Monday’s political round-up

December 31, 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 latest Mason-Dixon poll in Iowa shows Edwards taking the Democratic lead, though the race is effectively a three-way tie: Edwards 24%, Clinton 23%, and Obama 22%. Brad Coker, who conducted the poll, said the race “is about as close as it can get.”

* As for Republicans, the same Mason-Dixon poll also showed the race in Iowa tightening significantly. Romney, who had been trailing, now leads with 27%, followed by Huckabee at 23%, Thompson at 14%, and McCain at 13%. Giuliani, who was third in Iowa earlier this year, is now tied with Ron Paul at 5%. Coker said, “Romney has rebounded and the Huckabee bubble may have burst.”

* The first in a series of Reuters/C–SPAN/Zogby polls offered different results from Iowa to chew on. This poll shows Clinton ahead with 31%, followed by Obama with 27%, and Edwards with 24%. Among Republicans, Huckabee leads with 29%, followed by Romney with 28%, and McCain with 11%.

* With his support slipping badly, Huckabee dropped the nice-guy routine a bit over the weekend, and went after Romney: “I’ve been very clear about it. Mitt Romney is running a very desperate and, frankly, a dishonest campaign.”

* John Edwards has backpedaled a little bit on his flat ban on lobbyists working in his White House. Now, Edwards believes lobbyists can work for him, so long as it’s after a five-year waiting period.

* After a few weeks of speculation, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) will name Rep. Roger Wicker (R) as the new senator from the state, filling the vacancy left by Trent Lott’s unexpected retirement.

* If crowd-size alone over the last week dictates the outcome of the Iowa caucuses, Obama’s in good shape. (Of course, crowd-size isn’t the most reliable indicator.)

* Speaking of Obama, if he comes up short in 2008, he may not run again. “My wife and I were talking the other day. And she said ‘We’re not doing this again’. And those of you who met her know she doesn’t mince words,” Obama said. “She meant that in eight years, I’m not sure we’ll be the same people we are now.”

* The competition is fierce — for Iowa’s airwaves: “ABC News reports that Obama, like Clinton, is blocking out large TV slots on the eve of the caucus, but also that both of them are finding it a bit hard to book time that evening. Indeed, a media-buying source active in Iowa tells me that one of the key stations in the state, Des Moines CBS affiliate KCCI, told Clinton’s campaign they can’t place her two-minute spot, though of course these things are fluid.”

* To save time, the Clinton campaign is limiting, and in some cases eliminating, audience questions from campaign events in Iowa. The Edwards campaign responded by announcing its “Ask John” program.

* Another GOP dirty trick in South Carolina — this time, it’s a phony greeting card purporting to be from Mitt Romney featuring controversial passages from the Book of Mormon. “It is sad and unfortunate that this kind of deception and trickery has been employed,” said a Romney spokesman.

* Don’t look now, but Paul Krugman’s concerns about Obama’s healthcare plan may be waning, thanks to Obama’s comments during his Meet the Press appearance on penalties on those who fail to sign up for health insurance.

* NYT: “Mitt Romney got a surprise endorsement on Saturday from the Rev. Morris Hurd, chairman of the Iowa Christian Alliance, a prominent conservative Christian group in the state, as he introduced the former Massachusetts governor at a rally tonight.”

* A possible Achilles’ heel for McCain in New Hampshire — the state’s independent voters, who can participate in either primary, seem to be leaning towards Obama.

* Bill Clinton won’t sit in on national security briefings if his wife wins the presidency.

* And finally, the anti-Muslim surrogate for the Giuliani campaign has been forced to resign.

re: Ask John. This is a smart move on Edwards’ part. (And a dumb one on Clinton’s) After 7+ years of Bubble Bush not allowing anything but the most loyal of the loyal to address him, fewer questions is a very, very bad thing.

Is it too much to hope the ReThug candidates get into a knock down, drag out brawl that leaves them all paralyzed from the scalp down?

  • There’s a lot of good stuff here. But the best (horse race, I know) is Guiliani crashing down to Ron Paul’s numbers.

    It’s amusing that John Edwards has discovered that EVERYBODY works as a lobbyist at some time.

  • * John Edwards has backpedaled a little bit on his flat ban on lobbyists working in his White House. Now, Edwards believes lobbyists can work for him, so long as it’s after a five-year waiting period.

    Personally, I like the idea of a minimum 5-year hiatus from ‘government’ (in any shape) for any former political functionary before they can return to try to cash in on their previous connections.

    That, for me, is a minimum. The best solution is that they be forbidden entirely from cashing in on public service at the expense of the People who provided the experience in the first place. If upon leaving public service, a person desires to pursue those interests, it is only fair that they should DONATE their services to the Country from which they learned so much that is so valuable.

    Yeah, i was disappointed that i NEVER gott that pony i wanted…

  • I’m not sure that the people in Government Service get paid enough to deny them the opportunity to lobby immediately after they leave the Government. Not to mention that the Constitution includes the right to petition the Government for redress of grievences. Lobbying bans are frankly unconstitutional.

    Of course, if I was a congressman, on my door would be a sign that said “If you are wearing a watch that costs more than $500, what grievence could you possibly have?”

    On the other hand, telling a lobbyst that he can’t work in your Government, that’s constitutional. These people don’t have a right to work for the taxpayer. Working for K Street should be an absolute ban on stepping into a Government position. Let them go work at a University for five years first.

  • Now, Edwards believes lobbyists can work for him, so long as it’s after a five-year waiting period.

    In his second term?
    I’m cool with that. It’s just kind of funny… his assuming he’s a two termer even before he’s won the nomination. Chutzpah. Not a slam, though.

    I’ve said before Edwards is talking a great game.
    I just wonder where this guy was in 2004 and I’m wondering if he’s really here in 2008.
    Can he say these things while Joe Trippi drinks a glass of water?

  • “It is sad and unfortunate that this kind of deception and trickery has been employed,” said a Romney spokesman.”

    Was he referring to the phony greeting cards or the controversial elements of Romney’s religion?

  • Where was Edwards in 2004? I believe it was a run for VP? I don’t seem to remember too darned many stunning VP moments in the last, uhm, 20 years. But do remind me of any VP moments (not one liners from debates or one uppers, please) that might stay with us.

  • Huckabee managed to come up with the one intelligent thing he’s said this whole tragic campaign on Meet the Press. When Russert asked if thought Pakistan’s elections should be postponed…

    GOV. HUCKABEE: I think that’s their decision to make. Clearly, January 8th coming so soon and–after the assassination, it may be problematic for President Musharraf to, to carry out the elections. Sharif has said that he’s going to boycott the elections, so there is some question how much meaning and significance they will have. But I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to try to weigh in on whether or not they ought to have the elections in their own country.

    Now let’s see if he’ll realize that he has no business weighing in on ANY foreign policy issues. The one good thing about MuthaHucka is that he’s clearly demonstrated what a repulsive little fascist thug he is, unlike Romney, who will pander to whatever special-interest groups will get him elected.

  • beep52: “Was he referring to the phony greeting cards or the controversial elements of Romney’s religion?”

    LOL.

    Are we sure that these anti-Mormon cards weren’t, in fact, generated by the Romney camp as a kind of double-reverse sympathy ploy? After all, I’ve heard that “Mitt Romney is running a very desperate and, frankly, a dishonest campaign.”

  • Re the “Ask John” thing, the willignness (or not) to take questions has become a hot topic today in local media in Iowa. Here is the DM Register’s run down (I apologize for the length of the clip – I did cut a little because they discussed Biden’s openness earlier in the article). It is a little more complicated than “Edwards transparent, Clinton in bubble!”:

    Since returning to Iowa after a short Christmas holiday in New York, Clinton has opened herself up to public questions twice � at an event Friday in Story City and one Saturday in the town of Clinton. She has made herself available to questions from the pool of reporters – about 50 are tracking her these day – just once, after a rally in Eldridge Saturday. But she has done some one-one-one interviews, including the Marshalltown Times Republican Sunday.

    Out of her 19 campaign rallies in Iowa since Christmas, Clinton has done two audience Q&As.

    Democrat Barack Obama of Illinois has taken questions at 12 of his 24 rallies since Christmas. On Sunday, he took questions at his first three events but not at his final one in Des Moines. He rarely does press availabilities and will generally decline to answer reporters� questions if they approach him while he is shaking hands. His staff, also, guards him quite closely to prevent media from asking him questions.

    John Edwards, a Democrat from North Carolina, takes several questions at every event, and tells people that if he didn’t get to them, they should either e-mail their questions to his web site or write them down and hand them to one of his aides, and he or someone from the campaign will answer the question before the caucuses.

    “It’s my responsibility to answer your questions,” he tells audiences. He makes himself available to reporters two or three times per day and routinely has reporters take turns interviewing him on his bus between stops.

    This has been Edwards’ habit since the beginning of the campaign, when he was ahead in Iowa.

    Democrat Bill Richardson of New Mexico almost always ends his campaign appearances by taking questions. To maximize the number that he can handle at each event, he asks Iowans to write them down then an aide quickly recites them. This morning, Richardson shortened his stump speech and told the audience of about 200 in Ames that wanted to spend most of his time taking questions from undecided voters.

    Richardson is accessible to reporters. He does a press availability whenever the media have questions after events.

    On the Republican side, Mitt Romney did “Ask Mitt Anything” events before Christmas in which he took questions. Lately though, he shakes hands but takes no audience questions. In the past he’s done one press availability a day, but recently it’s become spotty.

    It appears that both Clinton and Obama are reducing their Q&A and press access — my guess is that this is not just the obvious message control, but also schedule control. As the article noted earlier, Biden can spend time with everyone present because there just aren’t that many present. Moreover, it makes sense for the non-leaders to take risks at this point.

    It is a little annoying that the Register only discusses Mitt on the Repub side – it would be interesting to see a more complete list, since they reported on most of the Dems.

  • Bill won’t sit in on national security briefings if his wife is elected president. How nice of him. Maybe he’s learned some restraint in the last seven years.

  • jen flowers said:
    “Bill won’t sit in on national security briefings if his wife is elected president. How nice of him. Maybe he’s learned some restraint in the last seven years.”

    Ex-presidents have access to regular security briefings. Only GHWB avails himself of this right, in support of his work of the Carlisle Group.

  • jen flowers wrote:

    Bill won’t sit in on national security briefings if his wife is elected president. How nice of him. Maybe he’s learned some restraint in the last seven years.

    What, was he not supposed to sit in on national security briefings when he was the President?

  • Bill won’t sit in on national security briefings if his wife is elected president. How nice of him.

    I’m not sure it is “him” being nice. From everything I have read on the issue, it looks like HRC declared he would not sit in. I suspect that was her call; I can’t imagine it was his.

  • You do realize, of course, that by saying “Giuliani is tied with Ron Paul,’ it equally means that “Ron Paul is tied with Giuliani.” Given my universe-consuming desire to demolish the Paul campaign for the insipid fraud that it is, I raise a toast to the new year on the fact that Paul has been placed on the same pedestal as a short, swarthy, greasy-brained thug.

    HAPPY NEW YEAR!

    And no—I am not participating in a wRonG Paul minuteman adventure. Why would I associate myself with yet another group of bubbleheaded thugs trying to hide behind the word “imperialist?” The twits sound like a bunch of opium-sucking NVA political officers, for crying out loud….

    • Comments are closed.