Josh Romney comes to his senses

Maybe Josh looked at all the money that Jim Matheson has in the bank, or maybe Jim's 59% victory in 2006, or the fact that Jim is the most popular politician in Utah, but I doubt the reason Josh Romney demurred running against Jim Matheson was the reason he gave to the press.

Josh Romney said Saturday he has decided not to run for Congress so he can spend more time with his young family after being away for much of the past year campaigning for his father, former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

"It's been a lot of excitement for the family, but it's been a tough year for us as well," Josh Romney told the Deseret Morning News. "We're just not quite ready to hop into another tough race."

Or maybe he is telling the truth, but he puts his family over service to his country.

At an "Ask Mitt Anything" forum this morning [August 08, 2007] in Bettendorf, Iowa, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney was quizzed about whether any of his five sons are serving in the U.S. military.
[...]
"My sons are adults. [Gov. Romney said] They’ve chosen not to serve in the military in active duty and I respect their decision in that regard. … And one of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I’d be a great president."

Now that Josh has served one "tour of duty," I guess he gets to spend the rest of his life in America with his wife and children, unlike actual members of our Armed Forces, the vast majority of whom have already served multiple tours of duty.

I wonder who the Utah Republican party will come up to be the sacrificial lamb against Jim this year? I vote ex. Sen. Judiciary Committee Chairman Chris Buttars or House Speaker Greg "20 votes" Curtis. Not that the Utah Democrats don't have their sacrificial lamb duties as well for the guy that gets to lose to Gov. Jon Huntsman.

quote of the day

I don't usually quote LDS scripture, but a Mormon co-worker pointed out this line to me with regards to Sen. Buttars and his colleagues who like to throw around their power to intimidate others.

"We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion." --D&C 121:39

Pretty apt isn't it? Now for a more secular source:

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
--Lord Acton

Speaking of which, I have in my hot little hands a copy of the Buttars letter in its entirity. I am currently debating the ethics of posting a scan of it on the internet.

State Senators realize they're embarrassing

Sadly, I am not referring to those involved in the Buttars letter scandal, but rather the I.B.-schools-are-anti-American-scandal.

Although HB266 passed the House unanimously earlier this month, it ran into trouble when Dayton said she was "opposed to the anti-American philosophy that's somehow woven into all the classes as they promote the U.N. agenda," then voted with Peterson and Stepheson to kill the bill.
Since then, current and former I.B. students and their parents have deluged [Republican Sen. Margaret] Dayton and other lawmakers with e-mails asking them to reconsider. I.B. students from Syracuse Junior High School also visited the Capitol and [Rep. Carol Spackman Moss, D-Holladay] has worked behind the scenes to resuscitate her proposal.
"I talked to wiser, more reasonable people . . . who realized it would be an embarrassment to our state if that story went national," she said. "The public outcry was so big."

The one positive thing out of this was that these kids learned how to lobby their state legislature and they as members of the public need to keep a watchful eye on the Legislature.

Sen. Dayton apologized "for not being more appropriate" when she characterized International Baccalaureate programs as "anti-American," and blocked $300,000 for I.B. programs. Rep. Moss was able only to get a third of that money back.

My question is where did Sen. Dayton get her information that I.B. programs were "anti-American"? Was it the word "international" that scared her off? Or that fancy word "Baccalaureate," you know, the "B" in "B.A."?

"It's an extraordinary program," Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. said Thursday of I.B., in which his own son is enrolled. "We need more of them, not fewer." Dayton acknowledged Thursday that the program "does a lot of good things in Utah." She said she was concerned about "what happened in other states that had trouble with it" and worried about making sure entities outside Utah weren't controlling education.

What exactly has happened in other states that she is concerned about? Does she really think that some international organization is indoctrinating Utah children? The whole point of I.B. programs is that you take a test at the end that makes your students directly comparable to students at schools in the U.K. and other english-language based schools in other countries. I had a German friend in college who went to a college prep school with lots of kids from the U.S. embassy and American businessmen's children and he took I.B. courses so he could go to an American University.

Sen. Dayton blames her performance on her constituents.

"I apologize for not being more appropriate in my comments in committee," Dayton wrote. "It was my understanding that members of the public were planning to express concerns about the I.B. program. When they did not present in committee, I felt a need to reflect their concerns."

Does she and othose who wrote/called her really the same people who think the U.N. is trying to take away our guns and the government is trying to poison us by putting floride in our drinking water? If so, Sen. Dayton, you don't have to be their mouth piece. US Rep. Jim Matheson gets lots of letters every day asking him to hold hearings on Area 51 and how the moon landing was faked (I read some of these letters), but he doesn't give voice to those conspiracy theorists. He actually tries help Utahns by blocking Italian nuclear waste from coming into the state. Sen. Dayton could learn a thing or two from him it seems.

mum's the word

Sen. President John Valentine just told his caucus of Utah Senate Republicans to shut the heck up and stop talking to the media. Because he knows the press is hunting for more Sen. Buttars stories.

"Be careful with your communications" is the message that Senate President John Valentine, R-Orem, gave Wednesday. He has brought up the issue repeatedly during the GOP's closed-door caucuses. "We live in a fishbowl and everybody is constantly looking through the fishbowl. Remember what your communications mean."

What does that mean, 'Your communications mean pissing me off?'

"Just look at the statement," Valentine said, referring to a posting to the Senate majority's blog that stated while Buttars was exercising his "right to communicate his opinion privately with another public official" in his letter to Pullan, once the letter became public, Senate leaders were concerned it "may now have a negative effect on the confirmation process of new judges."

Valentine said Wednesday he is defending Buttars' right to express himself. "I don't have control over what any individuals do in any body. But what we do have is we do have a process that says, 'Be reasonable, be responsible with your communications."'

The Senate president said Buttars "really, truly believed that there had been an injustice. He felt like he should communicate that belief. He didn't call for action, he didn't say, 'I'm going to get you.' He said, 'I'm really disappointed."'

Or is he telling his colleagues to not be so stupid as to write a letter on Senate stationary when they are pissed? Instead, use the phone. That way, you can "have a different recollection" when confronted with your intimidation tactics. Folks this scandal isn't going away just because Buttars is not the chairman anymore (he still is on the committee).

"Any ex-parte communication attempting to influence a decision in an ongoing case is inappropriate," said State Bar executive director John Baldwin.

Bar president V. Lowry Snow has indicated that Buttars' removal from the chairmanship does address part of the bar's concerns.

Baldwin said the bar feels there is a need for "broader education" among lawmakers of the importance of a fair and impartial judicial system. He said the bar was not about to take specific issue with Buttars' letter but that any appearance of inappropriate influence on a judge should be dealt with.

Balwin is right, these Senators still haven't learned the real lesson.

There are indications that Senate leadership knew about Buttars' letter as early as last June. The Senate majority blog posting states that Valentine and others saw an early draft and that the Senate president "offered some suggested edits."

Inquiring taxpayers want to know, what kind of edits were they? "I think you should put a comma there" or "you forgot to call him a 'liberal activist judge' for ruling against your friend" or "make sure you hint at his confirmation process so he understands how much power you have over him?" Even it those "suggested edits" were in the nature of 'tone it down,' they all should have known better than to allow Buttars to mail that letter after he had shown it to them.

This wasn't one rouge Senate chairman on one of the most important and powerful committees on Utah's Capitol Hill, this was the collective 'wisdom' of a number of Utah Republican State Senators, apparently including the Sen. President himself--a member of the state bar.

More importantly, Buttars letter puts his terrible legislative proposals in a more sinister light:

As co-chairman of the Judicial Retention Election Task Force, Buttars spent last summer calling for change in the way judges are evaluated and retained.

He sponsored a bill, SB105, that would take the job of evaluating judicial performance away from fellow judges and place the task in the hands of a new bipartisan commission whose members would be appointed by the three branches of government.

Many judges, including [Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Christine] Durham, have said there is nothing wrong with the current evaluation system and do not believe the bill is necessary.

The whole point of the bill, it is now clear despite others' previous demurring, is for the Utah legislature to make the state Judiciary their wholly controlled subsidiary. If legislators get to set up the evaluation methods and be on committees that evaluate judges, and their evaluation depends whether a judge rules in favor of a friend of theirs, then we have no justice system. It really is that simple. Thankfully, Sen. Buttars also said stupid racist stuff, so hopefully his bills will become untouchable. Gov. Huntsman already has effectively shot down the anti-domestic registry bill by vowing to veto it. Now he needs to take a stand on behalf of an independant judiciary.

Buttars' s slow-moving ethics violation

Remember that highly inappropriate letter Sen. Buttars sent out to a judge on Senate stationary? Well, it turns out my praise for Sen. Pres. Valentine's stripping of Buttars's chairmanship should have been more qualified:

In it, Buttars reminded Pullan that, as chairman of the confirmation committee, he had advocated on Pullan's behalf and was embarrassed by a decision he rendered against Gibby. He accused the judge of "bias" and questioned his integrity.
Pullan entered the letter into the court record. It also came to the attention of the Judicial Council, the panel chaired by Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice Christine Durham that oversees Utah's courts, which sent the letter to Senate leaders in June.
"We gave the letter to President Valentine for the Senate to deal with internally," said Richard Schwermer, assistant administrator of the Administrative Office of the Utah Courts. The council did not provide any recommendation with the letter, he said. "If we have issues, we let him know. . . . It was an issue. We let him know about it."
A spokesman for Valentine said in a statement late Tuesday that Buttars' letter was a "private expression of disappointment to a judge he helped confirm."
It was an exercise of the senator's First Amendment rights, and made no threats and demanded no action, said Ric Cantrell.
"The scope and impact of that letter changed dramatically when it was published statewide. Senate leadership was concerned the letter may have an impact in the judicial application and confirmation process," the statement said.

I am sorry, but that doesn't pass the laugh test in spin doctoring. Here's why:

Wendell Gibby [the "longtime acquaintance of Buttars" on whose behalf the erstwhile Chairman wrote the infamous letter] would be surprised if Senate President John Valentine, R-Orem, punished Sen. Chris Buttars over a letter the latter sent a judge last May, chiding him for a ruling over a land dispute involving the Mapleton developer and city officials.
After all, Gibby said, Valentine gave the letter his nod of approval before Buttars, R-West Jordan, sent it.

"It would seem odd to me that Valentine would sack him for something he approved," Gibby said.

Moreover, the letter wasn't a "private expression of disappointment," it was a veiled threat laced with accusations of ideological bias. Since time and time again it is clear that Sen. Buttars doesn't know the first thing about the law, and more importantly, because it is unconstitutional (separation of powers anyone?), Buttars is the last person who should be telling a judge how to rule in a case.

The political scope and impact of the letter changed dramatically when it got released to the public, I think it is pretty clear that they didn't care about intimidating judges when they tried to sweep the letter under the rug when it was first brought to their attention.

Senate leaders had known for months about Sen. Chris Buttars' letter scolding a state judge who ruled against his friend, but let him continue to head the committee that screens judicial appointments until the letter hit the news media.
[...]
[Utah State] Bar President Lowry Snow said there was enough concern about the letter that the bar's board of commissioners scheduled a conference call Monday to discuss what to do about the issue. Shortly before the call took place, however, Valentine announced Buttars had been replaced as chairman by Sen. Greg Bell, R.-Fruit Heights.
Asked whether Buttars' removal as chairman satisfied the Bar's concerns, Snow said, "We believe it's a step in the right direction."

I am sure that was just a "coincidence." And getting the State Bar upset is worlds away from having the local chapter of the NCAAP or ACLU on your case, it is a big deal. Afterall, Sen. President Valentine is an attorney.

Sen. Buttars is becoming a burden and embarrassment on the majority in the Senate and Utah Republicans in general daily. This story has morphed from "is it racism?" to "is he unethical?" Anytime the story stays alive and changes angles, you know you can't shake this bad coverage. If I was Sen. President Valentine, I would demand Sen. Buttars not run for reelection or threaten to strip him of his committee assignments and possibly primary him. With the possibility that Utah Democrats might get enough seats to filibuster in the Senate next time thanks to vouchers, the last thing Senate Republicans need is questions about their ethics and overbearing nature.

Buttars late than never

It seems saying racist crap and threatening a judge who ruled against your friend while chairing the Judiciary Committee does have consequences.

Sen. Chris Buttars has been stripped of his chairmanship of the Senate Judicial Confirmation Committee, which screens the governor's nominees for the bench, and replaced by Sen. Greg Bell.
Senate President John Valentine announced the change today, but would not say why the decision was made, beyond noting that it is the prerogative of the president to select committee leaders.

And this is what he spent yesterday doing:

Sen. Chris Buttars stood at a microphone at Calvary Baptist Church on Sunday and apologized to the congregation for racially insensitive comments he made on the floor of the Utah Senate.
"All I can do," Buttars said, "is say I'll beg your forgiveness. It was wrong. It was stupid. And I ask, if it's possible, forgive me."

Sen. Pres. Valentine seems to have stripped Buttars of his chairmanship more for the letter and less for the offensive comments. And that letter to the judge is really what makes him unfit to chair a committee overseeing the judiciary.

Reports of the letter, which the judge filed in the case as "ex parte communication," reportedly caused a stir in the legal community.
Retired University of Utah law professor John Flynn called Buttars contact with the judge "far beyond the pale."
"No elected representative should engage in that kind of conduct, particularly if they have a position of power in the Legislature dealing with the judiciary," Flynn said. "It's just not an appropriate thing to do."

As much as Sen. Buttars would like, this story has lots of legs. He should really compare notes with ex-Sen. George Allen, who could have been the presumptive Republican nominee for president right now if he hadn't called a college kid Macaca.

targeting the Mathesons

In 2004, Scott Matheson Jr. ran for Governor and had the misfortune of running against an as famous name--Jon Huntsman Jr. Now in 2008, it seems the Romneys are thinking of doing the same thing Scott's little brother Jim.

Josh Romney, son of former presidential contender Mitt Romney, says he's been approached about running for Congress against incumbent Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah. He says he hasn't ruled out the possibility.

Josh is one of the few Romneys that still lives in Utah and would pit Utahn's professed love of Mitt against their professed love of Jim.

"I haven't ruled it out," Josh Romney, 32, of Millcreek, said of becoming a candidate himself. "I'm pretty young, but I've had good experience on the campaign trail." Plus, he said, he likely could count on his father's supporters here in Utah.

He also has to consider whether he's ready to take on the rigors of another race and spend more time away from his wife, Jen, and their three children, Owen, 1; Wyatt, 3; and Gracie, 5; as well as his career in real estate development.

Josh Romney is the only one of the family's five sons who lives in Utah. His father, who served as the head of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, was considered a "favorite son" presidential candidate in Utah.

Mitt Romney collected more contributions in Utah than in any other state except California and won Utah's Feb. 5 GOP primary with 90 percent of the vote. He and his family are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as are the majority of Utahns.

As of the end of 2007, Jim Matheson has $859,823 cash-on-hand and won 59% of the vote two years ago. Plus, he is now in the majority and could get more dough if he is a target given that he is on a big committee and the Democrats are going to hold onto the House and Senate next year (and seem likely to gain seats). So that is the downside for Josh. The upside is that he will have plenty of free press and easy ability to raise money.

This is probably the most serious challenge Jim has ever faced, but now he is in his 4th race for Congress has built up a reserve of good will from people all over the district. And the standard attacks that have been trotted out against him have failed spectacularly in years past. Nevertheless, Utah was pretty immune to the big Democratic wave last year so another wave this year might not make any difference here. I would be really worried for Jim if Mitt was still in the race, but then again, Josh would be working for his dad if Mitt could still win the nomination.

The irony is that if Republicans had the Democrats' rules for delegate selection, Romney would have been in Obama's boat after Super Tuesday--essentially tied--and if Democrats had used the Republican rules Clinton would be in McCain's position. But since things aren't reversed, Obama is now in the lead for the Democrats and McCain is going to be the GOP nominee.

Jim Matheson hasn't decided whom to support this time as a superdelegate. Last cycle, he supported Gen. Wesley Clark, who is hoping to be Hillary Clinton's VP pick. Sadly for Clark however, that prospect looks unlikely, but he didn't say anything bad about Obama so he still could have a good position in an Obama Administration.

As for Jim, I think he would survive against Josh Romney, but it would be a lot uglier than his races in the past four years.

what?

I was just skimming the headlines and noticed that our legislature cut funds for IB programs in high schools because they are afraid of "promoting the UN agenda." What?

IB program are college prep programs that allow students to get a great education at a public school, which is sadly a rarity in Utah. In my class at Brown, there were three kids from Utah. Two were from my private high school (including myself), the other was from West's IB program.

And beyond the fact that these are excellent programs that help students get into excellent colleges, the idea that these programs promote anti-American ideologies...

Skyline High School IB coordinator Ruth Dallas and Rebecca Odoardi, director of Davis School District gifted programs, said IB is definitely not anti-American.
"I have seen nothing in any of these courses to indicate there would be any anti-American sentiment," Odoardi said. "In fact, quite the opposite is true."

And beyond that, the UN isn't anti-American, nor does it have such an agenda. Member countries might have an anti-American agenda but they don't have any power within the UN. And for that matter, the UN doesn't have any power to begin with.

Bush gives Buttars advice

Sen. Buttars, you should listen to Mr. 19% on this one, we all should:

The era of rampant lynching is a shameful chapter in American history. The noose is not a symbol of prairie justice, but of gross injustice. Displaying one is not a harmless prank. And lynching is not a word to be mentioned in jest. As a civil society, we must understand that noose displays and lynching jokes are deeply offensive. They are wrong. And they have no place in America today.

--President George W. Bush, February 12, 2008
Appearantly, Buttars doesn't know how to quit when he is behind. From SL Tribune Opinion Columnist Rebecca Walsh's column today:

"Lynch mob is a Western term," Buttars said Tuesday night, after he ditched a meeting with the NAACP on his mea culpa tour. "That's not a racial term in my opinion. How do I know what words I'm supposed to use in front of those people?"

Really, why are all these people still defending him when he continues to make matters worse? It is like Trent Lott going on BET, really painful to watch.

the gift that keeps on giving

Sen. Buttars is now pushing back after trying to lay low last week. After his "black baby" comment, he gave the standard non-appology appology (I am sorry that you were offended, you oversensitive liberals) then hid out. Now even though his Republican collegues have asked him to announce he would not seek reelection, Buttars refused. West Jordan's state senator went so far as to compare the calls for his resignation by NCAAP and others to a lynch mob. That's right, a mob that used to severely beat, then hang black men and boys for merely whistling at a white woman or less.

I know Rob is in charge of candidate recruitment and some offices are more high profile, but I would tell him that Buttars' seat should be one of, if not the top target this fall. Every Republican in the legislature can be put on record about what they think of Buttars, every one of Buttars' donors can be asked if they approve of such statement. Sure, African-Americans make up .9% of the state population, and that number is probably less in Buttars' district, but I doubt that those who took offense was limited to Blacks. And really, the comment is just part of a series of actions by Buttars that are offensive and demeaning.

People don't like to be respresented by embarressing politicans, which is why they usually resign or pledge to not run again. Some times, like Rick Santorum, they get kicked to the curb by their constituents hard.

deja vu all over again

We all love to quote Yogi Berra but this one really is odd.

As you have probably heard already, George H.W. Bush officially endorsed John McCain today (the news leaked last week, but they wanted a big "President's Day" story). But the weird part is John McCain is sounding like a combo of both President Bushes. Of course, you know that McCain and Dubya are kindred spirits on the Iraq war, but did you know that John McCain made a "read my lips" pledge? That's right, he said "no new taxes."

And we might have a Clinton running against him. It is like 1992 all over again.

standing up to fear

Yesterday, House Democrats finally did something to defend the consitution by not doing anything. The Orewellianly titled "Protect America Act" was signed into law in August, when Congress was trying to head back to their districts/states to campaign and "suddenly" a terrorist warning for the Capitol came out. NSA head Mike McConnell threatened an attack if Congress didn't pass the law...so they did. Of course, no plot was uncovered, no suspects were arrested and nothing happened. Except that telecom companies, who are facing lawsuits from their customers because they alledgedly violated their privacy, were temporarily shielded from liability.

That liability was set to run out the beginning of 2008. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid promised civil liberarians that they wouldn't be a rubber stamp next time around. Yet Reid chose a Bush-blessed bill over a rhetroactive-immunity-free version for debate, and it passed the senate with 58 votes. Rather than rushing to pass an identical version of the bill in the House, the leadership there finally showed some leadership...and allowed the PAA to expire yesterday before Congress once again went home for a long weekend.

Bush and his allies claimed that the House had "let the terrorist win" by depriving them of effective tools to catch suspects. This is however, patently false. Now that the PAA is no longer in effect, those seeking to wiretap must get a warrrant from a secret court located inside the Justice Department's DC office building that has only denied warrants a handful of times in 30 years. Oh, and these warrants may be acquired 72 hours AFTER the suspect had been wiretapped.

Besides immunity to AT&T and other companies that allowed NSA to install devices to listen into all of our calls without a warrant, the PAA also allowed the Attorney General's word to trump any need for judicial review, since Bush's Attorney Generals are known for their "honesty" and "independence." FISA is a product of both the Watergate scandal and the Church Committee, which discovered that the Government is happy to spy on American citizens and political enemies of the Oval Office if no one notices.

Now we don't know what the Administration's been listening to or why. We do that the warrantless wiretapping program began BEFORE 9/11. We also know that due to the volume of calls, that no government agency could employ a sufficient number of people to listen to them all. Therefore, the devices installed in places like AT&T San Franscico office are designed for data mining. In fact, we have a former AT&T employee who gives us all the details of how it was done at his company. We don't know who the targets were or are, but we do know the potential for abuse of such absolute power (see Nixon, Richard Millhouse and Lord Acton) is there and we know that data mining has at best questionable utility in finding/stopping terrorist activities.

Some are willing to pull out all the stops (like laws and the constitution) to reduce any potential threat to the United States, even if it ironically makes the potential for threats worse by wasting time, effort and money on something useless and/or incites more people to join the Jihad against America. VP Cheney calls it the one-percent-doctrine, that is, if there is even a one percent chance that something might threaten US security, it is the responsibilty of the government to treat it as a certainty and do everything to stop it from occuring. I seem to recall that in 1945, we set up international tribunals to prosecute crimes against humanity, including those who tortured (using waterboarding) their enemies to gain intelligence to save their country. We lead the world to establish international laws against torture and for human rights shortly thereafter.

We beat the Soviets, the Nazis, and the Japanese without the use of torture or the need to spy on our own people without warrants. While the threat to American saftey from religious extremists remains very real, it is no where near as big a threat as those three were to the United States. No government, no matter how well meaning, should be above the law that created it.

debating debates

Many pixels have been spilled over the Democratic presidential race recently on side issues--like how Super Delegates should vote, what to do about Michigan and Florida--which probably will all fall into place if either Obama keeps on winning or HRC takes off again. (more on where the race is going below) But the silliest discussion line of them all is about debates.

Hillary Clinton is much better at debating than Barack Obama and she is also at this point behind him in the race. Therefore, she is calling for debates like Sam I Am called for the eating of Green Eggs and Ham ("...would you would you in box, would you would you on Fox [News]?"). It is as simple as that. And to waste hundreds of thousands on an ad that mentions that seems to be a waste, even if she was able to sneak her in advantage on health care. Why not spend that money on spending a day in Wisconsin, which shows her within the margin of error? Instead, she is camping out in Texas and Ohio. I just don't get it.

Obama's response is pretty lame too. But is the public really clammoring for more debates? And who really makes their minds based on a debate? In 2004, Kerry cleaned Bush's clock in the debates, but he still lost. In 2000, Bush won due to the expectations game (and sighing by Gore)...yet Gore won the popular vote. My favorite "TV show" these days is CNN's ballot bowl, because it shows alll of the candidates at their events (rallies or town halls) without commentary. I know CSPAN does this too, but it doesn't have the crawl going in case an event gets mega-boring. Such event-watching to me is better than a debate. Presidents don't debate Congress or the American people, they give speeches and hold press conferences/town hall meetings. You can see a potential president's ability to react and human side much better with citizen/press questions than barbs by their oposition.

This afternoon, I bumped into two prominant local Democrats and asked them what they thought of the state of the Democratic race. One thought Obama had the clear edge and was going to win, "you can't attack a movement" was a comment that stuck with this person. The other came to the oposite conclusion. "Every time Obama gets momentum, she comes right back and wins." This result was presumed to be due to women rallying to her campaign when it gets too picked on. What do you think? Is Hillary poised for a comeback or is the wave of momentum too high for her to stop?

Personally, I think she could come back too, and Obama now has to win Wisconsin convincingly in order to make a game of it in Texas and Ohio. I wonder if Lincoln Chafee's endorsement of Obama will help Barack at all in Rhode Island. Afterall, even though voters tossed him out in 2006, they still like him on a personal level.

in defense of a long, drawn out primary

So unless you don't own a TV or newspaper, you know that Obama destroyed Clinton last night in three more contests. Obama's campaign manager is saying that Clinton will have to win Texas and Ohio by large margins (20-30 points) in order for her to recapture the lead amoung pledged delegates, assuming he wins Hawaii and Wisconsin next week. Even if he does, it would be a big mistake of his to go through the motions in Texas and Ohio (maybe he is trying to lower expectations).

But the real point of this post is not talk strategy for once, but explain why Democrats are blessed with a surprisingly lengthy and hard-fought primary calendar ... and why the GOP should be increasingly nervous.

With each state contested, Obama and Clinton must find supporters and train staffers, draft field teams, walk neighborhoods, hold rallies, sign up supporters, hand out lawn signs, conduct visability, etc. It may sound like a collosal waste of money, but one concrete example of how this is helpful is Carol Shea-Porter. In 2004, she worked for Wesley Clark's primary campaign in New Hampshire. Clark narrowly got third place in that contest, but two years later, Carol fared much better. She beat the Democratic leader of the State House 54%-34% in the primaries without any money, and then beat the incumbent Republican Jeb Bradley 52-48 without any help from the outside and being outspent 5 to 1. Why, because she knew the issues and the district.

Now I am not saying that every supporter of Obama or Clinton will become Members of Congress, but what I am saying is that training staff and volunteers now leads to winning other elections in the future. Staffers who worked for Clark, Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, and Edwards in 2004 all became reliable hands for Obama, Clinton, and Edwards in 2008. These folks also helped Democrats win the House and Senate in 2006.

A battle between two smart, tough, well-funded, yet relatively friendly campaigns is a great way to train the next generation of political leaders and a great way to get people excited about your party. You get months and months of relatively positive coverage, and both end up looking like winners since they both won lots of states and votes.

The proof is in the pudding. Obama got much more than all of the Republican candidates combined yesterday in all three races, and Hillary Clinton bested McCain in terms of raw numbers of votes by about 100,000. And while Maryland and DC are safe Democratic territory, the last time Virginia went Blue was when Utah did--LBJ's landslide in 1964. Indeed, Democrats getting more votes in each state (except Utah, Arizona, and Florida and Michigan where they didn't campaign) than Republicans. Most of this is due to Democrats excitement about their chances in getting back the White House, but some of it has to be due to the fact that Clinton and Obama and spending serious sums to get people to the polls, money that will be well spent when we see returns in November. I am not saying it will be 1964 or 1984, but right now it looks to be a pretty good year...thanks in part to the primaries.

Patomac Primary Prognosication

Say that three times fast. Anyway, having lived in this region for a year (and last fall) I feel somewhat more qualified to quess at what will happen than I have in most other primaries (save Utah, Rhode Island, and Massacusetts, where I feel I have a sense).

For the Democrats, I predict Obama will get about 55 percent in Maryland and Virginia, and something like 70 percent in the District. Hillary briefly tried to contest Virginia, but then quickly saw some polls or something and gave up. She is already in Texas, trying to build up a lead in the Lone Star state (as well as Ohio and Rhode Island) so that she can withstand a probable last minute surge by Obama...in three weeks. Meanwhile, she is essentially skipping next week's contest Wisconsin, a big state that on paper would seems favorable to her (and Hawaii, but everyone knows Obama will get Virgin Island-like numbers out in the Aloha State).

I know part of this strategy is by necessity, but I still believe it to be a mistake. She can't keep writing off states claiming that she can't win caucuses, or states with large black populations, or states where Obama used to live, or Red States... Eventually, she starts to look like a loser by losing so many; the fact that she never seriously contested them doesn't make the loss any better. While the punditry always saw this month as the most favorable to him...assuming he survived Super Tuesday, it wasn't a forgone conclusion that he would sweep February's contests.

Both Obama's and Clinton's camps had initial strategies that never panned out, and are on plan B or C or D by now. Obama's was to win the first 4 early states and then sweep Kerry style...if that didn't work, it was to win South Carolina big (along with Nevada) and then survive Super Tuesday. Clinton's was to try to win Iowa, and if that didn't work, she had New Hampshire as a firewall...and Nevada...and then she was supposed to knock out Obama on Super Tuesday. Still, I think pinning your hopes on Super Delegates and Texas and Ohio is pretty scary.

Obama's path to the nomination is much simpler to understand. He keeps on winning. Assuming he wins today big and then also Hawaii, he goes 9-1 at worst in February. He could also gets Wisconsin, which seems to be more and more likely given that a) southern Wisconsin is drivable from Chicago, b) Madison and Milwaukee proper are prime Obama territory, c) unlike other states, Obama has more state elected by his side here. If that were to happen, it would 10-0 in February and he could hope that a last minute surge will take him over the top in either Ohio or Texas. Texas' system is more like a caucus than a primary, so maybe he can do well. Winning that state would once and for all put to rest the "Black-Brown divide" questions and winning Ohio would put to rest the working class questions. If he won both of those states, Clinton would drop out. If she won one of them, they fight on, if she wins both, we are back to even Steven. Then Pennslyvania gets very interesting. There will be a long period between March 4th and the April contest, meaning Obama and Clinton will treat the Keystone state like New Hampshire or Iowa (and camp out there).

On the Republican side, I am going to pick my upset special--Virginia goes for Huckabee. McCain is sleepwalking through this set of primaries and as far as I can tell lost every contest last week (WA's results look very fishy). Southern VA is one of the centers of the theocons--home to the late Jerry Fallwell and still kicking Pat Robertson--and that region is swinging rapidly towards the Huckster, who went to Jerry's son's (they inherited their Dad's megachurch) service on Sunday and got standing O's.

What an amazing year. It seems that nearly every state and protectorate will get a voice in deciding who the nominees will be. Democratic voters, of course, will have more say because of the parity between Obama and Clinton, but Republican voters also get to tell us what they think about McCain. It is facinating to watch and I can tell you for sure that the world is watching very closely.

Jesus, attorney at law

(image courtesy of the Subversive Intellectual Society)

This Sunday's reading was from Mathew's version of the Tempation of Christ. And what struck me was not the fantastical nature of the story itself (which makes it very unlike almost all of the other New Testiment stories) but how much Jesus and Satan sounded like lawyers.

The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."
Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"
...
"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written:
" 'He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"
Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"
....
the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."
Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"

Satan, like all bad lawyers, quotes stuff out of context to misconstrue the meanings of the passages. Jesus, like any good attorney worth his salt, is ready to perry with not just a quibble over his oposition's quote, but a more powerful one that counters even the misquote.

To me, the phrase "for it is written" has special meaning...written words were rare in Jesus' day, reserved only for the most important things (like holy books or the history of kings). Writing something down took rare expertise and/or money, and cannoted the desire for preeminance and perminance of the words.

While nowadays writing is commonplace and a sigificant number of the world's population is literate, we still hold the written word in high regard. There is a reason the Founders spent weeks tweaking the language of the Constitution, which unlike its British counterpart, was explicitly written down. Those of us who study the law and literature know that writen words still have special power over us.

Remember that next time you are wandering in the proverbial Desert for a proverbial 40 days and 40 nights.

a three-legged stool

For some reason, Republican candidates and other conservatives have consistantly talked about their party as being a stool made of three legs: economic conservatives (tax cuts are a panacea and social darwinism), foreign policy conservatives (Iraq went so well, let's bomb Iran too), and social conservatives (pro-life, anti-gay, culture warrior). Each of the three candidates remaining before Super Tuesday represented these "legs" --Romney is first and foremost a economic conservative, wanting tax cuts for the rich and spending cuts on social programs; McCain is the neocon: author of the surge and ur-supporter of the Iraq war, his key senatorial endorsees are Iraq war cheerleaders Linsay Graham and Joe Lieberman; and Huckabee is the social conservative...an ordianed Baptist minister no less. Now there was overlap, Romney lead on the issue of Gay Marriage when his state's supreme court legalized it and McCain has supported tax cuts in the past.

This weekend's Conservative PAC meeting in DC (CPAC) really shows the possiblity that the Republican party's base would rather be right than win. John McCain got booed, Romney was begged not to quit, and Ann Coulter tried to garner attention by claiming to support Hillary Clinton over McCain (her books didn't sell this year at CPAC though).

John McCain's speech was well recieved, but conservatives feel about him the way Democrats feel about Joe Lieberman--betrayed. It appears that while Clinton and Obama campaign for at least another month, McCain is going to have to assusage conservative fears by promising to do very conservative things very explicitly. It is another month that John McCain can't fundraise and organize his team for the fall, and another month he can't attack the Democratic nominee because there is basically a 50-50 chance either one of them could win.

It is up to the RNC and 527s to start hitting Obama and Clinton hard for him, but given his campaign finance reform stance, he can't really let the 527s to that for him, so that leaves the Party. Then he has the problem of tarnishing his "Maverick" image that gives him good numbers among swing voters. The more he has to shout "I'm just like George Bush!" from the hilltops, the more problematic it is for him.

Meanwhile, Democratic 527s can start attacking McCain now and Clinton and Obama will have a reasonable case to be made that they had nothing to do with it. They can show pictures of McCain hugging Bush, and Bush and McCain celebrating his birthday while New Orleans drowned. Democrats are clearly going to try to merge McCain into Bush, while McCain feels the need to do the same to shore up his base.

money can't buy you love

Another money and politics post, this time on the folly of believing money alone can save a doomed candidate.

One of the most spectacular falls in all of presidential politics has to be Rudy. He spent $50M and got one delegate. And remember, as late as December, he had big leads in many big states and a national polling edge, and had raised more money than Romney (more on him in a second). Yet the more people saw him, the less people liked him. He got Joe Lieberman like support...despite big time endorsers. And in the end it wasn't his history of liberal positions on issues that spooked Republican primary voters, it was his meglomania and grating personality that did it.

The second biggest waste of money thus far was Willard Mitt Romney. He spent slightly over $1M per a delegate, and dropped out a few minutes ago. Romney won only two contested states--Michigan and Massachusetts. And both were only nominally contested by John McCain (and both of which Romney had spent nearly half his life in and a guy named Romney had been governor) All of the rest of his victories came in caucuses or straw polls where his money and lack of attention by the big boys allowed him to win big. Granted, he got close in Florida and Missouri and if he had won those (and Iowa and New Hampshire) he would have been the presumptive nominee. But he didn't, McCain won Missouri and Florida and New Hampshire (and lots of other big Blue States), so he is the GOP nominee to be.

Oh and Ron Paul raised a lot of money, but he can't seem to break out his 11% support box. Now his 11% are very ferverent and organized, and he certainly is no Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel, but he sure hasn't won a single state with all those millions.

So keep that in mind when you hear that Obama raised over $7M since Super Tuesday and Clinton raised over $4M (plus the $5M loan). Or that some Clinton staffers are "voluntarily" going without pay. Money isn't everything, delegates are everything.

mo' money, mo' problems

(Image by Demtri Martin)

As of December 31, 2007, Hillary Clinton had raised over $118M, but had spent about $80M....Barack Obama during the same period raised about $104M and spent $85M. We won't know the Q1 numbers for 2008 for a while, but we do know that Sen. Obama raised $32M in January while Sen. Clinton raised $13.5M during that same period. And given how expensive it was to run 21 simultanious campaigns, many in huge media markets it seems her money is all spent.

her campaign has just confirmed that she’d already lent her coffers $5 million of her own money in late January.
...
Her advisers says she’s considering another loan because money is tight now.

With that, she sent out an email asking her supporters to give $3M in 3 days on the heals of her wins in CA, NY, NJ, etc. Both the Clintons and the Obama are very recently rich...and both made their money off book royalties on books they wrote (or got noticed) in the 2000s. Of course, Bill also used to get paid hundreds of thousands to make a speech somewhere.

It seems though that Hillary is in dire financial straights, despite having more money to spend going into 2008 than Barack did.

John McCain is is a similarly tight money struggle, but his troubles are more complex and entangled. He raised $42M in 2007, but spent $39M and has something like $4M in debts, which were secured via a loan on his fundraising list, a life insurance policy (because he is 71 years old), but not the $5.8M he is to theorically recieve in March from the FEC. The trouble is, he doesn't want those matching funds any more. Why not? Because campaigns that accept public financing can only spend $52M overall in the primaries, which has might have already passed. The trouble for him is, the FEC doesn't have a quorum to run on is request to withdraw from public financing in the primaries and the limitations that come with it. Why doesn't the FEC have a quorum, Sen. Min. Leader Mitch McConnell demanded a vote on all 4 nominees in a block because one of the nominees is controversal--and blocked by Sen. Obama. Sen. McConnell--an avid oponent of McCain-Feingold--is pleased by the incapacitation of the FEC.

There is some debate whether he can get out of the system once he asked for money. ex-Commissioner Michael Toner thinks yes, but most election law experts think it will be a close call. Plus, there is the appearance problem of having the most famous advocate of campaign finance reform seaking to weazle out of system he helped create. To be fair, McCain has advocated for higher spending limits to make a public funding system more viable. But the trouble is, that critical distinction might get lost in the coverage/perception.

All of which has got the Sens. McCain and Clinton singing:

I don't know what, they want from me
It's like the more money we come across
The more problems we see

Rest In Peace Biggie Smalls

Ash Wednesday

After yesterday's Shove Tuesday, we now face the inevitable let down of Ash Wednesday. No more electoral pancakes like this in a long time. And speaking of ashes, it is clear one candidate had a really bad night: Mitt Romney.

The Republican race is clearing up. Conservatives aren't sold on McCain, but they are sure that they don't like Romney. Huckabee still has allure to voters in the South and almost pulled out a massive upset in Missouri, which would have revived his campaign big time had he pulled it off. While McCain has a commanding lead, he also has not closed the deal. He still needs to convince conservatives that he will hew the line if he becomes president. So look for him to talk a lot about judges, tax cuts, abortion, and cutting spending. Also, Huckabee might have played himself onto the ticket as a VP. McCain will need to pick a conservative, one that is a proven vote getter. He might want to pick a Sam Brownback, but clearly Huckabee is a much better campaigner and speaker than Sen. Brownback.

On the Democratic side, it is a virtual tie. Obama's folks will talk about winning more states (and, according to their estimates, more delegates) than Clinton, however, she still holds a narrow ( >100) lead in delegates when you include Super Delegates and even more if you count Michigan and Florida. Clinton's people will talk about how Obama won (except for Missouri) zero big states--Michigan, Florida, New York, New Jersey, and California all went her way. Moreover, they will point out that Obama is like the Democratic version of McCain--winning states that are in all likelihood not going to be in their party's column in November (for Obama, that is Idaho, Alaska, Utah, Kansas, North Dakota, South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia; for McCain its New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Connecticut, and California). However, unlike the Republicans, Democrats are very pleased with their choices (71-72 would be very happy with either Obama or Hillary, even if they supported the other), so I don't think Obama's lack of winning California and New York is going to mean he will lose those states to McCain. However, maybe Obama has a case that he can make some red states closer (and maybe flip a some) and that he would be better for down ticket Democrats in states like Utah.

But neither Obama nor Hillary landed a knockout punch tonight. The only real surprise was Missouri...but even there, Obama had newly elected Sen. Claire McCaskill. Barack closed the gap in many states where he was far behind, but not enough to take the states, even when he had high profile endorsements and rallies. See Mass., NJ, AZ, and California. In states where there is early voting, Obama's surges are negated due to Hillary Clinton's superior absentee ballot operation. See California and Florida.

So who is ahead, who will win the Democratic nomination? Your guess is as good as mine. It seems Obama will have a good week coming up with Washington, Nebraska, and Louisiana in 3 days. The first two because they are caucuses, which he seems to always win, and the second because of the large African-American population. Sunday features the Maine caucuses, which also should be an Obama win. Then Tuesday is the Potomac Primary--VA, MD, and DC--where large African-American populations combined with big rallies in DC also look good for Obama to win those states. On the 19th, there are three more contests that favor Obama: Hawaii caucuses, Washington and Wisconsin primaries. Obama should crush Hillary in his home state of Hawaii, and he is up in Washington state. I don't know about Wisconsin but Obama has done well in Midwestern states thus far (IL, IA, MO, KS) and the Badger State is drivable from Chicago where he must have a large base of volunteers. And I think he has to win all or nearly all of these states to have any chance of settling this prior to the convention.

Because after that is another mini-Super Tuesday where he will not do too well. Ohio, Texas, Vermont, and Rhode Island are March 4th. My Obama-supporting friend who ran the Democratic parties GOTV in Rhode Island doubts Obama has a shot there. Vermont he has a chance, and maybe Ohio, but Texas looks problematic for him with the large Latino population and the general problem he has in big states. Obama needs to win these states as well to really knock Clinton out. While he won't have won the necessary delegates, there could be pressure for her to drop out if he wins all of February and early March...along with his growing financial edge. Both candidates strategies thus far have worked to a degree but they haven't been able to knock the other out of the picture. And baring an unlikely sweep like I outlined above, it is not going to happen.

Anyway, enjoy Lent, and congrats to Obama and Romney organizers in Utah. Oh and what is the deal with New Mexico's primary? Did bizzaro Bill Richardson told them to hold up the results so he could endorse Clinton or Obama?