a running commentary by our trusted contributors...

[1/30/04 Friday]

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 5:02 am [link]
Weasel Wealth: The Middle East Media Research Institute's Baghdad office has released a translation of an article which appeared in the Iraqi daily Al-Mada. It is a list of 270 companies, organizations, and individuals awarded allocations (vouchers) of crude oil by Saddam Hussein's regime. Funny how the list itself subverts all the Democrats' favorite anti-war arguments.

Standing for Internationalism on Principle Award: France.
The French-Arab Friendship Association received 15.1 million barrels; Former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua received 12 million barrels; Patrick Maugein of the Trafigura company received 25 million barrels; and Michel Grimard, founder of the French-Iraqi Export Club, received 17.1 million barrels.

No Link to Terror Award: Palestine.
The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) received 4 million barrels; The PLO Political Bureau received 5 million barrels; Abu Al-Abbas received 11.5 million barrels.

Wonder Where the WMD's Are? Award: Syria.
Farras Mustafa Tlass, the son of Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass, received 6 million barrels; 'Audh Amourah received18 million barrels; Ghassan Zakariya received 6 million barrels; Anwar Al-Aqqad received 2 million barrels; and Hamida Na'Na', the owner of the Al-Wafaq Al-Arabi periodical, received 1 million barrels.

[1/29/04 Thursday]

[Doug Gamble - speechwriter, columnist] 5:15 am [link]
Switching Horses: Former Al Gore chief of staff Roy Neel taking control of the Howard Dean campaign is another nail in the Dean coffin. Dean being advised by a former Gore aide on how to win an election is like Martha Stewart getting advice from Leona Helmsley on how to stay out of prison. What fun to see the candidate who portrays himself as an outsider bringing in one of Washington's biggest insiders.

Watch for Neel's impact to be seen soon as Dean wears earthtones and denounces the internal combustion engine while planting a 2-minute kiss on his wife at a Buddhist temple fundraiser. That's after he sighs his way through the South Carolina debate and brags that he invented the temper tantrum.

[1/28/04 Wednesday]

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 9:40 am [link]
Old Socialists Never Die: Up on Capitol Hill, Teddy Kennedy's huffing and puffing at a Senate hearing like an old, asthmatic dragon, trying to bully weapons inspector David Kay, who has done a magnificent job in describing Iraq as a "serious gathering threat" to the world before the U.S. action to remove Saddam Hussein. Kennedy seems to think he can score points by asserting that the administration "selectively" interpreted conflicting intelligence reports about Hussein's weapons prior to the war.

What a ridiculous, disingenuous argument! It's inherent in the nature of policy-making that one has to choose between conflicting facts and theories, based on one's view of the world and the national welfare. To put it in simple terms that even Teddy K can understand, when he advocates raising the minimum wage, small business owners protest that he is going to make it more difficult for them to do business -- and perhaps force them to close. He IGNORES those arguments because he favors raising the minimum wage and, in his view of the world and the national welfare, it's more important for the people who have jobs to be paid more, than it is for more people to be able to find work (and employers being able to hire more people) at whatever the going market rate would be.

Given that Teddy K has been a hearty proponent of every failed big spending liberal program of the last 40 or more years, it takes some nerve for him to accuse the Bush administration of ignoring evidence that runs contrary to its ideology, and to condemn the administration for choosing the wrong policy route in the face of ambiguous and evidence. After all, Ted K -- who as recently as 1996 predicted that welfare reform would result in disaster for the poor, among his other flawed predictions -- has been proven much more wrong, much more often than everyone in the Bush administration put together.

[Doug Gamble - speechwriter, columnist] 6:15 am [link]
Post New Hampshire: Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry is starting to look -- I have to say it -- presidential.

While everything we know today still points to a reelection win for President George W. Bush this November, there is one thing in particular that could jeopardize it: arrogance. It's a nasty trait that has been associated with Bush and some of the people around him going back to the 2000 campaign when he acted as though he were taking New Hampshire for granted -- skipping the first two debates before finally deigning to appear for the third -- and got soundly thumped in the primary by John McCain.

Two days before the 2000 election, Bush guru Karl Rove, considered by some the reigning genius of U.S. politics, predicted that Bush would win with 320 electoral votes. It was an arrogant assertion that, needless to say, fell a tad short.

I would like to hear Republicans talk less about how Kerry, if he's the nominee, has no chance once he's portrayed to the national electorate as a looney liberal to the left of Ted Kennedy, and more about how they could have a real fight on their hands. Kerry is no Dukakis-in-the-tank candidate. And anyone who saw any of Kerry's 7 debates with William Weld in the hard-fought 1996 Massachusetts Senate race should understand he can be a formidable opponent.

Perhaps Kerry, again, assuming he's the nominee, will crumble in the general election once the Bush team begins portraying him as unworthy of the presidency during a time of national peril. But I'd prefer to see them operate on the assumption that he will not. The biggest mistake that can be made in sports or politics is to underestimate the opponent. All the underestimating I've been hearing lately makes me nervous.

Conventional wisdom says there's no way Bush can lose. The downside to conventional wisdom is that it often proves very unwise.

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 6:15 am [link]
Silver Lining Alert: It's too bad Howard Dean wasn't closer -- it would have been fun to see John Kerry set down a peg or two. That being said, it could have been a lot worse! Dean did well enough to be emboldened to continue, which is a good thing; what Republican wouldn't want to see Mad Dog Dean nipping at Kerry's heels all the way across the Super Tuesday states? Edwards has run poorly -- which also is good for Republicans, as he might be a more difficult frontrunner than Kerry. Yet his favorables remain high; that in itself will keep him on the short list for Vice President, and that's good, too . . . it would mean that if a Kerry-Edwards ticket went down to defeat in 2004, Hillary Clinton might have some stiff competition in the person of John Edwards when she makes her move in 2008. Finally, the poor showing of Wesley Clark is an occasion for schadenfreude of the first order: It's satisfying to see the self-important, weaselly General, along with his Clinton-leftover handlers, resoundingly repudiated in the primary that was supposed to mark the beginning of his march to victory.

[Joe Armendariz - columnist] 6:15 am [link]
And we will: Howard Dean's "And We Will" speech was a big improvement over last week's "I have a scream" speech delivered to supporters in Iowa. I have one of my own...

Oh how I hope we run against the moral bankruptcy of the Left-wing, idiot-fringe that has hijacked the Democratic Party and we will.

I hope we run against a presidential candidate who wants to raise taxes and we will.

I hope we run against a presidential candidate who wishes we had cooperated with Saddam Hussein and the French and we will.

I hope we run against a presidential candidate who thinks only Republicans have the support of powerful special interests and we will.

I hope we run against a presidential candidate who thinks Sean Penn, Martin Sheen and Barbara Streisand know more about foreign policy than Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice and we will.

I hope we run against a presidential candidate who thinks growing up rich, attending elite boarding schools and spending your entire adult life in public office makes you an "ordinary" American and we will.

I hope we run against a presidential candidate who if it were up to him Saddam Hussein would still be in power and we will.

I hope we run against a presidential candidate who thinks we should talk tough and carry a wet noodle and we will.

I hope we run against a presidential candidate who thinks global warming is fact and WMD's are fiction and we will.

I hope we run against a presidential candidate who panders to the military but impugns their every mission and we will.

I hope we run against a presidential candidate who thinks the American people are too stupid to know what a complete phony he is...and we will.

[1/27/04 Tuesday]

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 5:01 am [link]
GRANITE STATE PRIMARY: NEW HAMPSHIRE VOTERS DECIDE: Many commentators (including this one) were humbled by John Kerry's come-from-behind victory over Howard Dean in last week's Iowa caucuses. Even so, it's a new day and a new game in New Hampshire.

Given Howard Dean's third place finish in Iowa, coupled with his memorable non-concession speech and what the polls indicate, it's pretty clear that John Kerry will be the winner of the New Hampshire primary. But his supporters' optimism should be tempered -- Kerry's really the frontrunner by default, rather than by virtue of his splendid campaigning and universal appeal. After all, he has been well-known in the state of New Hampshire for years -- and if voters had been enthusiastic Kerry supporters to begin with, there would never have been such an intense initial surge for Dean. Perhaps the yard signs reportedly sprouting all over New Hampshire tell the tale: "I flirted with Dean, but I'll marry Kerry." Sometimes, you just have to go with the safe choice -- and it looks like that's what New Hampshire Democrats will do.

But Howard Dean may run a more competitive race for second place than many pundits are now predicting. Yes, Dean's campaign had a catastrophic melt-down at the beginning of last week. But notwithstanding his lackluster performance in the debate on Thursday, he was able to stop the erosion in his numbers, having sat for an interview with his wife and having offered the "Top Ten" list on David Letterman's show about how his campaign could recover. He doesn't seem able to climb much beyond his base of voters at the moment, but at least he isn't losing them anymore -- and his base exceeds 20%. In fact, his poll numbers have started to climb.

Admittedly, if (when?) Dean loses both Iowa and New Hampshire, he'll have some hard thinking to do about whether the race is recoverable -- and if so, in what state(s). But his organization is the best prepared to run a fifty-state campaign, and he's well-funded. So he could well remain a factor in the race even after losing all hope of winning the nomination. And in what would be a nightmare scenario for either Kerry or Edwards, he could continue to run a campaign exclusively devoted to dragging their favorable ratings down, thereby destroying Terry McAuliffe's dream of having a presumptive nominee and a united party by February 3.

Wesley Clark had been the presumptive third place finisher (more on him later), but John Edwards is the better bet to come in third. Voters seem to like him -- and his subpar performance in the debate on Thursday (bobbling questions on Islam and the Defense of Marriage Act) haven't seemed to hurt him badly. His numbers continue to rise, and interestingly, of all the candidates, he has the greatest number of voters who rank him as their "second choice" -- which means that, if these voters become disillusioned with another candidate (like Wesley Clark!), he's in a good position to inheirit that candidate's supporters. It's not out of the question that Edwards might even beat Dean and come in second -- in which case, Dean's history.

Joe Lieberman may well run forth -- if he's lucky. Despite the best performance of any candidate in last Thursday's debate, Lieberman's positions are simply too centrist to appeal to Democratic primary voters. He's been working hard to attract independents into the primary . . . but there aren't enough to carry him through. He insists that his campaign will continue even after a unimpressive showing in New Hampshire, but it's hard to see where and how his campaign would take off. It may not be too long before Lieberman joins Dick Gephardt on the sidelines.

And finally, General Wesley Clark looks well-positioned to come in fifth. Unlike the other candidates, his poll numbers have been falling almost a point a day -- and it's no wonder. His political instincts are dreadful -- he made the biggest flub of the debate by declining to take issue with propagandist Michael Moore's characterization of the President as a "deserter." (The mistake was a biggie, and so easily avoided -- rather than simply saying that Moore has a "right" to say whatever he wants, Clark could have saved his campaign a lot of distraction by tacking on a "but I wish he hadn't said that" or "although I respect Michael Moore [a ludicrous thought in itself], I don't agree with that."). All the former Clinton staffers on his team must be yanking their hair out by the roots.

The strategic rationales for supporting Clark had been three-fold: First, he could serve as the anti-Dean; second, he was someone who could run well in the South; third, he was seen as a general who could neutralize the GOP's advantage in the national security area. Well, all those rationales have been completely undermined -- as it turns out, John Kerry is serving as the alternative to Dean; John Edwards has emerged as a Southerner who has clear appeal for voters, at least in Iowa; and Clark's own inconsistencies on the Iraq war (which were highlighted at the debate) have never been convincingly addressed by the General. It's not out of the question that Clark could beat Lieberman, but it's looking less likely by the day.

[1/26/04 Monday]

[Bill Leonard] 5:01 am [link]
Between a Rock and a Hard Place: California's financial status is squarely between the proverbial rock and a hard place. The Governor is proposing a $15 billion bond measure toh elp get us back on track. That is hard medicine to swallow, no matter what your political persuasion. However, a look at the alternatives puts me firmly in support of our Governor's plan. The Democrats' alternative is a tax increase. This defies logic because California does not have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem. The Republicans' alternative is cutting programs now, but the reality is that the Republicans need the time that the bond will buy in order to implement the budget cuts and make program reductions.

A recent poll has me worried that California voters are not thinking practically yet.

The deficit bond (Prop. 57) only has support at 33% and opposition at 40%.Yet, Prop. 56 (the measure that would lower the threshold for raising taxes) is in a statistical dead heat. If voters pass 56, but reject 57and 58 (the Governor's balanced budget proposal), we will have new, higher taxes quickly. Without the bond and the reform in 57 and 58, and with the majority in the legislature empowered by a new law saying they can raise taxes with a mere 55% vote, you can bet that your taxes will be going up soon. So, even if you are not thrilled with the deficit bond, I urge your vote in favor of 57 to prevent a disaster. [From Leonard Letter 1/20]

[1/23/04 Friday]

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 2:05 pm [link]
Judy Dean: It was interesting to see the ABC News interview of Howard Dean and Judith Steinberg last night. Here's my conclusion: She's just shy. And she actually seems very, very likable.

Ironically, a bunch of feminists have gang-tackled Dr. Steinberg for her refusal to hit the campaign trail earlier. I've been critical of her disengagement, as well -- but my reasons couldn't be more different. It's seemed to me that it's somehow not right NOT to be involved and not to make the effort to be proactively, affirmatively helpful when one's husband is undertaking the biggest endeavor of his life (whatever it might be), and in Dr. Steinberg's case, especially when he's running for President. During the interview, Dr. Steinberg inadvertently alluded to her unique value for her husband: "I tell him what I really think." Does she know how rare that quality is on the campaign trail, and how important it could have been for her husband to have at least one person to tell him honestly how he was coming across, and what he needed to do (and not to do)?

In contrast, the prominent feminists (like Maureen Dowd and Tina Brown) don't understand Dr. Steinberg because they can't comprehend someone who simply isn't interested in the limelight and the power. To them, I think it would be OK not to support one's husband if he were doing something they deemed "unimportant." But to happily forego the chance to be "important" in the little New York/Washington media bubble? Unthinkable. Dr. Steinberg honestly doesn't care what Tina Brown or Maureen Dowd think of her -- and worse yet, she might not even know who they are! And in those self-important (but insecure) ladies' minds, that's the real unforgivable sin.

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 5:05 am [link]
After the DemBate: Expect whatever ugly stuff there is to come out about John Kerry -- sooner, rather than later. Why? Because Wesley Clark made the biggest flub of the debate by declining to take issue with propagandist Michael Moore's characterization of the President as a "deserter." (Note that Clark's mistake was a biggie, and so easily avoided -- rather than simply saying that Moore has a "right" to say whatever he wants, which incidentally no one is disputing, Clark could have saved himself a lot of trouble by tacking on a "but I wish he hadn't said that" or "although I respect Michael Moore [a ludicrous thought in itself], I don't agree with that.")

Anyway, Kerry had better be ready for some unpleasantness -- because a key man on Clark's team, Chris Lehane, used to work for Kerry less than a year ago, and so presumably has whatever "dirt" there is on the putative frontrunner. After Clark's non-performance tonight, his team will be afraid that he's going to fizzle and come in third behind Dean (or even fourth behind Edwards, perhaps) and so may set out a few attack dogs, especially on Kerry, but maybe also a bit on Edwards -- because if Edwards trounces Clark down south, Clark's finished . . . especially if the General runs disappointingly in New Hampshire.

Then again, the Clark team may leave Edwards alone for a while, because after Clark, Edwards had the poorest showing of the debate. Commentators are asserting that he didn't know the substance of the Defense of Marriage Act. I disagree . . . he tried a slippery lawyer's trick. He engaged in an elevated form of dodging the question -- essentially misrepresenting the substance of the DOMA, so that he could disagree with it. He wanted to take issue with the legislation in order to keep the Democratic gay constituency happy, but at the same time, not say anything that would alienate his Southern base. Peter Jennings, who asked the question about DOMA, was prepared to let Edwards get away with this little scam -- but then Brit Hume chimed in and pointed out that Edwards' "states' rights" approach was precisely the motivating principle of DOMA. And so Edwards was left looking either ill-informed, or else slippery. If you are a first-term senator running for President, having made a living as a trial lawyer, nothing could be worse. Quite a bad moment for the Breck Girl.

Lieberman did a good job . . . perhaps sensing that his campaign is doomed, and so he might as well be true to his centrist roots, as there's nothing left to lose. Al Sharpton made it entertainingly clear that he has no clue about the function either of the IMF or the Federal Reserve, and it was a priceless Democratic moment to see Dennis Kucinich shooting the Reverend Al the peace sign when Sharpton expressed the hope that Kucinich would engage in a delegate-swapping scheme with him like the Kucinich-Edwards axis in Iowa. The most entertaining shot, however, was the close-up of the look of frozen terror on John Edwards' face when Dennis Kucinich announced to the world that "John and I are friends."

As for Ho-Ho, looks like he's a no-go. Dean failed to avail himself of Hugh Hewitt's excellent advice on how to save himself; though he made no big gaffes, he didn't undo the damage from his maniacal whooping exhibition on Monday. That, in itself, will save him from the tender ministrations of the Clark team -- there's no reason to try to destroy an adversary who does it himself and saves you the trouble.

If Kerry wins New Hampshire, already having won Iowa, he would look awfully well-positioned to win the Democratic nomination. And I could live with that. Unlike John Edwards or Wesley Clark, it makes no sense for Kerry to put Hillary Clinton of New York on the ticket . . . and a number of commentators, including Rush Limbaugh, have noted that Hillary might welcome the chance to lose a vice presidential race, as such a loss would inoculate her in 2008 from numerous charges she would have to face more directly as a presidential candidate.

Kerry comes across as pompous, lacking a common touch, and he has a voting record as liberal as that of Senator Teddy Kennedy. Bring him on!

[1/22/04 Thursday]

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 3:15 pm [link]
DemBate: Every good Republican watching the Democratic debate tonight should hope that Howard Dean resuscitates his candidacy, at least for now. (Hugh Hewitt has offered a brilliant strategy for him -- too bad Dean lacks the humility to follow it). Of course he would be both the most fun Democratic nominee, and the easiest to beat. And can you imagine the "war whoop" of victory we'd get after a successful showing in the NH primary? (After his performance in Iowa, Dean would doubtless restrain himself, actually, but we can dream).

Failing a "comeback kid" performance, Republicans should hope that Dean flames out spectacularly. Why? Because if he has a hope, albeit a feeble one, of still clinching the presidential spot, he'll go after John Kerry -- and has enough money to inflict serious damage. At the same time, if Dean harbors a thought of winning the vice-presidential slot (and that would only be if John Edwards were the nominee -- Kerry wouldn't pick a fellow notheasterner), he won't go after John Edwards.

In this scenario, John Edwards (probably the most formidable general election candidate left in the field) could sneak up through the middle as Dean takes out Kerry . . . much the way Kerry and Edwards slipped up through the polls to victory while Dean and Gephardt were concentrating their fire on each other.

Only a spectacular, no-hope-left flop could leave Dean bitter and angry enough to take on both Kerry and Edwards . . . and the whole "Democratic establishment" from Terry McAuliffe on down with all the money he's raised. And for sheer entertainment value, that might even rival the spectacle of Dean being named the Democratic nominee.

[Bill Leonard] 5:01 am [link]
Democrats Applaud Davis: The California Democrat Party held its convention in San Jose this weekend. Gray Davis was one of the keynote speakers and was applauded by the party leaders, as well he should be. After all, it was the greedy positions of party leaders that were the final blow to his political career. Even as recall petitions were circulating and his popularity was sinking, they shoved their leftist agenda onto Governor Davis. The party members, in the words of Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi, acknowledged that “The loss of the governorship was a staggering blow to this party.” But are they really remorseful? Or do you think if they had a chance to push new legislation to give drivers license to foreigners without papers, or push more new spending plans that they would take it? I think they owe Davis a big “thank you” for sacrificing his Governorship on the rocks of their liberal extremism. [From Leonard Letter 1/20]

[1/21/04 Wednesday]

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 5:07 am [link]
Bush SOTU: It was bound to be anticlimactic when it became clear that President Bush wouldn't ascend the podium, roll up his sleeves, bellow at Congress for an hour and then end the State of the Union with a maniacal YYAAAARRHHH!!!

Despite its lack of Dean-like entertainment value, the President's speech was a good one nonetheless. President Bush offered an apologia (not an apology!) of his policies both foreign and domestic, and managed not to sound defensive doing it -- no mean feat. Like him or not, there's no denying he's a leader -- he made his positions on the war on terror (including the Patriot Act), taxes, education and a whole host of other matters crystal clear . . . creating obvious contrasts with the Democratic positions on these issues, and setting the stage for a very spirited debate with any Democratic nominee.

Yes, one could happily live a full and fulfilling life without having to hear the topic of steroids in professional sports discussed as part of the State of the Union address, but such laundry lists of topics have become standard fare in these yearly speeches; they must play well with at least some Americans.

What's always interesting during State of the Union addresses is watching the opposition party struggle with the decision about whether to stand and applaud. Their intention to "send a message" of disagreement to the President ends up causing the Democrats to seem opposed to some fairly uncontroversial propositions -- that frivolous lawsuits are bad, or that dramatic economic growth and educational gains are good -- and makes them look a little silly.

Speaking of Democrats, their response to the State of the Union was pure entertainment -- garden variety liberal style. Tom Daschle was his usual slippery, dishonest self . . . who knew that "the massive tax cuts that were supposed to spark an economic expansion have instead led to an economic exodus"? And did he miss the fact that economic growth last quarter was the largest in 20 years? In Daschle's world, though, tax cuts are the root of all evil -- apparently they "have put the states in a bind" so that college tuition must be raised. Overspending had nothing to do with it . . . After watching his performance tonight, one had to agree with Daschle himself that he had no business running for president.

But the best was listening to San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi comment on foreign policy -- she started out the Democratic response, and every Republican alive can only hope that normal, sensible Americans were still watching. Leader Pelosi believes that "America must be a light to the world, not just a missile." Huh? And she wants everyone to understand that "Democrats have an unwavering commitment to ensure that America's armed forces remain the best trained, best equipped force FOR PEACE the world has ever known."

So there it is -- the difference between Democrats and Republicans in a nutshell. Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats seem unaware that the purpose of the armed forces in, in fact, fighting (and sometimes killing). President Bush and the Republicans want to make sure that America has the best trained, best equipped force FOR WAR the world has ever known . . . because that's the way we can best ensure that Americans can live safely in peace.

It should be an interesting election year.

[Doug Gamble - speechwriter, columnist] 5:06 am [link]
Bush SOTU: If anyone had doubts that foreign policy will be at the center of President Bush's reelection campaign, they should have been dispelled by his State of the Union Address. The speech as a whole was probably not as eloquent as some in the past, and Bush can seem less than inspiring when reciting an election-year laundry list of domestic initiatives. But when it comes to discussing the war on terrorism and the U.S. liberation of Iraq, Bush positively lifts his words from the Tele-Prompter and makes them spring to life.

Previously not inclined to wear his heart on his sleeve, the events of 9/11 transformed Bush into a man whose pride in our troops, our country and the average American could light a darkened chamber with its glow. The war on terrorism has become more than his responsibility, it has become the very core of his being. He is never so presidential -- or, for his opponents, as effective -- as when he marshals his words in defense of freedom at home and abroad.

It may be that his reelection was assured the moment the first plane struck the first tower on 9/11. But like another wartime president, Franklin Roosevelt, he will still have to campaign against a presidential opponent, still have to convince Americans that he is the one who should continue to lead the effort. Because his heartfelt conviction in the correctness of his actions allows him to say what he truly believes about defending America, unlike the Democrats who say what they think Americans want to hear, he will be very difficult to defeat in November.

[1/20/04 Tuesday]

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 5:16 am [link]
Where did the Dean juggernaut go? The best funded, best organized candidate (veteran Iowa reporter David Yepsen called Dean's organization the best he had ever seen), with the most dedicated supporters, lost -- and it wasn't even close. John Kerry -- who a month or two ago was enduring zingers as he followed Triumph the Comic Insult Dog on the Jay Leno show -- emerged as a winner, with 38% of the vote; John Edwards followed with 32%; Howard Dean was a distant third, with 18%; and Dick Gephardt trailed with a disappointing 11% in the state he had won easily in 1988.

What are some of the lessons of Iowa?

1. Union endorsements don't mean very much -- and it's hard to count on college students.

Gephardt had the endorsement of the manufacturing unions, and Dean had the government unions. Neither paid off -- union members accounted for only 25% of the state vote, and Dick Gephardt won only 31% of that universe. Dean's performance wasn't much better -- and he was let down by the college students that he professed to have energized, having lost the counties where both the University of Iowa and Iowa State University are located.

2. Positive campaigning may pay off.

During the last weeks of the race, as Dean and Gephardt pounded each other, Kerry and Edwards quietly edged up in the polls. Conventional wisdom holds that negative advertising is unpleasant but effective . . . it was indeed unpleasant, but it was only effective for the people who didn't deploy it.

3. Electability matters.

Last week, a Gallup/USA Today/CNN poll revealed that 48% of Democrats wanted a nominee who shares their views; 48% preferred a nominee who can beat Bush. All the Democratic candidates in Iowa pretty much articulated similar views -- all that was left was electability, and voters decided that Kerry and Edwards had a better chance than "gaffe-prone" Dean and "yesterday's news" Gephardt.

Several weeks ago, the Democratic nomination was Howard Dean's to lose -- and it appears that he may be on his way to losing it. Not only has Dean made some remarkably silly statements (e.g. that America is no safer after the capture of Saddam Hussein), he has allowed himself to be portrayed -- by a press that clearly dislikes him personally -- as an angry, joyless candidate. Losing Iowa by a wide margin does nothing to help him in New Hampshire, which has become for him (rather than for Kerry) a must-win state. Even so, Dean can't be counted out unless and until he loses New Hampshire (especially if it's to Kerry) -- or wins it by fewer than 3 points (when he once enjoyed a double-digit lead like the one he had in Iowa). Then, he'll clearly be in trouble.

But whatever happens to Dean from here, he's the gift that will keep on giving for Republicans. At the outset of the race, it seemed that Al Sharpton could inflict damage on his fellow candidates that was disproportionate to his low level of support -- by forcing them to the left, and by forcing them to take positions on issues that wouldn't serve them well in a general election (e.g. reparations for slavery).

Sharpton's impact has been limited. Instead, Dean's angry rhetoric has forced the entire field to the left and to extremist statements in Iowa, thereby creating some sound bites that will return to haunt the Democratic nominee, whomever it is (Dean's popularity in Iowa inspired Wesley Clark to seek attention by making some truly strange comments himself in New Hampshire). And in the end, Dean's poor performance in Iowa tonight allows Republicans to continue to indulge their ultimate fantasy of a long, divided Democratic primary struggle. What a nightmare for Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe, who tried so hard to "front-load" the nominating process to identify a candidate early!

One final point to consider: The late surge for Kerry and Edwards may not be as positive a sign as many Democrats might hope. ALL the candidates had been in Iowa for a long, long time. What does it say about Kerry's or Edward's appeal that voters couldn't decide whether to support them until the bitter end (or until after a love affair with the Dean candidacy had gone sour)?

Is Kerry the true frontrunner? Is Dean out of gas? Is Clark going to be a factor? Does Edwards have a chance? It's too early to tell -- but the shape of things to come will be growing clearer, especially after the New Hampshire primary scheduled for a week from Tuesday.

[Joe Armendariz - CRO columnist ] 5:15 am [link]
Kerry in Iowa: John F. Kerry, who is apparently running for President of the United Nations, in his victory speech from Iowa, suggested the existence of something called the "Bush Recession". The problem is there was no such thing. The last U.S. recession occurred in the 3rd Quarter of 2001. However, economists put the genesis of the slow-down in March of that year; less than 60 days after Bush took office.

No serious person can argue the recession in 2001 was the result of any economic policy(ies) supported by Bush.

Kerry also laments the "loss" of 3 million jobs in America. Memo to Kerry: there are more Americans working today (in small businesses as opposed to big businesses) than at any time in our nations history. Indeed, the U.S. economy (The Bush Boom) grew at a faster rate (8.2%) in the 4th quarter of 2003 than it has since 1983, when Reagan was President.

Finally, Kerry seems to believe Bush is vulnerable on the issue of children and education. But just remember this; the following United States Senators and Congressional Representatives co-sponsored the Bush "Act to Leave-No-Child-Behind" costing U.S. Taxpayers $26.5 billion dollars: Sen. Hillary Clinton (Democrat), Sen Edward Kennedy (Democrat), Sen Christopher Dodd (Democrat), Sen. Mark Dayton (Democrat), Sen. Paul Sarbanes (Democrat), Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Democrat) and the list goes on and on...

The 2004 Presidential election began tonight...if the Democrats insist on nominating a person who can't tell the truth...I guess I'll have to do it for him...

stay tuned!

[1/19/04 Monday]

[in the ebag - Charles Kopp] 5:09 am [link]
Honoring Dr. King: President Bush left a wreath at the grave of Martin Luther King Jr. Friday, and I saw television coverage of some hecklers there. I’ve been thinking of the ease with which contemporary folk claim to own the heritage of men such as King, and even Mahatma Gandhi. To judge by public statements, people as diverse as Al Sharpton, Hillary Clinton, Michael Moore, Yasser Arafat and Tom Daschle- seem to feel their own words and deeds are heirs to these moral giants.

As it happens, during my own years on the left of these arguments, I studied Gandhi and King at length, and even now as a conservative I am struck by how little they resemble anyone in the current political scene. Gandhi and King led demonstrations in a manner filled with dignity and courage. Dignity, in their attire, in their words, and deep within their character, a dignity evident to everyone who saw them. And this was not just a veneer to deflect criticism: both men did not seek to denigrate or humiliate their opponents, but to change the minds of their opponents through moral persuasion. Compare this to the speeches at anti-war rallies of today. For hours on end the speakers launch personal assaults on the character of people such as President Bush, Condoleeza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld, accusing them of a wide range of crimes and character flaws in paragraphs often laced with profanity. Phrases like “no blood for oil” are chanted with no thought given to the lack of evidence that the United States has appropriated even one gallon of Iraqi oil without payment to the owners, the Iraqi people. And I am not referring only to the wilder left occupants such as the radical group ANSWER. In the well of the Senate Mr. Byrd spoke for long hours, proving nothing so much as his own visceral hatred for the President. I for one have never found hatred an appealing thing.

It is not only by a lack of outer dignity or inner philosophy that the contemporary left differs from Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. There is also a vast difference in personal courage. As both of these men had studied history, I’m certain both men knew the likeliest outcome of their activities was assassination. We all know their outcomes. But when folk like Al Sharpton or Martin Sheen fly into town for some civil disobedience, the danger they face is an increased fan base and perhaps the equivalent of a traffic ticket. I don’t say there is any shame for those of us who are not so very brave, unless we claim to own the mantle of men who were so very brave.

I believe that the memory of these giants is only diminished, when in their names epithets are shouted by persons who resemble nothing so much as petulant adolescents. If you are a person of honor who aspires to follow in the footsteps of such persons, and you disagree with President Bush, our language and culture give you ample tools for expressing your disagreement in a manner that reflects better on your ideas.

[1/17/04 Saturday]

CRO/Alert - Radio: Sunday from 5:00-6:30 pm on KION AM 1460 (Monterey area) CRO editorial director Carol Liebau will be guest hosting "Straight Talk with Martha Montelongo" [link]

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 8:10 am [link]
Misery Loves Company: Well, well. Apparently the Democrats are meeting in San Jose this weekend. Guess who's their keynote speaker? That's right: Gray Davis! Apparently, the Dems have no one newer or fresher -- or else they're just nostalgic for the "good old days" of runaway spending, unfettered by a Republican in the Governor's seat. Apparently, Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton are flying west to participate in the fun, too. Should be quite a weekend. Hope someone from the right side of the aisle -- or at least the media -- is there to record some of the wacky dialogue that will surely be bandied about. Some of the sound bites would be fun to play when Phil Angelides or Bill Lockyer challenge Governor Schwarzenegger year after next!

[1/16/04 Friday]

[Matt Klink] - political consultant, CRO columnist 10:25 am [link]
There We Gore Again: Isn't irony beautiful? Yesterday, on one of the coldest days the East Coast has experienced in a century, Al Gore takes the stage at New York City's Beacon Theater to talk about global warming. Funny, but also pathetic at the same time. In his remarks, Gore again attacked President George W. Bush, calling him a "moral coward." Gore applied this pejorative term to Bush because he says that Bush hasn't done enough to stop global warming. Is it just me or does Al Gore have the absolute worst political timing of any politician in American history? Maybe he should have held his press conference outside in the zero-degree temperatures in NYC to talk about global warming.

Gore, the man who boasted about getting rid of the internal combustion engine in his book, "Earth in the Balance," just can't shake his addiction to the Kyoto global warming treaty -- which was rejected unanimously by Republicans and Democrats in the United States Senate and, mercilessly, President Bush indicated that the U.S. would not sign or implement.

Al Gore should realize -- as most Americans have -- that his political window closed a long time ago and that like his political career, his apocalyptic proclamations of global warming should be put in the deep freeze.

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 5:16 am [link]
Dealing With Reality: The Bush Immigration Proposal: There is no question that illegal immigration is a topic of vital concern, especially in California, where nearly all of the state's population growth between 1990 and 2000 was due to immigration – legal and otherwise, according to an analysis commissioned by Californians for Population Stabilization.

And from the right to the left, "opinion leaders" have had a field day this week lambasting President Bush's immigration proposal -- its centerpiece involves offering legal status for illegal immigrant workers, along with an open-ended guest worker program.

But a lot of the uproar may stem from a misunderstanding of a term in the sentence above -- "legal status." That does NOT mean amnesty, or citizenship for those who have come to the country illegally. Rather, the President's proposal offers industrious illegals an opportunity to come forward and obtain a work permit, and gives the United States a chance to try to get a handle on the massive "shadow population" existing within its borders.

Yes, there are good reasons to deny any legal status whatsoever to those who are unwilling to "wait their turn" to come to America. And yes, Mexico's President Vicente Fox is infuriating in his insistence that his people somehow are entitled to cross the borders illegally.

But for those who so robustly support deporting all those not in the country legally, here are a few questions: How exactly can/should this be done? Do we round up people and put them in detention until they can be bussed across the border? How would the detention work? And what about immigrants that are not from America's immediate north or south? Do we fly them "home" on military planes? Where would the planes land?

No, President Bush's plan isn't perfect. There are still many opportunities for fraud and abuse in the immigration system. But the critics have, so far, failed to offer any alternative of their own. At least President Bush's proposal seems to be a fair-minded start to tackling a truly thorny problem.

[Streetsweeper] Opinion Friday [link]
Uh, Well, No, I Didn’t Abort: One of our favorites, George Neumayr lays out some interesting observations about Doctor “I never performed an abortion when I worked at Planned Parenthood” Dean’s interview in People... Still Crazy: In the Standard Hugh Hewitt keeps banging his drum over the lunacy of the Mad Doctor...Been There: Investor’s Business Daily takes on Senate leader John Burton, an “unrepentant big spender”...a contagious disease among Progressives...After Boxer: Deb Saunders sketches out the GOP plan to challenge our demure Senator, noting that less than half of the state’s voters will vote for her and Bill Jones is rising in the polls – could it be? Uphill: Dan Weintraub outlines the tough road the Governor is going to have to sell the Big Bond to the voters...They All Lied: Jonah Goldberg replies to Senator Kennedy (“an embarrassment”) and to the rest of the Bush Lied crowd, and asks if Bush Lied, then did Clinton and his whole administration lie?

[1/15/04 Thursday]

[Streetsweeper] 5:09 am [link]
Taxing Matters: Just in case you didn’t know it, the tax bite in California is big... And the Editors at the Pasadena Star News want you to know how big...

The sales tax, which starts at a base of 7.25 percent and goes up to near 9 percent, depending on the county, is the highest in the nation. The combination of high income tax, business taxes, bond measures and various and sundry levies imposed by our lawmakers means we pay nearly one percent more on average than everywhere else.

While the average percentage of taxes in all states combined has dropped a slight amount, to 9.7 percent, the amount each Californian pays has risen from 10.2 percent of their income to 10.6 percent.

Remember that when voting in the March election, which includes Proposition 56, a measure to make it easier for state lawmakers to raise taxes.

[Bill Leonard] 5:09 am [link]
Were You Listening? Of all the legislators in the Assembly chambers last Tuesday evening listening to the Governor deliver his address, there were 23 Democrats who should have been paying particular attention. These 23 represent districts that voted for the Republican governor, despite having been drawn as “safe” Democrat seats. The voters in these areas are more likely to heed the Governor’s call to action and hold their Democrat Assembly members’ feet tote fire on the reforms for which the Governor is calling.

Patty Berg, 1st District, Santa Rosa Barbara A. Matthews, 17th District, Stockton Rebecca Cohn, 24th District, Campbell Simon Salinas, 28th District, Salinas Nicole Parra, 30th District, Bakersfield Hannah-Beth Jackson 35th District, Santa Barbara Cindy Montañez, 39th District, Mission Hills Lloyd E. Levine, 40th District, Van Nuys Fran Pavley, 41st District, Woodland Hills Dario Frommer 43rd District, Glendale Carol Liu, 44th District, Pasadena Judy Chu, 49th District, Monterey Park George Nakano, 53rd District, Torrance Alan Lowenthal, 54th District, Long Beach Jenny Oropeza, 55th District, Carson Rudy Bermudez, 56th District, Norwalk Ed Chavez, 57th District, Industry Ronald S. Calderon, 58th District, Montebello Gloria Negrete McLeod, 61st District, Pomona John Longville, 62nd District, San Bernardino Lou Correa, 69th District, Santa Ana Christine Kehoe, 76th District, San Diego Juan Vargas, 79th District, Chula Vista [From Leonard Letter 1/12/04]

[Streetsweeper] Opinion Thursday [link]
Bushie Plan 2: For my part, I think the President’s immigration plan is a bad, bad idea...I just don’t get it. Maybe this is some clever ploy to make us all finally see that immigration is really broken and really has to be fixed... After all, will the Republican Congress really go down this troubling road... I don’t think so. Okay, here’s what some real pundits had to say: Fred Barnes says “It won't work. It doesn't stand a chance...” Tony Blankley ”President Bush's recent, lamentable proposals on illegal immigrants...” David Limbaugh “It's a muddled plan, with dubious goals...” Gallup Poll “Two-thirds of Americans are convinced that immigration mostly hurts the U.S. Economy...” Editors at Wash Times “Vicente Fox's proposal Sunday for an open border between the United States, Mexico and Canada was distinctly wrong-headed...” Heather MacDonald “Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens...” And Those Wacky Bay Area Liberals: Matier & Ross inform us that he’s got a plan for San Francisco to volunteer to pay more taxes “State Assemblyman Mark Leno is talking up the idea of asking the ever-liberal voters of San Francisco to reinstate, just for themselves, the vehicle license fee...”

[1/14/04 Wednesday]

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 5:16 am [link]
Daddy Dearest Dean: Apparently Howard Dean has extended his medical expertise from internal medicine to psychiatry. In an interview with "Rolling Stone" magazine, Dean opined:

"This president is not interested in being a good president. He's interested in some complicated psychological situation that he has with his father."

Well, now, if we're all going to take a turn playing armchair psychologist, I'd be tempted to call that statement an example of "projection" -- or the attribution of one's own feelings to other people. Why? Because there are clearly unresolved tensions with regard to Dean's relationship with his own father. A piece on Dean in the L.A. Times reads as follows:

"Dean says he spent some of those wilderness years [skiing in Colorado, medical school, etc.] running from the man known as 'Big Howard': his father. In his autobiography, 'Winning Back America,' Dean said his father's long shadow dogged him from Yale to politics."

Pretty revealing . . . Dean attributes to Bush the psychological trouble he himself may well be having. So here's one other question: Could Dean's unhinged anger at Bush be a little misdirected self-hatred? Maybe not, but it's an interesting question to ponder.

[Bill Leonard] 6:48 am [link]
The Basic Budget Question: I had just a couple simple questions about the Governor’s budget proposal that came out on Friday, so I looked at every budget story I could find int he newspapers. No answers there, but lots of stories about slashing cuts. I went to the Department of Finance web site and waded through pages and pages of information. My question that nobody seemed to want to answer was this: How much money did the state take in last year versus this year and how much are we spending last year versus this year? It is the basic question that every family and every business has to ask in order to even start making a budget.

The best that I can find is this: During the 2003-2004 year, which isjust half over, we are spending at the rate of $75 billion a year and we are taking in $74.6 billion so we are still spending more money than we have and have to resort to borrowing.

During the 2004-2005 year, which is the first Schwarzenegger budget, we are proposing to spend $79 billion-- a $4 billion INCREASE in spending-- and we are expecting $76 billion in revenue. To buy time to bring the expenditures under control, the Governor is proposing borrowing.

Those who wail and moan about the state budget must acknowledge that spending continues to increase. Revenues are not increasing fast enough to keep up with this insatiable demand. Governor Schwarzenegger has wisely said that his borrowing proposal is a one-time measure to give the Legislature time to bring things into balance or to give the people time to vote in the changes themselves. [From Leonard Letter 1/12/04]

[Streetsweeper] Opinion Wednesday [link]
Bushie Plan: Terry Jeffrey weighs in on the immigration plan, “There is higher ground in his debate: Our existing immigration law is morally sound and politically defensible. The government should just enforce it for a change.”... Yep, that's on target...or as Jermaine would say 1000% right...

[1/13/04 Tuesday]

[Streetsweeper] 7:09 am [link]
O'Neill's Bombshell: Uh, well, hmm.... Mr. O'Neill certainly blows the lid on the Administration's attitude towards Iraq from the very beginning... what do you know... Opps... Sorry, Mr. O'Neill and Mr. Suskind, regime change was the official policy of the United States since 1998.

Paul O’Neill’s Bombshell on 60 Minutes!

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11. - CBS News

Official US Policy since 1998

H.R.4655 Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 Public Law: 105-338
SUMMARY:
(REVISED AS OF 10/05/98 -- Passed House, amended)

Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government.

Authorizes the President, after notifying specified congressional committees, to provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations: (1) grant assistance for radio and television broadcasting to Iraq; (2) Department of Defense (DOD) defense articles and services and military education and training (IMET); and (3) humanitarian assistance, with emphasis on addressing the needs of individuals who have fled from areas under the control of the Hussein regime. Prohibits assistance to any group or organization that is engaged in military cooperation with the Hussein regime. Authorizes appropriations.

Directs the President to designate: (1)