Chuck Schumer and Trent Lott appeared together. Schumer spent his entire morning in a full scale attack on the President over SCHIP. The only thing significant about the debate is its mere existence itself.
Almost all of the early political memories I have involve Republicans trying to limit the radical growth of government proposed by Democrat majorities in Congress. Now we have clearly returned to the days before Reagan when Democrat liberal rhetoric is terrifying Republicans into bad policy.
Nothing new or anything of significance was said by either. You could simply listen to the replays of Congressional debates at almost anytime during the Gerald Ford Administration and have heard the same content. Bad President wants children to die of cancer. Good Democrats want to save children-regardless of cost or practicality, or, more importantly, efficacy. Suffice it to say, Schumer wants an issue a lot more that he wants to save children, otherwise they’d pass the President’s version of SCHIP and expand it to a more socialized medical system if the Ds win the White House in 2008. Schumer lied, children died. Nothing new to see here.
David Yepsen (political editor for the Des Moines Register) appeared to discuss Iowa. James Pindell (political editor for the Boston Globe) appeared to discuss the New Hampshire situation.
David believed that Iowa is still a fluid race but also believed that Mitt’s current wide lead is real. Yepsen thinks that Mitt could still tumble and the race is not over. The absence of Newt now sets the field and Rs must now begin making choices among the known candidates.
Pindell described New Hampshire as a three way toss up race between Mitt, Rudy and McCain. Pindell thinks all three have major strengths in the Granite state. Mitt’s a neighbor, the New Hampshire audience was, after all, watching the broadcast from a Boston station; the more moderate New Hampshire voters are Rudy’s natural constituency; and, McCain has won the state before and has residual popularity.
Yepsen described Edwards as “losing altitude” in Iowa. The polls have been static for several weeks. Yepsen thinks the Dems like their choices and are just sorting out their final preference. David thinks that Biden and Dodd also cannot be counted out in Iowa because they have dynamic campaigns in Iowa. I agree, especially about Biden. Joe has demonstrated a very good campaign in Iowa, definitely the second best operation behind only Obama in central Iowa.
Yepsen discussed the importance of winning delegates and not just raw numbers. Chris and both guests opined that Obama and Evita may be closer than the polls indicated because Obama is activating new voters which, in turn, lead to delegates in the Iowa caucus system. Again, I agree with Yepsen on this one. Obama is going to activate a significant numbers of both black voters and younger voters. Hillary will get him in the super delegates and ultimately win a narrow nomination victory (my belief).
Yepsen indicated that Fred T. didn’t have a great start and is now back in Iowa campaigning. David doesn’t think Fred is shaking up the race in Iowa and Pindell felt the same conditions applied in New Hampshire. Fred’s first trip to Iowa was designed for the “get to know you” kind of audiences. Fred is broadening his Iowa campaign substantially, which should shrink Mitt’s lead. However, as I have been cautioning everyone who thinks the Romney bubble is about to burst, Mitt is a very, very formidable candidate with a tremendous organization in Iowa. Mitt’s latest TV ad is also perfect for the current electoral climate. So, while conservatives have demonstrated a wary attraction to Mitt, it is still attraction and a pin prick will be insufficient to shrink his Iowa lead. Thompson needs to increase face time in Iowa, Michigan and South Carolina if he is going to splash. Both Fred and Huck should just abandon New Hampshire, Pindell is right it’s a three way race in New Hampshire and they’re not going to be in it.
As usual, Bill Kristol is right. Republican chances for winning the White House are improving everyday.
P.S.—Just saw Obama’s new television ad-and it is great.
Almost all of the early political memories I have involve Republicans trying to limit the radical growth of government proposed by Democrat majorities in Congress. Now we have clearly returned to the days before Reagan when Democrat liberal rhetoric is terrifying Republicans into bad policy.
Nothing new or anything of significance was said by either. You could simply listen to the replays of Congressional debates at almost anytime during the Gerald Ford Administration and have heard the same content. Bad President wants children to die of cancer. Good Democrats want to save children-regardless of cost or practicality, or, more importantly, efficacy. Suffice it to say, Schumer wants an issue a lot more that he wants to save children, otherwise they’d pass the President’s version of SCHIP and expand it to a more socialized medical system if the Ds win the White House in 2008. Schumer lied, children died. Nothing new to see here.
David Yepsen (political editor for the Des Moines Register) appeared to discuss Iowa. James Pindell (political editor for the Boston Globe) appeared to discuss the New Hampshire situation.
David believed that Iowa is still a fluid race but also believed that Mitt’s current wide lead is real. Yepsen thinks that Mitt could still tumble and the race is not over. The absence of Newt now sets the field and Rs must now begin making choices among the known candidates.
Pindell described New Hampshire as a three way toss up race between Mitt, Rudy and McCain. Pindell thinks all three have major strengths in the Granite state. Mitt’s a neighbor, the New Hampshire audience was, after all, watching the broadcast from a Boston station; the more moderate New Hampshire voters are Rudy’s natural constituency; and, McCain has won the state before and has residual popularity.
Yepsen described Edwards as “losing altitude” in Iowa. The polls have been static for several weeks. Yepsen thinks the Dems like their choices and are just sorting out their final preference. David thinks that Biden and Dodd also cannot be counted out in Iowa because they have dynamic campaigns in Iowa. I agree, especially about Biden. Joe has demonstrated a very good campaign in Iowa, definitely the second best operation behind only Obama in central Iowa.
Yepsen discussed the importance of winning delegates and not just raw numbers. Chris and both guests opined that Obama and Evita may be closer than the polls indicated because Obama is activating new voters which, in turn, lead to delegates in the Iowa caucus system. Again, I agree with Yepsen on this one. Obama is going to activate a significant numbers of both black voters and younger voters. Hillary will get him in the super delegates and ultimately win a narrow nomination victory (my belief).
Yepsen indicated that Fred T. didn’t have a great start and is now back in Iowa campaigning. David doesn’t think Fred is shaking up the race in Iowa and Pindell felt the same conditions applied in New Hampshire. Fred’s first trip to Iowa was designed for the “get to know you” kind of audiences. Fred is broadening his Iowa campaign substantially, which should shrink Mitt’s lead. However, as I have been cautioning everyone who thinks the Romney bubble is about to burst, Mitt is a very, very formidable candidate with a tremendous organization in Iowa. Mitt’s latest TV ad is also perfect for the current electoral climate. So, while conservatives have demonstrated a wary attraction to Mitt, it is still attraction and a pin prick will be insufficient to shrink his Iowa lead. Thompson needs to increase face time in Iowa, Michigan and South Carolina if he is going to splash. Both Fred and Huck should just abandon New Hampshire, Pindell is right it’s a three way race in New Hampshire and they’re not going to be in it.
As usual, Bill Kristol is right. Republican chances for winning the White House are improving everyday.
P.S.—Just saw Obama’s new television ad-and it is great.
No comments:
Post a Comment