November 27, 2007
Nov 27 11:15 Gingrich Predicts "Surprising Margin" of Victory Nov 27 11:40 Shame on LtGen. Sanchez Nov 27 13:59 Expert Translation of DeWeese-Speak Nov 27 18:02 Moderate Terri Bonoff? Nov 27 21:01 Proof That They're Feeling the Heat Nov 27 23:25 News Sanchez, Murtha & Reid Won't Tell You
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006
Gingrich Predicts "Surprising Margin" of Victory
Newt is officially on the record as saying that Obama will win Iowa with a surprising margin of victory. Meanwhile, Dick Morris is predicting that Team Hillary will intensify the negative attacks against Obama. I think both are exactly right.
I'm predicting that going negative won't help Hillary. Instead, I suspect that Obama will use her sharpened attacks to cast her in a negative light. Here's Morris' key observation:
The Clintons' political MO has always had a good dose of negative campaigning, especially when the going gets rough. There's no reason to assume that they will alter their game plan now.Going negative is as natural for the Clintons as raising taxes is genetic for liberals. The difference is that this time, Hillary isn't dealing with Hal McCrae. She's dealing with someone who's very good on his feet. Here's a portion of what Newt said:
I remember Bill's race for re-election as Arkansas governor back in 1990, when he found himself falling behind Hal McCrae, his unknown Democratic primary opponent. After Clinton's 10 years as governor, McCrae's attacks, featuring Daliesque stretched-out clocks tolling the time for him to go, were hitting home. Hillary decided to attend McCrae's next press conference and engage him in a public, impromptu debate about his attacks on her husband. She gave as good as she got - and her foray marked the start of a four-week campaign of negative ads that brought McCrae down.
"I think Oprah Winfrey is a remarkable figure," Gingrich told Sawyer, "I think she brings a, not just a celebrity status, but there are millions of people who trust her judgment."It's a difficult proposition to attack Oprah but it isn't difficult attacking and neutralizing Bill Clinton. In fact, Obama's incorporating the change theme into his campaign works against Team Hillary because she suffers from not having Bill's charisma and from being seen as the establishment candidate in a change election.
Pressed on whether the Oprah-factor would "tip" the nomination toward Obama, Gingrich replied, "I think it's a significant asset to (Obama) and he's not married to her."
"I think there's a double-edged sword when President Clinton shows up because he also reminds you, do you really want two presidents in the White House? And do you really want Mrs. Clinton to have to rely on President Clinton to have to win?"
I'm not betting against Hillary just yet. I'm just pointing out the shifting momentum and her inability to stop her slide thus far. Suffice it to say that this will be an interesting race.
Posted Tuesday, November 27, 2007 11:16 AM
No comments.
Shame on LtGen. Sanchez
That's the distinct message of Jack Kelly's latest column . Mr. Kelly won't let Gen. Sanchez's complaints against President Bush go unchallenged. Here's Kelly's most devastating shot at Gen. Sanchez:
Sanchez implies "that somehow he was a blameless bystander and not the one entrusted with day-to-day operations during the critical year following regime change in Iraq," noted the Small Wars Journal. "It appears that Sanchez did not have a problem with U.S. strategy at that time. Moreover, as the senior commander he had the authority to take measures that could have lessened the impact of a failed or nonexistent strategy had he so desired."Here's another Kelly observation that's worth highlighting:
It does seem odd that Democrats would excoriate Gen. David Petraeus, architect of the strategy that has turned things around in Iraq, and embrace Gen. Sanchez, especially since it was Democrats in Congress who led the criticism of him during the Abu Ghraib affair.That's what Democrats do. They ridicule success and embrace failures. Here's historian Victor Davis Hanson's take on that phenomenon:
"In all these cases there is a dismal pattern: a mediocre functionary keeps quiet about the mess around him, muddles through, senses that things aren't going right, finds himself on the losing end of political infighting, is forced out or quits, seethes that his genius wasn't recognized, takes no responsibility for his own failures, worries that he might be scape-goated, and at last senses that either a New York publisher or the anti-war Left, or both, will be willing to offer him cash or notoriety, but only if he serves their needs by trashing his former colleagues in a manner he never would while on the job," Mr. Hanson said.Exactly right.
Posted Tuesday, November 27, 2007 11:41 AM
No comments.
Expert Translation of DeWeese-Speak
This Brad Bumsted article offers a perfect translation of Bill DeWeese's statements. Here's an example of what I'm talking about:
DeWeese: "Last July, after reviewing these same documents, I directed that Mr. LaGrotta's employment with the caucus be terminated." (After losing the May 2006 primary, LaGrotta had been given a job working for the caucus.)Potts is former DeWeese speechwriter Tim Potts. Now they're butting heads on issue after issue, which has to be DeWeese's worst nightmare. Here's more:
Potts: "But did DeWeese ask for the money back? Or was LaGrotta right last January when he e-mailed his niece: 'You can pay it back if you choose but no one here is asking that'?"
DeWeese: "When we learned about these allegations (against LaGrotta) several months ago, I directed my staff to fully cooperate with the attorney general's investigation and we provided many of the documents referenced in today's (grand jury) presentment, including the e-mails."I think Mr. DeWeese has met his match. Tim Potts obviously has his number. Potts will keep calling that number, too, because he's now on the opposite side of the reform issue than DeWeese.
Potts: "DeWeese doesn't mention that he went to court to obstruct the attorney general's investigation into the Bonusgate scandal, challenging lawful subpoenas and search warrants. DeWeese was also the last caucus leader to make pubic who got the bonuses and how much they got."
I strongly recommend reading Brad Bumsted's column. It's very enlightening.
Posted Tuesday, November 27, 2007 2:00 PM
No comments.
Moderate Terri Bonoff?
The Minnesota Republican Party issued a scathing statement on Terri Bonoff when she announced her candidacy for the seat being vacated by Jim Ramstad's retirement. In their statement, the RPM said that Terri Bonoff wasn't a moderate, citing a number of issues where she was clearly to the left of moderate. Yesterday, Terri Bonoff was endorsed by EMILY's List . (H/T: PAULINAUT) Here are the issues cited in the RPM statement:
"Moderate" Bonoff's "Biggest Disappointment" Of 2007 Legislative Session: Failure To Pass $5 Billion In Tax And Fee IncreasesEMILY's List has again endorsed Terri Bonoff. Here's their statement endorsing Rep. Bonoff:
"The Biggest Disappointment Of The Session Was The Inability To Override A Veto Of A Well-Balanced Transportation Compromise." (Letter To The Editor, Terri Bonoff, Star Tribune, May 30, 2007)
Transportation Bill Supported By Bonoff Raised Billions In Taxes Over The Course Of Ten Years:
$2.3 billion in extra gas taxes (including a 2.5-cent-a-gallon increase that would gradually kick in to pay off $1.5 billion in highway bonds).
$1.5 billion in added registration renewal taxes on 2008 model cars and beyond, solely for roads and bridges.
$2.6 billion from a half-cent general sales tax and $20 new vehicle excise tax in the metro area, which county boards could impose without a referendum.
$36 million in rental-car fee increases (Conrad deFiebre, "More For Roads, Less In Your Pocket?" Star Tribune, May 15, 2007)
"Moderate" Bonoff Supported Raising $13 Billion In Taxes On Hennepin County Families For Transit & Stadiums
WASHINGTON, D.C. ; EMILY's List, the nation's largest political action committeeThis couldn't come at a less opportune time for Ms. Bonoff. Ellen Malcolm is the co-founder of EMILY's List. She also was president of 21st Century Democrats, the group that touted the virtues of Mark Ritchie :
and financial resource for women candidates, today announced its endorsement ofTerri Bonoff for Minnesota's third congressional district.
"Terri Bonoff is the kind of smart, tenacious, and effective legislator we need in Washington," said Ellen R. Malcolm, president of EMILY's List. "She has an impressive history of developing common sense solutions and getting consistent results in both the public and private sectors. EMILY's List is pleased to support Terri Bonoff as she works to share her expertise and leadership with her community, the state of Minnesota, and the U.S. Congress."
A lifelong Minnesotan, Terri Bonoff was born and raised in Minnesota's third congressional district. Bonoff currently serves as the state Senator for Minnesota district 43, representing Minnetonka, Plymouth and Medicine Lake. She is the first Democrat to hold this seat in twenty years. Bonoff was an advocate for education even before she was elected to public office, leading a bipartisan push by local parents to increase education funding in 2004. Now, as vice-chair of E-12 Education Finance Subcommittee in the state Senate, she continues to work for education funding reform, sponsoring several bills that dedicate more resources to the classroom and help cover the cost of special education. In the short 2006 legislative session, Bonoff helped pass bills funding early education and reforming education reporting practices. She took a leadership role in the area of early education, joining a bipartisan, bicameral caucus of legislators who meet regularly to develop and promote early education policy.
Before running for state Senate, Bonoff spent two decades in the private sector where she worked in marketing at Tonka Toys and later as an executive for Navarre Corporation, leading their computer software division and company-wide marketing efforts. In these roles, she learned the value of negotiation, leading to results and responsible business practices. Bonoff eventually retired to spend more time with her children and become more involved with community service. She served as president of the Babe Ruth Baseball league for kids, was co-chair of the Hopkins School District Legislative Action Coalition, and was a board member of the Hopkins Educational Foundation. Bonoff also served as a member of the Minnetonka Planning Commission.
"I am delighted to have received the EMILY's List endorsement and the support of so many great women and men," said State Sen. Bonoff. "It is an honor to follow in the footsteps of past EMILY's List endorsees like Senator Amy Klobuchar whom I greatly respect. I am running for Congress at this critical time for our country, not as a career politician, but as a mother, a community volunteer, a former business executive and a current State Senator. The combination of all of these roles makes me uniquely qualified to be a successful Congresswoman and EMILY's List members know how critical it is to bring this type of diverse experience to the U.S. House."
With more than 100,000 members across the country, EMILY's List is the largest political action committee in the nation. Since its founding in 1985, EMILY's List has raised over $240 million to elect 69 pro-choice Democratic women to the U.S. House, 13 to the U.S. Senate, and eight governors. Over the course of 22 years, EMILY's List has helped elect hundreds of pro-choice Democratic women to federal office, state legislatures, state constitutional offices, and other key local offices.
To combat low young adult voter turnout, Mark proposes to establish automatic voter registration for all high school seniors. By doing so, Minnesota can register all eligible students before they graduate. Mark also believes we need to create a national Leave No voter Behind Program, focused on achieving 100 percent voter registration for young people. As secretary of state Mark will work with local governments to find ways to remove all barriers, legal and technological, to the free exercise of this choice. This includes establishing instant runoff voting, voting by mail, and preventing the photo-ID-to-vote requirement so that students, seniors, soldiers, and anyone else who has lost or forgotten their ID on Election Day isn't denied their right to vote.Disgraced Mark Ritchie and Terri Bonoff both received glowing reviews from Ellen Malcolm. Based on Ritchie's current ethical, and possible legal troubles, and Ms. Malcolm's glowing endorsement of him, why shouldn't we be wary of other Malcolm endorsees?
I'd bet the proverbial ranch that Terri Bonoff would vote for Charlie Rangel's trillion dollar tax increase if she were elected. After all, she was disappointed that Gov. Pawlenty vetoed billions of dollars in tax increases last session.
Posted Tuesday, November 27, 2007 6:03 PM
Comment 1 by Clay Shentrup at 28-Nov-07 01:18 AM
While it's clear that our traditional "vote for one" (plurality) voting system is inexcusable, Instant Runoff Voting is not much better - and there are many better simpler solutions. There is also a great deal of public misunderstanding and misinformation surrounding IRV, largely the result of the IRV propagandaorganization, FairVote.
One common myth is that IRV elects "majority winners". But IRV can lead to the election of candidate X, even when candidate Y is preferred to X by a huge majority. Consider this hypothetical IRV election.
#voters - their vote
10 G > C > P > M
3 C > G > P > M
5 C > P > M > G
6 M > P > C > G
4 P > M > C > G
C is the clear Condorcet (condor-SAY) winner, meaning he is preferred by a landslide majority over all his individual rivals. He is preferred over G, P, and M all by an 18-10 margin.
But... M wins, even though he also has fewer first-place votes (6 voters) than C with 8.
Also:
1. P is preferred to M by 22 of the 28 voters, yet he's the first candidate eliminated.
2. G also has more first-place votes (10) than M's 6.
3. So M either loses pairwise to, or has fewer first-place votes than (or both) every rival, but still IRV elects M.
Notice that the first group of voters could have caused C to win if they had only "lied", and put him first in their list. That would mean they'd get their second favorite instead of their fourth favorite. Statistical analysis reveals that this strategy is advised for all candidates who don't appear to have at least a 20% chance of winning. That means that, contrary to FairVote propaganda, IRV does not let you "vote your hopes, not your fears". And this means that IRV effectively degrades toward plain old plurality (vote-for-one) voting. This is explained in more detail here, by math experts:
http://rangevoting.org/TarrIrv.html
Election integrity experts and activists, like computer science Ph.D. Rebecca Mercuri disapprove of IRV because it is conducive to the adoption of fraud-susceptible electronic voting machines. IRV is also more susceptible to fraud because it is not countable in precincts. That is, candidate A could win every individual precinct, but bizarrely lose when the ballots are all summed together - which enforces centralized tabulation, which is more susceptible to central fraud conspiracy. And IRV typically causes spoiled ballots to go up by a factor of about 7.
http://rangevoting.org/SPRates.html
A much simpler and far better system is Approval Voting. It's just like the current system, except that there is no limit on the number of candidates one may vote for. While it may seem initially less intuitive than ranking choices, deep scrutiny shows that Approval Voting produces a far more representative outcome, and is less harmed by problems like strategic voting. This is shown through an objective economic measure called Bayesian regret, which shows how well a particular voting method tends to satisfy the preferences of the voters. The improvement gotten by Approval Voting relative to IRV is especially large if the voters are strategic, as was described above (although FairVote promoters will often falsely claim that the best strategy with Approval Voting is to "bullet vote"). See:
http://rangevoting.org/BayRegDum.html
If we don't mind a somewhat more cluttered ballot, we can upgrade to Range Voting, which uses a ratings scale, like Olympics scoring. It is arguably more intuitive, and produces phenomenal Bayesian regret results, meaning more satisfied voters, and more competitive nominees, if used for a party's nomination process (i.e. a big strategic advantage).
For a look at how the major parties could become dramatically more competitive by merely adopting Range Voting or Approval Voting, see:
http://rangevoting.org/ForDems.html
http://rangevoting.org/ForReps.html
Election reformers must be diligent and do their research. Don't be misled by FairVote's clever marketing. Look at what Ivy League mathematicians and political science experts such as Steve Brams, who write entire books on this stuff, say. FairVote has an agenda, and it's definitely not in the pubic's best interest.
Clay Shentrup
San Francisco, CA
415.240.1973
clay@electopia.org
Proof That They're Feeling the Heat
This statement from Zogby International chastizes Mark Penn for his statements on Joe Scarborough's show this morning. Here's the important paragraph from their statement about Penn:
Penn mischaracterized this latest online Zogby poll as our first interactive survey ever, a bizarre contention, since we have been developing and perfecting our Internet polling methodology for nearly a decade ( Zogby Interactive Methodology ), and since Penn's company has been quietly requesting the results of such polls from Zogby for years. We always comply as part of our pledge to give public Zogby polling results to any and every candidate and campaign that asks for them. What is interesting is that no other campaign has made as many requests for Zogby polling data over the years than Penn has made on behalf of Clinton.Team Hillary is feeling the pressure. They badly want to stop her slide in the polls but haven't figured out how to do that yet. It's possible that they won't. What's certain, though, is that Mark Penn is in the unenviable position of having to argue that this poll isn't reflective of the trouble Hillary is in. As this paragraph points out, that's a difficult task at best:
Because Mark Penn is a quality pollster himself, we chalk up his contention that our poll is "meaningless" as a knee; jerk reaction by a campaign under pressure coming down the stretch. Several other polls, Zogby surveys and others, have shown her national lead and her leads in early; voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire have shrunk. This is not unusual. These presidential contests usually tighten as the primaries and caucuses approach.Shooting the messenger who brings bad news is a time-tested technique of Team Clinton. They did it with Ken Starr, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broderick and others. I doubt that it'll work this time because her flip-flop has been played around the world millions of times. People know who Hillary is. People expect her to be evasive. The difference between Bill's turn in office and now is that YouTube and the internet capture everything.
That's bad news to the Clintons because everything she says is dissected from sunrise to sundown. The last thing a Clinton can handle is close scrutiny. Scrutiny is as letha to a Clinton as Kryptonite is to Superman.
The thing that I'm wondering is whether Hillary will try being straightforward with the American people. I'm not sure she can survive if she isn't. If there's anything that this past year in politics has taught us, it's that voters reward authenticity and punish phonies. Right now, it's Hillary's turn in the woodshed.
Rest assured that Team Clinton, especially Mark Penn, is feeling the heat from that woodshed.
Posted Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:02 PM
No comments.
News Sanchez, Murtha & Reid Won't Tell You
You won't hear this news if Harry Reid, Rick Sanchez or John Murtha was your sole source of news. In fact, if they were your only source of news, you'd think that our troops were dying by the thousands each month. Everyone talks about the miracle known as the Anbar Awakening. This news ins't any less miraculous:
In the first-ever convoy financed by their government, hundreds of Iraqi refugees boarded buses leaving Syria on Tuesday and heading home to Baghdad, cautiously hoping the improvement in security means they can stay for good. Khaled Ibrahim, 45, from central Baghdad, said he was so homesick after having been away for a year, that he wanted to give it a try after hearing things in Iraq have improved.Let's compare that with what LtGen. Rick Sanchez recently said :
"If I go and discover that the situation is not stable I will come back" to Syria, said Ibrahim, with his wife, three sons and two daughters in tow. His elder son Abdullah, 13, helped load the family's bags in a small pickup that was to drive them to the buses parked about 800 meters (yards) away at the collection point in Damascus.
"I will go to school in Baghdad and explosions don't scare me," chirped Abdullah, in blue jeans and beige jacket.
"I saw firsthand the consequences of the administration's failure to devise a strategy for victory in Iraq that employed, in a coordinated manner, the political, economic, diplomatic and military power of the United States. That failure continues today," he said.With all due respect to Gen. Sanchez, he's full of it. When Gen. Sanchez says that "That failure continues today", it should be recognized for what it is: a political statement designed to advance a political agenda. It shouldn't be considered an objective military assessment. In fact, it isn't a stretch to think that Sanchez's statement has more to do with professional jealousy than with a sober assessment of Gen. Petraeus successful surge strategy.
That aside, the important thing is that conditions in Baghdad have improved enough that Iraqis that fled the country are returning. That's outstanding news. It's news that should tell Americans that President Bush fought to defeat the terrorists. Democrats, on the other hand, were only interested in fighting President Bush.
Many shared in the optimism, waving Iraqi flags as they left in the convoy of over 800 people aboard 20 Syrian buses that were to ferry them to the border.Americans should be proud of our military and their mission. This sounds alot like success. It sounds like this war is winnable.
From there, buses sent by Baghdad would take over the returning refugees, according to Mohammed Ali al-Budairi, Iraqi coordinator for displaced Iraqis in Syria. The convoy was to arrive in Baghdad's neighborhoods of Salhiya and Mansour around 10 a.m. local time Wednesday.
The first bus left by mid-afternoon from al-Sayda Zeinab, an area in southern Damascus where thousands of Iraqi refugees have been living since after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein's regime.
Hours ahead, the neighborhood's main square was crowded with Iraqis carrying their belongings, some chanting: "Oh Baghdad, you are victorious."
That didn't prevent John Murtha from badmouthing the Pentagon last week:
REP. JOHN MURTHA, (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Because the Pentagon says it, you believe it? Do you believe what the Pentagon says? Huh? Of all the things they've told us? Do you believe what, what, I mean, go back and look and mission accomplished, al Qaeda connection, weapons of mass destruction, on and on and on and you believe the Pentagon?Rep. Murtha should be asked if he thinks that reports of Iraqi refugees returning should be thought of as success. He should also be asked if he believes the Chicago Tribune's report or the NY Times' report that talk optimistically about Iraq. Doesn't he believe anything positive about Iraq?
We don't have to ask if Harry Reid thinks anything positive is happening in Iraq after he made this statement :
"The president and his enablers in Congress are so afraid of being held accountable for this disastrous war policy that they would rather leave our men and women in uniform empty-handed than work to change course in Iraq," he said after the votes.What would Sen. Reid call a situation where refugees were returning home, violence was dropping precipitously and troops were coming home? He'd call it a "disastrous war policy" because that's what's happening right now.
Sen. Reid says that President Bush "and his enablers" are afraid of being held accountable. That should be the last of Reid's worries. He should be worried that voters will hold the Democrat majorities in the House and Senate accountable for insisting on losing the war.
This news should scare Hillary, too, because she's shifted from being the lone liberal hawk to sounding like just another MoveOn.org anti-war protester. I'm certain that she'll simply say that she was opposed to President Bush's prosecution of the war but that won't work after her famous quote that "If President Bush doesn't end this war, as President, I will." That statement was made in the context of an anti-war diatribe so she won't have any wiggle room.
When all the dust settles, President Bush, John McCain, Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani will have been steadfast in their belief that America's soldiers could and would win this war. Meanwhile, John Murtha, Harry Reid, Gen. Sanchez and Hillary herself will have been exposed as less than steadfast in calling for a full military victory to being vehemently opposed to winning the war.
That isn't the position I'd want to be in heading into an election.
Posted Tuesday, November 27, 2007 11:27 PM
No comments.
