UPDATE (4:07 PM): Duncan Hunter was supposed to be making a big announcement this afternoon, which is what I was referring to in this post. I assumed that his major announcement was that he was going to drop out. As my lovely copy editor pointed out to me, I was completely wrong in my assumption. Big whoopsies.
- - - - -
Now we can truly begin seeing the narrowing of the Republican field. I wonder who Duncan “One delegate from Wyoming” Hunter will choose to endorse and ultimately throw his delegate to?
Archive for the 'Republicans' Category
Cross-posted at Bleeding Heartland.
Maybe I’ve missed something in my absences from blogging over the past few months, but has the Register ever really done a serious news or feature piece on Iowa’s bloggers and citizen journalists? I mean, I know we threaten their credibility and their readership by getting scoops, insight, and news out faster sometimes–not to mention that our commentary is sometimes more consistent and better written than their columnists’–but it almost seems like there is an intent to ignore the contributions that bloggers in Iowa have had both before the caucuses and in previous elections or issues. Today, in their features section, they profile one citizen journalist who has been vlogging for PurpleStates.tv (she had to audition to get the gig) and one guy who has been doing it for MTV. Don’t get me wrong, their efforts are valuable…but what about the folks who do this on their own time and don’t necessarily live off of it?
The folks at Iowa Independent have been doing regular news and political reporting since May, and other bloggers on both sides of the aisle have been part of the debate and policy discussion in Iowa politics for a few years now. Other papers across the state, as well as national papers and news magazines, have highlighted our growth and commented on our contributions.
Simply put, why can’t Iowa’s paper of record recognize or examine the Iowa online community for what it is and report back to the people of Iowa on it? I don’t want the media attention, the scrutiny, the interviews, the publicity; I just think that some of us deserve the recognition for the contributions we make. Two of my former colleagues at Iowa Independent have already talked a bit about this subject (see Chase Martyn’s initial post here and read Ben Weyl’s abbreviated response here) and I think it is one worth further discussion as we continue to build Iowa’s blogosphere.
From Todd Dorman this morning on his blog in his discussion of “losers” from last night’s caucuses:
“Republicans — Could this party be any more screwed up right now? Huckabee was a great caucus candidate, but he could be a general election disaster, especially if Obama wins. Romney and Giuliani are fading fast. (Did you notice Ron Paul had three times as much Iowa support as Rudy?) Thompson is sleepwalking. The GOP’s best hope may be McCain. He’s a likeable, solid candidate who could have general election appeal, especially among independents. His strength, experience, could be contrasted with Obama’s weakness.”
I still don’t think that McCain is the kind of savior the GOP needs, but Dorman’s right about the Republican party. They’ve got some major issues to face. They’ve been able to hold on to this coalition of social conservatives and fiscal conservatives–with views that oftentimes conflict or pull the party in opposite directions–in presidential races for a long time. In fact, one of my political science professors at Drake and KCCI political analyst Dennis Goldford calls this group the “Republican presidential coalition.” And as Jeff Greenfield mentioned on CBS last night, the party is doomed if either Huckabee or Giuliani end up with the nod simply because of how divisive they can be for the party.
Republicans have a lot to be proud of in last night’s turnout, but they didn’t have nearly enough to compete with Democrats. As Markos pointed out here, last night’s total turnout was around 356,000. If you consider the entire voting universe for both Democrats and Republicans, Mike Huckabee (last night’s Republican winner) still came in fourth behind Obama, Edwards, and Clinton.
What the hell is this? Does the Washington Post really need to profile David Yepsen? To me this just reeks of more insider coverage on people who really don’t matter in the actual caucus process anymore. David Yepsen doesn’t report on the caucuses so much anymore, he just judges candidates.
And he bashes candidates for encouraging youth participation in the caucuses. And he thought that Howard Dean would win in 2004. And a multitude of other things that put him out of touch with actual Iowans on terms of policy and politics.
Listen, I respect David Yepsen for his contributions to Iowa politics. But he isn’t the kind of kingmaker folks think he is. People shouldn’t have to win over his favor. He doesn’t caucus, ordinary Iowans do.
Most Iowans I know don’t like his column; they just use it as fodder to disagree and argue politically. And I’m sorry, but bloggers and other reporters shouldn’t indulge his ego.
Enough of this. Let the Iowans decide.
I’m sorry, but State Sen. Matt McCoy–whom I used to respect–keeps making real dunderhead-like moves and is seriously making me reconsider my opinion of him. The fact that the IECDB is now investigating campaign contributions that he may have funneled to Mike Blouin (during the gubernatorial primary in 05-06) for John Ruan only complicates matters.
Now, maybe he’s just the target of rabid local Republicans with nothing better to do (I mean, they get off on targeting gay Democrats, don’ they?) but he’s just taking away from the progress and ideas coming from Democrats in the state legislature and hurting their image. Is there some way we can just make this end?
Maybe this will help Congress’ tanking poll numbers. From the Register:
“The U.S. Senate killed Earthpark’s $48.3 million federal grant Wednesday, putting the $150 million project in jeopardy.
Beth Levine, a spokesman for Sen. Charles Grassley, confirmed that budget language inserted by a senator – she isn’t sure who – rescinded the grant.
AdvertisementGrassley, who arranged the grant in the first place, cannot restore it, she added.
[..]
The U.S. Department of Energy had been reviewing Earthpark’s plans to match the federal grant, but had not ruled if the Dec. 1 application met requirements.
[…]
Grassley’s office said the grant could still be allocated if the DOE acts before President Bush signs the bill, as expected, on Friday.
[…]
Monday night, the House of Representatives passed a year-end omnibus spending bill that includes legislation rescinding the Earthpark appropriation. The Senate passed the omnibus bill last.”
I wonder if any Iowa Democrats in the House had anything to do with the killing of the grant?
You probably won’t hear me say this much, but kudos to Sen. Chuck Grassley for voting to hold Karl Rove and Josh Bolten in contempt of Congress for failing to comply with subpoenas investigating the fired US Attorneys probe. It proves that every once in a while Grassley can be a respectable Republican.
My earlier post about Oprah campaigning for Obama has generated some interesting comment; all of them have been supportive of Oprah stepping out and speaking up for Obama. So, since it didn’t mean much to me, I wonder if it means much to you. Here’s a list, courtesy of The Hotline, of the celebrities that have endorsed candidates on the Republican and Democratic sides.
Do any of the endorsements matter to you? Any surprises?
Maybe I’ve just been out of the loop for too long, but it is good to see that the Register is finally starting to cover Ron Paul here in the state. I’m not sure if they’ve been neglectful of him or he’s just not been here, but with his eclectic support he deserves the coverage.
Just out of curiosity to the folks at the Des Moines Register: Alan Keyes was a participant in today’s Republican debate–why?!
Here’s a link to the Register’s standards for the privilege to participate in their debates, explaining why Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel won’t be participating.
But why did Alan Keyes, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter get to participate on the Republican side? Did all three have offices/staff in Iowa by October 1st? Alan Keyes didn’t even register in the October Iowa Poll.
I’m all in favor of keeping the non-serious contenders like Kucinich and Gravel out of the debates on the Democratic side. But shouldn’t the same standard apply for Republicans too, at least in the press?
For now, I’ll just let the Republican crazies keep making fools out of their party. I guess you’d just expect more from the Register.
Maybe I’m just over-generalizing in my mind, but does it really surprise anyone that Rev. Mike Huckabee said that homosexuality is “sinful” and “abberrant”?
He’s a Baptist minister and is strongly courting the social conservative wing of the Republican party–which can likely account for his ascension to the top in Iowa as of late. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t homosexuality generally considered a sin by most social or Christian conservatives? To me, I don’t see the supposed damage to his campaign from those statements. It is what they want to hear.
Now, this shit about quarantining folks with AIDS…that’s likely to hurt an image of a compassionate Christian hell-bent on helping people.
While all of this information was released this morning by the Associated Press, I’d still call it an opposition research dump. My guess is that someone in another campaign(s?) had some knowledge of these answers and the AP had to put the story out in an effort to quell rumors that could be even worse than the facts in this case.
Welcome to the front-runner position, Huckabee. Now comes the serious vetting.
It is still a tight race on the Democratic side between Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama, while on the Republican side Mike Huckabee has surged past Mitt Romney to take a commanding lead in Iowa according to the latest Newsweek Iowa Caucus polling released this afternoon.
Here are the Democratic results among likely caucus-goers, with all Democrats polled in parentheses (Republicans are below the fold):
Barack Obama 35% (29%)
Hillary Clinton 29% (30%)
John Edwards 18% (21%)
Bill Richardson 9% (11%)
Joe Biden 4% (2%)
Dennis Kucinich * (1%)
Chris Dodd * (*)
Other candidate 0% (0%)
Undecided 5% (6%)
Only 395 were identified as likely caucus-goers, meaning that the margin of error among those likely caucus-goers is +/-6%. If you take the MOE for all 673 polled, it is still +/-5%. Clearly, Obama comes across as the front-runner from the looks of the polls, with Edwards still hanging out. I’d say that the polling doesn’t accurately reflect Edwards’ stance all that much and we all know that his 2004 infrastructure is still largely in place giving him quite the advantage in that arena.
A couple of things to take from the results. First of all, it looks like contrary to popular belief Barack Obama may be doing better with those who are already more likely to attend their precinct caucus. Thus, expanding the universe of potential caucus-goers for Obama might actually be more detrimental. Same goes for Joe Biden. However, when you include all of those Democrats polled Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson all gain. To me that means: a) Obama has more committed supporters ready to say they’re going to caucus, or b) Obama’s support in the so-called “expansion universe” of potential caucus-goers isn’t as strong as the conventional wisdom says. These are both assumptions on my part and there is always room for other interpretation, but that’s what I’m seeing here.
The second specific point about the poll was that they polled second choices as well, which Bleeding Heartland reader RF noted earlier this week in a comment. These totals are going to add to more than 100%, but here are the net first/second choice support totals for the candidates, with likely caucus-goers as the first number and all Democrats polled in parentheses:
Barack Obama 55% (50%)
Hillary Clinton 50% (51)
John Edwards 45% (44%)
Bill Richardson 16% (17%)
Joe Biden 11% (8%)
Chris Dodd 2% (1%)
Dennis Kucinich * (1%)
Other candidate * (*)
Undecided 5% (6%)
Again, to me this confirms that the race in Iowa is still a strong three-way race between Clinton, Edwards, and Obama. The gap in first/second choice support is only 10% among likely caucus-goers (and 7% among the rest of Democrats) while there is a 17% gap among likely’s in first choice and 9% among all Democrats. Things are still tightly wound among Iowa Democrats.
You can see the full poll results here in PDF form courtesy of Newsweek. Their story on the poll is here.
Continue reading ‘Newsweek gives Obama, Huckabee leads in Iowa’
So, we’ve all heard about Mike Huckabee’s little sit-down with reporters the other night, and how he was questioned on the new NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) about Iran? And how he knew nothing about it, even though it was well-publicized all day? Well, in case you haven’t, here’s the exchange with the reporter who asked the question via The Politico.
Now, Dave Price of WHO-TV in Des Moines was there as well. He didn’t know it was on the record, but he was able to gather some notes. As he said:
“Didn’t seem to be too familiar with that report on the status of nuclear weapons in Iran”
Nothing about the question coming out of the blue or anything like that.
But last night in North Carolina, Huckabee claimed the question was an “ambush question.” And in explaining the ambush nature of the question, says that Bush has had the report for 4 years and didn’t read it, so it wasn’t that big of a deal.
Yeah, right. All we need is another idiot in the White House.
And sorry, the exchange clearly doesn’t like like an ambush to me at all. I wonder what Dave Price thinks…
I’m almost ashamed to say this, but Iowa’s own Caucus Cooler blog is back in action after a 7-month disappearance and I’m glad. Their coverage of the 2008 Republican presidentials can at least provide the lefty side of the blogosphere in Iowa something to argue about and harangue, as we bloggers are good at and prone to do. And they’d at least be a more debatable and hospitable to discussion and coverage compared to Ted Sporer.
So, welcome back. And let the debate begin.
First-term Rep. Dan Clute of Clive has decided he won’t be running for re-election in 2008. He says that a new job is what led him to choose the option. I’m sure being a new member of the minority party in the House didn’t help either.
That makes the list of Republicans in the Iowa Legislature who aren’t running for re-election even longer. On the list right now are folks like Pat Ward, Jeff Angelo, Mary Lundby, Walt Tomenga, and now Dan Clute. I’m sure there are others I’m forgetting.
Anyone want to help me put together a list to keep track of the retirements? We can do it for the Democrats, too. Just leave a comment below. It’ll help in the effort to begin putting odds together on whether the Democrats can hold on to control in the Iowa legislature.
Being the partisan hack I am, right now I’d say it is pretty likely.
