Spokane, Washington, public schools, in an effort to be inclusive, left out the holiday that is essentially the reason for the holiday season: Christmas. What was included? Well, Hanukkah, Human Rights Day, winter break, Eid al-Adha (the Islamic holy day), Kwanzaa, and the first day of winter. But no Christmas.
Just as a side note:
Huckabee is supposedly "booming." Well, let's look at Real Clear Politics:
Iowa: The average has Huckabee up only .2 points. Three out of five polls have Romney leading, with two out of five with Huckabee ahead.
New Hampshire: The average has Romney up by nearly 15 points. Huckabee is fourth, with one poll showing him in third and two polls showing him in fifth place. Romney leads in every poll.
Florida: Huckabee and his team are saying that he is now second in Florida. However, the average has Giuliani up just over 14 points. Huckabee is only in second according to one out of three polls, while Romney is in second in two. Giuliani leads in every poll.
First: Media Politics: A Citizen's Guide by Shanto Iyengar and Jennifer McGrady of Stanford University.
With the 2008 primary elections quickly approaching, the subject of the media's role in political campaigns is in the back of many minds. And if it's not, it should be. It doesn't matter if a candidate has a strong message unless the candidate has a good media strategy. Consider Fred Thompson - he has what he Opinion Journal argues is "more ambitious than anything we've seen so far from the rest of the GOP field." He wants to get rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax, cut the corporate income tax, and implement a voluntary flat tax. That's right- a voluntary flat tax. Did you know this? I didn't. Why? Because Thompson doesn't have an adequate media machine like Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee. (it's also partially because Thompson doesn't articulate his plans during debates; he focuses on attacking the frontrunners).
Anyway, the book tells it like it is: for a candidate to win an election, he or she must have a good public image. Unfortunately, this results in candidates and elected officials being preoccupied with public image instead of giving straightforward answers.
The book also touches on the media's tendency to gloss over their mistakes (i.e.: WMD's in Iraq and Saddam Hussein's involvement in the 9/11 attacks).
In case you aren't familiar with what constitutes a "networked economy," think of Facebook and its applications- though the applications are Facebook applications, they are made by users, not by Facebook itself. It is the value added by the users in the form of applications that exemplifies a networked economy.
One of the main points of this book is that networked economies cannot be treated like traditional economies.
Furthermore, Benkler talks about the power of the internet to allow everyone to have their say (and be heard) and claims this is indeed a good thing after years of dealing with top-down, centralized media in which the user has no real way to contribute.
To show how dedicated Benkler is to the cause of networked economies, as well as the "creative commons," he has allowed his book to be edited by readers. Visit the book's wiki by clicking here.
Democrats run away from a Fox News hosted debate because of "bias" but Republicans participate in a CNN You-Debate hosted by none other than Anderson Cooper in which proponents of Hillary, Barack and John Edwards are chosen to ask questions of the Republicans. Does this sound right to you? Why aren't republican voters chosen as question-askers? It is the republican primary the candidates are campaigning for after all.
Oh, and then you have Anderson Cooper and CNN not doing the slightest bit of research on the questioners... Major Garrett reported on Fox this morning that a simple Google search tells you that the democratic questioners are supporting the respective candidates. Hmm.
And then there's the fist-fight that almost broke out.
Did anyone else notice that when Huckabee wanted to respond to Romney's accusations and ask Romney to allow him a chance to respond, Romney let him. But when it Romney's turn to respond, Huckabee wouldn't let him finish. Interesting.
And as for those of you who think Romney just says what will get him elected or that he doesn't answer the questions... let me remind you of this:
1. Huckabee constantly refers to his Christianity 2. Rudy's answers always come back to: "George Will said I ran the most conservative government" (too bad the American Conservative Union endorsed Romney) "I cut taxes 23 times" "crime went down" and "9/11." 3. Fred Thompson's wife is really the one running 4. Duncan Hunter only talks about the fence he built 5. Tom Tancredo focuses on immigration 6. McCain relies on his military service 7. Ron Paul is all about pulling the troops out of Iraq
Oh, and when Romney responded to the ad by Thompson, Romney at least gave a humble answer: "I was wrong." And he expanded to say that when it came time to make executive decisions about matters of life, that was when he sided with life. Not when he decided to run for president.
Anyway, the candidates have to say what they want to say during the short amount of time they have to say it because there are too many people running. Half of the candidates on the stage (Thompson, Hunter, Tancredo, McCain) shouldn't be wasting our time. If there were less people participating in the debates, there would be more time for substantive answers to the question at hand.
Oh, and why were Giuliani and Thompson placed in the middle? Does CNN not know that Huckabee, Giuliani and Romney are the 3 leaders?
As I've been saying for a good while now, if any other Republican candidate was leading in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and doing well in South Carolina, he would be considered the frontrunner. However, because it is Mitt Romney who is in this position, the GOP nomination is considered "wide open," or narrowed down to Rudy, Romney and Huckabee.
Why?
Because Mitt Romney hasn't polled well in national polls and he has very little name recognition especially when compared to Rudy.
But...
National polls don't mean anything. They don't take into account the electoral college... they disregard the fact that a candidate can win the presidency without winning the popular vote. In the primary the early states are incredibly important, which is why the candidates focus their time and money campaigning in them.
Anyway, the Talking Points Memo has an article on an "epiphany" the writer had about how well Romney is doing.
Face it, Rudy is really only doing well in Florida, Thompson is wasting his time campaigning in states where the primary isn't so important and McCain, well, there's been a lot of talk about his resurgence but he had his time as the frontrunner (way back when before the presidential campaigns really got started).
Oh, and Huckabee? The TPM says, "We've given a lot of editorial attention to Huckabee's surge in Iowa and the consequences it could have for Romney. I still believe that. But the graph makes pretty clear that the issue is Huckabee's surge, not any drop off in Romney's support. He's still rising, albeit at a slower pace. And that may simply be due to the fact that in a large field it gets harder to keep up the rate of increase in support as you near 30% of the total."
The italicized sentence is really important and something that no one has touched upon when talking about Huckabee's performance in Iowa.
On the Democratic side in Iowa, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich believes Obama is going to prevail. My question: why do we even care what Gingrich says? He was the Speaker during the 1994 Republican "revolution" and he's written a few books, but his place is in policy-making, not in election-predicting.
1. Selective Pregnancy Reduction(aka abortion) is the thing to do when you decide you have the right to play God. If you get pregnant by "accident" and decide the baby's life is not worth having (even though adoption is always an option), remember this phrase and you'll feel better about yourself and your ability to have a choice.
2. John Howard, former PM of Australia and Bush-ally, lost his re-election bid. So, should liberals be jumping up and down for joy? Not really since the new PM, Kevin Rudd, is likely to follow Howard's foreign policy route. In a summary of the election, Time writes:
"A vote for Rudd was a vote for someone new. But not too different. Cartoonists drew Rudd as a mini-Howard. A satirical video on YouTube cast the Chinese-speaking Labor leader as Chairman Mao, with subtitles reading: “Rudd unnerve decrepit Howard with clever strategy of ’similar difference.’” Rather than attacking Howard’s strengths, Rudd appropriated them. “I am not a socialist,” Rudd insisted. “I am an economic conservative.” On issue after issue, from federal intervention in dysfunctional Aboriginal communities, to national security, to the expansion of coal and uranium mining, Rudd adopted the government’s line."
More importantly:
"On Iraq, Rudd has moderated Labor's earlier "pull-out-now" policy. He says he will bring home the 1,400 Australian troops in Iraq and the Gulf gradually, in a "negotiated, staged withdrawal." He is prepared to send more troops to Afghanistan."
I've reported on the Democratic boycott of Florida and I've gotten some feedback from people (both from FL and not from FL) saying that I've been too harsh on the democratic presidential candidates and whatever else.
Well...
The Miami Herald has a story on the latest Mason Dixon Florida poll. The poll contains a lot of information but in general election match-ups...
Rudy Giuliani beats Hillary by 7 points. Fred Thompson beats Hillary by 4 points. Mitt Romney beats Hillary by 1 point.
Most interesting, though, is that more independents (54%, 47% and 45% respectively) selected the Republican candidate over Hillary.
Why? The Democratic boycott of Florida.
26% of independents said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who "refuses to campaign in Florida in advance of the primary in order to placate voters in Iowa and New Hampshire."
According to the Sunshine Independents Blog, more than 2 million Floridians (19% of Florida voters ) are registered as independents. So, if 2 million independents vote, then roughly 520,000 of them would vote for the Republican candidate only because of the boycott. That's a lot more than the 527 votes that won Florida, and ultimately the presidency, for George W. Bush in 2000.
In 2004 John Kerry received 54% of independent votes to Bush's 41%. In 2000, 47% of independent voters marked their ballots for Al Gore while 46% voted for Bush. As stated earlier in this post, the independents are already leaning more toward Giuliani, Romney and Thompson than Hillary although the Democrat has won the majority of independent votes in Florida in the past 2 presidential elections.
Looks like Florida will play a key role in the presidential election once again.
Oh yeah, the relatively newly elected democratic Congress is setting new records. According to Gallup: "By historical standards, the current [congressional] 20% approval rating is among the lowest Gallup has ever recorded. In fact, in the 173 times since 1974 that Gallup has asked Americans to rate the job Congress is doing, Congress' approval rating has been at or below 20% only four times."
Again, the independents play a role here as only 14% of them approve of the current Congress. That's lower than th 20% of republicans that approve.
President Bush's approval rating is at 32% with 27% of independents approving of his job performance.
