More than 700 people called the Virginia State Board of Elections to ask, "Why aren't my polls opened, and where do I go to vote?" said Susan S. Pollard, a spokeswoman for the board. On a typical day, the board fields 150 to 200 calls.

That could be good news for Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in his matchup against Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) for the Democratic nomination. National public opinion polls indicate Obama leads Clinton by wide margins among young voters.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Oh, and do you really need to kill animals to show what a great president you'd be?

The late President Ronald Reagan's daughter Patti Davis has an Op-Ed in the current issue of Newsweek (web edition); good-naturedly slamming the current crop of Republican presidential wannnabes for the constant comparison's of their earthly beings to his dearly departed one.

Patti's plea is a simple one. To paraphrase Patti and the witty Lloyd Bensten, "I knew Ronald Reagan. And you, sirs, are no Ronald Reagan".

Patti, whose political leanings differed greatly from her dad's, makes special mention of all the talk of personal religion in this campaign. She simply states,

On Friday's "Today Show", Mitt Romney again brandished my father's name, and claimed that, just as Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, Romney can effectively govern and manage foreign policy in this horribly troubled world.

This, of course, was preceded by Romney's televised speech about his religion and his personal faith-something my father would never have dreamed of doing because his faith was, well, personal.

It's worth noting here that it was Reagan who first realized the potential voting power of Christian Evangelicals and Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority played a large part in both of Reagan's two wins.

We've talked on this blog about whether or not Ronald Reagan could be elected now here and here. Compared to the Republican candidates we see today, I don't think Ronnie would have much of a chance. Ms. Davis mentions how her father managed to win two elections without ever having looked ridiculous dressed up in camo and blaze orange:

So, apparently, we are being told that a competent, trustworthy president is someone who brandishes his religion like a neon sign, loads a gun and goes out hunting for beautiful winged creatures, and tries to imitate a past president (who, by the way, never shot a bird or felt the need to imitate anybody.) Lest you think I'm only zeroing in on Republicans, I haven't forgotten John Kerry's awkward donning of camouflage for a duck hunt.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Fear. Sigh.

In comments made by Bill Clinton in Iowa this past week, we see rhetoric that could have come directly from Vice President Cheney's mouth. A subtle shift in his and Hillary's stump speeches in the "closing arguements" phase of the Iowa caucus campaign is meant to give pause to those concerned about national security and the spector of other attacks on our country.

Borrowing from Karl Rove's "if you don't vote for X, we'll all die", here's Bill:

(via Washington Post)

"You have to have a leader who is strong and commanding and convincing enough . . . to deal with the unexpected," he said. "There is a better than 50 percent chance that sometime in the first year or 18 months of the next presidency, something will happen that is not being discussed in this campaign. President Bush never talked about Osama bin Laden and didn't foresee Hurricane Katrina. And if you're not ready for that, then everything else you do can be undermined. You need a president that you trust to deal with something that we will not discuss in this campaign. . . . And I think, on this score, she's the best of all."

Hill and Bill have long touted Hillary's vastly superior experience and the standard stump speeches have hammered her rivals as being too new, too untested to be President. But aside from the vague terror threat now being put forth at the last minute, that argument hasn't passed the smell test - especially coming from Bill - for me and alot of other Democrats. Bill argued on the Charlie Rose show that choosing anyone other than his wife would be "a roll of the dice". Well I'm one of the people that rolled the dice on a very young and very naive William Jefferson Clinton in 1992 and was happy to have done so. At that point Bill Clinton was a former governor of a small southern state who's foreign experience mostly consisted of not inhaling at Oxford.

What kind of foreign policy experience did Saint Ronnie or W have? There's some pretty mixed results and I'm surely not convinced it matters all that much.

We of course knew that the spector of fear and terror would be with us this election cycle. I was hoping not to have it's ugly head reared until the general election match-up. John Edwards' campaign knew it was coming:

"We know that Senator Clinton will spend the week touting her national security credentials in a move that echoes George Bush's 2004 campaign. We believe Democrats will not be fooled by efforts to play on their fears."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

I think I have found my ticket for the 2008 Presidential Campaign.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

The GOP successfully defended two House seats in special elections today: Virginia 1 and Ohio 5. Ohio 5 is noteworthy because of a very bitter primary fight and the subsequent investment of the major parties. The Democrats were hoping for an upset in a low turnout December election, but failed to even push the meter beyond what happened in 2006. I've been tracking it all night on Nixguy and it turned out to be a lot less exciting than promised.

All of which would be a complete waste of time for the Democrats except that they did manage to get the NRCC to push the panic button and dump nearly a half million into defending the seat. Which is just cold comfort to the Democrats, because the real takeaway is that the GOP is just as safe as ever in safe GOP districts. Which might be enough to stop the tidal wave of retirements that has been setting the GOP back.

Of course it may also just mean that low turnout helps Republicans. Always.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Two critical elections were held over the weekend, determining the potential legacies of the two most powerful socialist-leaning leaders in the world.

In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez fell just short (49%-51%) of passing a national referendum which would have dramatically increased his power. On the other hand, Vladimir Putin's United Russia party won a tremendous victory in Russian parliamentary elections, ensuring Putin's continuing influence at the helm of Russian governance.

Of course, both of these results could be viewed as positive for American interests. Hugo Chavez is attempting to establish an anti-American socialist empire in South America, so any curbing of his power is to the advantage of the U.S. (See opinion roundup here.) Conversely, Putin and his political supporters may reflect the best option for democratic preservation in present day Russia. Putin may have been forged in the old-regime mold of communist-hardened tough-men, but his opponents are red-communist detritus of the Soviet Union who would make the iron-fisted Putin seem warm and fuzzy by way of comparison.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Regular readers will know that we here at Political Machine spend a lot of time covering how the media covers political debate and discussion. Some early repercussions from the latest CNN-YouTube GOP debate were covered here and here. From both sides of the political spectrum we're finding an awful lot lacking in not only the cable network-sponsored debates, but the cable and print pundit discourse in general.

LA Times reporter Tim Rutten's article yesterday certainly struck a chord with me:

CNN: Corrupt News Network
A self-serving agenda was set for the Republican presidential debates.

(Note: CNN is an AOL Trusted Partner)

THE United States is at war in the Middle East and Central Asia, the economy is writhing like a snake with a broken back, oil prices are relentlessly climbing toward $100 a barrel and an increasing number of Americans just can't afford to be sick with anything that won't be treated with aspirin and bed rest.

So, when CNN brought the Republican presidential candidates together this week for what is loosely termed a "debate," what did the country get but a discussion of immigration, Biblical inerrancy and the propriety of flying the Confederate flag?

In fact, this most recent debacle masquerading as a presidential debate raises serious questions about whether CNN is ethically or professionally suitable to play the political role the Democratic and Republican parties recently have conceded it.

Add to this the pretty poor vetting of the video-makers. I don't see any problem with having ALL Americans involved in this process (Republicans asked questions at the Dem version of the YouTube debate), but it probably should have been disclosed - especially in the case of the Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr. CNN has a bad record disclosing the political leanings of it's players. Just minutes before the debate, CNN had, I believe for the first time, disclosed that commentator and contributor James Carville supported Hillary both with advise and money. Granted most of us hard newsies know this, but the casual observer may not have known. MSNBC is just as guilty on this score - especially Meet The Press.

The article brings to light the basic vox populi aspect of these YouTube debates and how CNN then went on to destroy the orgininal intent - having "the people" ask the questions. CNN viewers, not CNN, should have chosen what topics were covered according to what was important to them - not CNN's ratings and their perception of what we care about, which is NEVER on the mark.

Rutten goes on to challenge the very premise of spending nearly the first half-hour on the immigration debate:

So, why did CNN make immigration the keystone of this debate? What standard dictated the decision to give that much time to an issue so remote from the majority of voters' concerns? The answer is that CNN's most popular news-oriented personality, Lou Dobbs, has made opposition to illegal immigration and free trade the centerpiece of his neonativist/neopopulist platform. In fact, Dobbs led into Wednesday's debate with a good solid dose of immigrant bashing. His network is in a desperate ratings battle with Fox News and, in a critical prime-time slot, with MSNBC's Keith Olbermann. So, what's good for Dobbs is good for CNN.

In other words, CNN intentionally directed the Republicans' debate to advance its own interests. Make immigration a bigger issue and you've made a bigger audience for Dobbs.

While that might go a bit further than I might have gone, I do understand the sentiment. We all have, on both sides, been burned (or perceive to be burned) by the media that any reporting now is suspect. My colleague Tommy Christopher has a great piece on this here.

Rutten finds that, according to Pew polls, immigration is 6th on the list of things that Republican voters care about the most.

Bottom line: as American's we're not being well-served by our media. Beltway journalists have gotten lazy and far too cozy with the politicians that they cover - (see Glenn Greenwald - all of it). Cable news is trash. We've allowed the print and on-air media define our issues. In moderating debates, the outlets push their own agendas - futhering their own viewerships by manufacturing conflicts and chaos where none may even exist. Making stories "sexy".

If you're not getting the media you need, write or call and complain. When you see some riculousness on a magazine or newspaper's blog written by a puported journalist, comment!

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government;... whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, 1789. ME 7:253

"Democracy demands an informed electorate. Voters who lack adequate knowledge about politics will find it difficult to control public policy. Inadequate voter knowledge prevents government from reflecting the will of the people in any meaningful way. Such ignorance also raises doubts about democracy as a means of serving the interests of a majority. Voters who lack sufficient knowledge may be manipulated by elites. They may also demand policies that contravene their own interests." --Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 525, Sept. 22, 2004, Ilya Somin.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

As if Bernard Kerik's indictment, employing a priest who has faced allegations of child sex abuse and new allegations of hiding security costs incurred during adulterous trysts with future wife Judith Nathan, three marriages and pro-abortion, pro-gay rights and anti-gun stances weren't enough for Republican conservatives to stomach, now come new allegations of Rudy's involvement with some of the very "Islamic Terrorists" he promises to quash if elected President of 9/11.

Mr. Giuliani has had a long and involved relationship with Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifah al-Thani since right after 9/11 and the government of Qatar in dealings with his company, Giuliani Partners.

That doesn't sound too sinister until you start looking into Sheikh al-Thani and Qatar going back to the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993...

Barrett starts the article with a scene just weeks after 9/11 and right after Rudy had very publically refused the money of a Saudi prince who had made disparaging remarks about our relationship with the Israeli's and the Palestinians:

Three weeks after 9/11, when the roar of fighter jets still haunted the city's skyline, the emir of gas-rich Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifah al-Thani, toured Ground Zero. Although a member of the emir's own royal family had harbored the man who would later be identified as the mastermind of the attack-a man named Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, often referred to in intelligence circles by his initials, KSM-al-Thani rushed to New York in its aftermath, offering to make a $3 million donation, principally to the families of its victims. Rudy Giuliani, apparently unaware of what the FBI and CIA had long known about Qatari links to Al Qaeda, appeared on CNN with al-Thani that night and vouched for the emir when Larry King asked the mayor: "You are a friend of his, are you not?"

The Emir also has a very large stake in Al-Jazeera whom some in the Bush Administration have dubbed "Terror TV".

But there was another reason to think twice about accepting al-Thani's generosity that Giuliani had to have been aware of, even as he heaped praise on the emir. Al Jazeera, the Arabic news network based in Qatar (pronounced "Cutter"), had been all but created by al-Thani, who was its largest shareholder. The Bush administration was so upset with the coverage of Osama bin Laden's pronouncements and the U.S. threats to bomb Afghanistan that Secretary of State Colin Powell met the emir just hours before Giuliani's on-air endorsement and asked him to tone down the state-subsidized channel's Islamist footage and rhetoric. The six-foot-eight, 350-pound al-Thani, who was pumping about $30 million a year into Al Jazeera at the time, refused Powell's request, citing the need for "a free and credible media."

Barrett spends a good portion of the article describing in-depth the Giuliani Partner's security contracts with the government of Qatar and Qatar's known harboring of terrorists and other nasty business. If this information makes the light of day in MSM (other than Olbermann who hosted Barrett last night) will it hurt Giuliani?

As well-sourced and inflammatory as Barrett's article is, I see much less "there" there than our relationship with the Saudi's. To that point, Qatar may be harboring terrorists and cozying up to Iran's Ahmadinejad, but they are considered allies, we have troops stationed there and our oil companies deal with them quite successfully.

Some may find Giuliani's ties with Qatar out of the ordinary or even suspect, but I don't believe they'll be any blowback on this. I'm assuming his personal trevails and issue flips will be much more damaging if he becomes the Republican nominee. If it winds up being Clinton v Giuliani, watch "swiftboating" elevated to an art form.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

I've been looking forward to the CNN GOP YouTube debate ever since the Republicans mocked the Dems for doing it and then decided to join in the fun after all. I'm really glad they did.

Check out this great ditty homage to this upcoming debate courtesy of "pudgnet" of Snohomish Co., Washington. I love it!

You can catch more of Pudge's stuff here apparently.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

William Kristol, the spectacularly always-wrong Fox News pundit and editor if the Weekly Standard apparently has gone daft in the head after hearing Joe Lieberman's (I-maybe the Republicans will have me) latest speech.

He seems to think that it would be extra cool if the Republican candidate that wins the nomination picks Lieberman to be his running mate:

Sayeth Kristol:

Read the whole speech on Lieberman's website. As for Rudy and John and Fred and Mitt and Mike: Take a break from kissing babies to pick up the phone and congratulate Joe. Seek his endorsement after you win the nomination. What the heck-offer him the vice presidency. (Rudy, you might try State or Defense, since you'll need a pro-life running mate.)

But McCain-Lieberman, Thompson-Lieberman, Romney-Lieberman, Huckabee-Lieberman - those sound like winning tickets to us. It's true, given the behavior of the congressional Democrats, the GOP nominee might well win with a more conventional running mate. But why settle for a victory if you can have a realignment?

And of course, others jumped right on board. Peter Wehner from the National Review's The Corner says:

Bill Kristol has a typically provocative and noteworthy editorial now posted on the website of The Weekly Standard. Bill points out that the MSM chose to ignore one of the most significant Senate speeches I can recall: Senator Joe Lieberman's critique of the Democratic party's national-security stance, particularly on Iraq - a stance he lacerated. Lieberman is, it's worth recalling, the man who was chosen by Al Gore in 2000 to be Gore's running mate. At the end of the editorial, Kristol suggests Lieberman for VP again - but this time, to serve as the running mate on a Republican ticket. It's an intriguing idea - and it would certain scramble the political chessboard. Whichever party wins in '08 let's hope Joe Lieberman plays a pivotal role on national-security matters. In the entire political world, there are not many who are better, or politically braver.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Voters are growing increasingly negative about New Jersey as a place to live, and
perceptions of the extent of corruption among public officials is at an all-time high in the latest
Rutgers-Eagleton Poll. And yet, likely voters still prefer Democrats over Republicans by margins
of 10 to 12 percentage points when asked which party they would support in the upcoming state
legislative election.

.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments