republicans’ “most trustworthy, competent, and conservative of all those seeking the nomination.”

    It’s like they had a sniffing contest to see which pile of shit was less repulsive.

  • Okie–

    I’m with ya, but let’s be polite: it’s “Not-Hillary,” not “Anti-Hillary.” 😉

    And yes, we just need one of them. My slight preference is Obama, but I’d happily support Edwards in the general–or indeed any non-Restorationist Dem.

  • “That pushes Giuliani’s misstatements beyond mere inaccuracy and into the dicier realm of hypocrisy.”

    Instead of hypocrisy, how about lying. Geez, what does it take to get a newspaper to use the “L” word?

  • I’ve got to side with JKap on this one. How can a bunch of politicos who have absolutely nothing to do with the State of Michigan determine when the People of the State of Michigan can—or cannot—exercise their right to participate in the electoral process? I seem to recall something in the laws of this land stipulating that “those rights not reserved to the Congress shall belong to the individual States.”

    Or has the Democratic Party been promoted to the rank of “de facto Congress?”

    I’ll vote Dem—but I will not financially support a prohibition of Free Speech and Expression. The bank is closed….

  • #2: The answer is orange said:
    Clinton disagreed, saying, “On principle, I have problems with retroactivity

    That statement finishes her for me. We can’t go retroactive if the law was unjust in the first place? What kind of triangulating are we going to be stuck with? Where is her backbone? Her principles seem to be a little heartless. Let’s all hope that statement gets some play and everyone hears her. She is not the best candidate we have.

  • Clinton disagreed, saying, “On principle, I have problems with retroactivity.”

    Me too, Hillary, me too. Which is why I won’t vote for another Clinton presidency.

  • On Albert Turner – the problem with his saying this is that he’s right.

    We don’t like to admit it and those of us who live in NYC or LA will insist it’s not true, but it is. In most of the U.S., it surely is.

  • In New Hampshire, the conservative Union Leader, the state’s most widely-read newspaper, endorsed John McCain’s campaign yesterday, calling him Republicans’ “most trustworthy, competent, and conservative of all those seeking the nomination.”

    I am baffled about this statement. Apparently the Union Leader hasn’t heard that calling someone the “most conservative” candidate is throwing acid in that person’s face. But, for me, it does underscore the political terror of the “liberal” label. Can you imagine anyone supporting a Democratic candidate and proclaiming that person is the “most trustworthy, competent, and liberal of all those seeking the nomination”? While that might appeal to me, I don’t think it would please most of the Democratic leadership.

  • Where is Clinton on telecom retroactive immunity? I have not heard her come out against it. I believe Dodd, Obama, and Biden are against it.Clinton I do not know.

  • dajafi @ #6:

    Thanks for the correction. That’s what I meant. I’m not “anti-Hillary.” I will definitely and gladly vote for her if she is the nominee. But I would prefer Edwards or Obama. If one of them were to drop out, I would expect the other one to pick up his support, not Hillary.

  • Does anyone really want to look at campaign ads over the holidays? I wish the states would get real and stop doing this leapfrog thing for the primaries. It’s like little kids trying to be at the head of the line. Me me me look at me. Maybe the Michigan fiasco will force some sort of regional planning for the primaries. I don’t mind the process being over earlier rather than later, but primaries in JANUARY are nuts.

  • I received the automated Huckabee Poll last night. If you say, as I did, that you are a Democrat, it does two things. First, it plugs Huckabee’s support for education funding “including art and music” and asks if that makes you more interested in Huckabee. Then it asks if you think it is important that we have someone other than a Bush or Clinton for the first time in 20 years, which is the closest they got to push-polling.

    Steve @ 8 – the nominating process, as opposed to the general election, has been held to be wholly in the control of the respective party.

  • Steve: “How can a bunch of politicos who have absolutely nothing to do with the State of Michigan determine when the People of the State of Michigan can—or cannot—exercise their right to participate in the electoral process? I seem to recall something in the laws of this land stipulating that “those rights not reserved to the Congress shall belong to the individual States.”

    A “bunch of politicos” from the Democratic Party can’t tell Michigan when to hold an election for a Michigan public office, but officials from the Democratic Party can certainly tell Michigan Democrats when they can choose delegates to the Party’s national convention, which is what they are doing. Remember, there was a time when Party delegates (from both parties) were chosen by the party’s elite in “smoke-filled backrooms”.

  • Steve @ 8.

    The DNC sponsors debates and excludes some candidates based on FUNDRAISING. One of the key obstacles to a functioning democracy and the DNC removes a guy who hasn’t shaken down enough wallets for their taste. Campaign finance reform? Why bother?

    They aren’t just a de facto Congress. They seem to be a de facto electoral college as well.

    I’ve replied to three fundraisers with a demand to either include all 8 candidates or exclude the bottom 5. Excluding one longshot but keeping 4 others makes no sense.

  • It is my understanding that the delegates for the convention are selected via the preference for specific candidates. The citizens of Michigan have had their right of expression, as supported under the First Amendment, quashed by the Party. Will the Party, in disallowing the voice of Michigan’s constituency, refund all monies paid by those citizens as support for the Party?

    If the delegates have effectively been stripped, then why hold a primary at all? And if the voice of the constituency is muffled at the primary level, then might not those citizens, by right, rebuke the Party’s mandate in a general election?

    This has “uber-ugly” written all over it, and methinks that Dems just handed the GOP a massive talking point that will play resoundingly for the GOP in 2008….

  • So, Steve, it seems to me that the national group is just trying to get the state group to behave appropriately. The Michigan groups was warned and decided to ignore the warning. Consequences to actions, rule of law. I’d be mightily pissed at the state party for being so colossally dumb.

  • This has “uber-ugly” written all over it, and methinks that Dems just handed the GOP a massive talking point that will play resoundingly for the GOP in 2008….

    Except that, as the RNC did in Florida, the Republican party will sanction Michigan as well if the Michigan Rethugs have an early primary. If parties can’t have any rules, there really isn’t much meaning to the party.

  • Nothing stopping the Michigan Dems from moving their primary back to it’s original date or holding a caucus at a later date. The National Parties have the right to choose candidates in the manner they want, and the rules are very clear. If you don’t like it, join a party and get the rules changed. Primaries are not some Right given in the Constitution.

    • Comments are closed.