Political State Report: State News Straight Up

John McCain has an interesting choice to make as to who should be his vice presidential running mate. In the most basic of terms the considerations are wide. It’s not even clear the so-called “Maverick” would pick a Republican, though it would be a pretty craven Democrat who would accept his request. What’s that, Joe Lieberman?

A woman? Someone in a wheelchair? A general?

How about Colin Powell? Woah, that one is worth a long, considering pause isn’t it?

Regionally does it matter? Likely not another southwest presence but what about Arnold Schwarzenegger to help drag California to his side? I think it is technically constitutionally legal for a naturalized American to be vice president. National media would shine the biggest spotlight on this campaign.

Laura Ingraham? McCain likes the blondes.

Would he want to strengthen his hawkish (to put it mildly) positions or push someone who would balance where he is perceived as weak.

Does he accept that he is not conservative enough and that being more conservative would actually help with the general electorate?

Would he bring Jonah Goldberg aboard so the right-leaning blogosphere would finally come aboard?

Michael Bloomberg is a serious consideration. What say you?

...READ more...
BY: Temple Stark | Comments and Links (2)

With his own confetti strewn picture atop his Web site, Independent candidate Ralph Nader wants people to not only listen to his views but to vote for him and send him money to become the 44th President of America.

Currently there sure do seem to be a lot of potential defectors from the Democratic Party if their preferred candidate doesn’t get the nomination. From the right, it’s hard to think Nader’s anti-corporate stance - not a bad thing - will draw many Republican defectors unhappy with John McCain. After all, they don’t like him because of McCain-Feingold’s attempted stripping of money power from corporations. McCain isn’t right enough.

Nader lays down 12 major issues he says are “off the table” of the other candidates. They are:

• Adopt single payer national health insurance

• Cut the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget

• No to nuclear power, solar energy first

• Aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare

• Open up the Presidential debates

• Adopt a carbon pollution tax

• Reverse U.S. policy in the Middle East

• Impeach Bush/Cheney

• Repeal the Taft-Hartley anti-union law

• Adopt a Wall Street securities speculation tax

• Put an end to ballot access obstructionism

• Work to end corporate personhood

Here Nader makes the pitch why he’s a better choice than McCain or Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton:

...READ more...
BY: Temple Stark | Comments and Links (3)

This is a transcript of the speech in Ohio while the Texas primary and caucus results were still undecided.
“For everyone here in Ohio and across America, who’s ever been counted out but refused to be knocked out and for everyone who has stumbled but stood right back up, and for everyone who works hard and […]

...READ more...
BY: Temple Stark | Comments and Links (3)

There were five Democratic primary contests last night with the Texas primary and caucus. There were four Republican contests, which John McCain swept.

The results follows. The delegate splits are not yet known for Texas or Ohio. Clinton appears to have gained 16 delegates overall on the night, with Texas caucus figures not included. The total given are those estimated so far but final numbers will be included here when known. Neither candidate will make it to the convention with enough delegates. 2025 are needed.

They are:

Vermont:
Barack Obama 59% — 9 delegates
Hillary Clinton 39% — 6 delegates

Obama won with a lead of about 31,000 out of 150,000 votes cast.
Barack gained +3 in delegates.

Rhode Island:
Hillary Clinton 58% - 12 delegates
Barack Obama 40% - 8 delegates
(Uncommitted 1%m still just 99%)

Clinton won with a lead of about 32,900 out of 181,000 votes cast.
Clinton gained +4 in delegates

Texas primary (228 delegates):
Hillary Clinton 51% - 65 delegates (est.)
Barack Obama 48% - 61 delegates (est.)

Clinton won with a lead of about 98,500 out of 2,808,000 votes cast.

Clinton gained +4 in delegates

Texas Caucus (228 delegates, 67 from the caucus): (Just 40% reporting)
Barack Obama 52% — none called
Hillary Clinton 48% — none called

Obama won with a lead of about 1,500 out of 38,800 votes cast.

Obama gained ???? in delegates

Ohio:
Hillary Clinton 54% — 71 delegates (est.)
Barack Obama 44% — 59 delegates (est.)

Clinton won with a lead of about 229,000 out of 2,187,000 votes cast.

Clinton gained +12 delegates

Clinton gained 16 delegates overall, with Texas caucus figures not yet included.

John McCain won the four states: VT:72% (28,300) — OH:60% (636,000) — RI:65% (17,300) — TX: 51% (707,622)

...READ more...
BY: Temple Stark | Comments and Links (1)

After a sweep of the states tonight, In what was a fairly substantial - and conservative speech - John McCain accepts the Republican nomination for the 2008 presidential race. This is a big deal for McCain who has been trying for so long.

Because he wrapped up the campaign, in all but math weeks ago, this speech has been prepared for a while.

In Austin, Texas, speech below:

...READ more...
BY: Temple Stark | Comments and Links (0)

In a meeting with the press earlier today on his campaign plane, Barack Obama spoke to about the snapshot of the race, today:
Q: How do you see the state of the race?
OBAMA: It’s very very tight. We started 20 points behind in Texas and Ohio. We closed the gap you know whether it’s going to […]

...READ more...
BY: Temple Stark | Comments and Links (4)

Sen. Barack Obama said his campaign tactics were negative, the same as Hillary Clinton’s.
In Tuesday’s debate in Cleveland, Obama said in his first response of the night:

I think it’s very important to understand the context of this, and that is that Senator Clinton has — her campaign, at least — has constantly sent out negative attacks on us, e-mail, robocalls, flyers, television ads, radio calls.

And, you know, we haven’t whined about it because I understand that’s the nature of these campaigns, but to suggest somehow that our mailing is somehow different from the kinds of approaches that Senator Clinton has taken throughout this campaign I think is simply not accurate.

THE TAKE AWAY: He’s not a different politician and has done equally negative moves in his campaign. The overall difference is that he has found the capacity to inspire and Hillary Clinton has found the capaity to inspire hatred and people to think the worst of her. Barack Obama is a wonderful person and motivational speaker - but is that what the country wants?

By overwhelming majorities in recent primaries, the answer is, yes.

2. Obama started to sound like George W. Bush, twice during the debate. One, in a complete mischaracterization of the Medicare prescription drug plan, he said “Medicare Part B is not mandated, it is voluntary.”

THE TAKE AWAY: It’s voluntary in the way that insulin is voluntary for diabetics. Much of the medication is needed to relieve suffering or even to keep on living for those who are too poor to otherwise afford it.

The second George W. Bush impersonation came later in the debate when the candidates were asked what Obama accepted and evoked Bush’s cynical and empty characterization of Iraq as a sovereign government, even if he agrees less cynically.

Well, if the Iraqi government says that we should not be there, then we cannot be there. This is a sovereign government, as George Bush continually reminds us. Now, I think that we can be in a partnership with Iraq to ensure the stability and the safety of the region, to ensure the safety of Iraqis and to meet our national security interests.

A third nod of approval, again toward Bush’s handling of foreign policy was when he mentioned that a strike inside Pakistan was what he would have done.

With respect to Pakistan, I never said I would bomb Pakistan. What I said was that if we have actionable intelligence against bin Laden or other key al Qaeda officials, and we — and Pakistan is unwilling or unable to strike against them, we should. And just several days ago, in fact, this administration did exactly that and took out the third-ranking al Qaeda official.

Was Abu Laith al-Libi al Qaeda’s “third-ranking official?

THE TAKE AWAY: Obama’s position doesn’t seem to correspond with his idea that America should not think itself “superior” in interactions with other countries.

Though such a move can be defended, this strike worked but how many do not? Those are easier to forget. It’s like the idea that the CIA only tortured three people and all three revealed useful information; in fact, the CIA only chose to reveal three that were, apparently, successful interrogations. And even then, the public has no way to verify.

It’s not so easy, As Obama argued in his speech for not intervening in Iraq, there are consequences of such actions, which should be foreseen. In this case, as in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, American shows of force destabilize the country and, in fact, weakens the Pakistani government. Subsequent Pakistani elections bolster this point; Pervez Musharraf lost because he is perceived as friendly to America though generally the American public thinks just the opposite. Preemptive strikes may offer short-term gain - for long-term pain.

3. Obama clearly agreed that he had held no oversight meetings on Afghanistan as chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe.

Well, first of all, I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we haven’t had oversight hearings on Afghanistan.

The committee acts to establish strategy and plans for working with NATO, including its military presence and goals in Afghanistan. That has been in the news lately because the collective cooperation there is failing. For instance, over the last fortnight Germany has said it will not deploy its troops to the more dangerous areas in the south. Whether NATO troops of France and Turkey are there for more offensive purposes than peacekeeping ones has also not been determined.

A concerted effort from not only Defense Secretary Robert Gates but from a Democratic-led Senate would go a long way to show a unity of purpose.

Sure, it was Hillary Clinton who made the point, but does that make it less relevant? Are Obama supporters going to discount the echoes of Dick Cheney’s terrorism task force that never met before Sept. 11, 2001? There may not be a qualitative or consequential comparison - though American soldiers’ lives remained at risk - but the echo is there.

Obama said he got that assignment just as he was starting to campaign for president. What he left out was that he ACCEPTED the assignment. If he couldn’t do it, he shouldn’t have accepted such an important position just so it would look good on his resume. Will the actual presidency be any less busy than the campaign, and will Obama prioritize any better?

There are more ramifications from this pointed example in Obama’s Senate career, including who or what in his life he thinks is more important.

4.

My objections to the war in Iraq were simply — not simply a speech. I was in the midst of a U.S. Senate campaign. It was a high-stakes campaign.

Obama said this after Clinton made the point that Obama should be commended for making an anti-war speech in 2002 but that he did not have the responsibility of an actual vote at that time. Since then, his votes have been for continued war funding.

This “high-stakes” campaign by the way was against the widely under-funded Alan Keyes, who he beet 70 percent to 27 percent. Keyes came in with just 90 days until Election Day to fill Jack Ryan’s place on the ticket for the GOP. Alen Keyes by all reasonable measure is a joke as a candidate. Also this race was in 2004 not when he made the speech.

The Senate race was so easy, Obama donated much of his raised money to and spent time with other candidates around the country. It is widely viewed as the start of his broad popularity among other Democratic candidates. Similarly, Clinton did the same thing in her re-election bid in New York.

5. Obama continues to make the point that Hillary voted for Authorization of Military Force. But there are votes that he should not be proud of, either. Since no one else has pointed them out, it fell to Clinton to again bring them up. She said:

So when it came time to vote on Dick Cheney’s energy bill, I voted no, and Senator Obama voted yes. When it came time to try to cap interest rates for credit cards at 30 percent — which I think is way too high, but it was the best we could present — I voted yes and Senator Obama voted no.

THE TAKE AWAY: Both those, personally, have more day-to-day impact on Americans’ lives. Obama a little bit later says that a new energy policy won’t be easy, but apparently won’t vote to start the fight:

It’s not going to be easy to have a sensible energy policy in this country. ExxonMobil made $11 billion last quarter. They are not going to give up those profits easily. But what I also believe is that the only way we are going to actually get this stuff done is, number one, we’re going to have to mobilize and inspire the American people so that they’re paying attention to what their government is doing.

The only way, except perhaps voting on legislation before him?

...READ more...
BY: Temple Stark | Comments and Links (6)

A month from now, on January 3 Iowa is the first occasion voters get to mark their preference for the next leader of the United States. Five months later on June 3, Montana, South Dakota, New Mexico (for Republicans close out the hunting season.

That’s first date is a month away, and that date,unfortunately marks the gunshot start of a race to the bottom of the rhetorical barrel.

Who can possibly disagree?

It would be nice if there was more hope for an intelligent discussion about the future of the country. Instead, it’s not only going to be horrible it’s going to be embarassing to all thinking people in the country. The usual suspects will enjoy all kinds of gotcha and on the other side we’ll all feel a little stupider.

But, the winner and his or her supporters will feel great. Can we the people really have hope that this country’s politicians solve anything rather than just tread water to do the bare minimum of care and due dilegence?

The National Association of Secretaries of State actually has a decent plan to hold four regional primary election days in the first weeks of March, April May & June.

Maybe that will come to pass in 2009. Meanwhile, Feb. 5 is when the fit hits the shan as 23 states hold primaries, 20 for both parties. Iowa and Kansas, this year, are holding caucuses. Hawaii Republicans are choosing delegates during the first week of February.

Several other, local and congressional primary elections will take place the same days. More on that at PolState.com later.

JANUARY - 13 primary elections in 7 states:

Jan. 3 Iowa (caucus) - R & D
Jan. 5 Wyoming - R only
Jan. 8 New Hamshire - R & D
Jan. 15 Michigan - R & D
Jan. 19 Nevada - R & D
Jan. 19 South Carolina - R only
Jan. 26 South Carolina - D only
Jan. 29 Florida - R & D

FEBRUARY - 57 primary elections in 30 states:

Feb. 1: Maine - R only
Feb. 5: Alabama - R & D
Feb. 5: Alaska - R & D
Feb. 5: Arizona - R & D
Feb. 5: Arkansas - R & D
Feb. 5: California - R & D
Feb. 5: Colorado - R & D
Feb. 5: Connecticut - R & D
Feb. 5: Delaware - R & D
Feb. 5: Georgia - R & D
Feb. 5: Idaho - D only
Feb. 5: Illinois - R & D
Feb. 5: Kansas - D only
Feb. 5: Massachusetts - R & D
Feb. 5: Minnesota - R & D
Feb. 5: Missouri - R & D
Feb. 5: New Jersey - R & D
Feb. 5: New Mexico - D only
Feb. 5: New York - R & D
Feb. 5: North Dakota - R & D
Feb. 5: Oklahoma - R & D
Feb. 5: Tennessee - R & D
Feb. 5: Utah - R & D
Feb. 9: Kansas - R only
Feb. 9: Louisiana - R & D
Feb. 10: Maine - D only
Feb. 12: D.C. - R & D
Feb. 12: Maryland - R & D
Feb. 12: Virginia - R & D
Feb. 19: Hawaii - D only
Feb. 19: Washington - R & D
Feb. 19: Wisconsin - R & D

- and the rest who were sane enough not to care because it’s a primary and they’ll likely get the candidates who have a chance of winning, anyway.

MARCH - 11 primary elections in 6 states:

Mar. 4: Ohio - R & D
Mar. 4: Rhode Island - R & D
Mar. 4: Texas - R & D
Mar. 4: Vermont - R & D
Mar. 8: Wyoming - D only
Mar. 11: Mississippi - R & D

APRIL - 2 primary elections in 1 states:

Apr. 22: Pennsylvania - R & D

MAY - 13 primary elections in 7 states:

May 6: Indiana - R & D
May 6: North Carolina - R & D
May 13: Nebraska - R & D
May 13: West Virginia - R & D
May 20: Kentucky - R & D
May 20: Oregon - R & D
May 27: Idaho - R only

JUNE - 5 primary elections in 3 states:

Jun. 3: Montana - R & D
Jun. 3: South Dakota - R & D
Jun. 3: New Mexico - R only

New Mexico’s Republican primary has the distinction of being the last primary poll to close for the season.

Then when all that’s over, the uselessness of the conventions where scripts are read and very poor theater is played out on garish stages:

Democratic Party, Aug 25-28 in Denver
Republican Party, Sept. 1-4 in Minneapolis-St. Paul

...READ more...
BY: Temple Stark | Comments and Links (3)

Taken with a grain of salt considering that it is put out by the Club for Growth, which strongly backs Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey, there is a new poll out in the Rhode Island U.S. Senate Republican primary. Incumbent Senator Lincoln Chafee nets 45.7% to Laffey’s 44.3%.

The Margin of Error was 5.66%. 300 ‘highly likely’ Republican voters were surveyed.

Former state Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse is the presumptive Democratic nominee.

...READ more...
BY: michael-mcguinness | Comments and Links (0)