This is a cute Schoolhouse Rock video which teaches us how to count by fours. And what is a better way to count by fours, than to go to a zoo and look at all the four-legged animals. What makes this Schoolhouse Rock video especially appealing is that Bob Dorough performed the song with a chorus of children. Dorough also wrote the music and lyrics. From YouTube:
Monday, February 11, 2008
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Shoppers use gift cards for groceries
Well, this is certainly not good for the economy. From MSNBC News:
I guess the big retailers were hoping that Americans would spend more of their gift cards on Ipods, or big-screen TVs, rather than than groceries.
WASHINGTON - Here's a sign of how shaky the economy has become: Wal-Mart says its shoppers are redeeming their holiday gift cards for basic items — pasta sauce, diapers, laundry detergent — instead of iPods or DVDs.
Merchants had hoped shoppers armed with gift cards would provide a lift after a dismal holiday shopping season — partly because shoppers tend to spend even more than the value of the card. But that didn't seem to happen last month, and retailers are feeling the pain.
On Thursday, the nation's retailers turned in their worst January in almost four decades as high gas and food prices, a slumping housing market, tighter credit and a tougher job market pushed consumers to the edge.
Sales at 43 retailers surveyed by the UBS-International Council of Shopping Centers rose just 0.5 percent in January, well below the original 1.5 percent forecast.
The results — based on sales at stores open at least a year — followed an anemic 0.7 percent pace in December and were below the 2.1 percent gain for all of last year.Graph showing percentage change of major retailers' sales in comparison to January 2007. From MSNBC News
I guess the big retailers were hoping that Americans would spend more of their gift cards on Ipods, or big-screen TVs, rather than than groceries.
Saturday Morning Cartoons--Spinach Fer Britain
I found this interesting little Popeye wartime cartoon Spinach Fer Britain. In this 1943 cartoon, our spinach-eating sailor is delivering to Great Britain a shipment of--you guessed it--spinach! Along the way, Popeye accidentally rams into a Nazi German submarine manned by Hitler look-a-likes. This is an interesting cartoon since it involves only Popeye, and does not include either Olive Oil or Bluto. But still, it does show that Popeye himself was involved in the war effort to keep Americans in their fighting spirit. From YouTube:
Friday, February 08, 2008
Friday Night Music Videos--A celebration of McCain as the GOP nominee
For tonight, I thought it would be appropriate to celebrate Senator John McCain's eventual nomination as the Republican Party's candidate for president. Yes, John McCain won the GOP nomination because enough conservatives believed that he would be the best choice to defeat the evil al Qaeda terrorists, and the protect the U.S. homeland. In fact, John McCain so wants to protect us from the evil al Qaeda terrorists, that he is willing to keep the Bush administration's failed U.S. war in Iraq going for another 100 years. And to show just how much McCain wants to protect us by keeping us into a continuous war, check out this YouTube video:
And so, in celebration of our new 100-year, pro-war candidate, I think it is only appropriate to present Mr. 100-Year-War with this lovely music video of Edwin Starr's War, updated with images of the U.S. war in Iraq. From YouTube:
You can bet that we're going to see even more of these images if Mr. 100-Year-War get's elected into the White House.
And so, in celebration of our new 100-year, pro-war candidate, I think it is only appropriate to present Mr. 100-Year-War with this lovely music video of Edwin Starr's War, updated with images of the U.S. war in Iraq. From YouTube:
You can bet that we're going to see even more of these images if Mr. 100-Year-War get's elected into the White House.
Bush rallies GOP base to support McCain
I read this Washington Post story, and again wondered if I'm in Bizarro World. President Bush gave some remarks at the CPAC conference today. From the Washington Post:
The stakes in November are high. Prosperity and peace are in the balance. Who writes this stuff for King George The Deciderer? Bizarro World. Let us look at the Bush administration's "prosperity and peace." First up, prosperity:
Stocks slammed by economic outlook; The Dow fell more than 60 points due to traders' uncertainty surrounding bond insurers and whether they will be able to handle the huge losses due to the value of mortgage-backed bonds.
Consumer borrowing slowed again in December; The Federal Reserve reported that consumer borrowing slowed to a rate of 2.1 percent in December after a jump of 8.2 percent in November. It is the weakest showing since April's 1.6 percent. Economists forecast that total credit would rise by $8 billion. The actual increase was $4.5 billion to $2.52 trillion.
Oil prices rise back above $91 a barrel; Oil futures rose above $91 Friday, building upon concerns that oil exports would fall in Nigeria, the North Sea oil production, and Russian crude oil fields.
Service sector contracted sharply in January; The Institute of Supply Management reported that the nation's service sector contracted for the first time in five years. The ISM's new composite index for measuring the health of the service sector was 44.6 in January. A number below the level of 50 indicates an economic contraction. Non-manufacturing business activity fell to 41.9 in January, from a revised reading of 54.4 in December. The last time the ISM reported a service sector slowdown was in March 2003.
U.S. employers slashed payrolls in January; The nation's employers cut 17,000 jobs in January. This is the first such reduction of jobs in more than four years, renewing fresh signs that the economy is in danger of heading into a recession. The Labor Department's report showed that the unemployment slipped slightly to 4.9 percent, from 5 percent, showing that the civilian labor force shrank slightly. Job losses were widespread in manufacturing, construction, professional and business services. These job cuts swamped the job gains in education, health care, and retail.
Consumer spending anemic in December; The Commerce Department reported that consumer spending rose slighly up to just 0.2 percent during the Christmas shopping season of December. This was down sharply from a 1 percent gain in December.
Economy nearly stalled in last quarter of 2007; The Commerce Department reported that the U.S. economy nearly stalled in the fourth quarter with a growth rate of 0.06 percent. For all of 2007, the economy grew by 2.2 percent--the weakest performance in five years.
This is prosperity, according to King George The Deciderer in his speech at the CPAC conference.
But what about peace? Surely the U.S. is at peace with King George at the helm. Let us look at how our nation is at peace:
Gates: Europe still angry over Iraq invasion; Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged that European allies are reluctant to heed the Bush administration's calls for more combat troops in Afghanistan due to lingering anger over the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
US military: 5 soldiers killed in Iraq; In an MSNBC news story, "The U.S. military said five soldiers were killed Friday in two separate incidents in Iraq. Four soldiers died when their vehicle struck an improvised explosive device while the troops were on a combat patrol northwest of Baghdad, the military said. In violence near Tikrit, another soldier and killed and three others wounded in an explosion near their vehicle as thy carried out operations in Tamim province, the military said in a statement."
Fear of Iraqi upheaval in Shiite cleric’s twilight; Fears are starting to grow in Washington and Baghdad about the health of Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, and the potential danger of a power vacuum exploding in the Shiite region after a possible death of al-Sistani. The worst-case scenario for the Bush administration would be that if al-Sistani's clout wanes, the Shiites could splinter into factions that could "rattle Iraq's Shiite-led government and boost militias openly hostile to Washington." Al-Sistani has not been seen in public since a brief appearance in August of 2004.
U.S.: Al-Qaida video shows boys in training; U.S. raids on suspected al-Qaeda hide-outs in Iraq have revealed videotapes that show the terror group training young boys to kidnap and assasinate civilians. This videotape footage show "an apparent training operation with black-masked boys — some of whom appeared to be about 10 years old — storming a house and holding guns to the heads of mock residents. Another tape showed a young boy wearing a suicide vest and posing with automatic weapons."
US military deaths in Iraq at 3,953; This headline really says it all. We are rapidly approaching 4,000 U.S. dead in this failed Bush war in Iraq.
So is this peace, as according to King George The Deciderer?
Or am I living in Bizarro World, where up is down, war is peace, depression is prosperity? And King George is the greatest president since....George Washington? Abraham Lincoln? Ronald Reagan?
Update: Here is a nice little story from Countdown, where Kieth Olbermann talks about President Bush's CPAC speech, and his "endorsement" of John McCain. From YouTube:
With the race to succeed him reaching a critical juncture, President Bush this morning began rallying the Republican base around its presumptive nominee, John McCain, and in the process tried to define his own legacy for the general election campaign to come.
In a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, Bush offered an implicit endorsement of McCain's bona fides as a true conservative in the face of deep skepticism on the right. Although he did not mention McCain by name, the president said whoever ends up being the Republican nominee will represent conservative values.
"We have had good debates and soon we will have a nominee who will carry a conservative banner into this election and beyond," Bush said. "The stakes in November are high. . . . Prosperity and peace are in the balance. So with confidence in our vision and faith in our values, let us go forward, fight for victory and keep the White House in 2008."
The stakes in November are high. Prosperity and peace are in the balance. Who writes this stuff for King George The Deciderer? Bizarro World. Let us look at the Bush administration's "prosperity and peace." First up, prosperity:
Stocks slammed by economic outlook; The Dow fell more than 60 points due to traders' uncertainty surrounding bond insurers and whether they will be able to handle the huge losses due to the value of mortgage-backed bonds.
Consumer borrowing slowed again in December; The Federal Reserve reported that consumer borrowing slowed to a rate of 2.1 percent in December after a jump of 8.2 percent in November. It is the weakest showing since April's 1.6 percent. Economists forecast that total credit would rise by $8 billion. The actual increase was $4.5 billion to $2.52 trillion.
Oil prices rise back above $91 a barrel; Oil futures rose above $91 Friday, building upon concerns that oil exports would fall in Nigeria, the North Sea oil production, and Russian crude oil fields.
Service sector contracted sharply in January; The Institute of Supply Management reported that the nation's service sector contracted for the first time in five years. The ISM's new composite index for measuring the health of the service sector was 44.6 in January. A number below the level of 50 indicates an economic contraction. Non-manufacturing business activity fell to 41.9 in January, from a revised reading of 54.4 in December. The last time the ISM reported a service sector slowdown was in March 2003.
U.S. employers slashed payrolls in January; The nation's employers cut 17,000 jobs in January. This is the first such reduction of jobs in more than four years, renewing fresh signs that the economy is in danger of heading into a recession. The Labor Department's report showed that the unemployment slipped slightly to 4.9 percent, from 5 percent, showing that the civilian labor force shrank slightly. Job losses were widespread in manufacturing, construction, professional and business services. These job cuts swamped the job gains in education, health care, and retail.
Consumer spending anemic in December; The Commerce Department reported that consumer spending rose slighly up to just 0.2 percent during the Christmas shopping season of December. This was down sharply from a 1 percent gain in December.
Economy nearly stalled in last quarter of 2007; The Commerce Department reported that the U.S. economy nearly stalled in the fourth quarter with a growth rate of 0.06 percent. For all of 2007, the economy grew by 2.2 percent--the weakest performance in five years.
This is prosperity, according to King George The Deciderer in his speech at the CPAC conference.
But what about peace? Surely the U.S. is at peace with King George at the helm. Let us look at how our nation is at peace:
Gates: Europe still angry over Iraq invasion; Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged that European allies are reluctant to heed the Bush administration's calls for more combat troops in Afghanistan due to lingering anger over the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
US military: 5 soldiers killed in Iraq; In an MSNBC news story, "The U.S. military said five soldiers were killed Friday in two separate incidents in Iraq. Four soldiers died when their vehicle struck an improvised explosive device while the troops were on a combat patrol northwest of Baghdad, the military said. In violence near Tikrit, another soldier and killed and three others wounded in an explosion near their vehicle as thy carried out operations in Tamim province, the military said in a statement."
Fear of Iraqi upheaval in Shiite cleric’s twilight; Fears are starting to grow in Washington and Baghdad about the health of Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, and the potential danger of a power vacuum exploding in the Shiite region after a possible death of al-Sistani. The worst-case scenario for the Bush administration would be that if al-Sistani's clout wanes, the Shiites could splinter into factions that could "rattle Iraq's Shiite-led government and boost militias openly hostile to Washington." Al-Sistani has not been seen in public since a brief appearance in August of 2004.
U.S.: Al-Qaida video shows boys in training; U.S. raids on suspected al-Qaeda hide-outs in Iraq have revealed videotapes that show the terror group training young boys to kidnap and assasinate civilians. This videotape footage show "an apparent training operation with black-masked boys — some of whom appeared to be about 10 years old — storming a house and holding guns to the heads of mock residents. Another tape showed a young boy wearing a suicide vest and posing with automatic weapons."
US military deaths in Iraq at 3,953; This headline really says it all. We are rapidly approaching 4,000 U.S. dead in this failed Bush war in Iraq.
So is this peace, as according to King George The Deciderer?
Or am I living in Bizarro World, where up is down, war is peace, depression is prosperity? And King George is the greatest president since....George Washington? Abraham Lincoln? Ronald Reagan?
Update: Here is a nice little story from Countdown, where Kieth Olbermann talks about President Bush's CPAC speech, and his "endorsement" of John McCain. From YouTube:
Ann Coulter still stumping for Hillary on NBC's The Today Show
This is just...strange. Our favorite blond wing-nut Ann Coulter has started her own campaign, stumping for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. We've already seen how Coulter has endorsed Clinton over McCain on Fox News. Well, now here is Coulter continuing her stumping for Hillary Clinton on the Today Show:
As I have said in my previous post, it is all about money. Ann Coulter could care less about the Republican Party here--it is all about who will listen to her foul trash and are willing to purchase her books. A Clinton presidency will give Coulter four to eight years worth of spewing her hatred to her rabid, conservative fans--all for the sake of Coulter's greed.
Then again, I wonder if the Republican establishment is starting to realize just how much Coulter's filth is hurting their party. According to ThinkProgress, Coulter was not invited to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference this week because Coulter "talked of 9/11 “rag heads” at the 2006 Conservative Political Action Conference and linked the slur “faggot” to Sen. John Edwards in a 2007 speech." Sometimes the right-wing hatred just gets to be too much, and the GOP elites have decided to place a muzzle on Coulter. But the problem here isn't really Ann Coulter. Coulter is simply using this hate speech as a means getting herself rich. The problem is that there is a market within the conservative base of the Republican Party for this type of hate speech and filth. Coulter is supplying that market with her garbage. Take Ann Coulter out of the equation, and you still have more pundits to take her place--pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, and even Sean Hannity There is just too much of a right-wing conservative market for this filth.
And there are plenty of pundits willing to tap into this market for their own greed.
As I have said in my previous post, it is all about money. Ann Coulter could care less about the Republican Party here--it is all about who will listen to her foul trash and are willing to purchase her books. A Clinton presidency will give Coulter four to eight years worth of spewing her hatred to her rabid, conservative fans--all for the sake of Coulter's greed.
Then again, I wonder if the Republican establishment is starting to realize just how much Coulter's filth is hurting their party. According to ThinkProgress, Coulter was not invited to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference this week because Coulter "talked of 9/11 “rag heads” at the 2006 Conservative Political Action Conference and linked the slur “faggot” to Sen. John Edwards in a 2007 speech." Sometimes the right-wing hatred just gets to be too much, and the GOP elites have decided to place a muzzle on Coulter. But the problem here isn't really Ann Coulter. Coulter is simply using this hate speech as a means getting herself rich. The problem is that there is a market within the conservative base of the Republican Party for this type of hate speech and filth. Coulter is supplying that market with her garbage. Take Ann Coulter out of the equation, and you still have more pundits to take her place--pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, and even Sean Hannity There is just too much of a right-wing conservative market for this filth.
And there are plenty of pundits willing to tap into this market for their own greed.
Friday Fun Stuff--U.S. Army tank hit and run's an Iraqi car
This YouTube video is just incredible. Apperently, a security surveillance camera catches a hit and run involving an Iraqi civilian car and a U.S. Army Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle. We're not talking about a little fender-bender here--the Bradley flattens the entire right side hood of the car. And does the driver of the Bradley get out to check and see if anyone was hurt in the accident? Does the driver of the Bradley exchange insurance information with the Iraqi civilian driver? Of course not--the Bradley and the rest of the American convoy just drive off on their merry way. From YouTube:
You can bet that particular Iraqi civilian will now be more supportive of the insurgents fighting against the U.S. occupation force. This is how we win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi civilians.
You can bet that particular Iraqi civilian will now be more supportive of the insurgents fighting against the U.S. occupation force. This is how we win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi civilians.
McCain's GOP problem--Divided evangelicals
I found this little detail from Reuters News:
The key to a McCain victory, in the general election, is a combination of rallying the GOP base, and to skim enough moderates and independents to his campaign. McCain still has enough of that "maverick" status in the media to possibly attract the moderate and independent vote. The real problem for McCain is his "right" flank. The evangelicals still do not like McCain. Focus on the Family's James Dobson has said that he would not support a McCain nomination. If the evangelicals stay home on Election Day, then McCain has no chance of winning the White House.
McCain knows this, and it is the reason why he is reaching out to bring the evangelicals into his campaign. Consider this New York Times story on McCain's speech at the CPAC conference:
I think because of this split in the Republican Party base, we could see McCain select a running mate with strong support from the evangelical base. McCain needs to find a way to regain the evangelical base of the GOP, and one possible way is to pick a vice president with strong evangelical credentials. The obvious choice here would certainly be Mike Huckabee. Huckabee ran strong in the Deep South states during Super Tuesday. And much of that strength came from the evangelical voters. Would McCain choose Huckabee as his running mate? I can't say. But I'm guessing that as we move towards the GOP conventions, we're going to hear more speculation on McCain's choice for VP.
McCain is an abortion-rights foe but his failure to support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and backing of embryonic stem-cell research are among the political heresies that some conservative evangelicals cannot forgive him for.
With the influential James Dobson, the founder of the conservative advocacy group Focus on the Family, already saying he will not vote for McCain, analysts say evangelical turnout -- or lack thereof -- could be key on November 4.
"It's possible that the lack of enthusiasm for McCain could lead to a lower turnout among evangelicals in the fall," said Scott Keeter of the Pew Research Center.
That scenario could tilt the election in favor of the Democrats as Republicans have come to rely heavily on an evangelical community energized to get out and vote by its opposition to abortion rights and gay rights.
Their vote was widely seen as the difference for President George W. Bush in his two successful White House runs.
"Anything short of a fully engaged and mobilized Republican base will spell disaster for the Republican nominee," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative lobby group with strong evangelical ties.
"Evangelicals do more than vote ... they volunteer, they work in campaigns. They'll do volunteer phone work and pass out flyers," he said.
Evangelicals comprise about a fifth of the U.S. population and according to Pew surveys account for at least a third of the Republican electorate, giving them serious clout in politics.
The key to a McCain victory, in the general election, is a combination of rallying the GOP base, and to skim enough moderates and independents to his campaign. McCain still has enough of that "maverick" status in the media to possibly attract the moderate and independent vote. The real problem for McCain is his "right" flank. The evangelicals still do not like McCain. Focus on the Family's James Dobson has said that he would not support a McCain nomination. If the evangelicals stay home on Election Day, then McCain has no chance of winning the White House.
McCain knows this, and it is the reason why he is reaching out to bring the evangelicals into his campaign. Consider this New York Times story on McCain's speech at the CPAC conference:
Mr. McCain stepped forward two hours later [After Mitt Romney's speech] before the same gathering to try to make peace with a group deeply skeptical of him, if not outright hostile. In a moment that will long be remembered by Republicans, he was greeted with jeers as well as cheers.
[....]
When Mr. McCain took the stage, he reached out to conservatives in conciliatory remarks.
“Many of you have disagreed strongly with some positions I have taken in recent years,” Mr. McCain told the group in an enormous, overflowing hotel ballroom, where people were held back from entering by security guards who said the raucous crowd exceeded fire code violations. “I understand that. I might not agree with it, but I respect it for the principled position it is.”
Nonetheless, Mr. McCain said, “it is my sincere hope that even if you believe I have occasionally erred in my reasoning as a fellow conservative, you will still allow that I have, in many ways important to all of us, maintained the record of a conservative.”
I think because of this split in the Republican Party base, we could see McCain select a running mate with strong support from the evangelical base. McCain needs to find a way to regain the evangelical base of the GOP, and one possible way is to pick a vice president with strong evangelical credentials. The obvious choice here would certainly be Mike Huckabee. Huckabee ran strong in the Deep South states during Super Tuesday. And much of that strength came from the evangelical voters. Would McCain choose Huckabee as his running mate? I can't say. But I'm guessing that as we move towards the GOP conventions, we're going to hear more speculation on McCain's choice for VP.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Romney: Clinton or Obama will surrender to terror
Here is a YouTube video of Mitt Romney's speech dropping out of the GOP race:
And here is the transcript of the speech from the Washington Post.
Did you catch the reason why Mitt Romney dropped out of the race? It wasn't because John McCain beat him on Super Duper Tuesday. It wasn't because Romney dumped over $35 million of his personal fortune (and the Fighting Romney's inheritance) into this little sale of the Oval Office. It wasn't even because nobody wanted to vote for Romney, or because of his Mormonism, or even because he has been called "Mittens." The real reason for "Mittens" Romney dropping out of the GOP race has been to keep the White House away from a Clinton or Obama administration, which would surrender to the terrorists. Consider this from the WaPost transcript of Romney's speech:
I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror. Mittens is frickin' insane. There will not be a brokered GOP convention because Mittens lost big time on Super Tuesday. There was no way for Romney to even win the GOP nomination with Huckabee sweeping up the evangelical vote in the Deep South states, and McCain taking just about everything else on the coasts and the Midwest. Mittens was toast. Unfortunately, Mittens Romney can't admit that he lost this nomination. So he makes this excuse that he can't continue losing to McCain, otherwise his campaign will help the Democrats take the White House, and he will be aiding in the "surrender to terror." Mittens is sacrificing himself so McCain can continue the 100 years worth of U.S. war in Iraq. I'll admit that it is nice to hear Mittens Romney do his patriotic duty in continuing to send young U.S. soldiers into the Iraqi meat grinder.
Now with the Fighting Romney's out of a job, will General Mittens send his patriotic boys to Iraq for some real fighting?
And here is the transcript of the speech from the Washington Post.
Did you catch the reason why Mitt Romney dropped out of the race? It wasn't because John McCain beat him on Super Duper Tuesday. It wasn't because Romney dumped over $35 million of his personal fortune (and the Fighting Romney's inheritance) into this little sale of the Oval Office. It wasn't even because nobody wanted to vote for Romney, or because of his Mormonism, or even because he has been called "Mittens." The real reason for "Mittens" Romney dropping out of the GOP race has been to keep the White House away from a Clinton or Obama administration, which would surrender to the terrorists. Consider this from the WaPost transcript of Romney's speech:
ROMNEY: You are with me all the way to the convention. Fight on, just like Ronald Reagan did in 1976.
(APPLAUSE)
But there is an important difference from 1976. Today we are a nation at war. And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror: They would retreat, declare defeat.
And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that would make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child's play. About this, I have no doubt.
Now, I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know.
But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, and finding and executing Osama bin Laden.
(APPLAUSE)
And I agree with him on eliminating Al Qaida and terror worldwide.
Now, if I fight on, in my campaign, all the way to the convention...
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: ... I want you to know, I've given this a lot of thought -- I'd forestall the launch of a national campaign and, frankly, I'd make it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win.
Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.
I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror. Mittens is frickin' insane. There will not be a brokered GOP convention because Mittens lost big time on Super Tuesday. There was no way for Romney to even win the GOP nomination with Huckabee sweeping up the evangelical vote in the Deep South states, and McCain taking just about everything else on the coasts and the Midwest. Mittens was toast. Unfortunately, Mittens Romney can't admit that he lost this nomination. So he makes this excuse that he can't continue losing to McCain, otherwise his campaign will help the Democrats take the White House, and he will be aiding in the "surrender to terror." Mittens is sacrificing himself so McCain can continue the 100 years worth of U.S. war in Iraq. I'll admit that it is nice to hear Mittens Romney do his patriotic duty in continuing to send young U.S. soldiers into the Iraqi meat grinder.
Now with the Fighting Romney's out of a job, will General Mittens send his patriotic boys to Iraq for some real fighting?
Dobson will never support a McCain nomination
This story came out on Super Duper Pooper Scooper Tuesday, but the story slipped through the cracks due to all the other insane campaign coverage of that day. But I still think it has some importance here regarding the GOP presidential politics. From Talking Points Memo:
Now here is Dobson's statement as read by Laura Ingraham on her radio show. From YouTube:
And finally, I want to include this two-part YouTube video of an exclusive Dobson interview by KLRA's Dennis Prager on February 5th, 2008. Here is Part One:
And here is Part Two:
On the Dennis Prager Show, Dobson has admitted that he will not support John McCain, Mitt Romney, or even Mike Huckabee. In other words, there are no Republican presidential candidates that support the Religious Right's ideology, as according to Dobson. Dobson also claims that he would vote for Mitt Romney, if Romney was the GOP nominee. Then again, Dobson was pretty sure that Romney would never become the GOP nominee--not when McCain had a strong lead going into Super Tuesday. I suspect that Dobson's statement of voting for Romney was a subtle message to his evangelical voters to hopefully vote for Romney on Super Tuesday, and keep him in the race against McCain.
But all that is really moot points here. Mike Huckabee won the Deep South states with the evangelical vote, John McCain won the big states of New York and California, and Mitt Romney got nothing. Mitt Romney is out of the race. So whatever Dobson was trying to say in his statement, and on the Dennis Prager Show, went nowhere. John McCain is now the GOP front-runner, and Dobson is stuck with the one presidential candidate that he despises. Dobson is stuck with a situation of either voting for the lesser of two evils in John McCain, or have a Democratic administration of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama take the Oval Office, come January 2009. Dobson's moral conscious refuses him to vote for any presidential candidate. I wonder how many evangelicals will also agree with Dobson, and stay home rather than vote for McCain in the general election. This brings up a huge problem for John McCain--he is going to need those evangelical votes if he is to win the general election. He is going to need to find some way to unite this fractured Republican Party, where the evangelicals hate him, the hard-core conservatives distrust him, and the GOP elites will not support him. Even more, McCain has to unify this fractured GOP during a time when the current Republican president is sitting on 30 percent approval ratings, a war that a majority of Americans want out, and an economy that is heading towards a recession. It is almost an impossible task for this supposed "Straight Talk Express" senator.
We'll soon see what happens.
With John McCain on the verge of winning the Republican nomination, the once-complacent anti-McCain forces on the right are getting louder than ever. This morning, James Dobson released a statement to Laura Ingraham's radio show, declaring that under no circumstances would he support McCain in the general election — a potential blow to the Arizona senator, since it could discourage turnout among some evangelical voters.
Now here is Dobson's statement as read by Laura Ingraham on her radio show. From YouTube:
And finally, I want to include this two-part YouTube video of an exclusive Dobson interview by KLRA's Dennis Prager on February 5th, 2008. Here is Part One:
And here is Part Two:
On the Dennis Prager Show, Dobson has admitted that he will not support John McCain, Mitt Romney, or even Mike Huckabee. In other words, there are no Republican presidential candidates that support the Religious Right's ideology, as according to Dobson. Dobson also claims that he would vote for Mitt Romney, if Romney was the GOP nominee. Then again, Dobson was pretty sure that Romney would never become the GOP nominee--not when McCain had a strong lead going into Super Tuesday. I suspect that Dobson's statement of voting for Romney was a subtle message to his evangelical voters to hopefully vote for Romney on Super Tuesday, and keep him in the race against McCain.
But all that is really moot points here. Mike Huckabee won the Deep South states with the evangelical vote, John McCain won the big states of New York and California, and Mitt Romney got nothing. Mitt Romney is out of the race. So whatever Dobson was trying to say in his statement, and on the Dennis Prager Show, went nowhere. John McCain is now the GOP front-runner, and Dobson is stuck with the one presidential candidate that he despises. Dobson is stuck with a situation of either voting for the lesser of two evils in John McCain, or have a Democratic administration of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama take the Oval Office, come January 2009. Dobson's moral conscious refuses him to vote for any presidential candidate. I wonder how many evangelicals will also agree with Dobson, and stay home rather than vote for McCain in the general election. This brings up a huge problem for John McCain--he is going to need those evangelical votes if he is to win the general election. He is going to need to find some way to unite this fractured Republican Party, where the evangelicals hate him, the hard-core conservatives distrust him, and the GOP elites will not support him. Even more, McCain has to unify this fractured GOP during a time when the current Republican president is sitting on 30 percent approval ratings, a war that a majority of Americans want out, and an economy that is heading towards a recession. It is almost an impossible task for this supposed "Straight Talk Express" senator.
We'll soon see what happens.
Romney suspends presidential campaign
Mitt Romney is now out of the presidential race. John McCain is now the GOP nominee. From MSNBC News:
This is huge. With Romney out, McCain is now the GOP nominee. He can start running a national campaign, attacking both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the rest of the primary states. Mike Huckabee is still the race, but there is no way for Huckabee to win the nomination. Huckabee can still play a nuisance to the McCain campaign, but ultimately the fractured GOP is going to have to rally around the McCain nomination. And that is still going to be troublesome for both the McCain campaign and for the conservatives who still despise McCain.
There is more to come on this story.
BOSTON - Former Massachussetts Gov. Mitt Romney is supsending his presidential campaign, effectively ceding the Republican nomination to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.
In a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington Thursday, Romney talked of Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama retreating in Iraq and declaring defeat.
He then told the crowd he disagrees with McCain on a number of issues, but that he'd given the mater a lot of thought and if he fought on all the way to the Republican convention, " I forestall the launch of a national campaign and frankly I'd be makign it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win. Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."
Romney added, "If this were only about me, I can go on. But its never been only about me. I entered this race... because I love America, and because I love America, in thsi time of war, i feel I now have to stand aside, for our party and for our country."
The former Massachusetts Republican governor has been seriously trailing McCain in the delegate count since Super Tuesday.
Former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Ark., remains in the race but trails Romney in the delegate counts.
This is huge. With Romney out, McCain is now the GOP nominee. He can start running a national campaign, attacking both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the rest of the primary states. Mike Huckabee is still the race, but there is no way for Huckabee to win the nomination. Huckabee can still play a nuisance to the McCain campaign, but ultimately the fractured GOP is going to have to rally around the McCain nomination. And that is still going to be troublesome for both the McCain campaign and for the conservatives who still despise McCain.
There is more to come on this story.
Is Hillary having money troubles?
I found a couple of stories, over the past couple of days, that concern Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign financing. I would say that they show some very serious problems within the Clinton campaign. The first story is how Hillary loaned her campaign $5 million dollars. From the Washington Post:
And here is the WaPost video of Clinton admitting to the loan:
Now there are some very interesting details to talk about in this story. The first big detail is the campaign contributions collected in January, where Barack Obama raised an incredible $32 million dollars. This sum certainly dwarfs Clinton's $13.5 million collection during the same month. With Obama's huge fundraising lead, he has a greater ability to target his own political advertising into multiple delegate-rich states to attack Clinton's lead, and to increase his own exposure and message to Democratic voters. Consider this detail in the WaPost story:
The Obama campaign is already targeting television advertising in nine states, while the Clinton campaign has yet to respond to these ads. This is not a position that Clinton wants to be in, having to defend states that she has a lead in, while not being able to attack Obama-leaning states. And with an $18 million difference in the fundraising between Obama and Clinton, it is no wonder that Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million in a short-term attempt to shore up her financing.
Now there is another important story to look into regarding Clinton's financing. It appears that some Clinton staffers are now working without pay. From MSNBC News:
Take this story of campaign staffers going without pay, plus the story of Hillary Clinton loaning $5 million to her campaign, and you have got a situation where the Clinton campaign is heading into a cash crunch--just as they have won the big Super Duper Tuesday states of New York and California, and are ahead in the delegate count. Again, this is going to hurt Clinton in where she targets her limited resources into states she hopes to win. Consider this from the MSNBC News story:
The Clinton campaign is concentrating its efforts in Ohio and Texas, whereas Obama is blitzing through states. The MSNBC story also reports that the Clinton strategists have "largely written off her chances of winning the so-called Potomac primary Feb. 9, given the large black populations in Virginia, Maryland and D.C." Again, this shows the lack of resources that the Clinton campaign has in not being able to selectively attack these Potomac primary states as a means of peeling away voters from the Obama camp.
One final thought on this story. And this is really about the message to Democratic voters. Obama has been running his campaign on a message of change. And this message has really galvanized and excited the Democratic voters--far more than Clinton's message of leadership and experience. What is more, this is a message that excited, not just minorities, but also young people to the Obama campaign. And I will say that is also making young and new Democratic voters to contribute small amounts to the Obama campaign. Consider this detail from MSNBC:
Obama is raising money from small donors, where "about a third of his money in 2007 from donors who gave $200 or less." This is important because Obama will have a large database of these small donors to continue soliciting contributions from. Even more important, if these donors are excited about Obama, they are going to spread the word for Obama, giving Obama an even greater access to new donors. Clinton's campaign has been getting money from big campaign contributors, where about half of her money is from "maxed out" donors who have given the $2,300 to the campaign. Only 14 percent of donors have given the Clinton campaign $200 or less. The Clinton campaign has been getting their financing from the big contributors. Those contributors are maxing their contributions out--they can't give any more money to the Clinton campaign. Hillary Clinton will need to find some way of increasing the amount of contributions from her small donors, or increasing the number of small donors giving to her campaign. I don't know if she can do that in such short time, and with the small donors gravitating towards the Obama campaign.
The financing race continues on.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) loaned her presidential campaign $5 million at the end of last month, a cash infusion sure to stoke speculation that her once-vaunted fundraising operation is losing steam.
During a news conference at her campaign headquarters this afternoon, Clinton said the loan was "my money," and declined to say if she would put in more money. "I loaned it because I believe very strongly in this campaign," she said.
Communications director Howard Wolfson said, "The loan illustrates Senator Clinton's commitment to this effort and to ensuring that our campaign has the resources it needs to compete and win across this nation," adding that "We have had one of our best fundraising efforts ever on the web today and our Super Tuesday victories will only help in bringing more support for her candidacy."
Wolfson offered no comment when asked whether the loan was a one-time deal or whether Clinton was leaving open the option to again dip into her -- and her husband, former President Bill Clinton's -- personal wealth.
Wolfson confirmed that "some senior staff" including campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle have "voluntarily chosen to work without pay this month" but would not offer any other names.
The revelation of the loan comes against a fundraising backdrop in which Clinton finds herself, somewhat amazingly, the underdog to Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.). Obama raised better than $32 million last month alone -- dwarfing the $13.5 million Clinton collected in the same time frame.
Both candidates raised better than $100 million in 2007, but Obama's small dollar donor base was considerably wider, allowing him to continue to raise scads of campaign cash as the race goes along.
Heading into yesterday's Super Tuesday vote -- in which 22 states offered a split decision on the Democratic race -- both the Obama and Clinton campaigns were spending freely in hopes of securing the momentum today. The candidates largely fought to a draw, which, given Obama's current financial superiority, may well wind up as a victory for him when the history gets written.
Even as the dust settled on Super Tuesday, the practical effect of Obama's seeming financial advantage were being seen. The Illinois senator is on television already in all nine states -- Louisiana, Washington, Nebraska, Maine, D.C., Virginia, Maryland, Hawaii and Wisconsin -- that vote between this Saturday and Feb. 19. As of this morning the Clinton campaign was not yet on television in any of those states, although there could be ad buys going on as we type.
How Clinton's loan fits into the overall campaign narrative is hard to say. On the one hand, voters tend to be unconcerned about where a candidate's campaign cash comes from and aren't likely to be following the story all that closely. If Clinton needed the money to ensure much needed wins in places like California, New Jersey and Arizona, then it was money well spent.
On the other hand, Clinton's loan could well be painted as a sign that the campaign is struggling to stay competitive with Obama financially with a drawn out nomination fight still to come. If that story line comes to dominate, it could upset the current 50-50 balance of the race coming out of Feb. 5.
And here is the WaPost video of Clinton admitting to the loan:
Now there are some very interesting details to talk about in this story. The first big detail is the campaign contributions collected in January, where Barack Obama raised an incredible $32 million dollars. This sum certainly dwarfs Clinton's $13.5 million collection during the same month. With Obama's huge fundraising lead, he has a greater ability to target his own political advertising into multiple delegate-rich states to attack Clinton's lead, and to increase his own exposure and message to Democratic voters. Consider this detail in the WaPost story:
Even as the dust settled on Super Tuesday, the practical effect of Obama's seeming financial advantage were being seen. The Illinois senator is on television already in all nine states -- Louisiana, Washington, Nebraska, Maine, D.C., Virginia, Maryland, Hawaii and Wisconsin -- that vote between this Saturday and Feb. 19. As of this morning the Clinton campaign was not yet on television in any of those states, although there could be ad buys going on as we type.
The Obama campaign is already targeting television advertising in nine states, while the Clinton campaign has yet to respond to these ads. This is not a position that Clinton wants to be in, having to defend states that she has a lead in, while not being able to attack Obama-leaning states. And with an $18 million difference in the fundraising between Obama and Clinton, it is no wonder that Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million in a short-term attempt to shore up her financing.
Now there is another important story to look into regarding Clinton's financing. It appears that some Clinton staffers are now working without pay. From MSNBC News:
WASHINGTON - Some of Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign staff have voluntarily chosen to work without pay this month, NBC News confirmed Wednesday.
Super Tuesday's mixed outcome has set up at least four weeks of frenzied delegate hunting for Clinton and Barack Obama, pitting his well-financed all-terrain campaign against her big state strategy.
Clinton faced a serious cash crunch going into Tuesday's multi-state vote due to overspending in Iowa, a source within the campaign told NBC News. Staffers blamed campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle, who was among those working for free, the source said.
Take this story of campaign staffers going without pay, plus the story of Hillary Clinton loaning $5 million to her campaign, and you have got a situation where the Clinton campaign is heading into a cash crunch--just as they have won the big Super Duper Tuesday states of New York and California, and are ahead in the delegate count. Again, this is going to hurt Clinton in where she targets her limited resources into states she hopes to win. Consider this from the MSNBC News story:
Buoyed by strong fundraising and a primary calendar in February that plays to his strengths, Obama plans a campaign blitz through a series of states holding contests this weekend and will compete to win primaries in the Mid-Atlantic next week and Hawaii and Wisconsin the following week. His campaign raised $3 million Wednesday in online contributions, a source from the Obama campaign told NBC News.
Clinton, with less money to spend and less confident of her prospects in the February contests, will instead concentrate her efforts on Ohio and Texas, large states that hold primaries March 4 and where polling shows her with a significant lead. She even is looking ahead to Pennsylvania's primary April 22, believing a largely elderly population there will favor the former first lady.
The Clinton campaign is concentrating its efforts in Ohio and Texas, whereas Obama is blitzing through states. The MSNBC story also reports that the Clinton strategists have "largely written off her chances of winning the so-called Potomac primary Feb. 9, given the large black populations in Virginia, Maryland and D.C." Again, this shows the lack of resources that the Clinton campaign has in not being able to selectively attack these Potomac primary states as a means of peeling away voters from the Obama camp.
One final thought on this story. And this is really about the message to Democratic voters. Obama has been running his campaign on a message of change. And this message has really galvanized and excited the Democratic voters--far more than Clinton's message of leadership and experience. What is more, this is a message that excited, not just minorities, but also young people to the Obama campaign. And I will say that is also making young and new Democratic voters to contribute small amounts to the Obama campaign. Consider this detail from MSNBC:
An analysis by the Campaign Finance Institute, which tracks trends in political money, found that Obama raised about a third of his money in 2007 from donors who gave $200 or less. Only one-third of his money came from donors who have given the legal maximum of $2,300, compared to Clinton who raised about half of her money from "maxed out" donors and only 14 percent from donors of $200 or less.
Obama is raising money from small donors, where "about a third of his money in 2007 from donors who gave $200 or less." This is important because Obama will have a large database of these small donors to continue soliciting contributions from. Even more important, if these donors are excited about Obama, they are going to spread the word for Obama, giving Obama an even greater access to new donors. Clinton's campaign has been getting money from big campaign contributors, where about half of her money is from "maxed out" donors who have given the $2,300 to the campaign. Only 14 percent of donors have given the Clinton campaign $200 or less. The Clinton campaign has been getting their financing from the big contributors. Those contributors are maxing their contributions out--they can't give any more money to the Clinton campaign. Hillary Clinton will need to find some way of increasing the amount of contributions from her small donors, or increasing the number of small donors giving to her campaign. I don't know if she can do that in such short time, and with the small donors gravitating towards the Obama campaign.
The financing race continues on.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Super Duper Pooper Scooper Tuesday analysis--The Republicans
Now let us go with the analysis of the Republican results on Super Duper Tuesday. First, here is the New York Times map of the Republican results for Super Tuesday:
Map showing Republican presidential candidates' results for Super Tuesday races. From New York Times.
And here is The Washington Post graph the overall scorecard of states won for both the Democratic and Republican primaries. Look closely at the Republican scorecard:
Graph showing overall scorecard of states won by the candidates of both political parties. From The Washington Post
This is a fascinating map because we are seeing the three candidates taking three distinct regions of the country. First, we have John McCain starting to take both coasts, with California in the west, and New York, New Jersey, Connecticut Delaware, and South Carolina in the east. He has a strong foothold with the Rustbelt region with wins in Illinois, New York, and New Jersey. McCain has created a split between the Deep South and the Midwest with his wins in Missouri, and Oklahoma. McCain has also gained a foothold in the Southwest with a win in his home state of Arizona. In the Deep South, Mike Huckabee has resurrected his campaign with wins in Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and Arkansas. Huckabee's first win in Iowa give him a foothold to extending his campaign into South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas. What does this leave Mitt Romney? Romney has wins in the Rocky Mountain states, and the Great Lake states of Minnesota, and Michigan. Romney could use his Michigan win to extend his campaign into Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania, however Romney will be butting heads with McCain for those states. And finally, Texas could become a big fight between McCain courting the Hispanic vote, and Huckabee courting the evangelicals.
So what does all this mean? All three candidates are winning distinct regions of the country. McCain is winning the coasts, Huckabee is winning the Deep South, and Romney has the Rocky Mountain states. We are looking at a Republican Party that has three distinct regions here. The coastal states may contain more moderate conservatives that value McCain's "maverick" status as a conservative who also has independent views contrary to the GOP. In the Deep South, there is the evangelicals, who value social and religious issues above anything else--and they see Mike Huckabee as a true conservative who shares in their values. Mitt Romney has a problem. His Mormon faith creates a suspicion among the evangelicals in the Deep South, and he really hasn't shown himself as a moderate, or independent, thinker for the coastal states. So Romney is left with the Rocky Mountain and Great Lake states. At this point, I'm not sure where Romney can hunt for voters that share in his campaign ideology. In order for his campaign to survive, Romney is probably going to have to invest money and resources into delegate-rich states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, and perhaps Virginia and Maryland. But considering the momentum that McCain has in winning both the big states of New York and California, I'm not sure if Romney can win the nomination. But what could happen in this primary is that both Romney and Huckabee control strong factions of the Republican Party with these wins, causing problems for McCain in unifying the GOP.
This brings up John McCain. McCain had two big wins with New York and California. McCain now leads in the delegate count with 680 delegates, verses Romney's 270 delegates, and Huckabee's 176 delegates. So McCain is the clear Republican front-runner here. The problem for McCain is that he has huge segments of the Republican Party that do not like him, or they don't trust him. Consider this detail from ABC News:
McCain's conservative support is really with the moderate conservatives. Looking at the exit polling, McCain is having trouble selling to the "very conservative" voters, who are choosing Romney over McCain. If you look at some of the Super Tuesday races here, you will find that if you add Romney's and Huckabee's vote percentages, the total will be higher than McCain's winning percentage. These states are California, Delaware, Missouri, and Oklahoma. Now does this mean that if either Romney or Huckabee had dropped out of the race before Super Tuesday, that the voters would have chosen the other candidate besides McCain? Not really. But I do find it interesting that the vote opposing McCain have been split between both Romney and Huckabee. But what this does tell me is that McCain is going to have to work hard at convincing the evangelicals and hard-lined conservatives to support his nomination in the general election--otherwise, these two groups will probably stay home in protest.
There will probably be more to come with this fascinating election.
Map showing Republican presidential candidates' results for Super Tuesday races. From New York Times.And here is The Washington Post graph the overall scorecard of states won for both the Democratic and Republican primaries. Look closely at the Republican scorecard:
Graph showing overall scorecard of states won by the candidates of both political parties. From The Washington PostThis is a fascinating map because we are seeing the three candidates taking three distinct regions of the country. First, we have John McCain starting to take both coasts, with California in the west, and New York, New Jersey, Connecticut Delaware, and South Carolina in the east. He has a strong foothold with the Rustbelt region with wins in Illinois, New York, and New Jersey. McCain has created a split between the Deep South and the Midwest with his wins in Missouri, and Oklahoma. McCain has also gained a foothold in the Southwest with a win in his home state of Arizona. In the Deep South, Mike Huckabee has resurrected his campaign with wins in Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, and Arkansas. Huckabee's first win in Iowa give him a foothold to extending his campaign into South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas. What does this leave Mitt Romney? Romney has wins in the Rocky Mountain states, and the Great Lake states of Minnesota, and Michigan. Romney could use his Michigan win to extend his campaign into Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania, however Romney will be butting heads with McCain for those states. And finally, Texas could become a big fight between McCain courting the Hispanic vote, and Huckabee courting the evangelicals.
So what does all this mean? All three candidates are winning distinct regions of the country. McCain is winning the coasts, Huckabee is winning the Deep South, and Romney has the Rocky Mountain states. We are looking at a Republican Party that has three distinct regions here. The coastal states may contain more moderate conservatives that value McCain's "maverick" status as a conservative who also has independent views contrary to the GOP. In the Deep South, there is the evangelicals, who value social and religious issues above anything else--and they see Mike Huckabee as a true conservative who shares in their values. Mitt Romney has a problem. His Mormon faith creates a suspicion among the evangelicals in the Deep South, and he really hasn't shown himself as a moderate, or independent, thinker for the coastal states. So Romney is left with the Rocky Mountain and Great Lake states. At this point, I'm not sure where Romney can hunt for voters that share in his campaign ideology. In order for his campaign to survive, Romney is probably going to have to invest money and resources into delegate-rich states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, and perhaps Virginia and Maryland. But considering the momentum that McCain has in winning both the big states of New York and California, I'm not sure if Romney can win the nomination. But what could happen in this primary is that both Romney and Huckabee control strong factions of the Republican Party with these wins, causing problems for McCain in unifying the GOP.
This brings up John McCain. McCain had two big wins with New York and California. McCain now leads in the delegate count with 680 delegates, verses Romney's 270 delegates, and Huckabee's 176 delegates. So McCain is the clear Republican front-runner here. The problem for McCain is that he has huge segments of the Republican Party that do not like him, or they don't trust him. Consider this detail from ABC News:
On Super Tuesday, exit polling showed McCain narrowly lost conservatives to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, gaining 40 percent support among Arizona conservatives to Romney's 43 percent. However, those who considered themselves "very conservative" went for Romney by a much wider margin: 53 percent support for Romney to McCain's 22 percent support.
McCain's conservative support is really with the moderate conservatives. Looking at the exit polling, McCain is having trouble selling to the "very conservative" voters, who are choosing Romney over McCain. If you look at some of the Super Tuesday races here, you will find that if you add Romney's and Huckabee's vote percentages, the total will be higher than McCain's winning percentage. These states are California, Delaware, Missouri, and Oklahoma. Now does this mean that if either Romney or Huckabee had dropped out of the race before Super Tuesday, that the voters would have chosen the other candidate besides McCain? Not really. But I do find it interesting that the vote opposing McCain have been split between both Romney and Huckabee. But what this does tell me is that McCain is going to have to work hard at convincing the evangelicals and hard-lined conservatives to support his nomination in the general election--otherwise, these two groups will probably stay home in protest.
There will probably be more to come with this fascinating election.
Super Duper Pooper Scooper Tuesday analysis--The Democrats
I'm going to start this analysis with the Democratic Party, and the wins and losses on both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. My previous post has a number of mainstream media links, which I will go through with this little analysis. But first, I want to include this New York Times map showing the Super Duper Tuesday wins for both Democratic candidates:
Graph showing Super Tuesday victories for the Democratic presidential candidates. From New York Times.
Now I want you to look at this Washington Post graph showing the overall scorecard of states won for both the Democratic and Republican primaries. Look closely at the Democratic scorecard:
Graph showing overall scorecard of Democratic and Republican candidates' state wins. From The Washington Post.
Do you see some interesting trends on the Democratic side? Hillary Clinton's wins have been concentrated in the Northeast, the Southwest, and the border states along the south (Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Tennessee). Barack Obama's wins have been concentrated in the Midwest and the Deep South. It is a fascinating breakdown, showing how each of the nation's regions are actually going for one candidate over the other. For example, if Hillary Clinton wants to win in the general election, she is going to need to peel of a couple of southern states, in addition to taking both coasts, and a chunk of the Rust Belt. However, Obama is especially strong in the Deep South with his wins of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. The regions also pose a problem with Obama, and his need to solicit the Hispanic vote in the southwest--an area that Clinton is strong with. And you can see this in some of the news stories. From MSNBC News:
So it is not just race and gender that is going to be important for the Democratic primaries, but it is also the regions where race and gender can affect the outcome of these primaries. Consider this from Newsweek:
In a sense, what we're seeing here is a nation that is split down the middle between Clinton and Obama. It is a split that is going through the states with race and gender. Consider this LA Times story:
This Democratic race is going for the long haul, possibly not finishing until the convention. What could happen now is that both Clinton and Obama could split the delegate votes between them--perhaps with no one emerging as the front-runner. This brings up the super-delegates, and how they may vote in the convention. Suppose, for example, Barack Obama gets a slight majority in the votes of regular delegates, but a greater number of the super-delegates decide to support Hillary Clinton for the nomination. Will Obama voters and supporters feel that their candidate has been cheated out of the nomination? We could see a situation where the Democratic Party could fracture itself over partisan infighting where one set of campaign supporters may feel cheated out of the nomination by another set of campaign supporters. Whatever anger and energy the Democrats may have had against the Bush administration, and the Republican Party, could be dissipated by intra-party bickering.
More to come in the Super Duper Tuesday analysis.
Graph showing Super Tuesday victories for the Democratic presidential candidates. From New York Times.Now I want you to look at this Washington Post graph showing the overall scorecard of states won for both the Democratic and Republican primaries. Look closely at the Democratic scorecard:
Graph showing overall scorecard of Democratic and Republican candidates' state wins. From The Washington Post.Do you see some interesting trends on the Democratic side? Hillary Clinton's wins have been concentrated in the Northeast, the Southwest, and the border states along the south (Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Tennessee). Barack Obama's wins have been concentrated in the Midwest and the Deep South. It is a fascinating breakdown, showing how each of the nation's regions are actually going for one candidate over the other. For example, if Hillary Clinton wants to win in the general election, she is going to need to peel of a couple of southern states, in addition to taking both coasts, and a chunk of the Rust Belt. However, Obama is especially strong in the Deep South with his wins of Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina. The regions also pose a problem with Obama, and his need to solicit the Hispanic vote in the southwest--an area that Clinton is strong with. And you can see this in some of the news stories. From MSNBC News:
In the Democratic races, Barack Obama led with eight in 10 black voters and Hillary Rodham Clinton led with just over half of whites. Obama’s support among four in 10 whites across 16 states was more than he had captured in earlier primary states. Clinton won six in 10 Hispanic voters. Obama led among white men, while Clinton led among white women.
Obama won in Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, and his home state of Illinois, all states where more than one-fifth of the voters were black. Clinton won in Arkansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, and Oklahoma, states with fewer black voters, but she also won in Tennessee and New Jersey, both states where one-fourth of the voters were black.
Overall, Obama led among men and Clinton led among women, although her advantage among women appeared smaller than was seen in early primary states. An exception was New York, which Clinton represents in the Senate. There, Clinton was competitive among men and gained the support of four in 10 blacks. In Arizona, Obama was more competitive among Hispanics than he was nationally.
So it is not just race and gender that is going to be important for the Democratic primaries, but it is also the regions where race and gender can affect the outcome of these primaries. Consider this from Newsweek:
Up next for the candidates: Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington, which vote on Saturday. Then comes the so-called Potomac Primary—Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C.—which takes place next Tuesday. And also looming large on the horizon is March 4, when the delegate-rich states of Texas and Ohio vote. The spin wars have already begun. Obama's camp claims that it's well-positioned in states like Louisiana, with its large black population, and Virginia, where Gov. Tim Kaine has endorsed him. Meanwhile, Clinton's advisers see promise in Texas, with its large Latino population, and Ohio, where her economic message should resonate with voters. On Wednesday, Clinton was scheduled to travel to Washington, D.C.; Obama was planning on heading there as well as New Orleans. The Super Tuesday delegates weren't even tallied, but the candidates already had their sights set on the next battlegrounds.
In a sense, what we're seeing here is a nation that is split down the middle between Clinton and Obama. It is a split that is going through the states with race and gender. Consider this LA Times story:
Democrats who once thought their race would wrap up early instead face a potentially long duel between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, with votes divided not by ideology but, in many states, by race and ethnic group.
Clinton and Obama divided the nation almost down the middle, with Clinton winning at least eight states, including giants California and New York. Obama won at least 13 states, including Illinois and Georgia. The close result guaranteed days of uncertainty over the delegate count, followed by weeks more of renewed campaigning.
With the two candidates separated by only modest policy differences, Tuesday's results illuminated divisions of what scholars call "identity politics." Latinos turned out in large numbers and mostly supported Clinton; African American voters turned out too and voted overwhelmingly for Obama; and white voters divided, giving pluralities to Clinton in some states, to Obama in others.
This Democratic race is going for the long haul, possibly not finishing until the convention. What could happen now is that both Clinton and Obama could split the delegate votes between them--perhaps with no one emerging as the front-runner. This brings up the super-delegates, and how they may vote in the convention. Suppose, for example, Barack Obama gets a slight majority in the votes of regular delegates, but a greater number of the super-delegates decide to support Hillary Clinton for the nomination. Will Obama voters and supporters feel that their candidate has been cheated out of the nomination? We could see a situation where the Democratic Party could fracture itself over partisan infighting where one set of campaign supporters may feel cheated out of the nomination by another set of campaign supporters. Whatever anger and energy the Democrats may have had against the Bush administration, and the Republican Party, could be dissipated by intra-party bickering.
More to come in the Super Duper Tuesday analysis.
Post Super Duper Pooper Scooper Tuesday hangover
Well, Super Duper Pooper Scooper Tuesday is behind us. And instead of providing us with clear presidential front-runners on the Democratic and Republican side, we have got one huge, convoluted mess. If there is anything that this 2008 race has shown, it has turned presidential election politics upside down. First, here is a Los Angeles Times graph showing the victories from each of the political parties' candidates on Super Tuesday:
Graph showing Super Tuesday wins for Democratic and Republican candidates. From LA Times
I've been reading through the mainstream news sites, trying to figure this out. On the Democratic side, you can read these stories:
ABC News--Clinton Wins Delegate-Rich States; Obama Takes Most States
CNN--No rest for Clinton, Obama; 7 more contests fast approach
Los Angeles Times--Obama, Clinton campaigns assess Super Tuesday results
MSNBC--Clinton wins big states; Obama takes more
New York Times--Support Divided, Top Democrats Trade Victories
Washington Post--Clinton, Obama Trade Victories
And for the Republican race, you can read these stories:
ABC News--McCain Wins California, Huckabee Gets Boost
ABC News--McCain's Problem on the Right
ABC News--Huckabee Wins Big in South, Challenges for Conservative Vote
CNN--Race for the White House remains wide open
CNN--Analysis: McCain clear leader; split decision may help Obama
CNN--McCain: 'We will unite the party'
Los Angeles Times--McCain wins California, eight other states
Los Angeles Times--Romney vows he will battle on
MSNBC--McCain savors coast-to-coast wins
MSNBC--Romney vows to ‘keep on battling’
MSNBC--Huckabee says he won't drop out of race
New York Times--Arizona Senator Surges; Huckabee Strong in the South
New York Times--Luck and Defiance Rescued Limping McCain Campaign
New York Times--As Romney Falters in Republican Race, Huckabee’s Drive Gathers Momentum
Washington Post--McCain Dominates Big States
Washington Post--Huckabee Complicates GOP Contest
Here is some of the news analysis from the media:
ABC News--The Note: Super Hangover
MSNBC--After Tuesday, Clinton, Obama begin anew
New York Times--Two Parties, Two Distinct Paths to the Nomination
And finally, there are some interesting exit polling stories:
ABC News--The Challenges Ahead: Polls Point to Candidates' Future Hurdles
CNN--Exit polls: Romney, Huckabee split conservative vote
Los Angeles Times--California exit poll
MSNBC--Exit polling data
Washington Post--Entrance and exit polling data
Let me get through some of these stories, and then I'll try to post a better analysis of this Super Duper Pooper Scooper Tuesday mess.
Graph showing Super Tuesday wins for Democratic and Republican candidates. From LA Times I've been reading through the mainstream news sites, trying to figure this out. On the Democratic side, you can read these stories:
ABC News--Clinton Wins Delegate-Rich States; Obama Takes Most States
CNN--No rest for Clinton, Obama; 7 more contests fast approach
Los Angeles Times--Obama, Clinton campaigns assess Super Tuesday results
MSNBC--Clinton wins big states; Obama takes more
New York Times--Support Divided, Top Democrats Trade Victories
Washington Post--Clinton, Obama Trade Victories
And for the Republican race, you can read these stories:
ABC News--McCain Wins California, Huckabee Gets Boost
ABC News--McCain's Problem on the Right
ABC News--Huckabee Wins Big in South, Challenges for Conservative Vote
CNN--Race for the White House remains wide open
CNN--Analysis: McCain clear leader; split decision may help Obama
CNN--McCain: 'We will unite the party'
Los Angeles Times--McCain wins California, eight other states
Los Angeles Times--Romney vows he will battle on
MSNBC--McCain savors coast-to-coast wins
MSNBC--Romney vows to ‘keep on battling’
MSNBC--Huckabee says he won't drop out of race
New York Times--Arizona Senator Surges; Huckabee Strong in the South
New York Times--Luck and Defiance Rescued Limping McCain Campaign
New York Times--As Romney Falters in Republican Race, Huckabee’s Drive Gathers Momentum
Washington Post--McCain Dominates Big States
Washington Post--Huckabee Complicates GOP Contest
Here is some of the news analysis from the media:
ABC News--The Note: Super Hangover
MSNBC--After Tuesday, Clinton, Obama begin anew
New York Times--Two Parties, Two Distinct Paths to the Nomination
And finally, there are some interesting exit polling stories:
ABC News--The Challenges Ahead: Polls Point to Candidates' Future Hurdles
CNN--Exit polls: Romney, Huckabee split conservative vote
Los Angeles Times--California exit poll
MSNBC--Exit polling data
Washington Post--Entrance and exit polling data
Let me get through some of these stories, and then I'll try to post a better analysis of this Super Duper Pooper Scooper Tuesday mess.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
It is Super Duper Pooper Scooper Tuesday!
Yes it is. Super Duper Pooper Scooper Tuesday--the day when voters in 24 states will get to choose their Democratic and Republican presidential nominee. For a general roundup of today's scooped-out madness, you can check McClatchy News, MSNBC, ABC News, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. The news stories are pretty much saying the same thing--candidates rushing around the country, soliciting those last-minute votes.
I live in Campbell, California--The Big Enchilada State with 441 Democratic Party delegates and 173 Republican Party delegates (Including super-delegates). At the moment, California is a toss-up as to who will win for both the Democratic and Presidential candidates. I am registered as a non-partisan, which means I will not be voting for the Democratic or Republican races. But if I had to choose between the political parties, I would choose the Democratic Party, simply because I do want a change in the direction our country is heading after seven disastrous years of Bush incompetence and Republican Party corruption.
This brings up an interesting problem for me. You see, I like both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as the Democratic Party candidates. I like Hillary Clinton's experience as both the former First Lady and as the New York senator. And she could become the first women president for the United States--talk about breaking through the ultimate glass ceiling here! Both are excellent qualities that can serve her well in the Oval Office. But I am also excited about Barack Obama's incredible charisma, intelligence, and his message of change. Obama brings an almost John-F-Kennedy-mystic with him as he campaigns across the country. Obama has been an amazing energizing influence within the Democratic Party. And Obama could become the first African-American president for the United States. What an insane choice here--I like them both!
So how do you choose between Clinton or Obama? I don't know. I was watching the January 31, 2008 California debate between Clinton and Obama, and the last question presented to them was the prospect of the combined ticket with both of them as president or vice-president. The crowd went nuts with the idea of having both Clinton and Obama on the same ticket. This really says something about the Democratic Party here--the Democrats love both candidates. The Democrats want both of them for president. We have a party here this is energized, excited, and perhaps even unified behind these two candidates. Regardless of who wins on Super Duper Tuesday, we will have an excellent candidate to rally around for retaking the White House this November. We will have a qualified and experienced candidate with strong policy ideas to fix the complex problems this country faces. I have never seen this type of energy and excitement take place within the Democratic Party--and that is even looking back to the Bill Clinton, or even the Jimmy Carter, years. So this is going to be a fascinating race to watch.
Going back to the combined Clinton-Obama ticket, which would I choose? Would I choose a Clinton presidency/Obama vice presidency? Or would I choose an Obama presidency/Clinton vice presidency? I would say that both would be great choices. But I would give a Clinton presidency/Obama vice presidency a slight nod simply because it could extend the Democratic Party's hold on the White House. As much as I like Barack Obama, I will admit that he does lack some experience, when compared to Clinton. Obama is not as good of a debater as Clinton. In the debates, he stammers slightly as he is trying to speak one sentence, while his brain is processing two or three sentences ahead. Clinton has been very smooth in her presentation during the debates. As much as I like Obama's message of change, I will admit that he needs a little seasoning here. And it is this point, that I will give a slight nod to a Clinton/Obama ticket. Obama could serve two terms as the vice president, gaining incredible executive experience. In 2016, Obama could become a very powerful Democratic contender who could continue to maintain the Democratic Party's control of the White House.
Either way, I could happily vote and support either a Clinton nomination or an Obama nomination. These are two great presidential candidates. Even more, they are far better candidates than anything the Republican Party has to offer here. If you want a change in the direction this country has been heading, if you want something better than the seven years of corruption and incompetence of this current Bush administration, you have two great choices on the Democratic ticket that you can select. Whether it is Clinton or Obama, your vote can give the necessary change that this country needs.
I live in Campbell, California--The Big Enchilada State with 441 Democratic Party delegates and 173 Republican Party delegates (Including super-delegates). At the moment, California is a toss-up as to who will win for both the Democratic and Presidential candidates. I am registered as a non-partisan, which means I will not be voting for the Democratic or Republican races. But if I had to choose between the political parties, I would choose the Democratic Party, simply because I do want a change in the direction our country is heading after seven disastrous years of Bush incompetence and Republican Party corruption.
This brings up an interesting problem for me. You see, I like both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as the Democratic Party candidates. I like Hillary Clinton's experience as both the former First Lady and as the New York senator. And she could become the first women president for the United States--talk about breaking through the ultimate glass ceiling here! Both are excellent qualities that can serve her well in the Oval Office. But I am also excited about Barack Obama's incredible charisma, intelligence, and his message of change. Obama brings an almost John-F-Kennedy-mystic with him as he campaigns across the country. Obama has been an amazing energizing influence within the Democratic Party. And Obama could become the first African-American president for the United States. What an insane choice here--I like them both!
So how do you choose between Clinton or Obama? I don't know. I was watching the January 31, 2008 California debate between Clinton and Obama, and the last question presented to them was the prospect of the combined ticket with both of them as president or vice-president. The crowd went nuts with the idea of having both Clinton and Obama on the same ticket. This really says something about the Democratic Party here--the Democrats love both candidates. The Democrats want both of them for president. We have a party here this is energized, excited, and perhaps even unified behind these two candidates. Regardless of who wins on Super Duper Tuesday, we will have an excellent candidate to rally around for retaking the White House this November. We will have a qualified and experienced candidate with strong policy ideas to fix the complex problems this country faces. I have never seen this type of energy and excitement take place within the Democratic Party--and that is even looking back to the Bill Clinton, or even the Jimmy Carter, years. So this is going to be a fascinating race to watch.
Going back to the combined Clinton-Obama ticket, which would I choose? Would I choose a Clinton presidency/Obama vice presidency? Or would I choose an Obama presidency/Clinton vice presidency? I would say that both would be great choices. But I would give a Clinton presidency/Obama vice presidency a slight nod simply because it could extend the Democratic Party's hold on the White House. As much as I like Barack Obama, I will admit that he does lack some experience, when compared to Clinton. Obama is not as good of a debater as Clinton. In the debates, he stammers slightly as he is trying to speak one sentence, while his brain is processing two or three sentences ahead. Clinton has been very smooth in her presentation during the debates. As much as I like Obama's message of change, I will admit that he needs a little seasoning here. And it is this point, that I will give a slight nod to a Clinton/Obama ticket. Obama could serve two terms as the vice president, gaining incredible executive experience. In 2016, Obama could become a very powerful Democratic contender who could continue to maintain the Democratic Party's control of the White House.
Either way, I could happily vote and support either a Clinton nomination or an Obama nomination. These are two great presidential candidates. Even more, they are far better candidates than anything the Republican Party has to offer here. If you want a change in the direction this country has been heading, if you want something better than the seven years of corruption and incompetence of this current Bush administration, you have two great choices on the Democratic ticket that you can select. Whether it is Clinton or Obama, your vote can give the necessary change that this country needs.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Some thoughts on the presidential money race
I found this little story on the candidates money positions through The Washington Post's blog, The Fix:
A couple of comments here. First, the Democrats are still out-raising and out-spending the Republicans here. Both Clinton and Obama each raised over $100 million in campaign contributions. The closest GOP candidate to come near the $100 million mark was Mitt Romney at $90 million--but that figure includes the $35 million that he spent from his own pocket. And then there is Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani spent almost $60 million in his failed bid for the presidency. Giuliani was the presumed front-runner through 2007, but the Giuliani campaign never won any states, and only finished third in his last-ditch stand in Florida. I should also point out one other GOP "white horse" candidate that also spent a large sum of money before dropping out. I'm talking about Fred Thompson, and his spending of over $21 million, before dropping out after Florida. I thought I would go in and look at some of the totals raised by both the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. The source is through CNN Election Central. Here is what all the Democratic presidential candidates have raised:
Hillary Clinton........$118 million.
Barack Obama........$103 million.
John Edwards.........$44 million.
Bill Richardson.......$18 million.
Chris Dodd.............$13 million.
Joe Biden...............$11 million.
Dennis Kucinich.....$4 million.
Total Raised...........$317 million.
That is an impressive amount of money that the Democratic presidential candidates have raised. What is more, if you take out Clinton's and Obama's totals, then the rest of the candidates have raised a total sum of $90 million. This is just an incredible sum of money here.
Now I want to look at what all the Republican presidential candidates have raised:
Mitt Romney............$90 million (Combined $55 million raised, plus $35 million of Romney's own money).
Rudy Giuliani...........$60 million.
John McCain............$42 million.
Ron Paul..................$28 million.
Fred Thompson........$21 million.
Mike Huckabee........$9 million.
Tom Tancredo.........$3 million.
Duncan Hunter........$2 million.
Total Raised.............$255 million.
What is so amazing here is that the Democratic presidential candidates have outraised the Republican presidential candidates by $62 million dollars. That amount is well above any of the GOP candidates' totals of campaign contributions raised--and that includes the $55 million amount that Romney raised without dipping into his own fortune. Something is happening here. We have got American citizens more excited and engaged with the Democratic presidential candidates over the Republicans. And we are seeing Americans willing to contribute more money to the Democratic presidential candidates over that of the Republican presidential candidates. I would say that what is happening is that Americans want serious change after seven years of a Bush failed presidency. They see that change coming from a Democratic president, and they are willing to spend their money electing a Democrat over that of a Republican. This does not bode well for the Republicans.
Lost in the hubbub surrounding Super Tuesday was is the fact that late last week all of the presidential candidates -- and the various party campaign committees -- released their year-end fundraising figures.
From the presidential level to the congressional level, these numbers bode extremely poorly for Republicans already fighting a difficult national political environment because of continued public unhappiness with the war in Iraq and the state of the economy.
The two remaining Democratic candidates -- Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama -- each collected more than $100 million this year. Clinton led the way with $118 million in total receipts ($106 million from individuals) while Obama took in $104 million ($102 million from individuals.) Taken together, Clinton and Obama raised $222 million in 2007 with $208 million of that total coming from individuals.
Compare that total to that of the two best-funded candidates on the Republican side -- former governor Mitt Romney (Mass.) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Romney collected $90 million last year -- more than a third of which ($35 million) came from his own pocket. Take Romney's massive personal contribution out of his fundraising, however, and he has collected $53.5 million from individuals. Giuliani, who dropped from the race following a disappointing third place finish in Florida last week, raised $60 million total with $57.5 million of that coming from individual contributors. Add contributions to Romney and Giuliani together and you get $150 million -- not too shabby. Subtract Romney's personal donation, however, and the two best-financed Republicans together raised $111 million from individuals -- barely more than either Clinton or Obama collected on their own.
It's not just at the top where the disparity between Democratic and Republican presidential candidates exists, however. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), who after tomorrow is likely to be the odds-on favorite for the GOP presidential nod, raised $40 million in 2007, a total that includes $36 million in individual contributions. That total is decidedly similar to the $44 million raised by former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.). (Edwards actually raised $35 million from individuals and took out a $9 million bank loan against the federal matching money he received by accepting public financing in the primaries.)
A couple of comments here. First, the Democrats are still out-raising and out-spending the Republicans here. Both Clinton and Obama each raised over $100 million in campaign contributions. The closest GOP candidate to come near the $100 million mark was Mitt Romney at $90 million--but that figure includes the $35 million that he spent from his own pocket. And then there is Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani spent almost $60 million in his failed bid for the presidency. Giuliani was the presumed front-runner through 2007, but the Giuliani campaign never won any states, and only finished third in his last-ditch stand in Florida. I should also point out one other GOP "white horse" candidate that also spent a large sum of money before dropping out. I'm talking about Fred Thompson, and his spending of over $21 million, before dropping out after Florida. I thought I would go in and look at some of the totals raised by both the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. The source is through CNN Election Central. Here is what all the Democratic presidential candidates have raised:
Hillary Clinton........$118 million.
Barack Obama........$103 million.
John Edwards.........$44 million.
Bill Richardson.......$18 million.
Chris Dodd.............$13 million.
Joe Biden...............$11 million.
Dennis Kucinich.....$4 million.
Total Raised...........$317 million.
That is an impressive amount of money that the Democratic presidential candidates have raised. What is more, if you take out Clinton's and Obama's totals, then the rest of the candidates have raised a total sum of $90 million. This is just an incredible sum of money here.
Now I want to look at what all the Republican presidential candidates have raised:
Mitt Romney............$90 million (Combined $55 million raised, plus $35 million of Romney's own money).
Rudy Giuliani...........$60 million.
John McCain............$42 million.
Ron Paul..................$28 million.
Fred Thompson........$21 million.
Mike Huckabee........$9 million.
Tom Tancredo.........$3 million.
Duncan Hunter........$2 million.
Total Raised.............$255 million.
What is so amazing here is that the Democratic presidential candidates have outraised the Republican presidential candidates by $62 million dollars. That amount is well above any of the GOP candidates' totals of campaign contributions raised--and that includes the $55 million amount that Romney raised without dipping into his own fortune. Something is happening here. We have got American citizens more excited and engaged with the Democratic presidential candidates over the Republicans. And we are seeing Americans willing to contribute more money to the Democratic presidential candidates over that of the Republican presidential candidates. I would say that what is happening is that Americans want serious change after seven years of a Bush failed presidency. They see that change coming from a Democratic president, and they are willing to spend their money electing a Democrat over that of a Republican. This does not bode well for the Republicans.
Bob Dole defends McCain in a letter to Rush Limbaugh
The crazed in-fighting just continues within the conservative establishment. From CNN's Political Ticker:
The full text of the letter can be found here.
Now The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza has an interesting take on this latest in-fighting:
Cillizza has a point here. There certainly is a fracture between the moderate and conservative wings of the Republican Party. The moderate graybeards of Bob Dole are worried that such a fracture within the GOP would allow a Democrat to win the White House in 2008. Are we seeing a fracture within the GOP-elites, where moderate graybeards like Bob Dole want to muzzle the hard-lined conservative media pundits attacks against McCain? While at the same time, the hard-lined media pundits of Coulter and Limbaugh are attacking McCain as a means to rile up their base to march out and vote for Romney? Are Coulter and Limbaugh taking their orders from big media execs, who may prefer Romney over that of McCain? This is just another strange mix in this in-fighting taking place within the Republican Party.
BOSTON (CNN) — Former Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole on Monday wrote conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh defending John McCain as a "mainstream conservative" who had supported the party on critical votes during Dole's time as the Senate Republican leader.
The letter, obtained by CNN from a Republican source close to Dole, includes a voting comparison that suggests McCain's voting record compares favorably to that of the longtime conservative icon Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina.
Dole in the letter said he remains neutral in the GOP contest and spoke kindly of all three remaining leading GOP candidates. But the letter comes at a time Limbaugh is trying to rally grassroots conservative support against McCain.
"Whoever wins the Republican nomination will need your enthusiastic support," Dole wrote in the letter. "Two terms for the Clintons are enough."
The full text of the letter can be found here.
Now The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza has an interesting take on this latest in-fighting:
Dole's letter won't change Limbaugh's mind about McCain but that's not the goal. Instead, the aim of a letter like this one is to lower the volume of rhetoric in hopes that the two warring factions can find some common ground at some point.
If McCain winds up with a clear win in tomorrow's Super Tuesday voting -- as looks increasingly likely if you examine the polling both nationally and in Feb. 5 states -- Dole (and other party graybeards) are hoping that the much-discussed schism within the party can be healed by uniting around a common enemy: the Clintons. (No word on what the party would do if Clinton was not the Democratic nominee.)
Establishment Republicans are mindful of the dangers of a fracture between the moderate and conservative wings of the party. They need look no further than Kansas -- where Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) has been elected and re-elected thanks to a fracture within the base of the GOP -- to see the deleterious effects of an inability to find common ground.
Make no mistake: Rush Limbaugh (and Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham etc.) are a very powerful voice within the Republican party. Conservatives watch and listen to them daily and often take their marching orders directly from the mouths of these hosts.
McCain is well aware of the power and peril that an ongoing feud with Limbaugh et al. represents.The Dole letter -- coupled with McCain's latest ad -- may be the first of a number of outreach attempts to heal any wounds within the party as quickly as possible.
Cillizza has a point here. There certainly is a fracture between the moderate and conservative wings of the Republican Party. The moderate graybeards of Bob Dole are worried that such a fracture within the GOP would allow a Democrat to win the White House in 2008. Are we seeing a fracture within the GOP-elites, where moderate graybeards like Bob Dole want to muzzle the hard-lined conservative media pundits attacks against McCain? While at the same time, the hard-lined media pundits of Coulter and Limbaugh are attacking McCain as a means to rile up their base to march out and vote for Romney? Are Coulter and Limbaugh taking their orders from big media execs, who may prefer Romney over that of McCain? This is just another strange mix in this in-fighting taking place within the Republican Party.
Rush Limbaugh trashes McCain, compares him to Clinton and Obama on Iraq
Is it my imagination, or is this Republican Party going into Bizarro World? Just last Friday, I posted a story about how Ann Coulter will vote for Senator Hillary Clinton if Senator John McCain becomes the GOP nominee. Well now conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh is jumping into this strange fray. I found this New York Sun story through DKos user Eternal Hope, where Limbaugh actually defends Clinton and Obama on Iraq. From The New York Sun:
Now I went on to Rush Limbaugh's website to find the transcript of this show, and of Limbaugh's quotes. Here is the transcript, and the particular quote:
I'm trying to figure this one out, and I'm completely baffled by it. When you have both Coulter and Limbaugh attacking McCain on his supposed conservative character, and yet the GOP voters are supporting McCain over Romney or Huckabee, I just have to wonder, what is going on here? It is Bizarrow World. The only thing I can think of is that there is a disconnect between the GOP elites, and the Republican voters. The GOP elites want another talking Woody Doll like they had with George W. Bush. And it is no wonder why, considering how George W. Bush's presidency has been nothing more than a puppet for Vice President Dick Cheney, for the neocons, for Big Oil, for Haliburton, for corporate interests, and for ubber-rich. It is a Bush presidency that has become both a complete failure, and a complete disaster. Now let us go to the Republican voters. President Bush only has the support of his 30 percent hard-core conservatives--the rest of the moderate conservatives have completely abandoned him. These Republican voters have certainly gotten sick and demoralized by this failed Bush presidency, and certainly would not want another talking Woody Doll that the GOP elites are trying to sell. Could the latest GOP-elite Woody Doll be Mitt Romney? With the current crop of GOP presidential candidates thinning down to McCain, Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul, the GOP elites are stuck with choosing the best of a bad situation--Mike Huckabee is too much of a religious crazy, and Ron Paul is just plain crazy. John McCain is certainly pissed off the conservative wing of his party, which means he will not be as controllable by elites in the GOP. This leaves us with Mitt Romney. He may not be as conservative as the Religious Right may want, however the elites may be hoping that they could control Romney liked they controlled Bush. So maybe they are trying to sell Romney at this last minute before the Super Tuesday vote--especially after McCain has won big in both South Carolina and Florida. However the Republican voters are rejecting the GOP's latest Woody Doll for someone the voters are hoping is a real conservative. This disconnect is driving the GOP elites batty. The generating of this extreme hatred against McCain by the conservative media pundits of Coulter and Limbaugh could be a desperate hope that the GOP voters will not give McCain a huge sweep of Super Duper Tuesday wins.
We'll find out tomorrow.
Talk show host Rush Limbaugh is so exasperated about Senator McCain's surge in the Republican presidential contest that he is coming to the defense of Senators Clinton and Obama.
On Mr. Limbaugh's program today, he said people should not be rushing to back Mr. McCain over issues of national security. The talk host said America's direction in Iraq would not be substantially different even if Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama were elected. "They are not going to surrender the country to Islamic radicalism or the war in Iraq," Mr. Limbaugh said after mentioning the two Democratic senators by name. "They are not going to do that to themselves, despite what their base says."
"The idea that we've only got one person in this whole roster of candidates, either party, who is willing to take on the war on terror is frankly, absurd," Mr. Limbaugh said.
Mr. Limbaugh edged closer to an all-out endorsement of Mitt Romney, saying Mr. Romney is the only candidate in the Republican race right now who can satisfy what many call the so-called three legs of the conservative stool: social, fiscal, and defense conservatives.
The talk host continued to wail on Mr. McCain, repeatedly accusing him of lying and disloyalty. "John McCain has stabbed his own party in the back I can't tell you how many times," Mr. Limbaugh said.
Now I went on to Rush Limbaugh's website to find the transcript of this show, and of Limbaugh's quotes. Here is the transcript, and the particular quote:
RUSH: You know, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to apologize here up front because reacting to this is going to require me to be repetitive. I like to bring originality to this program, but I guess the repetition is called for. You know, Senator McCain may be conservative on one thing or two things: the war on terror, the struggle against radical Islamic extremism. See, I happen to believe, ladies and gentlemen, that if the Democrats win the White House, they are not going to surrender the country to Islamic radicalism or the war in Iraq. They are not going to do that to themselves, despite what their base says. I do not believe the notion that there's only one candidate on any side of the aisle here that cares about the war on terror. I know that Huckabee may not be prepared for it, but you can't convince me that Romney is going to punt the war on terror. The idea that we've only got one person in this whole roster of candidates, either party, that is willing to take on the war on terror is frankly absurd.
The Politico today has a piece by Jonathan Martin, and here's the one line from it that everybody just needs to hear to know what the story is about: "Put simply, McCain is winning the character contest. ... Conservative unease with John McCain and the Arizona senator’s inability to win support from his party's right wing has been much discussed and analyzed. But there is another emerging fault line in the GOP race that may better explain better why, despite his checkered past with the party base, McCain has won consecutive contests and could wrap up the nomination Tuesday." And that is he's winning the character contest. I'd like to know when did character start mattering again? The character apparently didn't matter in the nineties with Bill Clinton; it didn't matter with the Drive-By Media, George Bush's character has come under assault, he's a liar, he's this and that, and now all of a sudden character matters? They're looking for reasons to explain this, but let's look at the character business for a second.
John McCain has stabbed his own party in the back I can't tell you how many times. He stabbed his own president in the back on legislation a number of times. He doesn't support his party or his president when the chips are down. He called people who want to protect the border racists, nativists, protectionists, and worse. What kind of character is it that tries to slide all that through under cover of darkness in a back room, who I think it was McCain who said we gotta get the politics out of this issue to get it passed. Well, what does that mean? It means we can't let the American people know what's going on in this amnesty bill; we can't have the usual debates; we can't have any committee hearings. (doing McCain impression) "This is so important. We gotta get it through before they know what's happening." A lot of character in that, isn't there? Slides right into bed with the liberal socialists every single time they wink at him. It's a strange way to define character.
I'm trying to figure this one out, and I'm completely baffled by it. When you have both Coulter and Limbaugh attacking McCain on his supposed conservative character, and yet the GOP voters are supporting McCain over Romney or Huckabee, I just have to wonder, what is going on here? It is Bizarrow World. The only thing I can think of is that there is a disconnect between the GOP elites, and the Republican voters. The GOP elites want another talking Woody Doll like they had with George W. Bush. And it is no wonder why, considering how George W. Bush's presidency has been nothing more than a puppet for Vice President Dick Cheney, for the neocons, for Big Oil, for Haliburton, for corporate interests, and for ubber-rich. It is a Bush presidency that has become both a complete failure, and a complete disaster. Now let us go to the Republican voters. President Bush only has the support of his 30 percent hard-core conservatives--the rest of the moderate conservatives have completely abandoned him. These Republican voters have certainly gotten sick and demoralized by this failed Bush presidency, and certainly would not want another talking Woody Doll that the GOP elites are trying to sell. Could the latest GOP-elite Woody Doll be Mitt Romney? With the current crop of GOP presidential candidates thinning down to McCain, Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul, the GOP elites are stuck with choosing the best of a bad situation--Mike Huckabee is too much of a religious crazy, and Ron Paul is just plain crazy. John McCain is certainly pissed off the conservative wing of his party, which means he will not be as controllable by elites in the GOP. This leaves us with Mitt Romney. He may not be as conservative as the Religious Right may want, however the elites may be hoping that they could control Romney liked they controlled Bush. So maybe they are trying to sell Romney at this last minute before the Super Tuesday vote--especially after McCain has won big in both South Carolina and Florida. However the Republican voters are rejecting the GOP's latest Woody Doll for someone the voters are hoping is a real conservative. This disconnect is driving the GOP elites batty. The generating of this extreme hatred against McCain by the conservative media pundits of Coulter and Limbaugh could be a desperate hope that the GOP voters will not give McCain a huge sweep of Super Duper Tuesday wins.
We'll find out tomorrow.
Personal savings drop to a 73-year low
There is not much more to say about this story, except that we are no longer a nation of savers. From MSNBC News:
It should be no surprise that we're living from paycheck to paycheck. I will say that the big reason for this change in the negative savings rate has been that Americans' primary investment has been in their homes. Americans have been investing in their homes, and watching their equity, and home prices rapidly rise. According to MSNBC News:
The combination of low interest rates, and the rising home prices, created this feel-good bubble for Americans into taking out their equity from their homes for spending. And even more Americans jumped into the housing market with the low interest and subprime loans, believing that housing prices would continue to rise. But now the housing bubble has collapsed, and I'm wondering how many more of these same Americans, who are seeing their housing investment plunge, are starting to dip into their savings just to get by, rather than get ahead.
Of course, the rich are dipping into their savings because they are doing so well:
What else is new?
WASHINGTON - People are saving at the lowest level since the Great Depression, and that could be a problem for the millions of baby boomers getting ready to retire.
In fact, the Commerce Department reported Thursday that the nation’s personal savings rate for all of 2006 was a negative 1 percent, the worst showing in 73 years.
The negative rate means people are spending all of the money they have left after paying taxes — and then some. They are dipping into savings or increasing their borrowing to finance current spending.Graph showing personal income and personal spending rates. From MSNBC.
It’s no surprise to Nancy Harvin, 44, of Washington. “I struggle with saving myself,” she said in an interview. “I think we are consumer-driven. We have to have things.”
Scott Cooke, 48, said he was starting an interior design business in the Washington area and didn’t have the resources to save.
“I’m living from check to check,” he said.
It should be no surprise that we're living from paycheck to paycheck. I will say that the big reason for this change in the negative savings rate has been that Americans' primary investment has been in their homes. Americans have been investing in their homes, and watching their equity, and home prices rapidly rise. According to MSNBC News:
The 1 percent negative savings rate in 2006 followed a 0.4 percent negative rate in 2005. There have been only four years in history that the savings rate has fallen into negative territory. The other two were 1932 and 1933 during the Great Depression.
During the Depression, when as many as one in four people were out of work, households were exhausting savings in order to pay the rent and buy food.
Last year’s negative rate was attributed not to a lack of jobs but to good economic developments — including low interest rates that made it attractive to borrow money to make purchases and also to refinance home loans.
While the Federal Reserve was raising interest rates for part of last year, those increases followed an extended period when the Fed had driven rates down to the lowest levels in more than four decades.
Low interest rates helped to fuel a boom in housing purchases, which in turn helped to drive home prices higher. That led to a surge in mortgage refinancings with people using their higher home values to get money to spend on other things.
Refinancings gave homeowners an additional $900 billion to spend last year, a big factor in driving the savings rate lower.
The combination of low interest rates, and the rising home prices, created this feel-good bubble for Americans into taking out their equity from their homes for spending. And even more Americans jumped into the housing market with the low interest and subprime loans, believing that housing prices would continue to rise. But now the housing bubble has collapsed, and I'm wondering how many more of these same Americans, who are seeing their housing investment plunge, are starting to dip into their savings just to get by, rather than get ahead.
Of course, the rich are dipping into their savings because they are doing so well:
Another factor at work is the rising income inequality in the country. The rich, who traditionally save the most, don’t feel the need to save as much any more because their net worth has been soaring with fatter paychecks for those at the upper levels of the income scale. They have also benefited from a rebounding stock market.
“Wealthy individuals have become very wealthy and they now have a larger nest egg and therefore they are spending more of their current income than they have historically,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Economy.com.
What else is new?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
