Tomorrow will be an exciting day for political junkies. It's the Pennsylvania Republican primary, where wingnut wonderboy Pat Toomey faces off against incumbent GOP Senator Arlen Spector, the last of a dying breed of moderate Senate Republicans (John McCain, it should be pointed out, really isn't part of this group, he's more of a "sane" conservative than a moderate, but since tone is all that counts liberals like McCain as much if not more than Spector, Snowe, Collins or Chafee).
It looks like it will be a close race and it could be an important turning point. If the Club for Growth wins with Toomey, the RINO hunters will be out in full force in 2006. Don't be surprised if our own Sonny Perdue, my new friend is next on their list.
If I was a mainstream Republican concerned with winning I'd be scared to death if Toomey wins. Only so many conservative voters can come "out of the woodwork" to support hardline conservatives, and they can more than be made up for by squishy moderates coming over to moderate Democrats when they hear the hate for their ideology and way of life spewing from the hardcore conservative interest groups that will be dominating Republican primaries.
Look at it this way -- who has a better chance of winning governor in 2006 in Georgia? Is it Sonny Perdue, who once proposed a tax increase, or some wingnut like Sen. Casey Cagle who wants to pretty much clear the way for developers to pave over any stream in the state? Now who would the Club for Growth choose? The answer to those two questions is not the same.
UPDATE: Two usages of the word wingnut. You'll have to excuse me after hearing so many South Georgia Republicans call me a DEMCRAT, baby-killer and queer-lover :) I stopped updating the Rasmussen numbers (for now) because it's been pretty hard to nail them down because (I suspect) Rasmussen fudges the numbers and does a lot of post-sample adjustment. Sorry!
One thing I've noticed about buying things on eBay is that there doesn't seem to be much pricing control over shipping and handling costs. Whenever I used to sell things I would give the buyer an exact price on the S&H, but I notice a lot of flat fees of ridiculous prices ($20) to send small items through the US Post Office that cost (at most) about $7 to ship UPS 2nd day.
It seems to me that, not counting the whole bidding process, sellers still have most of the rights and power in internet commerce. Not everyone is savvy enough to email their own shipping invoices to sellers, and I suspect not all sellers are honest enough to accept a "fair" shipping price -- I think a lot of bulk sellers make up for their low prices by introducing a huge margin on S&H.
All this said, I think someone (maybe eBay in house) could make some money offering some sort of "True Shipment" pricing service. More than a gold star of a 10,000 feedback rating, knowing that you're not going to fleece me on the shipping costs would make me more likely to "Buy it Now" from a trusted seller.
In Moultrie today, Gov. Sonny Perdue (R) was approached by a flaggette (female flagger?) with a Sonny Lied sign. She wanted an autograph, and he not only autographed it but crossed out the "L" in "LIED" and wrote in a "TR" to make it "tried." He's obviously given this some thought. Isn't that strange though?
I can not stand by and not comment on this Fred Barnes article in the Weekly Standard blaming racist voters for electing Democrat Kathleen Blanco Governor of Louisiana late last year.
According to Barnes, Blanco did well in areas that Republicans usually do well in and, not surprisingly, David Duke did well in when he used to run for office. Barnes offers NO proof that Blanco used racist appeals or worked under the table to attract these voters, but thinks there should be some sort of scandal since she got many of these voters because "Republicans are blamed by Democrats and the media for attracting racist votes. The conservative appeal is said to send a favorable signal to bigots."
Fred Barnes, who made a habit of arguing on Fox News that the flag change had absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of the Georgia governor's race in 2002, should learn a little more about politics in the South before he writes about it again.
Both parties use conservative appeals, and sending coded signals to bigots and racists has been practiced by both parties as well. The thing is, only one party has really been employing it since 1965 or so.
The point of my rebuttal is this: if you want to blame a party for Jindal's loss, blame the Republican party. Black voters in the South vote overwhelmingly Democratic because they recognize the coded appeals of Republicans. Sometimes it is a desire to "let the people vote" on a Confederate-themed flag that blacks and whites both know would win in a statewide referendum. And sometimes it is more subtle..."you know what to do better than the people in Atlanta." And sometimes it is spending just .02% of $15 billion in transportation fund on MARTA.
Black voters understand these appeals, but the flipside of that is so do whites with racist streaks -- the same voters who live in the David Duke parishes of Louisiana who contributed to Blanco's victory. If the message you send them is "we're the white party" for so many decades and then you run a candidate who isn't white -- don't be surprised if they don't vote for you.
When Thurbert Baker, who is very conservative, ran for Attorney General in Georgia in 1998, his opponent, David Ralston's negative ad opened "When liberal Atlanta politicians tried to change our flag, Thurbert Baker wrote their bill." He got elected nonetheless, but he proves the exception to the rule.
Republicans in the rural South have run campaigns for the past 40 years that try to align voters racially (it should be noted that their metro business friendly counterparts in the GOP haven't been interested in this course of action) and they've succeeded. Because of this "Southern strategy" Democrats have known for years how hard it is to get an African American candidate elected statewide. What Fred Barnes doesn't realize is that Republicans, thanks to their own efforts, are finding out just how hard it is to elect a non-white candidate also.
I promise to update the Rasmussen tracking dailies real soon. The 46-43 daily slip really caught me off guard and I'll try to rejigger the numbers to make them work. Bush's look pretty ok but Kerry's are a little off.
On another note, I think you should read the Decembrist if you don't already. He's got a couple of great posts on what exactly the left or Democrats should be doing policy wise. The answer, I think, is smarter government. More libertarian minded folk might scoff at that suggestion.
But when we're approaching policy such as healthcare, which is a good example, we should point out that government can do it better AND cheaper than the private sector is doing it. Instead too many Democrats approach it as government can do it and let's add to the cost and do extras too. Extras can come later -- once you prove to the public that you can do it better and cheaper they'll be up for expansion.
I think there is a real chance for realignment -- Democrats as the responsible fiscal party and Republicans as reckless, or if reckless is not the right word, just not grounded in budgetary reality.
This candidate for Georgia state House District 2 is not only loathesome but doesn't appear to read the newspaper either.
Says Martin Scott (R - Walker): "I'll fight for a constitutional ban on gay marriage." If that's a high priority of yours and you're running for the legislature you're about 2 years late. I'm just shaking my head at the ridiculous nature of that statement. A constitutional ban on gay marriage will be on the ballot the same day as the general election.
It's like running for the legislature to ensure the people of your district get to vote that day. You can't do anything about it unless you win and then it will be too late. This is what we're up against in the state legislature.
I don't really need to pick any fights. But I was reading Instapundit today and it's really terrible. There isn't one bit of insightful commentary on the entire blog. Just a lot of attacks, right-wing fantasy and very selective takes on the day's news.
My good friend Matt Miller of Hall County actually attends UT Law School, where Professor Reynolds teaches. Apparently much fun is had by his students who sit silent but amused while he pontificates on popular culture and other goings on. I'm told one classroom favorite is his daily mispronounciation of the name of Jessica Simpson hubby Nick Lachey.
Well, why do I bring this up at all? It's because I'm going to be redoing my blogroll after all these years. When I started getting into blogs Instapundit was one of the only games in town and he seemed to be much less ideological and partisan. Maybe I'm just remembering it better than it actually was. Who knows? From now on I'll be featuring websites that I actually read on a daily basis in my blogroll. My apologies to Glenn and James Lileks for the loss of traffic. Of course, I doubt they'll notice :)
Is to read about local soldiers who've paid the ultimate price for their country in Iraq. Regardless of the administration in charge or the motives, our troops go in with the best intentions and try their damndest to make lemonade from lemons.
One thing you can do to actually support the troops is to visit Operation Hero Miles and donate some of your frequent flyer miles. The government treats our soldiers kind of crappy, only paying for them to fly from overseas to a major hub like Atlanta. If they live in smalltown Louisiana (for example) they are on their own getting from Atlanta to New Orleans. At Hero Miles you can donate your miles so that they can get a free flight the rest of the way.
I have something like 500 frequent flier miles in my account. I would need 25K, which isn't going to happen anytime soon, to get a free flight myself. But if 50 of us donate 500 miles a deserving American soldier can get one today.
Thanks to the help of Adam Carstens of North Star Leadership Group and international reader Dr. Brett Taylor of Greece, the poll numbers keep getting closer to perfect. Right now, Rasmussen publishes a weekly average for the week ending April 9th of Bush 44.4% and Kerry 46.5%. My weekly average has Bush at 44.17% and Kerry at 46.33%.
We're getting very close. Everytime Rasmussen drops a new clue I'm writing it down. If he says Bush had his best night all week, I'll make sure my numbers reflect it, too. Stay tuned. We're getting pretty close to having those daily numbers.
I know Andy thinks they are just a bunch of appeasers. But the difference between the BBC World News and American news in their coverage of events in Iraq couldn't be more different. I would definitely recommend watching the Beeb if your cable offers it. I'm also told that their news broadcast is replayed on a number of PBS channels.
If Americans were seeing the level of coverage that foreigners see on TV and in the paper I seriously doubt Bush would be over 40% in the polls right now. Cue rightwingers saying that steely resolve would be hardened and if it weren't for the liberal media we'd know we were in a war and his approval would actually be over 60%. That's a wager I'd be willing to take if only our media would be the intermediary!
They laughed when my numbers showed Bush and Kerry at a break even yesterday. Today Rasmussen reports that yesterday was Bush's best day in a week. Chrisishardcore prediction: whoever has a better day in the polls today pulls ahead in tomorrow's tracking poll. Kerry has totally blown what was a 7 or 8 point lead in the span of two days. Time for John Edwards to be dispatched as VP?
That's what Mickey Kaus called my New Hampshire ARG daily numbers. But the blogosphere is weak. That's why I've decided to start updating a daily estimate for the Rasmussen Reports three day Presidential tracking poll.
Today their website says: Today's result marks a nine-point net gain for Kerry since last Friday morning. My daily averages show a +10 swing. So we're on about the same page. I'll periodically release the spreadsheet I'm using to make these estimates.
For you statistics geeks, I calculate my theoretical margin of error to be 4.5%, about 50% higher than Rasmussen's stated 3% margin of error. That's because their 3 day samples are 1500 people, my one days are a guess based on 500 phone calls. Let the fun begin.
My beef with conference committees is a thing of documented history. It never seems to stop -- now the House and Senate are taking up HB 1028, a well meaning medical insurance bill which was hijacked by the Senate and turned into a vehicle for tort reform. Even though the Senate voted against malpractice caps, the Senate conferees are insisting on their inclusion in the final bill. That must be what Senate Republicans mean when they say they are restoring honor to government.
If you thought Eric Johnson (R - Savannah) was speaking a little too soon when he rushed to call the GOP the "party of Bush" then you will just love the folks who have registered Rice 2008.com.
It's always a good idea to put your faith in someone who is an alleged "expert" in an issue (Russia) that was relevent 10 years ago but is not exactly a priority today. In related news, Bubba McDonald should be launching his gubernatorial bid any day now. As appropriations chairman in the House in 1989 he should know exactly how to solve the budget woes that ail us.
Two of the best posts I've seen on any blogs in some time are back to back right now at the Decembrist, specifically this one. I'd add to his post that a party (and not only in the South) that invests so much in the cult of personality is in big trouble if anything (like a political loss) happens to that personality.
I remember seeing Eric Johnson (R - Savannah) make a speech in the state Senate a year or two ago and say something alone the lines of "The Party of Lincoln, Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush" and thinking you've got to be kidding me. We Democrats have been through a similar period with Clinton (some might argue we're still in it) but I would wager that if Bush loses Republicans are in serious trouble because too many of them traded in anything they previously stood for in exchange for a blind adherence to Bush and to a smaller degree DeLay.
Which brings you to McCain and Hagel and the like. The ingredients are in place for a major shakeup, whether it's them forming their own party or switching to the Democratic party or as the pundits would love -- McCain as Kerry's VP.
Kos frowns at McCain's ratings (compared to Kerry) on various scorecards. What you've got to remember though is that there are literally thousands of votes and most scorecards highlight only 10 or 20 and they always pick contentious ones.
An illustrative lesson is the flag referendum vote last year in the state House. The first vote to remove the '56 flag went down something like 89-87. They reconsidered and the vote was 90-86, then the Speaker voted and the tie was broken. You might think that second vote was the key vote, but it wasn't. In between those two votes they voted on whether or not to reconsider...that vote got 95 yeas. Had the measure not been reconsidered the '56 flag would likely be on it's way back in the party primaries this summer. Though Rep. Curtis Jenkins (D - Forsyth) voted no on both of those flag votes, he did vote to reconsider. Without his vote for reconsideration the second flag vote wouldn't have happened...and wouldn't have passed.
So you can pretty easily see how, were I making a scorecard, I might pick a procedural vote instead of an actual vote on the merits of an issue. Or I might pick some wingnut amendment vote that 3/4 of the House voted against even though they ended up voting unanimously to pass the larger bill. The moral of the story is that those scorecards don't tell anything close to the whole story.
It's worth it to note that had Max Cleland been this bold in 2002 as he is now, he may have won. But that's just how it goes sometimes. You learn a lot when you win, but not nearly as much as when you lose.
I don't often say congratulatory things about Republicans on this blog, especially those in the Georgia legislature. But kudos to Sen. Renee Unterman (R - Loganville) who will ask the Senate to disagree to House language that added genital piercing to a bill that would prohibit genital mutilation.
While I personally wouldn't condone either, they are two very different things. When Rep. Bill Heath (R - Bremen) says he's never even heard of anyone doing that (genital piercing) he is obviously lying because one doesn't offer an amendment banning something that he's not aware exists.
The Senate should follow Unterman's lead and disagree with the House language so that yet another serious issue (genital mutilation) doesn't get hijacked by some stupid social wedge issue.
From the Washington Post:
Thompson, a former Illinois governor, pointed to Clarke's remarks praising Bush in a previously anonymous 2002 news briefing. It was reported on Fox News two hours before the hearing started; the White House that morning had authorized Fox News to identify the anonymous briefer as Clarke.Is an organization allowed to release individuals that once worked for said organization from previous anonymity? If so, can't the White House authorize Robert Novak to surrender the anonymous source that outed Plame?
This really reeks, and sets a terrible precedent. Anonymous sources are one of the best bipartisan tools to out corruption and wrongdoing. The idea that an anonymous source belongs to an organization instead of the person who is the source could basically prevent anyone from ever ratting out their lying or stealing higher-ups ever again.
Regardless of what you think about Richard Clarke this is terribly contradictory. If they're willing to out Clarke, they should be willing to turn over the Plame leaker immediately.
Gov Perdue has appointed Rep. Ken Birdsong (D - Gordon) to a state veterans affairs board. This leaves an open tossup seat in middle Georgia, outside of Macon. Clever move by the governor. Why entice these guys to switch parties when you can just appoint them out of their seats and then duke it out in an open seat? I'm told that Va Gov. Gilmore did this in the late 90's in their state Senate and forced enough special elections to change the partisan control. Time for us to go recruit some candidates...