C minus 39 - the end of the long weekend

Hugh Hewitt is of the opinion that the Republican nomination is now a two horse race, specifically between Rudy and Mitt. It should be noted that Hugh has been a supporter of Mitt Romney since the word go in this campaign, but his arguments make interesting reading, not least because he poses them in terms of a debunking of the political pundits. His piece suggests that the spin machine which worked so well for politicians in the past is now a broken and outdated thing, and its influence on this election will be minimal. We shall see! The Money quote from Hugh:

Republican voters believe Hillary will be the nominee and that she will be extraordinarily tough to beat.
They also know it will require an enormous amount of money and energy to beat her.
The vast majority of them know this political context limits their choices to one of two candidates: Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.
There isn't going to a stampede to Huckabee or a Fred Revival, period. If Romney can deliver three or four early wins and back it up with the cash he has amassed plus much of his own on February 5, he will be the nominee.
If he can't, Rudy will be the nominee.

So, track and see whether or not he is correct...

Fred Thompson has been making a bit of a splash today, first of all with the release of his plan for income taxes, which is pretty interesting. It offers a simple option, with very limited deductions (for example, no deduction for mortgage interest payments) and only two rates (10% up to $100,000 for couples filing jointly, and 25% above that). The personal deductions and those for children are such that a family of four would pay no tax at all on earnings up to $39,000. Feasible? Who knows, but it is a plan, and serves as a good point of discussion. As might be expected, some folk are already saying that the country cannot afford it (see the comments on this site). This is a legitimate area for discussion, but it should be remembered that Fred has given us something concrete to discuss, and that should be considered good.

Another issue with Fred Thompson has been the charge that he is lazy when campaigning. It would appear that this is not the case. I wonder who might spread such tales, and why? In addition to that, Fred was on Fox News Sunday today. Some said he did well, others thought he did poorly. I think he is playing the game a different way, and that carries both risks and rewards. For Fred, he has to make it to South Carolina, win there, and still have enough momentum (or cash - the two may be effectively equivalent) to do well in the Southern States on February 5. Watch this space...

The pace will pick up relentlessly between now and Christmas, so I will leave tomorrow for Europe, to see what they are saying about the race over there (if anything!). With luck, and a certain degree of electronic cooperation, I shall be able to post while over there.

C Minus 40 - Post-Thanksgiving Turkey Hunt

Now that Thanksgiving has come and gone, and everyone is asking who exactly it is that gets up at ungodly hours the day after large dinners to go to the mall (or at least, everyone I know is asking that!), we are entering into the final stretch of the campaign here in Iowa. It remains wide open, at least as far as I can tell. An informal review of yard signs indicate approximately equal (albeit very sparse) support for Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, with one sign for Dodd spotted, and no other signs for candidates (that's right - there are no Republican signs out anyway, because this is Iowa City, a nuclear free zone, if you did not know!). If anyone is leading in terms of signs it is Obama, but the margin is very small! What is interesting is that there are a number of yards with "troops out now" signs and the like, but without any sign for a specific candidate. There are a LOT of undecided voters here in Iowa, and that should be borne in mind whenever you read a poll.

According to some, the focus for the Democrats is now going to be all Iowa, all the time, until January 3. I think that may overstate things, but it does seem as if the Iowa Caucuses will be far more important for the Dems than for the Republicans. Whichever of the big three Dems gets a win here will be given a big boost, whereas there seems to be much less likelihood of a bounce on the Republican side. If Romney wins, well he should, given all the money he has spent here. If he loses, he will be hurt for that same reason, but it is unlikely to be a deadly blow. McCain has not put much effort into the state, apparently because his stance on things like corn subsidies make it a very hard win for him (see this Washington Post article, which includes a quote from one of my colleagues - I do love to bask in reflected fame!). Huckabee needs a win or a second place in Iowa or he will wither on the vine, but he is a long shot at present anyway. Rudy is fighting here, but seems more invested in New Hampshire. And Fred is also here, but not much, and is more invested in South Carolina. So, much less fireworks likely on January 3 on the GOP side than on the Dems.

The uneasiness about Hillary in some quarters continues. The sense that she is trying to manage the press and avoid any embarrassing (or, perhaps more accurately, any worthwhile and pointed) questions is captured here. She has also put together an advert that, according to Howard Kurtz is meant to protect her, or as the "Divine Ms. Althouse" puts it: "How dare you questions her!" A more direct approach against Hillary is taken by Grover Norquist, who is promoting an anti-nepotism amendment to the constitution, specifically to neuter political dynasties.

Of interest in all this is an excellent report in the Telegraph (based in England). Two reporters crossed the USA from Portland Maine to San Diego, and then again from Seattle to Florida, doing a lot of listening on the way, and spending a lot of time in flyover country. Their findings are interesting. Of Hillary, they note:

While we found many people who hated Mrs Clinton, those who loved her were few and far between. Certainly, many said they would vote for her, but the reasons cited tended to be her status as the top Democrat, the fact that she was battle-tested against Republicans and - for some women - the fact that she would be the first female president.

Such support might register in the opinion polls, but could melt away should the former First Lady lose in Iowa. And the frequently expressed nightmare for Democrats is that she will win their party's nomination but lose to a Republican next November when most Americans decide they don't much like her.

"I'm always amazed how we can screw things up," said Steve Ayers, a coffee-shop owner in Hannibal. "Maybe the way we screw it up this time is by nominating Hillary - across the Midwest that would be the only way of unifying Republicans."

The interesting thing here is that this report is probably about as objective as you can get at this point in time. These folks do not have a horse in this race, yet they seem to be indicating that the story in the media is seriously incorrect. They also seem to be saying that this year, as perhaps never before, the field is wide open. That is a continuing theme, and will likely have a great deal more importance than any other factor at this time. Here in Iowa, a lot of folk will be going to the caucuses without their final decisions having been made.

And just to further confound conventional wisdom, there is now a report out that the Democrats, and not the GOP, are the party of the rich. What impact, if any, this will have is unknown...

Stem Cells off the Table

A couple of scientific papers, published today, have, I think, essentially removed the issue of embryonic stem cell research from the 2008 election. The breakthrough, which is well described in both the New York Times, and the Washington Post, was developed essentially simultaneously by two research groups, one in Japan, and the other in Wisconsin. In essence, the results are that it is possible to create pluripotent stem cells (which previously had been thought to be only available from embryos) from ordinary human skin cells, by introducing four genes into the adult stem cell. What is especially nice about this research finding is that this means it would be possible, perhaps, to take some of my skin cells and transform them in such a way as to grow me some new nerves, or even a whole new heart. That means I could, at least in theory, be given a completely new heart that is a perfect genetic match to me (since it grew from my own cells) and thus I would not need any anti-rejection medication. Of course, what was reported in these two scientific papers today is only the first step on a very long road toward growing our own replacement organs, but it is a great step, and it means we can go down that road without having to use embryos. As you may know, President Bush has vetoed a couple of bills that proposed funding embryonic stem cell research, and has also acted to ban federal funding of embryonic stem cell research apart from that done on a limited number of existing embryonic stem cell lines. In one sense, some may see today's news as vindicating his stance, and I think that is a reasonable way to view it. In all this is great news in that science has managed to find a morally acceptable way to investigate the potentially huge benefits of pluripotent stem cells.

There has been some political response to the news today. Not surprisingly, there was a very upbeat comment from the White House. To my mind, a critical quote from that is the following:

The President believes medical problems can be solved without compromising either the high aims of science or the sanctity of human life. We will continue to encourage scientists to expand the frontiers of stem cell research and continue to advance the understanding of human biology in an ethically responsible way.

We need to consider the ethical implications of scientific advances more than we typically do, and I hope that the stem cell issue will prove to be a good case study for this. Romney can claim a certain prescience on this issue because of his remarks on this topic in June of this year. Fred Thompson had a comment on this topic, and he noted, quite correctly, that adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells have far more successes to their name than do embryonic stem cells:

There is exciting news for patients today. In yet another breakthrough for adult cell research, scientists have made normal human skin cells take on the relevant properties of embryonic stem cells. That is in addition to 73 breakthroughs for adult and cord blood research to date. There are still no embryonic stem cell breakthroughs.

Anyway, regardless of who makes political hay on this topic, it is good news, and once again congratulations to those scientists who made the breakthrough happen.

C minus 44 and counting

Watched Bones and House tonight, and only four adverts during the two programs; one each from Thompson, Romney, Obama, and Clinton. Of interest, perhaps, is that only the Thompson advert addressed a specific issue with specific solutions - his dealt with immigration. Obama talked about helping middle class people, Romney focused on the family, and Clinton's ad was about how she helped someone get a bone marrow transplant for their son, and therefore we should trust her (not sure about the logic there, but that may be as much because I do not trust Clinton as because of anything else). I was a bit surprised, given that Huckabee is meant to be surging in Iowa, not to see an advert from him, but I understand that he is somewhat short of funds, so he may be waiting for some pivotal moment at which to let loose his words of wisdom!

In other daily dose news, Hillary took a swing at Obama today on his supposed experience from living overseas. So much for her not being negative... It is not impossible that this is in response to the latest poll numbers from Iowa, which show her losing her lead there. Some folks are suggesting that it might be best for her to finish third there, which does not sound so good to me, but who knows? Mickey Kaus paints a not-unreasonable scenario that would have Hillary pulling out of Iowa in about three weeks time if she is not moving back into the lead by then. He makes a good argument, so I guess we should keep watching that one.

Lengthy Conversations on the War on Terror

An organization called Pajamas Media is conducting fairly lengthy (of the order of 5 to 10 minutes) interviews with Presidential candidates to explore the candidates' thoughts on the war on terror. They call these their War on Terror Conversations, and the first one, with Fred Thompson, is up and available. I listened and liked what I heard for two reasons. First, it does give a candidate an opportunity to speak in something beyond the standard 15 second soundbite, which can only improve the quality of political discourse in this campaign (at least, in my opinion!). Second, I thought that Fred did a commendably good job in his conversation. Take a listen yourself, and see what you think.

C minus 45 and counting - Chuck Norris enters the Fray!

I had heard about this one, but after seeing it myself I have to say it is a great advert. Mike Huckabee is clearly making the most of the endorsement he received from Chuck Norris, and good for him. A very enjoyable ad, and I hope we see more ads with such humor in them.
That said, not all went well for Mike Hukabee today. The National Review Online had a lead article on his candidacy, and labeled him as offering:

a mixture of populism and big-government liberalism

Clearly in their view anyway, he is not a good candidate. Hmmm!

In other news today, there has been a bit of a kerfuffle about some rather unpleasant push polling in New Hampshire. I do not think we have got to the bottom of this yet, but it sounds as if someone is doing some phone polling to attack Romney on the basis of his religious affiliation (he is, if you did not know it, a Mormon). A good article by Mark Hemingway digs into this further with some potentially surprising results! Oh what fun and games...

Talking of fun and games, Mitt Romney is attacking Rudy for his past actions on immigration. Specifically, Mitt claims that Rudy supported sanctuary cities, and it is true that you can find quotes from some years ago (pre 9/11) by Rudy to that effect. The extent to which these attacks on Rudy will stick remains to be seen. It seems to me to be an attempt to label Rudy with the "flip flop" label. Given that Mitt has had that label thrown at him a lot, I am not sure it is a wise strategy on his part to draw attention to anyone doing any flip-flopping.

Hillary cannot be pleased by a recent poll in Iowa, reported today by the Washington Post, which has Obama ahead of her, 30% to 26%. I remain unconvinced over the value of these various polls some 45 days out, but certainly the trend here (toward Obama and away from Hillary) cannot be pleasing to the junior Senator from New York.

Another poll in New Hampshire reported by CNN shows Romney gaining ground and both Guiliani and Thompson losing ground. Again, I am a bit skeptical about these polls, and I think the most important thing noted in this poll report was the final paragraph, to whit:

But the poll suggests the GOP race remains fluid with about two months left before the New Hampshire primary, the official date of which remains unsettled. Only 14 percent of those surveyed said they had definitely decided on a candidate, while 29 percent said they were leaning toward one — and 56 percent were still trying to decide.

In short, the race on both sides is still wide open!

C minus 47 and counting - Democratic debate fall-out

Before the debate last Thursday, I made this comment:

Does tonight's debate matter? Normally they don't but I think this one matters a lot. If Hillary does not do well, then the "taste" of the last debate (which was a disaster for her) sticks around. If she is as bad as last time out, then the wheels come off totally. If she is somewhere in between (most likely outcome) then she will continue to lose her lead, but it will still be reversible. We shall see...

So, in light of that, what do I think happened? Well, the initial result seemed to be pretty good for Hillary. The crowd was with her, and she managed to avoid any pitfalls in her responses. Also, Wolf Blitzer was a total wimp and asked no hard questions at all, and when handed the chance on a plate to follow up to her replies, failed to do so.

But now it turns out that the deck in Vegas was stacked for Hillary. Given that, it is no wonder she did so well. So, what does this mean? First, the Vegas debate does nothing good for Hillary in terms of overcoming her previous debate performance. Her relatively reasonable performance is meaningless in light of all the help she had. But more importantly, this appears to continue the theme of Hillary - that she never answered a question she didn't plant. The debate was planted, her meetings in Iowa are full of planted questions, and the one time she gets asked a mildly difficult question that wasn't planted, she lost it. This sends the message, if people wish to hear it, that she is not ready for prime time. And the Iowa voters may well hear that message loud and clear. As of now (and there are still 47 days to go) I do not think Hillary will win in Iowa.