Here's a few things to look for tonight.
7pm -- polls close in Indiana, Virgina, and Georgia, among others.
If Obama wins Virgina, turn off the TV because there is no reasonable scenario for McCain to get to 270 without Virgina. McCain can win Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, and still not get to 270 without Virginia. (The latest SurveyUSA poll of FLA LV, concluded yesterday, puts Obama at 50%, McCain 47%, with 1% undecided.)
If Obama also wins Georgia (which we are expecting), pop the corks because that means an Obama landslide.
We are looking for Indiana to go with McCain. If it ends up in Obama's column, it could mean Obama hitting 350 electoral votes by the time the West Coast polls shut down at 11 Eastern.
If the 7:00 polls all go with McCain, then it is on to Ohio at 7:30. I am looking for Ohio to end up in McCain's column, but it is a must-win for him and if the Buckeye state goes to Obama, it is lights out.
Then the big battlegrounds come in at 8pm -- Florida and Pennsylvania, as well as Missouri. McCain must take Florida and Pennsylvania to have shot at 270.
While we are expecting the conclusion to be writ before the 9 pm poll closings, if there's still life in the old man at 9:00, watch the results in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and North Dakota. Obama should win New Mexico and Colorado, but if he adds either North Dakota or Arizona to his column, then you won't need to stay up for the final battleground closings at ten pm: Montana and Nevada.
I'm expecting an early night of poll-watching and a late night of celebration.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Waddau Lookin At?
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
It's the Turnout, Stupid
A source inside the Pennsylvania Obama GOTV organization recently told me that their internals put the spread in the Commonwealth at under 3 points. {The latest SurveyUSA poll of PA LV, concluded yesterday, puts Obama up 52-43%, with only 1% undecided.)
Think the election is going to be decided by the undecided voters or the soft supporters of either candidate? Nope. The next President is going to be put in office by a very different group of people.
What will win the election is the Get Out the Vote work. The candidate who has the better ground game, who has more key counties or precincts organized, who has been spending the last few months identifying likely supporters, and the last two weeks making sure that they vote, is going to win the election.
An effective GOTV organization can make up as much as a six or seven point polling deficit. As you look at all those light blue or light red states, keep that in mind. Also keep in mind that, over the last decade or so, the Repugs have had the most impressive of GOTV mechanics.
This cycle, Obama has a number of things going for him to offset the usual GOP GOTV advantage. The first advantage Obama has is Hillary. She Who Must Be Nominated die Obama and the Dems a big, if unintended, favor. By hanging on until long after the issue was decided, Hillary forced Obama to build his organizations in many more states than he would have needed to start work in had Hillary been gracious in defeat. This played well in Obama's strength -- expanding the playing field.
Playing in the red put additional pressure on the Repug GOTV in those states -- which may be a little weaker than in other areas, since the Repugs haven't previously had to work to win those states in Presidential elections
Keeping the interest in the primaries going not until the last day, but until the very last day, also kept the Dems out in front of the electorate. In all of those late-primary states, the Democrats essentially were handed the opening statement in the trial against the Repugs, with little opportunity for rebuttal.
It also continued the massive new-voter registration drive that Obama and the Dems have masterfully put together this cycle. While it is beginning to look like new voters will not comprise much more than the usual ten or twelve percent of the electorate, the Dem skew looks to be very very heavy among the new voters.
Finally, early voting. Some estimates are that nearly one-third of the votes cast in this election have already been recorded through early or absentee ballots. Obama appears to have banked a substantial advantage among these early votes. Besides starting out the day with a ten or fifteen point advantage, the early voters also relive the burden on the Obama GOTV organizations -- allowing them to concentrate their resources on the remaining 70% who have not early voted. This thirty-percent increase in efficient use of resources helps the Obama GOTV even out the Repug advantage.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Hillary Wins The Racist Vote
Well, Bill Clinton may have played the race card before he didn't play the race card. But, his wife trumped the hand by winning the Pennsylvania Racist vote on Tuesday. The CNN exit polls show that 19% of voters on Tuesday admitted that their decision was based on race. Hillary picked up most of those votes.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Hillary: "The Tide is Turning"
Hope she's got a good boat, because I think the tide has turned:
Pennsylvania Polls
11/5/07 -- Clinton 48% Obama 15%
12/3/07 -- Clinton 43% Obama 15%
01/14/08 -- Clinton 40% Obama 20%
02/18/08 -- Clinton 44% Obama 32%
03/31/08 -- Clinton 47% Obama 42%
04/22/08 -- Clinton 54% Obama 46% (with 76% reporting)
Hillary parlayed a 33-point lead into an 8-point win. Impressive fold. Nationally, among Democrats, in the same period, Obama has moved 33 points, from 23 points down to ten points over She Who Must Be Nominated.
Hillary was handed the nomination on a presumptive platter, and (to mix the metaphor) couldn't close the deal.
I'm not sure what she is celebrating, but I think I see where the tide has indeed turned since November.
What to Watch Today in Pennsylvania
In a Pennsylvania contest pitting two Democratic powerhouses, one putting together a coalition of blacks and educated white suburbanites, the other counting on the support of white ethnic, union, and blue collar voters, the former can take the state in the right circumstances. How do we know that -- because that is exactly how Fast Eddie Rendell beat Sleepy Bob Junior in the 2002 Pennsylvania Gubernatorial primary. This year, Obama is relying on the same coalition that swept Rendell to victory, while Hillary is courting the Casey coalition. Ironically, but not unexpectedly, Casey is backing Obama and Rendell is stumping for Hillary.
Rendell took only ten counties that year -- but he took them by wide enough margins to offset Casey's middle and northeastern state strength. Philadelphia went to Rendell by a couple hundred thousand votes and he swamped Casey in the elite Philly suburbs, where he won nearly 80% of the vote. He also took the Allentown area of the state by a big margin.
Unfortunately for Obama, he hasn't been able to generate Rendell-like leads in those areas of the state this year. But there are two lurking issues that Rendell and Casey didn't have to deal with which could disrupt expectations -- the invisible seven percent and the disproportionate proportional award of delegates.
The Seven Percent Solution
Three months ago, the Obama forces began a voter registration drive in Pennsylvania. It wasn't as massive as the ones they mounted in other states, but it was significant enough. By the time the deadline to register came in late March, the Democrats in Pennsylvania found themselves with over 300,000 new party affiliates. County voter registration offices were overwhelmed by the response and it is only within the last few weeks that they managed to get the newly-minted voters on the rolls.
All those polls of registered democrats in the state -- you know the ones that have been showing a steady eroding of Hillary's once-20-point-lead down to the margin of error? Well, those polls were taken from a registration list that doesn't include those 300,000+ newly registered democrats.
That group, invisible to the pollsters, could make a significant difference in the results that we see today.
Why?
Well, for one, the new registrants are much more likely to actually turn out and vote, even in this year of the large turnout. Turnout, particularly in Philadelphia and the 'burbs is of particular importance to Obama as he works to cut into Hillary's mid-state strengths. Rendell succeed in '02 by pushing record turnouts in Philadelphia and the surrounding suburbs.
For another, estimates are that the new registrants are breaking Obama at a clip well in excess of 60-40. Add to Obama's numbers 63% of the 38,000 new dems in the union and working class towns in the Lehigh Valley (Allentown/Reading), and you understand why Hillary and Bill have spent so much time there in the last few weeks. There are nearly 30,000 new dems in Pittsburgh, and almost 5,000 more in NEPA (Wilkes-Barre, Scranton) -- Hillary's Western and Eastern presumed strongholds. And in Obama's strength, Philadelphia, they added over 50,000 new Democrats.
The new democratic voters amount to about 7% of the expected turnout today -- keep that in mind when looking at the polls and their MOEs -- seven percent of today's voters were excluded from the polling pool. It might not amount to a new New Hampshire, but it could serve to explain why at the end of the day Hillary's expected ten-point-plus win winnows down substantially.
Disproportionate Delegate Scheme
In putting together the rules for this years delegate selection process, the Pennsylvania Democratic Party opted to award disproportionately more delegates to congressional districts that have gone democratic in the last two elections. This means that winning a reliably-democratic district will net more delegates than winning a similarly-sized republican district.
Not good news for Hillary as her strength comes mainly in the reliably-republican areas of the center and west states. Obama is more likely to win more of the reliably-democratic CDs than Hillary and, even if he does lose the popular vote by six, seven, or even eight points, he could walk away with more delegates -- or shave Clinton's net gain to meaninglessness.
Watch the Turnout
Rendell's victory over Casey in 2002 was based on overwhelming numbers -- huge margins in Philadelphia, 80% of the vote in the Philadelphia suburbs, and big wins in the Lehigh Valley. Polls don't show Obama with Rendell-like numbers in any of those areas.
But, a large turnout in those areas will help Obama threaten the Clinton-expectations. In Philadelphia, a large turnout early will be extremely significant as the African-American population there tends to vote later in the day. If the Philadelphia turnout is high by lunchtime, it could mean that Obama stands to post Rendell-like numbers there.
Obama could win this with high turnouts in key areas of the state. If you start to see numbers like 70% turnout in the Philly suburbs and 60% in the city, and high turnouts in the State College area (home of Penn State's main campus), and in Lancaster in South Central Pennsylvania, which has seen an influx of new residents from Philadelphia, Baltimore and DC, it could mean a surge of Obama supporters showing up to create a rough night for Hillary.
On the other side of the ledger, NE PA (Wilkes Barre, Scranton), Erie County, and Pittsburgh and surrounds, are Clinton counties and strong turnout here could favor her. (Careful here, though. Erie added almost 7,000 new democrats this year and Pittsburgh nearly 30,000.)
Wait for It
The early numbers should show a huge Obama lead -- if they don't, Obama is in for a rough night.
But don't jump to assumptions. The Central and Western counties in Pennsylvania are notoriously slow reporting and that is where Hillary is counting on to win this thing for her (apart from NEPA).
Early Night
This isn't going to be another New Mexico, though -- the results will be known relatively early, 9:30, 10 pm Eastern, at the latest.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Bush and Economy Sinking Together
The Fed is expecting slower growth, higher unemployment, and more inflation. The announcement today comes on the heels of two approval polls showing the President with (you pick 'em) 65% or 77% disapproval ratings, driven mainly by extreme displeasure with Bush's handling of the economy.
Well, at least the Repugs have nominated a candidate with strong economic cred . . . oh, wait.
A mere 19% of Americans approve of the way that the Despicable Cretin is handing his job, according to an American Research Group poll released today. (h/t to Spork in the Drawer)
The ARG Poll of 1,100 was conducted by telephone between February 16 and 19. The economy seems to be driving the numbers even lower, as only 14% or respondents approved of Bush's handling of the economy. (And, that was before the Fed said that things are about to get a whole lot worse.)
A Gallup Poll also released today says that 65% of respondents disapproved of the way Bush was handling his job. That poll was conducted by telephone of about 1,000 adults between February 11 and 14.
McCain must be feeling pret-ty good about now . . . .
Superdelegate Anxiety
Last night, Obama convincingly punctured the coalition of women, blue collars, older voters, and the non-college-educated, which had formed the core support for She Who Must Be Nominated. As Obama threatens the "inevitable" Clinton nomination, attention shifts to the automatic delegates -- the unpledged party regulars who make up about 20% of the convention delegates.
Last evening's results make it certain that the neither Obama nor SWMBN will secure the delegates needed to win the nomination through the primary system. It is also apparent that Obama will march into Denver in August having won more states, ahead in the popular vote, and with more pledged delegates than Hillary. The perceived threat is that the "superdelegates" would support the "designated" candidate of the party establishment and "overturn" the choice of the rank and file.
Nonsense. The 2008 convention can not be a rerun of 1968.
In 1968, when less than 30% of the public supported an unpopular war, the party bosses handed the nomination to a candidate who supported the war policies and had not only failed to win a single primary, but who had secured less than 5% of the popular vote.
But, back then, candidates didn't need the primaries to win the nomination. In 1968, only about a dozen states held primaries. In the remainder, the party delegates were mostly selected by the state committee and their votes controlled by one, or sometimes a small number of, party bosses.
After the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, the leading anti-war candidate was Gene McCarthy, who had won more primaries than any other candidate and was leading all candidates in the popular vote. But, before the convention, Hubert Humphrey, Johnson's vice-president and a supporter of the war policies of the Johnson administration, had secured enough delegates to obtain the nomination and didn't have to participate in the primaries. At the time of Kennedy's death, Humphrey was leading in the delegate count despite having ignored the primaries.
In 2008, when every state has a pre-convention delegate-selection process, the ability of the party bosses to select a nominee despite the outcome of the primaries is virtually eliminated. The superdelegates become relevant only where, as this year, no candidate comes to the convention controlling a majority of the pledged candidates and at least two are within about 800 votes of majority.
The superdelegates are party regulars, there are hundreds of them. Unlike 1968, when literally a handful of party bosses controlled the majority of the convention delegates, no one of them controls a significant number of votes. Instead, these party regulars and long-time party activists, are relatively free to make their own decisions.
They will, and should, make their decision based on their personal evaluation of which candidate would be best for the party, and the country. Essentially, one can reasonably expect their votes will go to the candidate that they believe is best positioned to lead the party to the overwhelming November victory that is apparently in the grasp of the Democrats.
If the nomination is not decided by the time of the convention (which is unlikely), the superdelegates are going to do the politically expedient thing -- go with the candidate who strides into the convention with the greater momentum, with the greater national support, with the greatest chance of taking back the White House. And that is exactly what they were designed to do -- they were not meant to be a modern-day equivalent of the party bosses who handed the party a disaster in 1968.
So, make yourself easy. It is unlikely that the superdelegates will be called on to decide this thing (in this little corner, we think it can be decided before the Pennsylvania primary). If they are, remember that they are lifetime Democrats and political activists. Their imperative is to put a Democrat in the White House and not one of them is going to vote for a person who they don't believe can do that.
(There's a pretty good list of the current status of the superdelegate endorsements at the 2008 Democratic Convention Watch blog.)
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Having Fun Yet?
Your erratic correspondent may have been away from the keyboard, but he has been keeping an eye on the goings. This aging body hasn't seen the likes of this season since possibly, and briefly, the tragic 1968 campaign. Even then, many fewer eyes were focused on the contest, and even they had not bothered to turn their gaze until much, much later.
It's probably fair to say that more people have cared longer about the 2008 contest than any ever before. While a large part of the interest is issue-driven, I am crediting something else entirely -- if not the re-bloom of democracy, at least the whiff of its flower. The popular interest has been there through polls suggesting the leading issue to be Iraq, and then Health Care, and then Iraq, then Health Care, and now (and likely through November) the economy (it's always the economy). These critical issues, addressed with some certain measure of difference by the two parties, has no doubt contributed to the unprecedented long attention span. But there is more needed to explain the continuing attention.
With no heir apparent on either side, the field was wide open for the likely (Hillary and Rudy) and the unlikely (Huckabee and Obama). The result has been an engaged and engaging debate over policy and procedure in both parties. Sure, each side has an ideological touchstone, but creative and new solutions have been served up by those who have come and gone over the last two+ years.
Both parties offer something approaching real dialogue about ideas, and actual debate over world-views. The overall quality of the campaigns are higher than we generally recall, and the depth of the respective fields is surprising. Paul, Kucinich, Huckabee, Biden, Richardson, Hunter, are all articulate advocates on the issues they have made their own and they have all moved and lifted the debate, in sometimes small and in sometimes larger ways, over the last year. The lower tier candidates have excited significant portions of the populace (including many new to the process, young and old), challenged the "designated" candidates, and expanded the scope of the discussion. (Except for Gravel), it has therefore been unfortunate that some of them they have been sliced off the debate stages.
Personally, I'd rather see Obama or Edwards on the Democratic ticket in November. But there was something exciting about the results in New Hampshire. You can count me among the doubters of Omentum. I fully expected Hillary's superior, more experienced organization, to pull out of the apparent nosedive of the last two weeks. I have, reluctantly, suggested that the calendar may well be too short for She Who Must Be Nominated to be stopped.
How and why did New Hampshire happen? I dunno. (But I find it interesting that, among all the explanations that are being thrown around out there, no one is looking into the possibility that the polls were fubar.)
That said, I'll direct you to her GOTV machine. Her performance in NH shows what a highly-experienced team can do in a close contest -- and make no mistake, Hillary's team has been doing this, mostly for a Clinton, for a few decades now. Hillary and Bill know the routine, and know NH, in ways to which the most savvy of the Obama team can only aspire.
Hillary knew where her strength lay. That's why we saw women and middle-class labor voters driven out to the polls in huge numbers by the Hillary GOTV team.
Now it is off the the South and West. Much different voter profiles in both and different mixes of candidate appeals. Out West, will Bill Richardson be a factor? He may well and, if does make an impact, I'd have to guess that his support will be drawn from Hillary.
Keep in mind, also, that Obama lost among registered Democrats in both Iowa and NH -- his support came from cross-overs and independents. Between now and February 5, there are far fewer states which allow crossing-over or who give independents a voice.
In the South, what can Edwards do? The only rationale for Edwards remaining in the race is not to win it -- but to show enough strength in the South to allow him to insist on a role at the convention. I haven't studied the cross-tabs on this, but I would speculate that Edwards will draw from Obama more than Hillary.
The interplay and possibilities are endless, and that's what makes it fun (and I haven't even gotten to talk about the complications on the other side). Having a two and a half-headed contest, for at least another three and a half weeks, can only serve to continue to refine the Democratic message, upgrading the discussion, pulling in more first-time participants in the process.
So, if you're not having fun, well, hope you're enjoying Skating With the Stars . . . the rest of us will let you know how it plays out.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Re-Running With Hillary
During my period of inattention, voters in the near primary states have been paying more attention. And, while Hillary still leads on national polls -- in places where serious attention is finally being paid, She Who Must Be Nominated is having a bit of a stumble.
One reason for this, I humbly posit, is not Hillary trying to beat up on a 5-year old Obama, or planting interrogators, or any of the other stuff and nonsense. But a real reason for her slide may have something to do with her being insufficiently the anti-Bush. A topic we suggested back in March, when NO one was paying attention, and which we respectfully serve up again below the fold.
From March 19, 2007: Some thoughts which have been rattling around in my aged head for several weeks and probably not ready for prime time . . . .
If History is any indication, 2008 should be a banner year for the Democrats on the National level. Granting that History may be as irrelevant to the outcome of Presidential elections as to Baseball's All-Star game, the same History which bodes well for the Democrats might have an asterisk named Hillary.
When public opinion of a sitting President falls to the miserable failure level, one often sees a switch of the political Party in residence at 1600 Pennsylvania. Some examples include when FDR (D) wasted Hoover (R), in the early 30s; twenty years later when Ike (R) spanked Stevenson following Truman's second term (when, as the Dubya gang likes to point out, Truman's job-approval were Bushian low-20s); in the 70s it happened twice, first when Carter (D) took over from Ford/Nixon and then four years later, when Reagan sent Carter to early retirement.
But, looking at the men who occupied the White House on Election Day and the men who replaced them on Inauguration Day suggests that the electorate might have been looking for more than a change of Party.
By '32, Hoover was seen as weak-minded and incompetent, FDR as strong, capable, dependable. Truman was perceived as stubborn and irascible, hard to get along with -- taking over the steel mills, recalling MacArthur. Ike, well, EVERYone Liked Ike. Carter was the nuclear-engineer-smart, calm, trustworthy gentleman from the South, taking over from the decidedly untrustworthy, ungentlemanly, Nixon regime, with his unelected Veep, Ford, viewed as less than smart and perhaps a little untrustworthy himself. And, finally, the in-control, clear-eyed Reagan taking over for a Carter Administration adept at fumbling domestic policy and international relations.
These caricatures of the day suggest that, in response to what is largely perceived as a "failure presidency", the voters may have been looking as much for someone perceived as offering an opposite set of characteristics, as for an opposite party.
There need be little breath spent on arguing that the Bush Administration is widely-perceived as a decidedly failed Presidency. While the ultimate historical judgment might, as it did with Truman, change given time and distance (yeah, right), today Bush struggles to avoid setting new lows in approval and performance.
So, looking to 2008, what are the popular-perceptions about why Bush is such a miserable failure?
Seems too easy, but a list of some of the problems that most would probably say contribute to the failure of this Administration would have to include the Iraq Invasion, Bush's seemingly endless ability to create divisions and generate impassioned detractors, and his, if not dishonesty, then at least the lack of candor, or political posturing, informing all he does or says.
Recognizing that the deck becomes stacked by which elements one lists, but the Hillary Problem, and the problem WITH Hillary, is that she might not be stacking up very well on the electorate's unconscious lists of the "problems with George" -- she might not offer the great unwashed enough of a change in character to lead to a change in Party in the White House. She was a supporter of the war then, and is insufficiently repentant. Is she divisive? If you have to ask, you haven't been paying attention. Is she perceived to lack candor, as being political and calculating? Did you see her in Selma? Does she root for the Mets or the Yankees?
Just looking at it this way, if it is even close to something real, doesn't it help explain Obama's popularity? Hillary may not be enough the un-Bush to give the Democrats what History suggests may be theirs in 2008 as long as they don't screw it up.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Ron Paul, Representing the Lunatic Fringe
Ron Paul has become the latest darling of the pajama media and generated what appears to be a true grassroots following. Accounting for this are some of his atypical-for-a-Republican positions on front-line issues. The popularity of his opposition to the war policies of the Despicable Cretin, his activist support for personal privacy (including opposition to the Patriot Act and the national ID card), his supposedly "principled" defense of Constitutional limits, and his in-your-face attacks on the intellectual inconsistency of his fellow Republican candidates, have given him the 2008 "straight-talk" mantle.
But Ron Paul's attractiveness is only skin-deep. Unfortunately, for a significant portion of voters, skin-deep is as far as they go. A closer look at some of his other positions, especially on social issues, reveals a different and, frankly, disturbing picture of the candidate.
Ron Paul not only opposes the right to choose, but he opposes any federal support for family planning, including counseling, sex education, and contraceptive advice or support.
And, of course, Paul wants Roe v Wade overturned. While Paul likes to promote himself as a defender of personal privacy and liberty, he ignores the privacy and liberty issues at the heart of the abortion issue and the Roe v. Wade decision -- his support for personal liberty and privacy only extends to liberty and privacy invoked in favor of those portions of the christian mythology he has adopted. In other words -- In Ron Paul's America, your personal privacy and liberty choices are protectible to the extent that they happen to coincide with Paul's personal choices.
As with a women's right to control her own body, Paul's concept of personal liberty also requires that your civil liberties stop at his personal gag factor. Ron Paul opposes equal rights for gays. And, of course, if Ron Paul is personally opposed to queers getting married, his so-called "principled" defense of the Constitution becomes irrelevant. Thus, despite his precious Constitution clearly requiring all States to honor give "full faith and credit" to the laws of their sister States, Paul favors abandoning that provision when he and his personal mythology doesn't like what they have done.
The full faith and credit clause is what allows you to drive in New Jersey with your Pennsylvania license; it is what permits you to live as husband and wife in New York, although you got married in Florida; it is what allows you to collect a judgment against a company in Iowa issued by a Delaware court. But that same clause, Paul insists, can't be used to "force" bigots like him to recognize gay marriages because, well, because he doesn't want to. Paul supports the Defense of Marriage Act and wants to strip the federal courts of their power to apply the federal Constitution to state laws on such matters. Indeed, Paul wants to deny the federal courts the power to decide all First Amendment controversies.
Paul opposes stem-cell research because, he says, that taxpayers shouldn't have to fund projects that they find "ethically abhorrent". I haven't found "ethically abhorrent" in my copy of the Constitution. But, if that were the test, well, then, I find faith-based government programs "ethically abhorrent", I find prayer "ethically abhorrent", as well as tax-relief for churches. I know, I am in the minority. But, so are the people that find stem-cell research "ethically abhorrent". Paul's argument is just cover for his desire to impose his personal set of values, his christian mythology, on the rest of us.
Paul wants to drill for oil in ANWR and everywhere else he can. His excuse -- to reduce our dependence on Middle-Eastern oil. But, that important "principle" stops at the economic interests of corporate America, as Paul opposes strict fuel economy standards.
Ron Paul wants a christian nation, and he is willing to lie about the Constitution to convince you. Among the false statements in his little tome on christianity is that the United States Constitution is "replete with references to God". Umm, no it isn't. In fact, the word "god" appears no where in the text. Either Ron Paul doesn't know that -- which puts the lie to his pretense of advocacy for the Constitution -- or he does -- which puts the lie to him. Either way . . . .
But what would you expect from someone who says that "a separation of church and state has no historical or constitutional basis", or a guy who wants to teach creationism in public schools?
Ron Paul comes from the lunatic fringe of American society. When he speaks of his "principles", he means his dogma. When he advocates for freedom and personal liberty -- he means just as long as it is consistent with his brand of christian mythology.
Paul also has a questionable history on race issues (and much has been made of the level of support which he enjoys from the white supremacy crowd). In 1996, the Houston Chronicle questioned him and his staff about comments Paul made in his newsletters in 1988 and 1992. At the time, neither Paul nor his staff disowned the comments. Instead, according to the article, Paul tried to explain some of them away, "saying his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of 'current events and statistical reports of the time.'"
Here, according to the Chronicle, are some of Paul's written statements based on those "current events and statistical reports":
“[O]nly about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions"
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
[W]e are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."
And they called Mike Gravel loony?
Fortunately, ideologues like this guy don't go away and he'll be around to siphon scarce Republican money, likely through the convention. Hopefully, he'll then run third-party and continue to help the Democrats.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Hillary, meet Hillary
Continuing our lazy-ass ways, here's another video.
(A bite 'o the hoagie to Media Lizzy)
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Friday, September 07, 2007
Repugs, Week by Week
Senate 2008 Guru recaps, week by week, the 2007 exploits of them wacky Republicans.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
DeNaple's US Attorney Pal to Step Down
The Morning Call is reporting tonight that the United States Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Thomas Marino, is resigning.
It was recently revealed that Marino was listed as a reference for convicted felon and reputed mob connected slots applicant Louis DeNaples. Marino then recused himself from a Federal probe into DeNaples' alleged illegal contributions by to Rendell, and into DeNaples purported ties to organized crime.
What is unclear from the reports is how long it took Marino to recuse himself from the investigation of his long-time friend. (But, it's gotta give you a warm and fuzzy to realize that the chief Federal law enforcement official in the Middle District has a long-standing friendship with a convicted felon who has long been reputedly associated with the largest organized crime family in his District.)
It was reported last year that, between 2000 and 2005, DeNaples and affiliates contributed over a million bucks to Rendell and Bob Mellow, among others, who were instrumental in naming folk to the gaming board that eventually awarded DeNaples his slots license. Earlier this week, citizens groups filed ethics complaints against one of those board members, whose law firm represented DeNaples and another slots applicant.
Marino was reportedly on the chopping block last year. His resignation could be in preparation for a run at Chris Carney. That'll give the voters in PA's 10th an interesting choice -- friend of convicted felon and "alleged" mob figure versus just another lying politician.
Gore Beats the Field in Michigan
Michigan voters prefer Gore, Thompson. Meanwhile, Hillary is preparing to fight the next war.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Let Them Speak
The Democratic Party -- the rank and file, the real members of the party -- not the Hillary O. Edwards "Democratic Leadership", need to listen to people like Dodd and Richardson and Kucinich, and even that crazy old guy at the end of the stage. And then they need to demand that Hillary O. Edwards start incorporating some of their messages. (Let's face it, kids, your Democratic Candidate isn't going to be short, old, or fat.) But we need those short, old and fat guys to help move the party leaders close to the main street Democrats, the real party.
Nancy Pelosi wants to keep God in the pledge and Cheney out of the Dock . . . . the Schumer/Reid Dems believe that they have to bed down with the likes of Chris Carney, Jack Murtha, James Webb, the Clintons, and, god help us, Bobby Casey, Jr. Spare me . . . .
What ever happened to liberal America? You know, the main street folk who believed that personal liberty was a core concept -- the devout Christian who was as irritated as the devout Atheist when they tried to bring religion into government or government into church? The beer quaffing hard-hats who believed that one of Government's prime responsibilities was the safety net for the unfortunate, and that it needed to stay the fuck out of everyone's bedroom -- even those queers over in the next neighborhood?
We need a new flavor. A party that will stand up for the working man and stand up to America, Incorporated. A party that will toss out the Democrats owned by the corporations and quickly as they would the Republicans. A party that will admit that there remain but two classes in America, the rich and the rest of us, and will actually have an agenda to do something about it.
Class warfare? Hell, yeah.
But first we need to see that the war fueled with Voodoo Economics, Clinton Prosperity, and Bush Patronage, has already been won by the rich Republicans and the rich Democrats.
Too bad these guys never got it going. But someday, sooner than later, someone will get it right.
In the meantime, I don't want Hillary O. Edwards limiting the flavors.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Tancredo Shows Up
He kept it quiet -- not issuing any press release, not putting his appearance on his web site in advance, and (sniff, sniff) not responding to the emails of your truly about whether he would show up. A few days ago, when we initially ran the story, he would only say "maybe yes, maybe no".
But he did and was greeted warmly.
From the Detroit Free Press coverage today:
Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo was the only Republican candidate for president to show up at the forum.
Tancredo took the stage at the closing session of the group's national convention to a standing ovation. He was flanked by lecterns with placards for nine other GOP candidates -- all no-shows.
"Do you think we should wait a few minutes for the other guys to show up?" Tancredo asked. "Do they know something I don't know? The fact is, I know something they don't know."
Yeah, he does -- people of color also have the right to vote now. Someone needs to let the rest of the repugs know that. THey appear to have written off the non-white vote.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Color Blinded
Rudy says he can't make it because he has to be in Michigan that night (the convention is in Detroit), Romney says he'll find a scheduling conflict (he's got no events planned for that day, but told the NAACP that he's got something else to do), McCain said that, well, he didn't say anything, and Huckabee -- he announced a month ago that, son of a gun, that happens to be the same date that he'll be in Iowa.
The repugs are following in the tradition established by the Despicable Cretin, who was a no show at the NAACP conventions. After the D.C. pulled in a mere 11% of the African-American vote in 2004, his IRS launched an investigation aimed at stripping the organization of its exempt status.
Detroit political consultant Coit Cook Ford had it right when he said that the no-shows reflected the repug preference to "appeal to white conservative voters who are hostile to immigration and affirmative action than to Hispanics and African Americans."
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Rudy the Monger
Let those thoughts sink in a moment.
With everything we know today, Rudy would still conduct a war of aggression against Iraq.
And what do we know today?
We know that there was no connection between Saddam and 9-11.
We know that Iraq's army was a paper tiger and that his pretense of weaponry was his last line of defense against neighbors none-too happy to have him on the block.
We know that there were no storehouses of chemical or biological weapons.
We know that the mobile weapons factories were a lie.
We know that Saddam was about 1,000 years from nuclear weaponry.
We know that nearly 3500 American kids are dead, tens of thousands grievously wounded, hundreds of thousands innocent Iraq civilians dead, millions of Iraqis are refugees, and one million of Iraq's brightest, most successful citizens have fled the country.
We know that the invasion ignited the sectarian violence and civil war just busting to get loosed.
We know that American influence and reputation has taken a serious blow that could take generations to heal.
We know that we have served up the recruiting posters for every two-bit terrorist cell in every oppressed and disadvantaged area in the world.
We know that we are less safe today than when this madness began.
Yet, Rudy thinks it was all a swell idea.
And I haven't even had the stomach to address the nation-building part of Rudy's absurd world view.
(Image Credit: Blue Tide Rising)
