It is kind of neat that the 100th post on this blog belongs to this announcement:
FRED THOMPSON
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2ND, DOORS OPEN AT 10:50AM
WEBSTER COUNTY GOP HEADQUARTERS
900 CENTRAL AVENUE, FORT DODGE, IOWA
Contact Kristen Fuzer at kfuzer@fred08.com to RSPV (make sure to denote the Fort Dodge event).
---------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Last Nights Debate
There has been some mixed reviews of the debate last night. Some thought it was good, some thought it wasn't so good.
Some general thoughts:
1). For all of the talk from the Democrats about how Fox News is an extension of the RNC, last night proved otherwise. I haven't seen the Democrats asked as tough of questions as the Republicans were last night. Brit Hume, Chris Wallace, and Wendall Goler didn't let the candidates off lightly. There is a consensus that Romney was hammered by the tough questions, which is probably true (I didn't keep count), and Giuliani was hit hard on his family and his immigration policies while mayor of New York. McCain faced some tough ones on immigration and on the no-tax pledge. I realize that some people may complain about this, and politically softball questions make candidates look better, but I think tough questions are good things. If a candidate can't face the serious questions, and confront any concerns about his or her candidacy, then they shouldn't be running in the first place.
2) McCain had his best debate performance yet, and I agree with the consensus that McCain won. He was running on all eight cylinders, his jokes were good and didn't sound like they were forced, he provided clear answers to the questions, and took advantage of the openings he found. He was the most solid on the war and the surge, as well as on spending. He hit the question about him not signing the no-tax pledge a lot harder than many were anticipating. You could tell Romney was caught off guard when McCain hit him back on the surge that it's not apparently working, it is working. It was interesting to see how many of the candidates were complementing McCain or referring to his previous statements. If McCain can keep this up, he's going to be back in the hunt in no time.
3) Romney didn't look as good as he had in previous debates. For starters, his hair and make-up wasn't very good (but then, a lot of them had that problem). Some of his answers were a little weak, particularly on Iraq, and many of his jokes fell flat.
4) Who kept laughing at Ron Paul? Every time he was asked a question or gave an answer, there was an audible laugh from someone near a microphone. Paul provided one of the memorable moments in the debate when he and Mike Huckabee (in a position that every other candidate wanted to be in) went back and forth about the war. And the moderators didn't hold anything back when questioning Paul. Chris Wallace (or was it Brit Hume?) took a huge swipe at him by asking him about his stances on abolishing the IRS, the CIA, the FBI, etc. Wallace also had a good jab at Paul when he asked "So we should take our marching orders from Al-Qaeda?"
5) Tancredo's speaking style when he talked about immigration was much much better than it has been in the past. I was always uncomfortable because he started rushing his answer trying to get as much in as he could within the time limit, which led to a choppy speech pattern as he had to fight for breaths and to stop and think for brief moments. I found it distracting from his answer. He didn't have that problem on his immigration answer last night, but then the choppiness returned later on.
6) Fred Thompson received a lot of flak about skipping the debate in favor of appearing on Jay Leno. Even though I have noticed a little anti-Thompson feeling from Fox News (particularly from Carl Cameron) and that he did skip their debate, I was a little surprised that the moderators allowed the bash fest for the first question of the night. While I can understand why he wanted to go and announce on Leno (I'm still not sure if that is the right place to announce that you're running for President of the United States, but that's another post), I also think it was important that he be in New Hampshire for the debate. We'll find what, if anything, this will do for Thompson in his campaign.
Overall I thought it was a good debate. As I pointed out earlier, the Republican candidates faced the tough questions from what Democrats say is a friendly network. I think it says a lot about Fox News as a news organization, as well as the candidates that they stood up to the questions and, overall, did a good job in responding to them. And I think it says a lot about the Democrats who haven't faced those kinds of tough questions, even from "their network"--CNN.
----------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Some general thoughts:
1). For all of the talk from the Democrats about how Fox News is an extension of the RNC, last night proved otherwise. I haven't seen the Democrats asked as tough of questions as the Republicans were last night. Brit Hume, Chris Wallace, and Wendall Goler didn't let the candidates off lightly. There is a consensus that Romney was hammered by the tough questions, which is probably true (I didn't keep count), and Giuliani was hit hard on his family and his immigration policies while mayor of New York. McCain faced some tough ones on immigration and on the no-tax pledge. I realize that some people may complain about this, and politically softball questions make candidates look better, but I think tough questions are good things. If a candidate can't face the serious questions, and confront any concerns about his or her candidacy, then they shouldn't be running in the first place.
2) McCain had his best debate performance yet, and I agree with the consensus that McCain won. He was running on all eight cylinders, his jokes were good and didn't sound like they were forced, he provided clear answers to the questions, and took advantage of the openings he found. He was the most solid on the war and the surge, as well as on spending. He hit the question about him not signing the no-tax pledge a lot harder than many were anticipating. You could tell Romney was caught off guard when McCain hit him back on the surge that it's not apparently working, it is working. It was interesting to see how many of the candidates were complementing McCain or referring to his previous statements. If McCain can keep this up, he's going to be back in the hunt in no time.
3) Romney didn't look as good as he had in previous debates. For starters, his hair and make-up wasn't very good (but then, a lot of them had that problem). Some of his answers were a little weak, particularly on Iraq, and many of his jokes fell flat.
4) Who kept laughing at Ron Paul? Every time he was asked a question or gave an answer, there was an audible laugh from someone near a microphone. Paul provided one of the memorable moments in the debate when he and Mike Huckabee (in a position that every other candidate wanted to be in) went back and forth about the war. And the moderators didn't hold anything back when questioning Paul. Chris Wallace (or was it Brit Hume?) took a huge swipe at him by asking him about his stances on abolishing the IRS, the CIA, the FBI, etc. Wallace also had a good jab at Paul when he asked "So we should take our marching orders from Al-Qaeda?"
5) Tancredo's speaking style when he talked about immigration was much much better than it has been in the past. I was always uncomfortable because he started rushing his answer trying to get as much in as he could within the time limit, which led to a choppy speech pattern as he had to fight for breaths and to stop and think for brief moments. I found it distracting from his answer. He didn't have that problem on his immigration answer last night, but then the choppiness returned later on.
6) Fred Thompson received a lot of flak about skipping the debate in favor of appearing on Jay Leno. Even though I have noticed a little anti-Thompson feeling from Fox News (particularly from Carl Cameron) and that he did skip their debate, I was a little surprised that the moderators allowed the bash fest for the first question of the night. While I can understand why he wanted to go and announce on Leno (I'm still not sure if that is the right place to announce that you're running for President of the United States, but that's another post), I also think it was important that he be in New Hampshire for the debate. We'll find what, if anything, this will do for Thompson in his campaign.
Overall I thought it was a good debate. As I pointed out earlier, the Republican candidates faced the tough questions from what Democrats say is a friendly network. I think it says a lot about Fox News as a news organization, as well as the candidates that they stood up to the questions and, overall, did a good job in responding to them. And I think it says a lot about the Democrats who haven't faced those kinds of tough questions, even from "their network"--CNN.
----------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Should RPI Make Republican Candidates Take the Pledge?
I think the Democrats are on to something--or at least some of them anyway. Before you move onto another site, hear me out.
My last post I talked a bit about the jumping primary schedule. Both the DNC and the RNC have been trying very hard to keep states from jumping ahead, mainly by threatening to take away a state's half or full (as in the case of Florida and the DNC) convention delegates. It doesn't appear to have done much yet as Michigan appears to have jumped to Jan 15th, and Wyoming to January 5th
So why not use the candidates themselves to keep the schedule as set by the national committees? You may have heard that the chairs of the Iowa, New Hampshire,Nevada, and South Carolina Democrat Parties sent letters to the Democrat presidential candidates asking them to pledge to keep the primary schedule as set by the DNC. Pretty much all of them, including Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, have taken the pledge. Bill Richardson this weekend even proclaimed that God wanted Iowa to be first in the nation.
My question is why are Republicans not doing the same thing?
John McCain probably came the closest of any of the Republican hopefuls this weekend when he said that the traditional spot for Iowa and New Hampshire should remain the way it has been, and said he would consider skipping any state that moves to disrupt the calendar. In his stop at Jewell on Sunday night, he said that Iowa and New Hampshire were the best at determining character in candidates, and by not having us and NH up front means that candidates will not have that one-on-one vetting and political campaigns will be run almost only as advertisements on TV and the internet.
Why shouldn't Ray Hoffman and his counterparts in New Hampshire and South Carolina send out letters asking candidates to pledge to not campaign in states to move ahead in the schedule? RPI wasn't shy about expressing its feelings on McCain, Giuliani and Thompson skipping the Iowa Straw Poll. Why should it be shy now?
This would probably be the most effective way to stop the calendar shuffling, and it will mean more if all of the candidates in both parties pledge to not campaign in the jumping states. One would think that a state wouldn't choose to jump ahead if they know it won't bring any more candidate face time than they currently have. But it needs to be done ASAP, before Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm signs the bill that would move their primary up, and before any other states decide to jump ahead as well.
------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
My last post I talked a bit about the jumping primary schedule. Both the DNC and the RNC have been trying very hard to keep states from jumping ahead, mainly by threatening to take away a state's half or full (as in the case of Florida and the DNC) convention delegates. It doesn't appear to have done much yet as Michigan appears to have jumped to Jan 15th, and Wyoming to January 5th
So why not use the candidates themselves to keep the schedule as set by the national committees? You may have heard that the chairs of the Iowa, New Hampshire,Nevada, and South Carolina Democrat Parties sent letters to the Democrat presidential candidates asking them to pledge to keep the primary schedule as set by the DNC. Pretty much all of them, including Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, have taken the pledge. Bill Richardson this weekend even proclaimed that God wanted Iowa to be first in the nation.
My question is why are Republicans not doing the same thing?
John McCain probably came the closest of any of the Republican hopefuls this weekend when he said that the traditional spot for Iowa and New Hampshire should remain the way it has been, and said he would consider skipping any state that moves to disrupt the calendar. In his stop at Jewell on Sunday night, he said that Iowa and New Hampshire were the best at determining character in candidates, and by not having us and NH up front means that candidates will not have that one-on-one vetting and political campaigns will be run almost only as advertisements on TV and the internet.
Why shouldn't Ray Hoffman and his counterparts in New Hampshire and South Carolina send out letters asking candidates to pledge to not campaign in states to move ahead in the schedule? RPI wasn't shy about expressing its feelings on McCain, Giuliani and Thompson skipping the Iowa Straw Poll. Why should it be shy now?
This would probably be the most effective way to stop the calendar shuffling, and it will mean more if all of the candidates in both parties pledge to not campaign in the jumping states. One would think that a state wouldn't choose to jump ahead if they know it won't bring any more candidate face time than they currently have. But it needs to be done ASAP, before Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm signs the bill that would move their primary up, and before any other states decide to jump ahead as well.
------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Iowa's Influence in the Primary Cycle
Ross Kaminsky as an interesting piece at Real Clear Politics on the influence of Iowa and New Hampshire. Kaminsky argues that Iowa and New Hampshire is loosing it's influence in the primary schedule. Romney is leading by between 10 and 15 points in both Iowa and New Hampshire, while Giuliani is leading in a number of the February 5th states, as well as in the national polls.
Kaminsky argues that while focusing on Iowa and New Hampshire is probably the best strategy for Romney, in the end it won't help him with the nomination because the compact schedule will prevent him from gaining on any momentum in the later states (particularly the February 5th states) where Giuliani has a good hold.
While I think that Kaminsky is on to something, and indeed I pretty much agree that the nomination will come down to a question of strategy, I still wonder.
If you look at the polls and the poll averages at Real Clear Politics, you'll see that the one in the lead only has, at most, a support in the low thirties. There is also about 20% or so, maybe more or maybe less, of the respondents who didn't have an opinion. Combine this with the well known statistic that an overwhelming majority of caucus/primary goers do not choose who they vote for until the week or even the day before the voting.
So, in theory, Romney could win several of the lead off states and gain the support of those late deciders in later states. Of course this would depend greatly on how the media spins the early state results as well as how the other top candidates perform. For instance, with Giuliani's positions that are in conflict with voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, etc, he would still look strong coming in 2nd or 3rd in the early states, and maintain his positioning in the later states.
Another question is where will supporters go when their candidate drops out? It might lead the number 2 or 3 man to look more competitive in the state, but they could also pad the leader's numbers and make him look even better.
So Iowa and New Hampshire could still have some kind of influence on the later states.
In the end, it's not over yet and the big questions--how will the new calendar affect who is the nominee and how it effects Iowa's and New Hampshire's influence--has a while before it's answered.
UPDATE: Mathew Continetti at The Weekly Standard is thinking along the same lines in an article where he looks at Giuliani's chances at winning the nomination.
-------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Kaminsky argues that while focusing on Iowa and New Hampshire is probably the best strategy for Romney, in the end it won't help him with the nomination because the compact schedule will prevent him from gaining on any momentum in the later states (particularly the February 5th states) where Giuliani has a good hold.
While I think that Kaminsky is on to something, and indeed I pretty much agree that the nomination will come down to a question of strategy, I still wonder.
If you look at the polls and the poll averages at Real Clear Politics, you'll see that the one in the lead only has, at most, a support in the low thirties. There is also about 20% or so, maybe more or maybe less, of the respondents who didn't have an opinion. Combine this with the well known statistic that an overwhelming majority of caucus/primary goers do not choose who they vote for until the week or even the day before the voting.
So, in theory, Romney could win several of the lead off states and gain the support of those late deciders in later states. Of course this would depend greatly on how the media spins the early state results as well as how the other top candidates perform. For instance, with Giuliani's positions that are in conflict with voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, etc, he would still look strong coming in 2nd or 3rd in the early states, and maintain his positioning in the later states.
Another question is where will supporters go when their candidate drops out? It might lead the number 2 or 3 man to look more competitive in the state, but they could also pad the leader's numbers and make him look even better.
So Iowa and New Hampshire could still have some kind of influence on the later states.
In the end, it's not over yet and the big questions--how will the new calendar affect who is the nominee and how it effects Iowa's and New Hampshire's influence--has a while before it's answered.
UPDATE: Mathew Continetti at The Weekly Standard is thinking along the same lines in an article where he looks at Giuliani's chances at winning the nomination.
-------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Friday, August 31, 2007
On the Recent Unpleasantness
As you've probably heard by now, District Judge Robert Hanson down in Polk County single handedly decided that Iowa would recognize gay marriage. The actual ruling is here, thanks to Stanley Kurtz at National Review Online today (see below). A stay was issued today, but not before 21 licenses were handed out, with one couple from Ames actually getting married before the stay was put in place. Jonathan Martin has a piece up on his blog at The Politico.com about this, and has a map depicting what states allow same-sex marriage, civil unions or partnerships. Notice that the highlighted states are on the coasts, except for Iowa, right in the middle.
Kudos to Mitt Romney for sending this message out fairly soon after the announcement: "The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."
According to Jonathan Martin at the above link, John McCain issued a press release saying that "the decision "a loss for the traditional family,' and noting that he supports 'the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."
Chris Rants issued this release:
“Judge Hanson’s shocking action today has reversed the will of the people of Iowa, the will of the Legislature,” said Rants. “Democrats, in trying to appease special interest groups, allowed this to happen with their opposition to a marriage amendment. If Gov. Culver and Legislative Democrats proceed with a special session regarding the date of the Iowa caucus, Democrats need to step up and put this issue to rest by introducing a marriage amendment to Iowa’s Constitution.”
Rants added that House Republicans would support a Constitutional amendment which would ban gay marriage in the state of Iowa. “The over-stepping and stunning action taken by this court today proves that work on a Constitutional marriage amendment must begin immediately.”
And Governor Culver, a little surprising I might say, issued this release: “While some Iowans may disagree on this issue, I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
“I also believe in the rule of law and respect for the judicial process. I have not had the opportunity to review today's opinion from the Polk County District Court. I understand this ruling is one step that is subject to appeal, up to and including the Supreme Court. I will continue to follow this matter closely as it continues through the judicial system before determining whether any additional legislative actions are appropriate or necessary."
This ruling should outrage everyone. There are several different aspects of this case that can be discussed.
The first obvious issue is gay marriage. Is marriage to remain as one man and one woman, or can/could/should the definition of marriage be changed to same sex or anything else? Stanley Kurtz at National Review Online today brought this up. He opened his post with this: I’ve only glanced at the Iowa decision, so this is nothing like a final or fully considered analysis. Still, I was struck by one particular phrase in the decision: "In addition, their [i.e. same-sex couples’] exclusion [from marriage] defeats the state’s admitted interest in the welfare of all [emphasis original] of its children, regardless of whether they are parented by different-sex couples, same-sex couples or any other family unit [p. 58, my emphasis]. Its a good post that I recommend you read, as well as the "Beyond Same Sex Marriage" manifesto he links to. He brings up an important point. Opponents of same sex marriage have argued almost from day one about the slippery slope---same sex marriage leading to polygamy, or something else. It appears that the slope is more real that some would have you believe.
Second, and I would argue more important, is what is the role of judges in our government? Are judges there to interpret law, or make law? The constitution, both federal and state, says that the legislature makes law, while the judicial interprets that law. They don't read into the law what they want, they don't make things up and say its in there with some creative wording (Justice Douglas' "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance" in Roe v. Wade). Is Iowa going to stand by and allow law to be made from the bench, or will we, the electorate as well as our elected officials stand up and keep the right to make law only with the legislative branch?
Third is the option of constitutional amendments. It's fairly obvious that there will be a huge push for a change in the Iowa constitution. The question though is how many states will likewise see a push for constitutional amendments (currently there are twenty-six states with the amendment), and will there be a new push for a federal amendment? It will be interesting to see how this issue plays out with the presidential candidates. Mitt Romney supports a federal amendment, while John McCain and Fred Thompson have voiced their support for individual state amendments instead. I'm not sure where the other candidates stand on the issue, but I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.
Finally, this is an issue that is going to energize Republicans across the state. In Iowa, a constitutional amendment needs to be read in the legislature during two consecutive sessions before being passed onto a state wide referendum. So while an actual amendment won't be on the ballot in 2008 (unless a special session would count as one session, then the 2008 session as number two), Republicans will come out in force to vote against anyone who doesn't support an amendment. Everybody running for office this cycle, from presidential candidates all the way down to the local level, is going to be asked repeatedly what his or her stance is on this and if they will support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. Their responses need to be recorded and distributed so everyone knows. Even those not facing reelection this cycle need to be repeatedly asked about this.
The effects of Robert Hanson's actions won't only be seen here in Iowa however. It's going to be felt across the county. Before, the only states anyone saw this happening was in California, Massachusetts, and other bastions of liberalism along the coasts. Again, see the map posted in the first paragraph. Nobody expected this to happen in Iowa. Iowa was probably the last place, outside of the south, where someone might expect this. But it happened. And if it can happen in Iowa, it can happen anywhere.
-------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Kudos to Mitt Romney for sending this message out fairly soon after the announcement: "The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."
According to Jonathan Martin at the above link, John McCain issued a press release saying that "the decision "a loss for the traditional family,' and noting that he supports 'the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."
Chris Rants issued this release:
“Judge Hanson’s shocking action today has reversed the will of the people of Iowa, the will of the Legislature,” said Rants. “Democrats, in trying to appease special interest groups, allowed this to happen with their opposition to a marriage amendment. If Gov. Culver and Legislative Democrats proceed with a special session regarding the date of the Iowa caucus, Democrats need to step up and put this issue to rest by introducing a marriage amendment to Iowa’s Constitution.”
Rants added that House Republicans would support a Constitutional amendment which would ban gay marriage in the state of Iowa. “The over-stepping and stunning action taken by this court today proves that work on a Constitutional marriage amendment must begin immediately.”
And Governor Culver, a little surprising I might say, issued this release: “While some Iowans may disagree on this issue, I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
“I also believe in the rule of law and respect for the judicial process. I have not had the opportunity to review today's opinion from the Polk County District Court. I understand this ruling is one step that is subject to appeal, up to and including the Supreme Court. I will continue to follow this matter closely as it continues through the judicial system before determining whether any additional legislative actions are appropriate or necessary."
This ruling should outrage everyone. There are several different aspects of this case that can be discussed.
The first obvious issue is gay marriage. Is marriage to remain as one man and one woman, or can/could/should the definition of marriage be changed to same sex or anything else? Stanley Kurtz at National Review Online today brought this up. He opened his post with this: I’ve only glanced at the Iowa decision, so this is nothing like a final or fully considered analysis. Still, I was struck by one particular phrase in the decision: "In addition, their [i.e. same-sex couples’] exclusion [from marriage] defeats the state’s admitted interest in the welfare of all [emphasis original] of its children, regardless of whether they are parented by different-sex couples, same-sex couples or any other family unit [p. 58, my emphasis]. Its a good post that I recommend you read, as well as the "Beyond Same Sex Marriage" manifesto he links to. He brings up an important point. Opponents of same sex marriage have argued almost from day one about the slippery slope---same sex marriage leading to polygamy, or something else. It appears that the slope is more real that some would have you believe.
Second, and I would argue more important, is what is the role of judges in our government? Are judges there to interpret law, or make law? The constitution, both federal and state, says that the legislature makes law, while the judicial interprets that law. They don't read into the law what they want, they don't make things up and say its in there with some creative wording (Justice Douglas' "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance" in Roe v. Wade). Is Iowa going to stand by and allow law to be made from the bench, or will we, the electorate as well as our elected officials stand up and keep the right to make law only with the legislative branch?
Third is the option of constitutional amendments. It's fairly obvious that there will be a huge push for a change in the Iowa constitution. The question though is how many states will likewise see a push for constitutional amendments (currently there are twenty-six states with the amendment), and will there be a new push for a federal amendment? It will be interesting to see how this issue plays out with the presidential candidates. Mitt Romney supports a federal amendment, while John McCain and Fred Thompson have voiced their support for individual state amendments instead. I'm not sure where the other candidates stand on the issue, but I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.
Finally, this is an issue that is going to energize Republicans across the state. In Iowa, a constitutional amendment needs to be read in the legislature during two consecutive sessions before being passed onto a state wide referendum. So while an actual amendment won't be on the ballot in 2008 (unless a special session would count as one session, then the 2008 session as number two), Republicans will come out in force to vote against anyone who doesn't support an amendment. Everybody running for office this cycle, from presidential candidates all the way down to the local level, is going to be asked repeatedly what his or her stance is on this and if they will support a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. Their responses need to be recorded and distributed so everyone knows. Even those not facing reelection this cycle need to be repeatedly asked about this.
The effects of Robert Hanson's actions won't only be seen here in Iowa however. It's going to be felt across the county. Before, the only states anyone saw this happening was in California, Massachusetts, and other bastions of liberalism along the coasts. Again, see the map posted in the first paragraph. Nobody expected this to happen in Iowa. Iowa was probably the last place, outside of the south, where someone might expect this. But it happened. And if it can happen in Iowa, it can happen anywhere.
-------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
A Few Things After a Long Break
Sorry for such a delay in posting. I've been a little busy lately, but now it looks like I might be able to post a little bit more. For now, a few odds and ends that have come up in the past few weeks.
---The last post was about the Fair Tax rally in Fort Dodge on August 4th. The rain put a little damper on the event, but it was moved to the canopy at the library entrance, and still there was a pretty good crowd for the weather. Many of them seemed to walk away if not enthused about the Fair Tax, at least with a peaked interest. The organization gave away free hats, t-shirts, and tickets and transportation to the Iowa Straw Poll. There was also a video booth where the participant could make a short video about their tax experiences, what they hate about the IRS, etc, with the best video winning $500. I saw two or three people go in, but I'm not sure who the winner was.
---The Iowa Straw Poll, in my opinion as well as the opinion of those who went, was a success. The media was filled with stories about how the numbers were way down, it was anti-climatic as Romney, as expected, won and Giuliani, McCain and Fred Thompson did not participate; it only weeded one candidate from the the field (Tommy Thompson); yadda yadda yadda. First off, everyone was comparing this year's straw poll with the 1999 one, which itself was an anomaly. The number of attendees in 1999 vastly exceeded what was planned for, which was why there were problems with voting and such. It was a pretty hot day in Ames, which very likely kept many at home, especially those with any health problems. RPI did a very good job with planning and logistics. The event itself, except for the minor recount at the end, went off almost without a hitch. Everything was orderly, and everyone seemed to be having a good time and enjoying themselves. The size of the tents and crowds at the Brownback and Romney tent was impressive. Romney actually had two tents--a "kitchen" where you picked up your food, and a "mess hall" where you could sit down and eat-- as well as a stage with a giant video screen that aired Romney's speech live. The Fair Tax tent was also impressive. It was air conditioned which served pretty good tenderloins, and had a faris wheel and several other games outside.
---Finally, the primary schedule. To put it bluntly, this is getting ridiculous. All eyes have been on Florida lately, with it wanting to move up to January 29th, and the DNC and RNC in turn threating to take away half or all of their convention delegates if they actually did so. Today comes news that Wyoming has moved their date to JANUARY 5TH. This will push New Hampshire and Iowa into December. That means we'll be heading to caucuses in about three and a half months. That means that on that drive, we'll be listening to Christmas music on the radio, and pass Christmas lights on the way. Some might even go Christmas shopping afterwards if all goes speedy.
The dates and methods of choosing convention delegates and how electoral votes will be apportioned has always been up to the states. If you've ever read Sean Wilentz's The Rise of American Democracy, or some other work about the political history before the Civil War, you'll see examples of this, and how things changed over the years. But the days of the states deciding for themselves when they hold their caucus or primary are almost over. In the next congress, there will be some bill creating a national primary day or days, thus stripping another power away from the states. My guess is that the states will divided into 3-4 groups, with fairly even numbers of large and small states, that will rotate among set primary dates every four years. Iowa and New Hampshire will be in no place to do anything about it as their delegations are small, and it won't help Iowa's case with the likely possibility of us losing a congressional seat next redistricting. This also means that the days of retail politics, where the candidate has to greet people and pass the one-on-one test, are pretty much done as well. If the next primary cycle features a large number of states grouped on the same day, the campaigns will organize the larger, less personable events than what we are used to now. Enjoy it while it lasts folks, and you know what states you can thank.
---------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
---The last post was about the Fair Tax rally in Fort Dodge on August 4th. The rain put a little damper on the event, but it was moved to the canopy at the library entrance, and still there was a pretty good crowd for the weather. Many of them seemed to walk away if not enthused about the Fair Tax, at least with a peaked interest. The organization gave away free hats, t-shirts, and tickets and transportation to the Iowa Straw Poll. There was also a video booth where the participant could make a short video about their tax experiences, what they hate about the IRS, etc, with the best video winning $500. I saw two or three people go in, but I'm not sure who the winner was.
---The Iowa Straw Poll, in my opinion as well as the opinion of those who went, was a success. The media was filled with stories about how the numbers were way down, it was anti-climatic as Romney, as expected, won and Giuliani, McCain and Fred Thompson did not participate; it only weeded one candidate from the the field (Tommy Thompson); yadda yadda yadda. First off, everyone was comparing this year's straw poll with the 1999 one, which itself was an anomaly. The number of attendees in 1999 vastly exceeded what was planned for, which was why there were problems with voting and such. It was a pretty hot day in Ames, which very likely kept many at home, especially those with any health problems. RPI did a very good job with planning and logistics. The event itself, except for the minor recount at the end, went off almost without a hitch. Everything was orderly, and everyone seemed to be having a good time and enjoying themselves. The size of the tents and crowds at the Brownback and Romney tent was impressive. Romney actually had two tents--a "kitchen" where you picked up your food, and a "mess hall" where you could sit down and eat-- as well as a stage with a giant video screen that aired Romney's speech live. The Fair Tax tent was also impressive. It was air conditioned which served pretty good tenderloins, and had a faris wheel and several other games outside.
---Finally, the primary schedule. To put it bluntly, this is getting ridiculous. All eyes have been on Florida lately, with it wanting to move up to January 29th, and the DNC and RNC in turn threating to take away half or all of their convention delegates if they actually did so. Today comes news that Wyoming has moved their date to JANUARY 5TH. This will push New Hampshire and Iowa into December. That means we'll be heading to caucuses in about three and a half months. That means that on that drive, we'll be listening to Christmas music on the radio, and pass Christmas lights on the way. Some might even go Christmas shopping afterwards if all goes speedy.
The dates and methods of choosing convention delegates and how electoral votes will be apportioned has always been up to the states. If you've ever read Sean Wilentz's The Rise of American Democracy, or some other work about the political history before the Civil War, you'll see examples of this, and how things changed over the years. But the days of the states deciding for themselves when they hold their caucus or primary are almost over. In the next congress, there will be some bill creating a national primary day or days, thus stripping another power away from the states. My guess is that the states will divided into 3-4 groups, with fairly even numbers of large and small states, that will rotate among set primary dates every four years. Iowa and New Hampshire will be in no place to do anything about it as their delegations are small, and it won't help Iowa's case with the likely possibility of us losing a congressional seat next redistricting. This also means that the days of retail politics, where the candidate has to greet people and pass the one-on-one test, are pretty much done as well. If the next primary cycle features a large number of states grouped on the same day, the campaigns will organize the larger, less personable events than what we are used to now. Enjoy it while it lasts folks, and you know what states you can thank.
---------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Fair Tax Rally
The Fair Tax organization will have a rally in front of the Fort Dodge Rally on SATURDAY, AUGUST 4TH FROM 11:30-1:30. There will be a free catered lunch, free hats, t-shirts, Iowa Straw Poll tickets and transportation, as well as a contest where you can win $500 if you make a 30-60 second video about what you don't like about the IRS. This is part of the giant bus tour the Fair Tax organization is conduction across Iowa before the Iowa Straw Poll.
In case you don't know what Fair Tax is, it is a national sales tax that would replace the federal income tax and the IRS. Presidential candidates Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, along with Iowa's very own Steve King are co-sponsors of the House bill; Mike Huckabee has made Fair Tax one of his main issues in his campaign; and John McCain and Tommy Thompson have said they will sign it if it comes across their desk. You can find the co-sponsors of HF25 and S1025 here, and where other US House and Senate members stand on Fair Tax here. The Fair Tax is also an official plank of the Republican Party of Iowa platform (13.6 under the "Taxes and Spending" section).
There will be a giant Fair Tax rally at the Iowa Straw Poll on August 11th that the organization would love to get everyone involved with.
So whether you are a supporter, or aren't quite sure yet, come on out and hear more about the Fair Tax on Saturday. It'll be worth your time.
---------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
In case you don't know what Fair Tax is, it is a national sales tax that would replace the federal income tax and the IRS. Presidential candidates Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, along with Iowa's very own Steve King are co-sponsors of the House bill; Mike Huckabee has made Fair Tax one of his main issues in his campaign; and John McCain and Tommy Thompson have said they will sign it if it comes across their desk. You can find the co-sponsors of HF25 and S1025 here, and where other US House and Senate members stand on Fair Tax here. The Fair Tax is also an official plank of the Republican Party of Iowa platform (13.6 under the "Taxes and Spending" section).
There will be a giant Fair Tax rally at the Iowa Straw Poll on August 11th that the organization would love to get everyone involved with.
So whether you are a supporter, or aren't quite sure yet, come on out and hear more about the Fair Tax on Saturday. It'll be worth your time.
---------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Straw Poll Analysis
While a few day late, Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post has a piece up about the Ames Straw Poll and looks at each candidate and what must happen for them. It's a good analysis.
First, the straw poll is a showing of organization on who can get the most supporters there. This requires at the very least several weeks, but more like several months, to find supporters, organize transportation all across the state, organizing all of the tent activities, and so on. If you read the Des Moines Register story on Sara Taylor this morning, you read about how she went around to biker bars signing up people to ride their Harley's to the straw poll for George W Bush. While it recently came out that he is scaling back his straw poll organization, Romney's campaign has been doing quite a bit of phone calling in the last month or so finding supporters. Other campaigns are starting to tour the state, and enlisting the help of supporters who attend their events.
With Mitt Romney the only one of the "front runners" participating, it'll be a contest of the second-tier candidates. I'm looking at the straw poll as creating a wild card entry into the top tier, particularly if the candidate is not to well known. The candidate will have quite a bit of free media to broadcast his message, and voters across the state and country will probably check him out more. Of course, it'll be up to the candidate to take full advantage of this.
The big questions I have:
--Which candidate will beat expectations? A candidate won't necessarily need to win the poll if they can do better than expected (yes, I know, that pretty much covers every candidate). For example, if say John Cox or Tommy Thompson, two candidates who receive scant media coverage, can finish a strong second or third, it will benefit their campaign immensely. A similar question is will any candidate fail to meet expectations? Mitt Romney is the odds on favorite to win, and it appears that Brownback is starting to catch on with a lot of people. If Romney fails to win or doesn't win by a sizable amount, or if Brownback doesn't finish well, it won't be good for them and they'll have their work cut out for them till January.
--How will Fred Thompson do? He's on the ballot, and it appears he won't be contesting the poll as he probably won't announce until after Labor Day. If he doesn't do well, it won't matter much because he didn't contest it. If he does do well though, it'll add more to his developing campaign.
--What candidates will drop out if they have a poor showing? Huckabee and Tommy Thompson have laid it all on the line; Huckabee says he needs to finish third or better, Thompson says second or better. Tancredo, it appears, will probably drop his bid if he doesn't finish at least fifth. In the back of my mind, 5th place was the cut off point, but it will ultimately depend on the candidate and how they feel they need to do. Elizabeth Dole finished 3rd in 2000, about 1,500 votes behind Steve Forbes and a good 1,300 votes ahead of Gary Bauer, and still dropped out. Pat Buchanan and Lamar Alexander finished 5th and 6th, respectively, and dropped out, however, Alan Keys and Orin Hatch, finishing 7th and 9th, respectively, stayed on till the caucus.
--How will Ron Paul finish. This might strike some people as an odd question, but if you pay attention to the political internet world, you'll know why I ask. He's been getting a lot of media coverage lately, his followers patrol the internet forums, blogs and comment sections for any opportunity to get Paul's message out there. Then, Patrick Ruffini last week predicted that Paul will finish second, based a lot on the fact he had 1,400 people attend his rally after the ICA candidate forum on June 30th. The only thing is that you must be an Iowa resident to vote at the straw poll, and I have no idea on what Paul's grassroots strength is in the state. That's why I'm interested.
--And finally, How many people will turn out for the event, and what kinds of, if any, problems will show up? Originally, the Republican Party of Iowa was estimating up to 50,000 people before Giuliani and McCain dropped out. Now the guesstimates are between 30,000 and 40,000. This is a big fund raiser for the party, and the more tickets sold, the better for the party's bank account. As for the problems, no event goes off without a hitch, especially one of this size. A major complaint at the 2000 straw poll was that because more people showed up than expected, the voting process left a lot of people in line for quite a while. It sounds like RPI has fixed this, and if the event can go off with few and little problems, it will be a great boost for the state party.
--------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
First, the straw poll is a showing of organization on who can get the most supporters there. This requires at the very least several weeks, but more like several months, to find supporters, organize transportation all across the state, organizing all of the tent activities, and so on. If you read the Des Moines Register story on Sara Taylor this morning, you read about how she went around to biker bars signing up people to ride their Harley's to the straw poll for George W Bush. While it recently came out that he is scaling back his straw poll organization, Romney's campaign has been doing quite a bit of phone calling in the last month or so finding supporters. Other campaigns are starting to tour the state, and enlisting the help of supporters who attend their events.
With Mitt Romney the only one of the "front runners" participating, it'll be a contest of the second-tier candidates. I'm looking at the straw poll as creating a wild card entry into the top tier, particularly if the candidate is not to well known. The candidate will have quite a bit of free media to broadcast his message, and voters across the state and country will probably check him out more. Of course, it'll be up to the candidate to take full advantage of this.
The big questions I have:
--Which candidate will beat expectations? A candidate won't necessarily need to win the poll if they can do better than expected (yes, I know, that pretty much covers every candidate). For example, if say John Cox or Tommy Thompson, two candidates who receive scant media coverage, can finish a strong second or third, it will benefit their campaign immensely. A similar question is will any candidate fail to meet expectations? Mitt Romney is the odds on favorite to win, and it appears that Brownback is starting to catch on with a lot of people. If Romney fails to win or doesn't win by a sizable amount, or if Brownback doesn't finish well, it won't be good for them and they'll have their work cut out for them till January.
--How will Fred Thompson do? He's on the ballot, and it appears he won't be contesting the poll as he probably won't announce until after Labor Day. If he doesn't do well, it won't matter much because he didn't contest it. If he does do well though, it'll add more to his developing campaign.
--What candidates will drop out if they have a poor showing? Huckabee and Tommy Thompson have laid it all on the line; Huckabee says he needs to finish third or better, Thompson says second or better. Tancredo, it appears, will probably drop his bid if he doesn't finish at least fifth. In the back of my mind, 5th place was the cut off point, but it will ultimately depend on the candidate and how they feel they need to do. Elizabeth Dole finished 3rd in 2000, about 1,500 votes behind Steve Forbes and a good 1,300 votes ahead of Gary Bauer, and still dropped out. Pat Buchanan and Lamar Alexander finished 5th and 6th, respectively, and dropped out, however, Alan Keys and Orin Hatch, finishing 7th and 9th, respectively, stayed on till the caucus.
--How will Ron Paul finish. This might strike some people as an odd question, but if you pay attention to the political internet world, you'll know why I ask. He's been getting a lot of media coverage lately, his followers patrol the internet forums, blogs and comment sections for any opportunity to get Paul's message out there. Then, Patrick Ruffini last week predicted that Paul will finish second, based a lot on the fact he had 1,400 people attend his rally after the ICA candidate forum on June 30th. The only thing is that you must be an Iowa resident to vote at the straw poll, and I have no idea on what Paul's grassroots strength is in the state. That's why I'm interested.
--And finally, How many people will turn out for the event, and what kinds of, if any, problems will show up? Originally, the Republican Party of Iowa was estimating up to 50,000 people before Giuliani and McCain dropped out. Now the guesstimates are between 30,000 and 40,000. This is a big fund raiser for the party, and the more tickets sold, the better for the party's bank account. As for the problems, no event goes off without a hitch, especially one of this size. A major complaint at the 2000 straw poll was that because more people showed up than expected, the voting process left a lot of people in line for quite a while. It sounds like RPI has fixed this, and if the event can go off with few and little problems, it will be a great boost for the state party.
--------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Outright Disgusting
You probably remember the case of the "Flying Imams" in Minneapolis in November. Six Imams, during the boarding of a US Airways flight, passengers observed them making suspecious movements, including asking for seatbelt extenders when they obviously didn't need them, changing seats, and making anti-American statements. The Imams were removed from the flight, and proceeded to sue the "John Does"--the passengers who reported the movements to flight authorities.
This led Rep. Peter King (R-NY) to bring forth a legislation in the House that would prevent passengers from being sued for reporting suspicious activities. In effect, it would be a Good Samaritan law, like those which protect people from trying to render aid to another person. King rightly saw that the threat of suing those who speak up would be used to quiet the public and thus put transportation passengers in much greater risk.
The amendment passed the House overwhelmingly--by a vote of 304-21. Case closed, right?
Wrong. Today, House Democrats left out the amendment in the Homeland Security Bill. The Democrat Congress voted for legislation that protects US citizens from litigation for alerting authorities to suspicious activity, and then found a convenient technicality to throw it out. It's exactly as John Hinderaker at Powerline Blog says, Democrats can go home and say they voted for this and be technically correct. However, if there is no outrage from those who voted for this, then the voters need to be reminded of it. This move does nothing to increase our national security. In effect, it diminishes it. If American citizens are too worried about being sued to report suspicious activity, that gives terrorist a free hand to do what they please.
This is pathetic and outright disgusting. Democrats are trying to portray themselves as strong on defense, but you can't take them seriously after this stunt.
The Washington Times story reports that Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) has said she will try to insert a similiar amendment to an education bill pending in the Senate, and that Rep. King is in talks with Sen. Joe Lieberman to get the amendment slipped into the conference bill. Keep your fingers crossed.
More commentary and/or links at The Corner, and Captain's Quarters, and Powerline.
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin reports that Sen. Collins move tonight just failed, 57-39, missing cloture by 3 votes thanks to some last minute Democrat arm twisting. The link includes a lot of coverage on the topic, including the roll call of tonights vote. Grassley voted for it , HARKIN VOTED AGAINST IT. As for the presidential candidates--voting "Yes" was Clinton and McCain. Voting "No" was Dodd and Biden. Those who did not vote were Brownback and Obama.
As Malkin points out, we still have the conference report.
UPDATE #2: Andy McCarthy at The Corner has more coverage on the event. He makes a good point with this: "If the state subpoenas you for information, you are compelled to provide it to the authorities whether you want to or not; but if you want to provide it voluntarily in order to protect your community, the Democrats say, 'prepare to be sued.'"
Debra Berlingame has an opinion piece up at DailyNews.net on the story.
Also, Audrey Hudson at the Washington Times, who first reported this story, is now reporting that a parliamentarian ruled that the amendment can be added to the legislation as it fits into the scope of it. Democrats are only allowing 3-4 amendments to be added, so it remains to be seen if King's amendment will be one of those.
-----------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
This led Rep. Peter King (R-NY) to bring forth a legislation in the House that would prevent passengers from being sued for reporting suspicious activities. In effect, it would be a Good Samaritan law, like those which protect people from trying to render aid to another person. King rightly saw that the threat of suing those who speak up would be used to quiet the public and thus put transportation passengers in much greater risk.
The amendment passed the House overwhelmingly--by a vote of 304-21. Case closed, right?
Wrong. Today, House Democrats left out the amendment in the Homeland Security Bill. The Democrat Congress voted for legislation that protects US citizens from litigation for alerting authorities to suspicious activity, and then found a convenient technicality to throw it out. It's exactly as John Hinderaker at Powerline Blog says, Democrats can go home and say they voted for this and be technically correct. However, if there is no outrage from those who voted for this, then the voters need to be reminded of it. This move does nothing to increase our national security. In effect, it diminishes it. If American citizens are too worried about being sued to report suspicious activity, that gives terrorist a free hand to do what they please.
This is pathetic and outright disgusting. Democrats are trying to portray themselves as strong on defense, but you can't take them seriously after this stunt.
The Washington Times story reports that Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) has said she will try to insert a similiar amendment to an education bill pending in the Senate, and that Rep. King is in talks with Sen. Joe Lieberman to get the amendment slipped into the conference bill. Keep your fingers crossed.
More commentary and/or links at The Corner, and Captain's Quarters, and Powerline.
UPDATE: Michelle Malkin reports that Sen. Collins move tonight just failed, 57-39, missing cloture by 3 votes thanks to some last minute Democrat arm twisting. The link includes a lot of coverage on the topic, including the roll call of tonights vote. Grassley voted for it , HARKIN VOTED AGAINST IT. As for the presidential candidates--voting "Yes" was Clinton and McCain. Voting "No" was Dodd and Biden. Those who did not vote were Brownback and Obama.
As Malkin points out, we still have the conference report.
UPDATE #2: Andy McCarthy at The Corner has more coverage on the event. He makes a good point with this: "If the state subpoenas you for information, you are compelled to provide it to the authorities whether you want to or not; but if you want to provide it voluntarily in order to protect your community, the Democrats say, 'prepare to be sued.'"
Debra Berlingame has an opinion piece up at DailyNews.net on the story.
Also, Audrey Hudson at the Washington Times, who first reported this story, is now reporting that a parliamentarian ruled that the amendment can be added to the legislation as it fits into the scope of it. Democrats are only allowing 3-4 amendments to be added, so it remains to be seen if King's amendment will be one of those.
-----------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Reaction to Harkin's "No Sleep Until We Retreat" Speech
National Review Online had an article today by Mark Hemingway, writing about his experience watching the "No Sleep Until We Retreat" debate in the Senate the other night. Hemingway mentions Tom Harkin, at the 1:09 and 1:15am entries. Those entries, like the whole article, are pretty funny, so check it out.
--------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
--------------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Tancredo in Fort Dodge
In continuance of the pre-Iowa Straw Poll candidate visits, Tom Tancredo came to the headquarters in Fort Dodge Monday night (July 16th). The Messenger doesn't have an online article, but there was a story in the paper edition on Tuesday.
The event drew, by our account, somewhere between 120 and 130 people. We're not sure if we've ever had that many people in the headquarters before, but if we have, it has certainly been a while. Even though we brought in extra chairs, seating was at a premium, and a good portion of the attendees had to stand. Outside, the campaign had parked a moving truck they had covered with Tancredo signs, which I heard they were driving around Fort Dodge during the afternoon.
I wasn't able to hear the whole speech, so I can't recap what he said ( I can tell you he did talk about immigration), but I did hear the audience applause several times. There were some questions about how many came just for the free food, but the reactions Tancredo received showed it couldn't have been many. I overheard several inquiries about the Iowa Straw Poll, and a few for yard signs.
One of the impressions left on several people I talked with afterwards is that immigration is going to be a big issue this election. Judging by what I heard from people coming up to talk with Tancred both before and after he spoke, that was the big reason they came. It would be smart for Republicans to at least look at making immigration one of its main issues this election.
All in all, it was a good event for the Tancredo campaign. Word is he'll be back in the area toward the end of the month, so keep visiting this blog as well as our website (www.webcorep.com).
UPDATE: Tancredo's blog has a couple photos of the event up.
------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
The event drew, by our account, somewhere between 120 and 130 people. We're not sure if we've ever had that many people in the headquarters before, but if we have, it has certainly been a while. Even though we brought in extra chairs, seating was at a premium, and a good portion of the attendees had to stand. Outside, the campaign had parked a moving truck they had covered with Tancredo signs, which I heard they were driving around Fort Dodge during the afternoon.
I wasn't able to hear the whole speech, so I can't recap what he said ( I can tell you he did talk about immigration), but I did hear the audience applause several times. There were some questions about how many came just for the free food, but the reactions Tancredo received showed it couldn't have been many. I overheard several inquiries about the Iowa Straw Poll, and a few for yard signs.
One of the impressions left on several people I talked with afterwards is that immigration is going to be a big issue this election. Judging by what I heard from people coming up to talk with Tancred both before and after he spoke, that was the big reason they came. It would be smart for Republicans to at least look at making immigration one of its main issues this election.
All in all, it was a good event for the Tancredo campaign. Word is he'll be back in the area toward the end of the month, so keep visiting this blog as well as our website (www.webcorep.com).
UPDATE: Tancredo's blog has a couple photos of the event up.
------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Monday, July 16, 2007
Presidential Candidate Contact Information
Here is a list of contact information for our Republican presidential candidates. Unless I did not have such information, I used the candidate's Iowa office contact information, and also listed the specific Iowa page on the candidates website if one existed. This information will be updated and changed as needed.
Sam Brownback
www.brownback.com
526 Main Street
Ames, Ia.
John Cox
www.cox2008.com
815 Office Park Road
West Des Moines, Iowa 50265
Rudy Giuliani
www.joinrudy2008.com
Campaign headquarters address:
295 Greenwich St., No. 371
New York, N.Y. 10007
212-835-9449
Mike Huckabee
www.mikehuckabee.com
(Iowa page) http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=IowaHQ.Home
P.O. Box 200
Little Rock, Ark. 72203
501-324-2008
Duncan Hunter
www.gohunter08.com
Hunter for President Inc.
9340 Fuerte Drive, Suite 302
La Mesa, Calif. 91941
619-463-3896
John McCain
www.johnmccain.com
(Iowa site) http://iowa.johnmccain.com/
2335 70th Street
Urbandale, IA 50322
Mitt Romney
www.mittromney.com
3590 109th St.
Urbandale, Iowa
Tom Tancredo
http://www.teamtancredo.com/
Suite 102
217 Welch Avenue
Ames, IA 50014
Phone: (515) 268-3341
Fax: (515) 268-3347
Tommy Thompson
www.tommy2008.com
(Iowa Page) http://www.tommy2008.com/Tommy_Across_Iowa.aspx
10544 Justin Drive
Urbandale, IA 50322
515-422-5100
iowa@tommy2008.com
Sam Brownback
www.brownback.com
526 Main Street
Ames, Ia.
John Cox
www.cox2008.com
815 Office Park Road
West Des Moines, Iowa 50265
Rudy Giuliani
www.joinrudy2008.com
Campaign headquarters address:
295 Greenwich St., No. 371
New York, N.Y. 10007
212-835-9449
Mike Huckabee
www.mikehuckabee.com
(Iowa page) http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=IowaHQ.Home
P.O. Box 200
Little Rock, Ark. 72203
501-324-2008
Duncan Hunter
www.gohunter08.com
Hunter for President Inc.
9340 Fuerte Drive, Suite 302
La Mesa, Calif. 91941
619-463-3896
John McCain
www.johnmccain.com
(Iowa site) http://iowa.johnmccain.com/
2335 70th Street
Urbandale, IA 50322
Mitt Romney
www.mittromney.com
3590 109th St.
Urbandale, Iowa
Tom Tancredo
http://www.teamtancredo.com/
Suite 102
217 Welch Avenue
Ames, IA 50014
Phone: (515) 268-3341
Fax: (515) 268-3347
Tommy Thompson
www.tommy2008.com
(Iowa Page) http://www.tommy2008.com/Tommy_Across_Iowa.aspx
10544 Justin Drive
Urbandale, IA 50322
515-422-5100
iowa@tommy2008.com
Huckabee Visits Fort Dodge
Mike Huckabee stopped at the GOP Headquarters to speak with about 40 people on Saturday afternoon. Here is a story on the event from The Messenger. There are photos taken by the paper here.
Huckabee is the former governor of Arkansas, originally from the town Hope. That, you'll remember, is the same place Bill Clinton is from. Huckabee brought Bob Vander Plaats with him. Vander Plaats was the Lieutenant Governor nominee last year, and is currently Huckabee's state chair.
Huckabee ran a little late (it's a rare politician who doesn't), and apologized for his tardiness. He mentioned that he was speeding to get over here and luckily the state patrol wasn't on the road. An audience member shouted "that's because he's in here" (which was true, though he was off duty). Huckabee's face blanked out briefly, the quickly replied that he wasn't driving and he didn't even know what vehicle he was in.
Huckabee touched on several topics, including the Fair Tax, changes needed in the health care system, and foreign policy. The attendees seemed impressed with the former governor and what he had to say.
Huckabee asked everyone to come to the Iowa Straw Poll on August 11th, and support him. He promised that at his tent, it would be 68 degrees with no humidity. If you're interested in attending the straw poll with Gov. Huckabee, contact his campaign, it looks like you can use this page to sign up.
----------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Huckabee is the former governor of Arkansas, originally from the town Hope. That, you'll remember, is the same place Bill Clinton is from. Huckabee brought Bob Vander Plaats with him. Vander Plaats was the Lieutenant Governor nominee last year, and is currently Huckabee's state chair.
Huckabee ran a little late (it's a rare politician who doesn't), and apologized for his tardiness. He mentioned that he was speeding to get over here and luckily the state patrol wasn't on the road. An audience member shouted "that's because he's in here" (which was true, though he was off duty). Huckabee's face blanked out briefly, the quickly replied that he wasn't driving and he didn't even know what vehicle he was in.
Huckabee touched on several topics, including the Fair Tax, changes needed in the health care system, and foreign policy. The attendees seemed impressed with the former governor and what he had to say.
Huckabee asked everyone to come to the Iowa Straw Poll on August 11th, and support him. He promised that at his tent, it would be 68 degrees with no humidity. If you're interested in attending the straw poll with Gov. Huckabee, contact his campaign, it looks like you can use this page to sign up.
----------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Thursday, July 12, 2007
It's Time to Disengage from Congress
Tonight, the US House of Representatives voted for defeat. On a party line vote of 223-201, the House approved a measure to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq in 180 days and to be completely out by April 1st, 2008 (April Fools Day, oddly enough).
Petraeus hasn't even given his September report. The full component of troops for the surge just arrived in the country. They have been engaging Al Qaeda, as Michael Yon has reported on. Tribes previously allied with AQ have turned and joined us. We are gaining more intelligence because the local populace feels more secure and doesn't fear for their lives in giving that information. And through this engagement, we have found how sickening these terrorists are, and what we are truly facing in this war. Iraqi troops found mass graves filled with the bodies of Al Qaeda victims. Yon reported on a story of an 11 year old boy baked...BAKED... and served to his parents because that young boy's parents had somehow crossed Al Qaeda.
This vote came about because of a document released today stating that eight of the benchmarks for Iraq have been met. Which means, even if the press doesn't make much of it, that eight of the benchmarks have been met or are well on their way there. Bombings have decreased. Death squad kills have decreased. Civilian deaths have decreased. The benchmarks that haven't been met yet are mostly political. They haven't prepared enough for local elections. They haven't done anything on oil revenue sharing. Etc.
Now, the US House wants us to leave. Have those who voted for this bill considered what will happen if we leave? Have they considered the violence that Al Qaeda will bring to Iraq? It will make places like Lebanon look like a picnic. Iran will seek to push its hegemony in the region, and Saudi Arabia will make similar moves. The Kurds in the north will push for their own country, and Turkey will come in to prevent an independent Kurdistan, as well as to flush out PKK terrorist hiding out in the mountains of area. You think gas prices are high now? If Iran gets control, or at the very least influence, over this area, gas prices will go sky high.
Rush Limbaugh brought up the point that our..OUR..congress can't deal with our current oil problems. They haven't built any new refineries. They haven't built any new nuclear power plants. Instead, they sit around and yell about oil company profits. Al Gore and Robert F. Kennedy fly around in their private jets telling us how WE need to change our ways. How can we expect the Iraqis to quickly deal with their problems if our congress can't? Democrats are always throwing the word "hypocrisy" into conversations, so why don't we?
Rush, Mark Levin, and probably others today, have said this: Why don't we hear about benchmarks with the current congress? How is that "6 for '06" thing going? Huh? If I remember right, the only part of that plan that has been signed into law is the minimum wage. Instead, all we get is Harry Reid telling us that the war is lost even when the surge forces were still be redeployed. All we get is Speaker Pelosi going over to Syria to "meet and talk" with a government who is currently allowing terrorist to cross it's boarder and kill our troops . All we get is Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer boasting about how many Senate seats they are going to gain because of the war. All we get is Jack Murtha calling our troops murders. They call for vote after vote after vote on Iraq, and jump with glee when the "yea" votes increase. The immigration bill--the bill that the American people overwhelming opposed--had to be killed not once--BUT TWICE.
This obviously means that the Democrat controlled congress has failed to meet its benchmarks. Thus, I call for a disengagement of the American People from this Congress. It is time to bring our Representatives and Senators home before they waste any more of our hard earned tax money on doing nothing.
PS---As a final note, I hope you have all heard Sen. John McCain's speech on the Senate floor the other day about his recent trip to Iraq. You can read the text here, and I'm sure there is video of it out there somewhere. I know there are a lot of people out there who don't care for Sen. McCain, and that can be putting it mildly. I know there are people out there jumping for joy at the recent events surrounding his campaign. But you have to admire a man who is willing to stand up in the Senate and say what he said. Not as an affront to any other candidate, but Sen. McCain has been, in my opinion, the most passionate of our candidates calling out the mistakes and mismanagement that has occurred in this war, and the need for us to finish the job over there.
------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Petraeus hasn't even given his September report. The full component of troops for the surge just arrived in the country. They have been engaging Al Qaeda, as Michael Yon has reported on. Tribes previously allied with AQ have turned and joined us. We are gaining more intelligence because the local populace feels more secure and doesn't fear for their lives in giving that information. And through this engagement, we have found how sickening these terrorists are, and what we are truly facing in this war. Iraqi troops found mass graves filled with the bodies of Al Qaeda victims. Yon reported on a story of an 11 year old boy baked...BAKED... and served to his parents because that young boy's parents had somehow crossed Al Qaeda.
This vote came about because of a document released today stating that eight of the benchmarks for Iraq have been met. Which means, even if the press doesn't make much of it, that eight of the benchmarks have been met or are well on their way there. Bombings have decreased. Death squad kills have decreased. Civilian deaths have decreased. The benchmarks that haven't been met yet are mostly political. They haven't prepared enough for local elections. They haven't done anything on oil revenue sharing. Etc.
Now, the US House wants us to leave. Have those who voted for this bill considered what will happen if we leave? Have they considered the violence that Al Qaeda will bring to Iraq? It will make places like Lebanon look like a picnic. Iran will seek to push its hegemony in the region, and Saudi Arabia will make similar moves. The Kurds in the north will push for their own country, and Turkey will come in to prevent an independent Kurdistan, as well as to flush out PKK terrorist hiding out in the mountains of area. You think gas prices are high now? If Iran gets control, or at the very least influence, over this area, gas prices will go sky high.
Rush Limbaugh brought up the point that our..OUR..congress can't deal with our current oil problems. They haven't built any new refineries. They haven't built any new nuclear power plants. Instead, they sit around and yell about oil company profits. Al Gore and Robert F. Kennedy fly around in their private jets telling us how WE need to change our ways. How can we expect the Iraqis to quickly deal with their problems if our congress can't? Democrats are always throwing the word "hypocrisy" into conversations, so why don't we?
Rush, Mark Levin, and probably others today, have said this: Why don't we hear about benchmarks with the current congress? How is that "6 for '06" thing going? Huh? If I remember right, the only part of that plan that has been signed into law is the minimum wage. Instead, all we get is Harry Reid telling us that the war is lost even when the surge forces were still be redeployed. All we get is Speaker Pelosi going over to Syria to "meet and talk" with a government who is currently allowing terrorist to cross it's boarder and kill our troops . All we get is Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer boasting about how many Senate seats they are going to gain because of the war. All we get is Jack Murtha calling our troops murders. They call for vote after vote after vote on Iraq, and jump with glee when the "yea" votes increase. The immigration bill--the bill that the American people overwhelming opposed--had to be killed not once--BUT TWICE.
This obviously means that the Democrat controlled congress has failed to meet its benchmarks. Thus, I call for a disengagement of the American People from this Congress. It is time to bring our Representatives and Senators home before they waste any more of our hard earned tax money on doing nothing.
PS---As a final note, I hope you have all heard Sen. John McCain's speech on the Senate floor the other day about his recent trip to Iraq. You can read the text here, and I'm sure there is video of it out there somewhere. I know there are a lot of people out there who don't care for Sen. McCain, and that can be putting it mildly. I know there are people out there jumping for joy at the recent events surrounding his campaign. But you have to admire a man who is willing to stand up in the Senate and say what he said. Not as an affront to any other candidate, but Sen. McCain has been, in my opinion, the most passionate of our candidates calling out the mistakes and mismanagement that has occurred in this war, and the need for us to finish the job over there.
------------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
City Council Bans Sexual Orientation Descrimination
Monday night, the Fort Dodge City Council voted in favor of adding sexual orientation to an anti-discrimination law. Everyone voted yes except for Cindy Litwiller, who voted no.
When this last came up last year, it created a firestorm of controversy. A couple of local religious groups opposed it because of their religious beliefs. One proponent said we needed the law because they would make the city look better (would this be a job Fort Dodge citizens are unwilling to do?). The council didn't make any friends by just tabling the issue and doing nothing.
Even with the controversy I can't say I'm too surprised that the law was passed with as many votes as it did. As The Messenger article noted, a similar law was passed by the Iowa legislature this year, so it pretty much made it inevitable. But what really got me was a quote by Council Member Dan Payne, who said that even though most everyone he talked to opposed the measure, and even though he personally opposed the measure, he voted "yes" anyways.
My only question is--How do you reconcile the two? Its one thing to vote the way your constituents want you to. It's one thing to take a stand and vote your belief and convictions. But to go against both of those?
-------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
When this last came up last year, it created a firestorm of controversy. A couple of local religious groups opposed it because of their religious beliefs. One proponent said we needed the law because they would make the city look better (would this be a job Fort Dodge citizens are unwilling to do?). The council didn't make any friends by just tabling the issue and doing nothing.
Even with the controversy I can't say I'm too surprised that the law was passed with as many votes as it did. As The Messenger article noted, a similar law was passed by the Iowa legislature this year, so it pretty much made it inevitable. But what really got me was a quote by Council Member Dan Payne, who said that even though most everyone he talked to opposed the measure, and even though he personally opposed the measure, he voted "yes" anyways.
My only question is--How do you reconcile the two? Its one thing to vote the way your constituents want you to. It's one thing to take a stand and vote your belief and convictions. But to go against both of those?
-------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Webster County Fair
We should be out at the Webster County Fair with a tent during the week. Not sure exactly where we'll be set up or when the tent will be open, but if no one is there, stop by another time. If you're interested in helping man the table, contact Tina Kastendieck (tina@webcorep.com) and let her know when you can help out.
---------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
---------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
More Candidates Comming Our Way
The Iowa Straw Poll is just around the corner. We had Tommy Thompson at the HQ on Saturday, and now we have two more candidates visiting us in the next week.
SATURDAY, JULY 14TH, 3:00-4:30PM--MIKE HUCKABEE The event will be at the Webster County GOP headquarters (900 Central Ave).
MONDAY, JULY 16TH, 6:30PM-- TOM TANCREDO The event will also be at the Webster County GOP headquarters (900 Central Ave).
So let you friends know, and bring at least one of them along with you. Even if you are not planning on supporting either of these candidates, come out anyways and hear what they have to say. If word gets out that Webster County can draw good numbers to candidate visits, we'll get more of them--and that's a good think.
-------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
SATURDAY, JULY 14TH, 3:00-4:30PM--MIKE HUCKABEE The event will be at the Webster County GOP headquarters (900 Central Ave).
MONDAY, JULY 16TH, 6:30PM-- TOM TANCREDO The event will also be at the Webster County GOP headquarters (900 Central Ave).
So let you friends know, and bring at least one of them along with you. Even if you are not planning on supporting either of these candidates, come out anyways and hear what they have to say. If word gets out that Webster County can draw good numbers to candidate visits, we'll get more of them--and that's a good think.
-------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Monday, July 9, 2007
Can NASCAR and Politicians Learn From Each Other?
If you are a member of NASCAR Nation, you knew that the Pepsi 400, one of the biggest races of the Nextel Cup season, was run on Saturday. If you were watching Fox News Channel this weekend, you probably saw a report by Carl Cameron about Rudy's appearance at the Daytona International Speedway for the race.
If, like me, you fall into both categories, you probably winced a little watching Rudy stumble though his understanding of NASCAR, and how it compares to political campaigns. Now, I have a lot of respect for Rudy, and I understand what he was trying to do because it's something that I've thought about several times. So I'm going to help him out, and compare NASCAR and political campaigns. This isn't supposed to be some serious analysis, just a fun little thought piece.
First off, they are both races (well, d'uh). In the most basic form, both are competitions among several people/groups to see who can finish first. Massive preparation among the competitors proceed the races to have the best team they can field to win the race.
The average NASCAR driver competes in 36 races each season. Drivers receives a certain number of points for what place they finish, and if they led a lap and if they led the most laps. In the final 10 races of the season, the top 12 drivers in the points standings then compete for the championship. In politics, you usually continue to run for office until you want to retire or you loose. The election that a politician currently runs in maybe be one in a long line of elections, or it may be the only election he or she participates in.
Drivers get into the Cup series by competing in lower tier series (the Busch Series or the Craftsman Truck series), or other series such as F1 circuit ( Juan Pablo Montoya) or Indy Racing League (IRL champion and 2 time Nextel Cup champion Tony Stewart). How long you drive depends on how well you drive. Unless you are marketable, if you can't compete and run up front, a driver might find himself out of a ride. This also goes for crews. Crew members who show talent are usually courted by better teams, and many of them can start off low on the totem poll sweeping the shop.
It's not much different in politics. Outside of local and state legislators, most politicians have probably previously served in a lower level of government or some other aspect of government. Bush 43 and Clinton were both governors, Bush 41 was Vice-President and former CIA director. Many Senators have served in the US Congress. A politician is not afforded as many chances to not come in first though. If you loose, you political career could very well be over. And if you loose too many campaigns, you become a laughing stock or just ignored. Staffers and consultants usually start low on the totem poll as well. Staffers who prove themselves on state legislature campaigns can find themselves working for congressional or senate campaigns or presidential campaigns. Likewise, people who have worked for issue advocacy groups can find themselves working for campaigns.
So lets look at and compare the teams. In NASCAR, while we focus on the drivers, it really is a competition among teams. Every car has a pit crew at the race who changes the tires, refuels the car, and fixes any damage that occurs on the track. The team will have a crew chief who makes the calls on whether and when the driver should come to pit road, how many tires the pit crew will put on, how much fuel should be added, etc. Back at the shop, there is a car chief who makes sure the car is ready to go for the race. The engine teams tears apart, cleans, replace parts, and then rebuilds the engine. The fabricators build whole new cars to replace damaged or old cars. The PR team will take care of press questions, and helps market their driver and team to the fans as well as sponsors, whose contributions makes it possible to run the whole organization. How many people you have in your organization depends on how big the team is and how much money you can raise from your sponsors.
Political elections can likewise be considered a competition among teams. While everyone focuses on the candidate, there is a whole team behind him or her. There are campaign managers who make the decisions on what and how much to spend. There are the press and communication aides who deal with the press and answers questions from the public. There are more and more internet people who help market the candidate on the internet. There are people who focus on fund raising. Consultants help with marketing the candidate to various constituent groups, such as veterans, religious groups, tax groups, etc. And of course you have a field staff who goes out and finds supporters and sets up the grass roots organization. Like NASCAR, the size of the campaign depends on fund raising and how many contributions you can bring in.
Now lets look at the race itself. First off, no two races are really the same. The tracks vary. Daytona and Talladega are Super Speedways where the driver never lets off the throttle and the use of restrictor plates (which reduce the amount of airflow into the engine and tops the speed at 190mph) force the drivers to draft other cars and create huge packs. You can loose a lot of spots by loosing the draft, and gain a lot of spots by getting a good draft. Cars packed together driving at high speeds with drivers fighting to get to the front often creates the "big one," a wreck that involves several cars. Tracks such as Bristol, Martinsville and Richmond, are short tracks that require a different kind of strategy, centering around track position and pit strategy because of the difficulty in passing. Many of the intermediate tracks are similar in constructions (Michigan, Chicago, Kansas, and California), but they have their differences as well, such as how many racing "lines" there are. The weather, time of day, and air and track temperature also makes a difference. The heat in the track will effect tire pressure which alters the handle of the car. In races where the green flag drops in the daylight and finishes under the lights, teams have to take into account the change in temperatures in order to have a chance to win. Approaching bad weather and the chances of a shortened race can also effect how the race plays out. Drivers will stay out on the track longer than planned to keep their position in rain is imminent.
In politics, campaigns differ greatly as well. The obvious is that presidential campaigns can be run differently from US Senate campaigns, US Congressional campaigns, state legislature campaigns, etc. Within each category, the various campaigns can differ as well. The popularity of the parties, which can differ from district and region, will play a role. Issue importance may differ also in different regions. Employment may be more important in an area that just lost a manufacturing plant than another area where a plant is still operating. Candidate personalities and perceptions also differ. Some candidates may have to work harder than others because of name recognition and media coverage. Different strategies can develop among candidates from the same party. For example, let's look at the presidential campaigns. Some candidates are riding completely on the Iowa Straw Poll. Others look ahead at winning the early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Others may focus on the February 5th primaries, like what many are speculating Rudy will do. And when you get into a general election, the focus of the Democrat campaign will differ from the Republican campaign like in issues, though they can also be similar such as focusing on the same battleground states.
The place that a driver or candidate is running at the beginning can change throughout the race. I've seen many races where the guys running up front at the beginning of the race are not the same ones running up front at the end. Several years ago, Kasey Kahne was out driving everyone at Charlotte, but a blown tire sent him into the wall and ended his night. Drivers who have trouble at the beginning of the race can still have a good finish. Jeff Gordon was 3 laps down at Martinsville a few years ago, but was able to get back on the lead lap and finish 4th. The same can happen with elections. Howard Dean was the Democrat front runner until he burned out a few weeks before the Iowa caucus and had to eventually drop out. And of course there is the story of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, who came in as nobodies running at the back and ended up winning the whole thing.
Both NASCAR and elections have a preliminary stage. NASCAR has qualifying a day or two before the race to narrow the field down from 50 or so cars to 43. Aside from the top 35 drivers in the points standings who are locked into the race, if you aren't fast enough, you're going home. In elections, there is the primary stage. Though not always, each party usually has two more more people vying for the nomination of their party. The candidates who cannot keep up are usually forced to drop out. And when when the time comes, if you can't make the cut, you're going home.
And of course, we cannot forget the people on the outside--the fans and supporters. In NASCAR, the fans are everything. A driver's stock can go up if enough fans come to the track to support him and buys his merchandise. Fans are die hard for their driver, and often times deck themselves out head-to-toe in driver gear. There is also the driver or two they absolutely hate. Prime example is Dale Earnhardt and Earnhardt Jr and Jeff Gordon. While the drivers themselves were and are friends, there is a huge fan rivalry, particularly on the part of Earnhardt fans. Don't believe me? Look at the track after a big Gordon win.
The same goes for politics. The more supporters a candidate has, the more his stock goes up. Look at how much focus Obama received when it was revealed how many people had donated to his campaign, or how any candidate or supporter brags when he or she has a well attended event. Supporters will place bumper stickers on their car, put up signs in their yards, and the more die hard supporters will write letters to the editor to their local papers, and volunteer for phone banks or door knocking. And supporters can create a larger rivalry than exists between candidates. Quite a rivalry had emerged between McCain and Romney supporters, for example, and another one is growing between Fred Thompson and Romney supporters. Going back into history a bit, Reagan supporters hated Ted Kennedy and Tip O'Neill and vice versa, however the guys themselves got along pretty well though they disagreed on a lot of issues.
Obviously, you can't create a direct comparison between NASCAR and elections, but it is interesting how you can compare the two. As Johnathan Martin at The Politico has pointed out, with Rudy at the Pepsi 400, John McCain's appearance at the Coca-Cola 600 in May, and Mike Huckabee at Darlington, it looks like the NASCAR vote will return in 2008. The big question is which candidate will make the next appearance?
-------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
If, like me, you fall into both categories, you probably winced a little watching Rudy stumble though his understanding of NASCAR, and how it compares to political campaigns. Now, I have a lot of respect for Rudy, and I understand what he was trying to do because it's something that I've thought about several times. So I'm going to help him out, and compare NASCAR and political campaigns. This isn't supposed to be some serious analysis, just a fun little thought piece.
First off, they are both races (well, d'uh). In the most basic form, both are competitions among several people/groups to see who can finish first. Massive preparation among the competitors proceed the races to have the best team they can field to win the race.
The average NASCAR driver competes in 36 races each season. Drivers receives a certain number of points for what place they finish, and if they led a lap and if they led the most laps. In the final 10 races of the season, the top 12 drivers in the points standings then compete for the championship. In politics, you usually continue to run for office until you want to retire or you loose. The election that a politician currently runs in maybe be one in a long line of elections, or it may be the only election he or she participates in.
Drivers get into the Cup series by competing in lower tier series (the Busch Series or the Craftsman Truck series), or other series such as F1 circuit ( Juan Pablo Montoya) or Indy Racing League (IRL champion and 2 time Nextel Cup champion Tony Stewart). How long you drive depends on how well you drive. Unless you are marketable, if you can't compete and run up front, a driver might find himself out of a ride. This also goes for crews. Crew members who show talent are usually courted by better teams, and many of them can start off low on the totem poll sweeping the shop.
It's not much different in politics. Outside of local and state legislators, most politicians have probably previously served in a lower level of government or some other aspect of government. Bush 43 and Clinton were both governors, Bush 41 was Vice-President and former CIA director. Many Senators have served in the US Congress. A politician is not afforded as many chances to not come in first though. If you loose, you political career could very well be over. And if you loose too many campaigns, you become a laughing stock or just ignored. Staffers and consultants usually start low on the totem poll as well. Staffers who prove themselves on state legislature campaigns can find themselves working for congressional or senate campaigns or presidential campaigns. Likewise, people who have worked for issue advocacy groups can find themselves working for campaigns.
So lets look at and compare the teams. In NASCAR, while we focus on the drivers, it really is a competition among teams. Every car has a pit crew at the race who changes the tires, refuels the car, and fixes any damage that occurs on the track. The team will have a crew chief who makes the calls on whether and when the driver should come to pit road, how many tires the pit crew will put on, how much fuel should be added, etc. Back at the shop, there is a car chief who makes sure the car is ready to go for the race. The engine teams tears apart, cleans, replace parts, and then rebuilds the engine. The fabricators build whole new cars to replace damaged or old cars. The PR team will take care of press questions, and helps market their driver and team to the fans as well as sponsors, whose contributions makes it possible to run the whole organization. How many people you have in your organization depends on how big the team is and how much money you can raise from your sponsors.
Political elections can likewise be considered a competition among teams. While everyone focuses on the candidate, there is a whole team behind him or her. There are campaign managers who make the decisions on what and how much to spend. There are the press and communication aides who deal with the press and answers questions from the public. There are more and more internet people who help market the candidate on the internet. There are people who focus on fund raising. Consultants help with marketing the candidate to various constituent groups, such as veterans, religious groups, tax groups, etc. And of course you have a field staff who goes out and finds supporters and sets up the grass roots organization. Like NASCAR, the size of the campaign depends on fund raising and how many contributions you can bring in.
Now lets look at the race itself. First off, no two races are really the same. The tracks vary. Daytona and Talladega are Super Speedways where the driver never lets off the throttle and the use of restrictor plates (which reduce the amount of airflow into the engine and tops the speed at 190mph) force the drivers to draft other cars and create huge packs. You can loose a lot of spots by loosing the draft, and gain a lot of spots by getting a good draft. Cars packed together driving at high speeds with drivers fighting to get to the front often creates the "big one," a wreck that involves several cars. Tracks such as Bristol, Martinsville and Richmond, are short tracks that require a different kind of strategy, centering around track position and pit strategy because of the difficulty in passing. Many of the intermediate tracks are similar in constructions (Michigan, Chicago, Kansas, and California), but they have their differences as well, such as how many racing "lines" there are. The weather, time of day, and air and track temperature also makes a difference. The heat in the track will effect tire pressure which alters the handle of the car. In races where the green flag drops in the daylight and finishes under the lights, teams have to take into account the change in temperatures in order to have a chance to win. Approaching bad weather and the chances of a shortened race can also effect how the race plays out. Drivers will stay out on the track longer than planned to keep their position in rain is imminent.
In politics, campaigns differ greatly as well. The obvious is that presidential campaigns can be run differently from US Senate campaigns, US Congressional campaigns, state legislature campaigns, etc. Within each category, the various campaigns can differ as well. The popularity of the parties, which can differ from district and region, will play a role. Issue importance may differ also in different regions. Employment may be more important in an area that just lost a manufacturing plant than another area where a plant is still operating. Candidate personalities and perceptions also differ. Some candidates may have to work harder than others because of name recognition and media coverage. Different strategies can develop among candidates from the same party. For example, let's look at the presidential campaigns. Some candidates are riding completely on the Iowa Straw Poll. Others look ahead at winning the early primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Others may focus on the February 5th primaries, like what many are speculating Rudy will do. And when you get into a general election, the focus of the Democrat campaign will differ from the Republican campaign like in issues, though they can also be similar such as focusing on the same battleground states.
The place that a driver or candidate is running at the beginning can change throughout the race. I've seen many races where the guys running up front at the beginning of the race are not the same ones running up front at the end. Several years ago, Kasey Kahne was out driving everyone at Charlotte, but a blown tire sent him into the wall and ended his night. Drivers who have trouble at the beginning of the race can still have a good finish. Jeff Gordon was 3 laps down at Martinsville a few years ago, but was able to get back on the lead lap and finish 4th. The same can happen with elections. Howard Dean was the Democrat front runner until he burned out a few weeks before the Iowa caucus and had to eventually drop out. And of course there is the story of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, who came in as nobodies running at the back and ended up winning the whole thing.
Both NASCAR and elections have a preliminary stage. NASCAR has qualifying a day or two before the race to narrow the field down from 50 or so cars to 43. Aside from the top 35 drivers in the points standings who are locked into the race, if you aren't fast enough, you're going home. In elections, there is the primary stage. Though not always, each party usually has two more more people vying for the nomination of their party. The candidates who cannot keep up are usually forced to drop out. And when when the time comes, if you can't make the cut, you're going home.
And of course, we cannot forget the people on the outside--the fans and supporters. In NASCAR, the fans are everything. A driver's stock can go up if enough fans come to the track to support him and buys his merchandise. Fans are die hard for their driver, and often times deck themselves out head-to-toe in driver gear. There is also the driver or two they absolutely hate. Prime example is Dale Earnhardt and Earnhardt Jr and Jeff Gordon. While the drivers themselves were and are friends, there is a huge fan rivalry, particularly on the part of Earnhardt fans. Don't believe me? Look at the track after a big Gordon win.
The same goes for politics. The more supporters a candidate has, the more his stock goes up. Look at how much focus Obama received when it was revealed how many people had donated to his campaign, or how any candidate or supporter brags when he or she has a well attended event. Supporters will place bumper stickers on their car, put up signs in their yards, and the more die hard supporters will write letters to the editor to their local papers, and volunteer for phone banks or door knocking. And supporters can create a larger rivalry than exists between candidates. Quite a rivalry had emerged between McCain and Romney supporters, for example, and another one is growing between Fred Thompson and Romney supporters. Going back into history a bit, Reagan supporters hated Ted Kennedy and Tip O'Neill and vice versa, however the guys themselves got along pretty well though they disagreed on a lot of issues.
Obviously, you can't create a direct comparison between NASCAR and elections, but it is interesting how you can compare the two. As Johnathan Martin at The Politico has pointed out, with Rudy at the Pepsi 400, John McCain's appearance at the Coca-Cola 600 in May, and Mike Huckabee at Darlington, it looks like the NASCAR vote will return in 2008. The big question is which candidate will make the next appearance?
-------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Thompson--the Governor--at the HQ
Tommy Thompson, former Governor of Wisconsin and current presidential candidate, was at the HQ on Saturday as part of his "Common Sense Solutions Tour." The event turned out very well, and I think everyone was very pleased. The Messenger has coverage here, and The Des Moines Register has some coverage here as well.
There were about 50 people in attendance, many of them whom I don't remember seeing when Gov. Thompson was in Fort Dodge back in April. The Governor arrived in an RV with a campaign-themed paint job. The first thing he did was pose for photos with attendees. Even though there was a good line, it went pretty fast. The nice thing about this set-up was that during the event, staffers printed off the photos in the RV so that people could pick their picture up afterwards. Several of these ended up autographed as the Governor was leaving.
Thompson stuck around afterwards and talked with and meet everyone who wanted to. In fact, aside from a 2 of staffers and the couple of county central committee members helping clean up, he was the last one out the door. He said he was off to have pizza in Pocahontas.
Thompson has repeatedly said almost from day one that his campaign will hinge on his performance at the Iowa Straw Poll on August 11. We certainly wish him luck.
----------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
There were about 50 people in attendance, many of them whom I don't remember seeing when Gov. Thompson was in Fort Dodge back in April. The Governor arrived in an RV with a campaign-themed paint job. The first thing he did was pose for photos with attendees. Even though there was a good line, it went pretty fast. The nice thing about this set-up was that during the event, staffers printed off the photos in the RV so that people could pick their picture up afterwards. Several of these ended up autographed as the Governor was leaving.
Thompson stuck around afterwards and talked with and meet everyone who wanted to. In fact, aside from a 2 of staffers and the couple of county central committee members helping clean up, he was the last one out the door. He said he was off to have pizza in Pocahontas.
Thompson has repeatedly said almost from day one that his campaign will hinge on his performance at the Iowa Straw Poll on August 11. We certainly wish him luck.
----------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Friday, July 6, 2007
Tommy Thompson in FD
Tommy Thompson, presidential candidate, will be at the headquarters (900 Central Ave--the Trolley Center) at 10:00am on Saturday. Please stop by and hear what he has to say.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Friday, June 29, 2007
How Far Away Are We?
I just hit me that we are almost in July. Independence day is next week, the date I have always considered the half way mark for the year. Talk about time flying fast, it feels like Thanksgiving was just last week. To mark this, here is a countdown for the various big election dates for this cycle via MSNBC's First Read blog:
Countdown to the Ames Straw Poll: 43 days
Countdown to MA-05 Special Election: 65 days
Countdown to LA GOV election: 113 days
Countdown to Election Day 2007: 130 days
Countdown to LA GOV run-off (if necessary): 141 days
Countdown to Iowa: 209 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 220 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 494 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 571 days
-------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Countdown to the Ames Straw Poll: 43 days
Countdown to MA-05 Special Election: 65 days
Countdown to LA GOV election: 113 days
Countdown to Election Day 2007: 130 days
Countdown to LA GOV run-off (if necessary): 141 days
Countdown to Iowa: 209 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 220 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 494 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 571 days
-------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Couple of Pieces on Iraq
David Kilcullen at SmallWarsJournal has a good post today about the surge in Iraq, and offers one of most well written explanations of our goals there that I have seen:
He then goes on to list the various facts. Kilcullen is a smart guy, as this bio at wikipedia shows.
There is a good article by Jim Michaels at USA Today about what is happening with the surge. Michaels outlines both what is going well and not well. The combat post that Michaels writes about was established in January when the area was finding 15 bodies a day. "Now," said the commander, Cpt Kevin Joyce, "we have a bad day (when we) find one." Residents come out at night to eat ice cream at a local shop, and vendors are also out selling food. US troops drive down the streets handing out food to citizens, and Michaels quote a soldier saying "If we were doing this (last) February, we'd be getting shot at." US troops are taking census data to keep people out of the area who shouldn't be there. While there are still complaints about the Iraqi army, both from US forces and citizens, US presence has bolstered their confidence and are learning from the interactions.
The downside though, is that US causalities have increased, and Gen. Ray Odierno, the #2 guy in Iraq, confirmed that while attacks on civilians are down, attacks on US forces have increased. Odierno also said that it will ultimately come down to "political and diplomatic progress." There are still sectarian fighting and squabbles to be taken care of, but US forces are doing their best to get Sunnis and Shiites to talk things out.
Finally, Mario Loyola at NRO has a piece up about the positive things occurring in Iraq. While eventually every surge must recede, he thinks, based on a report from the Pentagon on stability and security in the country, that the Iraqis are more capable of standing on their own than some people may lead you to believe. Thanks to the actions of Prime Minister Maliki and Iraqi forces, the recent bombing that brought down the twin minarets at the mosque in Samarra didn't revive the violence that occurred when the site was first bombed two years ago. Provincial recovery teams are located throughout the country to provide help when and where needed and US advisers are located throughout the government preparing officials for supporting themselves. The government has been able to eliminate a $2.6 billion program to import refined fuel for the country, and the current budget has $10 billion to continue projects previously funded by the US. Security has improved as well, with US forces and Iraqi army and police forces banding together to go after Al-Qaeda forces and then remain in the area to provide security for the residents. The improved security has in turn helped improve and increase information as residents no longer fear Al-Qaeda revenge.
Of course, as Loyola also points out, there is work to be done, primarily politically. Seven of the 18 benchmarks recently set by Congress are political and have yet to be met. This includes energy resources, de-Bathification, provincial elections, and so on. Advances will have to be made on these issues by September, when Congress will revisit the funding issue.
There is talk that the administration is planning on drawing down troops later this year. Whether that will happen or what it will look like will depend on what happens between now and then.
--------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
When we speak of "clearing" an enemy safe haven, we are not talking about destroying the enemy in it; we are talking about rescuing the population in it from enemy intimidation. If we don't get every enemy cell in the initial operation, that's OK. The point of the operations is to lift the pall of fear from population groups that have been intimidated and exploited by terrorists to date, then win them over and work with them in partnership to clean out the cells that remain – as has happened in Al Anbar Province and can happen elsewhere in Iraq as well.
The "terrain" we are clearing is human terrain, not physical terrain. It is about marginalizing al Qa’ida, Shi’a extremist militias, and the other terrorist groups from the population they prey on. This is why claims that “80% of AQ leadership have fled” don’t overly disturb us: the aim is not to kill every last AQ leader, but rather to drive them off the population and keep them off, so that we can work with the community to prevent their return.
This is not some sort of kind-hearted, soft approach, as some fire-breathing polemicists have claimed (funnily enough, those who urge us to “just kill more bad guys” usually do so from a safe distance). It is not about being “nice” to the population and hoping they will somehow see us as the “good guys” and stop supporting insurgents. On the contrary, it is based on a hard-headed recognition of certain basic facts,
He then goes on to list the various facts. Kilcullen is a smart guy, as this bio at wikipedia shows.
There is a good article by Jim Michaels at USA Today about what is happening with the surge. Michaels outlines both what is going well and not well. The combat post that Michaels writes about was established in January when the area was finding 15 bodies a day. "Now," said the commander, Cpt Kevin Joyce, "we have a bad day (when we) find one." Residents come out at night to eat ice cream at a local shop, and vendors are also out selling food. US troops drive down the streets handing out food to citizens, and Michaels quote a soldier saying "If we were doing this (last) February, we'd be getting shot at." US troops are taking census data to keep people out of the area who shouldn't be there. While there are still complaints about the Iraqi army, both from US forces and citizens, US presence has bolstered their confidence and are learning from the interactions.
The downside though, is that US causalities have increased, and Gen. Ray Odierno, the #2 guy in Iraq, confirmed that while attacks on civilians are down, attacks on US forces have increased. Odierno also said that it will ultimately come down to "political and diplomatic progress." There are still sectarian fighting and squabbles to be taken care of, but US forces are doing their best to get Sunnis and Shiites to talk things out.
Finally, Mario Loyola at NRO has a piece up about the positive things occurring in Iraq. While eventually every surge must recede, he thinks, based on a report from the Pentagon on stability and security in the country, that the Iraqis are more capable of standing on their own than some people may lead you to believe. Thanks to the actions of Prime Minister Maliki and Iraqi forces, the recent bombing that brought down the twin minarets at the mosque in Samarra didn't revive the violence that occurred when the site was first bombed two years ago. Provincial recovery teams are located throughout the country to provide help when and where needed and US advisers are located throughout the government preparing officials for supporting themselves. The government has been able to eliminate a $2.6 billion program to import refined fuel for the country, and the current budget has $10 billion to continue projects previously funded by the US. Security has improved as well, with US forces and Iraqi army and police forces banding together to go after Al-Qaeda forces and then remain in the area to provide security for the residents. The improved security has in turn helped improve and increase information as residents no longer fear Al-Qaeda revenge.
Of course, as Loyola also points out, there is work to be done, primarily politically. Seven of the 18 benchmarks recently set by Congress are political and have yet to be met. This includes energy resources, de-Bathification, provincial elections, and so on. Advances will have to be made on these issues by September, when Congress will revisit the funding issue.
There is talk that the administration is planning on drawing down troops later this year. Whether that will happen or what it will look like will depend on what happens between now and then.
--------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Operation Arrowhead Ripper
If you didn't know, US and Iraqi troops are conducting a major operation in the Diyala province northeast of Baghdad. It's called Operation Arrowhead Ripper, and is featuring 8,000 US and 2,000 Iraqi troops figting to root out al-Qaeda insurgents in the area. Michael Yon has posts here, here, and here.
Not only is this the largest operation we've conducted during the Iraq war, it's also noticeable in the use of Sunni tribes and insurgents who have fought against US troops in the past, but now are turning on al-Qaeda and helping us.
From all accounts, we are winning this battle. Road blocks are in place capturing or killing any insurgents trying to escape Diyala province. The Sunni tribes and insurgents now on our side are providing our forces crucial intelligence on where enemy strong holds are at and pointing out insurgents passing off as civilians.
Jack Kelly has a piece today saying that if things continue to go as well as they are, the MSM will never make light of the operation.
And why should we expect anything different? Even though unfortunately there are still car bombings, overall killings and attacks are down. Civilians feel safer with the added security, and are more willing to supply information and intelligence about insurgent activity in their areas. We've found countless numbers of bomb making factories and arsenals with this info. We encounter more evidence of Iranian involvement with insurgent groups. But if you hear about this in the MSM, it is only a passing reference, or brief note on one of the back pages. Any news you do hear about are bombings or how US casualties are on the rise. Jack Kelly correctly points out that it was Grant's bloody assaults on Lee in Virginia in the spring and summer of 1864, along with Sherman's successes in the West, that brought about victory for the North. It was the failure of the German offensive in the spring of 1918 that opened the way for allied victory several months later. During World War 2, our GIs had to endure the violent Battle of the Bulge before Hitler's army folded in defeat. When one or both sides in a war sense that the end is near, the fighting tends to grow more desperate, particularly on the side loosing. That could very well be the case now.
Meanwhile, back in DC, politicians argue about bringing the troops home. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, has called the war lost, and referred to the man leading our efforts in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, as incompetent. Several prominent Democrats are pushing, or at least leaning, for a total defunding of the war. Some Democrats are more concerned with scoring political points against the administration by harping on the US attorney "scandal" or threatening to defund Vice President Cheney's office for not turning over documents.
As September rolls around and Petraeus reports to Congress on the surge, expect the MSM to focus on every car bomb, every suicide attack, every bit of bad news, to discredit anything positive brought about with the surge. To be sure, there is still a lot that needs to be done. The Iraqi government needs to get to work and get some action done on issues such as the distribution of oil revenues. There is more recruiting and training to be done with the Iraqi police and army. Some of these things are hard enough by themselves. It gets even more difficult without the security that we can provide for them in the meantime.
UPDATE: Pete Hegseth takes Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) to task for his article last week invoking Lincoln's name in forcing time lines on Iraq. Hegseth served in Iraq, and reinforces a couple of points made in this post, such as this:
and this:
and this:
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Not only is this the largest operation we've conducted during the Iraq war, it's also noticeable in the use of Sunni tribes and insurgents who have fought against US troops in the past, but now are turning on al-Qaeda and helping us.
From all accounts, we are winning this battle. Road blocks are in place capturing or killing any insurgents trying to escape Diyala province. The Sunni tribes and insurgents now on our side are providing our forces crucial intelligence on where enemy strong holds are at and pointing out insurgents passing off as civilians.
Jack Kelly has a piece today saying that if things continue to go as well as they are, the MSM will never make light of the operation.
And why should we expect anything different? Even though unfortunately there are still car bombings, overall killings and attacks are down. Civilians feel safer with the added security, and are more willing to supply information and intelligence about insurgent activity in their areas. We've found countless numbers of bomb making factories and arsenals with this info. We encounter more evidence of Iranian involvement with insurgent groups. But if you hear about this in the MSM, it is only a passing reference, or brief note on one of the back pages. Any news you do hear about are bombings or how US casualties are on the rise. Jack Kelly correctly points out that it was Grant's bloody assaults on Lee in Virginia in the spring and summer of 1864, along with Sherman's successes in the West, that brought about victory for the North. It was the failure of the German offensive in the spring of 1918 that opened the way for allied victory several months later. During World War 2, our GIs had to endure the violent Battle of the Bulge before Hitler's army folded in defeat. When one or both sides in a war sense that the end is near, the fighting tends to grow more desperate, particularly on the side loosing. That could very well be the case now.
Meanwhile, back in DC, politicians argue about bringing the troops home. Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, has called the war lost, and referred to the man leading our efforts in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, as incompetent. Several prominent Democrats are pushing, or at least leaning, for a total defunding of the war. Some Democrats are more concerned with scoring political points against the administration by harping on the US attorney "scandal" or threatening to defund Vice President Cheney's office for not turning over documents.
As September rolls around and Petraeus reports to Congress on the surge, expect the MSM to focus on every car bomb, every suicide attack, every bit of bad news, to discredit anything positive brought about with the surge. To be sure, there is still a lot that needs to be done. The Iraqi government needs to get to work and get some action done on issues such as the distribution of oil revenues. There is more recruiting and training to be done with the Iraqi police and army. Some of these things are hard enough by themselves. It gets even more difficult without the security that we can provide for them in the meantime.
UPDATE: Pete Hegseth takes Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) to task for his article last week invoking Lincoln's name in forcing time lines on Iraq. Hegseth served in Iraq, and reinforces a couple of points made in this post, such as this:
My experience in Iraq bore this out. Only after my unit established a meaningful relationship with the president of the Samarra city council -- built on tangible security improvements and a commitment to cooperation -- did political progress occur. Our relationship fostered unforeseen political opportunities and encouraged leaders, even ones from rival tribes, to side with American and Iraqi forces against local insurgents and foreign fighters.
and this:
Levin says that "our troops should hear an unequivocal message from Congress that we support them." He explains his vote to fund and "support" the troops while simultaneously trying to legislate the war's end. But what kind of "support" and "unequivocal message" do the troops hear from leaders in Congress who call their commanders "incompetent" or declare the war "lost"?
and this:
-----------------------------------In his op-ed, Sen. Levin invoked the example of Abraham Lincoln, who endured years of challenges before finding the right generals and strategy to win the Civil War. After four years of uncertainty in Iraq, America finally has both the general and the strategy to turn the tide. The question is whether 2007 will unfold like 1865 or 1969.
President Lincoln chose to fight a bloody and unpopular war because he believed the enemy had to be defeated. He was right. And to me, that sounds more than a bit like the situation our country faces today. What path will we choose?
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Novak Talks Iowa
Robert Novak's weekend piece includes two stories involving Iowa.
The first story is whether Jim Nussle's nomination to replace Rob Portman as the White House Budget Chief means Rudy won't play in Iowa. This is a thought that crossed my mind when I first heard the news last week about the nomination. Rudy hasn't been in Iowa too often and doesn't appear to have the organization you would expect of a front-runner campaign serious about playing. Plus, as Novak points out, Nussle is the biggest name Rudy has in Iowa. Even though a lot of people were rubbed raw when Nussle called the Iowa Straw Poll a "circus," one would think that the campaign would fight tooth and nail to keep that big name if they were truly serious about playing.
Now for the "on the other hand." I've heard that the campaign has started hiring more staffers and field reps in the state. Rudy returned to Iowa the other day, even though he made a major no-no in being 50 minutes late, and the campaign says he will be in the state more and more. You also have to consider the basic fact that Nussle was asked to work for the President of the United States. I've read a lot of people who say it's almost impossible to say no when the President asks you go come work for him. If Tony Snow would leave the good gig he had at Fox News to work at the White House, I can understand why Nussle would do the same.
The other story is about Grassley's latest bill to tax private equity partnerships. You might remember that this was covered here not to long ago. Novak reports that Republican fund raisers have "scolded" the financial services industry for giving so much to Democrat candidates who then turn around and tax business. Grassley, who has little love for hedge funds, thus damages this argument with this bill. Novak is pretty harsh on Grassley, calling it undermining.
---------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
The first story is whether Jim Nussle's nomination to replace Rob Portman as the White House Budget Chief means Rudy won't play in Iowa. This is a thought that crossed my mind when I first heard the news last week about the nomination. Rudy hasn't been in Iowa too often and doesn't appear to have the organization you would expect of a front-runner campaign serious about playing. Plus, as Novak points out, Nussle is the biggest name Rudy has in Iowa. Even though a lot of people were rubbed raw when Nussle called the Iowa Straw Poll a "circus," one would think that the campaign would fight tooth and nail to keep that big name if they were truly serious about playing.
Now for the "on the other hand." I've heard that the campaign has started hiring more staffers and field reps in the state. Rudy returned to Iowa the other day, even though he made a major no-no in being 50 minutes late, and the campaign says he will be in the state more and more. You also have to consider the basic fact that Nussle was asked to work for the President of the United States. I've read a lot of people who say it's almost impossible to say no when the President asks you go come work for him. If Tony Snow would leave the good gig he had at Fox News to work at the White House, I can understand why Nussle would do the same.
The other story is about Grassley's latest bill to tax private equity partnerships. You might remember that this was covered here not to long ago. Novak reports that Republican fund raisers have "scolded" the financial services industry for giving so much to Democrat candidates who then turn around and tax business. Grassley, who has little love for hedge funds, thus damages this argument with this bill. Novak is pretty harsh on Grassley, calling it undermining.
---------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Michael Yon and Another Must Read
Michael Yon has a new post up that is a must read, titled "Be Not Afraid." Yon, remember, is a reporter in Iraq not financed by any news service (meaning--his own dime and private donations) who has been compared to Ernie Pyle for his facing danger in regularly accompanying US military units on combat patrols.
---------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
---------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Uh-Oh for Grassley
Ed Morrissey at Captains Quarters has a here about a new Baucus-Grassley bill in the Senate that would raise taxes on publicly traded partnerships. The Wall Street Journal has a piece about it here, and the American Conservative Union has come out against it. The WSJ piece reports that Mitt Romney has said he opposed the bill.
A second link to Captains Quarters discusses another bill that Baucus and Grassley has introduced that would increase taxes on oil companies by $29 billion and use that money on more clean energy and energy conservation. He links to a Houston Chronicle piece on the bill. It wouldn't surprise me it the costs of these new taxes will be passed on to the consumer. The Heritage Foundation has a page up highlighting what gas prices are projected to be under this bill in 2016 (Iowa--$6.50 a gallon). The Houston Chronicle piece quotes Grassley:
and also saying:
----------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
A second link to Captains Quarters discusses another bill that Baucus and Grassley has introduced that would increase taxes on oil companies by $29 billion and use that money on more clean energy and energy conservation. He links to a Houston Chronicle piece on the bill. It wouldn't surprise me it the costs of these new taxes will be passed on to the consumer. The Heritage Foundation has a page up highlighting what gas prices are projected to be under this bill in 2016 (Iowa--$6.50 a gallon). The Houston Chronicle piece quotes Grassley:
But Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the Finance Committee's top Republican, said, "We have entered a new era in energy markets ... (that) requires a dramatic shift away from tax incentives for oil and gas production" and toward support for other energy sources and efficiency.
and also saying:
Grassley said the "narrow change" in tax policy "seems likely to have little if any effect on domestic production" or the price of gasoline at the pump.This will be something to keep an eye on and see what happens.
----------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Hillary is Tony Soprano
Hillary announces her campaign's theme song with a spoof of the final scene from "The Sopranos." I will say, the acting is better than you get from most politicians, but it still leaves you kind of queasy.
My problem with the video though, is that the Clintons always went after anyone who crossed them. Blaming conservative talk radio for the Oklahoma City bombing, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy for going after Bill's lying about his affairs, etc. In the video though, they only shake their heads at the guy who give them a dirty look. That's not very Clintonesqe.
-------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
My problem with the video though, is that the Clintons always went after anyone who crossed them. Blaming conservative talk radio for the Oklahoma City bombing, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy for going after Bill's lying about his affairs, etc. In the video though, they only shake their heads at the guy who give them a dirty look. That's not very Clintonesqe.
-------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Nussle to White House Budget Director
Jim Nussle is going to replace Rob Portman as White House Budget Director. More here from FoxNews.
----------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
----------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Are Republians the Depressed Party?
A couple of pieces on the web today point out where exactly the Democrats stand with the public.
E.J. Dionne is a liberal columnist. In his piece today, he basically blames high expectations and Republicans for not allowing Democrats to make a more favorable impression with the American people.
Both of these pieces tell me that liberals aren't exactly optimistic about the future. They proclaimed about how the American people decided that Democrats spoke for them, and how they were going to do all of these things that the people demanded from government. Now, six months into their tenure, Congress has a lower approval rating than President Bush, Harry Reid has an approval of only 19%, and Speaker Pelosi has a lower approval rating than Newt Gingrich at the same time during his tenure as Speaker. Polls have shown that people prefer a generic Democrat over a generic Republican for president, but when presented with candidate names, the people prefer the Republican candidate over the Democrat.
You hear so much about how Democrats were elected to get the US out of Iraq, and how the Democrat presidential candidates want to do so. But when you look at what the candidates say, at least with the front runners, they support leaving troops in the area in case things go south. This piece by Karen Hanretty at NRO today talks about this in relation to John Edwards.
So Republicans, buck up. We hear the pundits saying that we are down and out, depressed, hate all of our presidential candidates, blah blah blah. Even if that is correct, apparently we aren't alone.
------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
E.J. Dionne is a liberal columnist. In his piece today, he basically blames high expectations and Republicans for not allowing Democrats to make a more favorable impression with the American people.
Expectations are part of the Democrats' problem. Over the past month or so, congressional Democrats have hemorrhaged support from both ends of the electoral coalition that backed them last November. And both ends had high hopes.and
Middle-of-the-road voters who backed the Democrats don't much like the war, but they also looked to the party of Reid and Pelosi to get things done on political reform, health care, energy, the environment and the economy. Yet the ways of Congress are slow, especially when Republicans have no interest in Democratic success and when President Bush -- with the exception of an immigration bill -- mostly opposes what Democrats would put on his desk. The Democrats can brag about a minimum wage increase. They also passed budget measures on time, a real achievement, but not one that most voters notice.and
Given how tarnished the Republican brand is, the GOP's best strategy is to bring Democrats down with them into the murky depths of public disapproval. This might build support for a third-party candidate in 2008 -- which could help Republicans win by splitting the anti-Bush, anti-system vote. It's still early, but not too early for Democrats to worry about this prospect and to brace themselves for some ugly politics for the rest of the year.Froma Harrop is another liberal columnist. In her piece today, she focuses on the "culture of corruption" in Washington. It's apparent that she wanted to write a hit piece on Republicans. To do so, she has to go back to the last congress and Alaskan Rep. Don Young, the author of the famous "Bridge to Nowhere." Sure, she finishes the piece by mentioning that Sen. Stevens, also of Alaska, is under an FBI probe over bribery of state officials and that his seat is now vulnerable, but still. Perhaps she momentarily forgot that Republicans no longer control congress? Perhaps she forgot about the pork Democrats have included in several bills. Perhaps she forgot about Rep. Jack Murtha's threat to a Republican Congressman on the house floor to cut all his earmarks if he didn't support Murtha's earmarks---a violation of House rules. Perhaps she forgot about the shady dealings that Harry Reid and Barak Obama have been implicated in? Who knows.
Both of these pieces tell me that liberals aren't exactly optimistic about the future. They proclaimed about how the American people decided that Democrats spoke for them, and how they were going to do all of these things that the people demanded from government. Now, six months into their tenure, Congress has a lower approval rating than President Bush, Harry Reid has an approval of only 19%, and Speaker Pelosi has a lower approval rating than Newt Gingrich at the same time during his tenure as Speaker. Polls have shown that people prefer a generic Democrat over a generic Republican for president, but when presented with candidate names, the people prefer the Republican candidate over the Democrat.
You hear so much about how Democrats were elected to get the US out of Iraq, and how the Democrat presidential candidates want to do so. But when you look at what the candidates say, at least with the front runners, they support leaving troops in the area in case things go south. This piece by Karen Hanretty at NRO today talks about this in relation to John Edwards.
So Republicans, buck up. We hear the pundits saying that we are down and out, depressed, hate all of our presidential candidates, blah blah blah. Even if that is correct, apparently we aren't alone.
------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Paycheck Protection Act
You might remember the debate over fair share during the latest legislative session. James Bopp Jr. has a piece up at NRO discussing much of the same thing. He focuses on the Paycheck Protection Act and how states need to focus on the issue of "requiring employees to pay fees to unions that they refuse to join." Its a good piece that should be printed and used next time fair share comes up.
-------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
-------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Monday, June 18, 2007
Open Field Politics
Michael Barone has an interesting piece at National Journal about the state of politics today. He argues that we are in an "open-field politics" after coming out of a "trench warfare" style of politics during the 1990s. It's a bit lengthy, but a good read.
-----------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
-----------------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Muslim, Arab, American
The Baltimore Sun features an interesting op-ed today by Mohammad Ali Salih. He discusses about how being an American, an Arab and a Muslim rate in his life. The first part of the piece had me wondering what I was reading. Then I came to this passage, which I'll just leave you to ponder:
-------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
To me, America inspires love first, allegiance second. My love for America started long before I came to here, when I was reading, writing, thinking and dreaming about America - in Arabic. My religion was never an obstacle; it was, rather, an incentive: dreaming of worshiping God in America the way I wanted, with no restrictions from the oppressive Islamic governments and medieval Shariah scholars.
When I speak the words of the Pledge of Allegiance - "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God" - I say to myself, "God is paramount here, too."
For a long time, I wondered why America attracts people from all over the world. It took me many years to learn that Christianity and Western civilization are the core of what makes America tick. I, a Muslim and Arab, had to "submit" to this. I also found that the spirit of Christianity - but not necessarily organized religion - is the spirit of America. Now, in addition to the mosque, I almost regularly pray in a Methodist church not far from where I live. My favorite hymn is: "Spirit of the living God, fall afresh on me. Melt me, mold me, fill me, use me. Spirit of the Living God."
-------------------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Crocs With Socks???
Manolo's Shoe Blog calls for President Bush to be impeached.
Seriously though, black presidential anklets?
Seriously though, black presidential anklets?
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Striaght From the Horse's Mouth
Gov. Culver was recently in Fort Dodge on his "Capitol for a Day" tour. The Messenger covered the event here. The article has a couple of interesting quotes from Culver that should be highlighted.
One portion of the article covered the raise in tobacco taxes (the tax increase covered all tobacco, not just cigarettes, so lets call it what it really is):
On another subject, a few days ago you read a post here about what topics would be big next year in the legislature. One of those topics was highway construction and upkeep. The largest contributer to our highway fund is the gas tax. Here is what Culver had to say:
The way I'm reading this is that gas taxes here in Iowa are going to increase. I understand the importance of our highway system, of the need to upkeep roads and finish the 4-lane Highway 20. I understand that the state highway fund is short on cash and that revenue will have to come from somewhere. But the price of gas is high enough the way it is already. When Culver says "right now," I'd like to see at what price he thinks gas should be in order to increase the fuel tax. I'm expecting the idea to start floating around in the near future.
-----------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
One portion of the article covered the raise in tobacco taxes (the tax increase covered all tobacco, not just cigarettes, so lets call it what it really is):
‘‘I actually said it’s got to be a dollar, so you can blame me entirely,’’ Culver said.You can't get any more blunt than that. For those of you angry at the tobacco tax increase, you can remember this in 2010 when Culver is up for reelection. Culver goes on with this quote:
He noted that people can argue for ‘‘sin taxes’’ on things like beer, but added that there was only consensus to raise the cigarette tax.The tobacco tax was increased, according to Culver, to make it so expensive to force smokers to quit and new smokers from even starting. Alcohol has negative, and possibly long-term, effects on the human body, and alcoholism can destroy people's lives. A lot of domestic abuse incidents come after the abuser has been drinking. Go to any college town and you hear about alcohol problems and the amount of drinking going on. Iowa City has been trying for years to make bars 21 only to try to cut down on underage drinking. So, Gov. Culver, if you increase the tobacco tax to cut down on smoking.....wouldn't it be irresponsible to not increase taxes on alcohol? Don't try to pull the consensus argument either. There are a lot of people angry at the tobacco tax increase...nothing I would call a supporting consensus.
On another subject, a few days ago you read a post here about what topics would be big next year in the legislature. One of those topics was highway construction and upkeep. The largest contributer to our highway fund is the gas tax. Here is what Culver had to say:
While he championed the cigarette tax, the governor isn’t eager to move on raising the levy on a gallon of gasoline.
‘‘I don’t think the majority of Iowans want to raise the gas tax right now because of the skyrocketing cost of gas,’’ he said.
He said the state should ‘‘go very slowly’’ on raising that tax.
The way I'm reading this is that gas taxes here in Iowa are going to increase. I understand the importance of our highway system, of the need to upkeep roads and finish the 4-lane Highway 20. I understand that the state highway fund is short on cash and that revenue will have to come from somewhere. But the price of gas is high enough the way it is already. When Culver says "right now," I'd like to see at what price he thinks gas should be in order to increase the fuel tax. I'm expecting the idea to start floating around in the near future.
-----------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)