Thursday, January 22, 2004
NEW FEATURE: VILSACK SUCK UP WATCH
As of today I am instituting a new feature on this website, the Vilsack Suck Up Watch. This dubious distinction will be bestowed on the person or persons who do their best to cover up the fact that we have an utterly pathetic governor.
The first entry is (who else?) the Des Moines Register editorial page. Last Saturday they did their best to make listening to the Governor's State of the State Address seem like a Lincoln-Douglas debate:
It's too bad more Iowans couldn't listen to Gov. Tom Vilsack's Condition of State speech Tuesday. Sure, it was televised, and broadcast on radio, too, but it's likely most people didn't have the time or interest. They missed hearing what an eloquent speaker they have in their governor.
Whether listeners agree with him or not, Vilsack ought to be acknowledged as the finest Iowa governor-orator in memory. Harold Hughes in the 1960s may have been his equal, but in a less polished way. Vilsack, a lawyer, can be eloquent either extemporaneously or as in this week's formal address before a joint session of the Legislature.
Well, that is defining eloquence down. I recall the Vilscack-Gross debate of Fall 2002 when Gross answered his questions fluidly, and Vilsack constantly stumbled. Vilsack’s droning monotone is about as exciting as a saltine cracker.
I invite all readers to email any possible nominees for the Vilsack Suck Up Watch. As his administration winds down in the next three years, the liberal media in Iowa will surely be doing its utmost to convince us what a great Democratic Governor we had. There should be plenty of material for you to send me.
. . .
HOW TO UNDERMINE YOUR CASE, 101
I sometimes think I should send the Register editorial page a thank you note. They make it very easy for me to discredit their arguments.
An editorial from last Saturday was the usual whine about how the state government is suffering so much, and we all need to be good citizens and sacrifice by paying more taxes so that state workers can get their much needed $101 million raise, so we can keep reducing class size even though enrollment is dropping, so we can keep giving needy companies more corporate welfare through the Grow Iowa Government Values Fund, blah, blah, blah. They blame it on insufficient revenues due to tax cuts and poor economic growth. However, in one small sentence, they manage to shoot themselves in the foot:
As Vilsack explains in his budget report, before fiscal year 2002, the state had an actual reduction in spending compared to the year before just once - during the farm crisis in 1987.
In other words, spending increased every year from Fiscal Year 1988 to 2001. I believe we have found the real problem with the state budget!
. . .
A FEW MORE POINTS
The Register also claims:
In each of the last three years, however, general-fund spending has been less than in the previous year. This does not mean a lower rate of increase than in the previous year, but a real decrease.
I’ve always disliked this tendency to look only at the General Fund portion of the budget. There is another portion called the Non-General Fund, which the state government has used to boost spending considerably in the last few years. When that is factored in, the state has cut spending in only two of the last three years. (Go to page 6 of this report.)
Next, the editorial is titled “Vilsack’s sparse budget.” Yet Vilsack would increase the budget by 5.8%. In my book, that’s not a sparse increase. For some comparison, inflation was 2.28% last year, while Iowa population from 2001 to 2002 rose .16%.
Finally, the Register tries to make Vilsack’s education proposal seem modest:
His recommendations for spending the new revenue include fully funding 2 percent allowable growth in Iowa's school-finance formula as promised. That would mean about $116.4 million in new money, including $44 million the state took back in October. It's a lot less than the 6 percent education leaders want. Some districts still will have to make deep cuts.
The fact of the matter is we’ve been overspending on schools the last ten years. Doing some research for my job the other day, I discovered that Iowa had 29,640 full-time teachers in 1993 and 33,425 in 2003, an increase of 3,785 . Meanwhile, school enrollment has dropped 8,321 over that same period. In other words, Iowa has increased the number of school teachers by an average of 378 a year while enrollment has declined an average of 832 a year over the last decade.
Seems to me that government spending has grown regardless of need.
. . .
Tuesday, January 20, 2004
WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE NEW DEAN VOTERS?
My first ever column at National Review Online! Woo Hoo!
. . .
SO WHAT DOES IOWA MEAN FOR THE REST OF THE PRIMARY SEASON?
In the comments section, “djspicerack” asks “How about thoughts now that Gephardt got slammed in this one? Just saw him briefly on television and he seemed somewhat unfazed by the whole thing. Kerry was about 15 points more convincing than I thought any candidate would be... Think it carries on?”
Well, let me give my thoughts on what the Iowa caucus means for the various candidates, starting with the easiest and working up to the toughest. And never say I don’t do requests.
Dick Gephardt: He’s gone.
Al Sharpton: Does anyone care?
Dennis Kucinich: A few people care.
Howard Dean: New Hampshire is now a must win or he is gone. Second place won’t do. After all the hype building up since late summer, two disappointing finishes is too far to fall to survive beyond the Granite State.
Wesley Clark: Since he didn’t participate in Iowa, New Hampshire is the must perform state. He must place at least third (and probably second) in New Hampshire to survive to South Carolina.
Joe Lieberman: Like Clark, he didn’t participate in Iowa, so New Hampshire is also must perform. He is tougher to call than Clark, because he is the former VP nominee. Thus, the standard is higher. He needs second place at least, or he’s gone. Even with second, he’ll probably have one foot in the grave.
John Edwards: This is the second most difficult to call. To what extent does his surprise second place finish in Iowa affect the expectations about him? Clearly they go up, but how much? Does he now need at least a third place finish in New Hampshire, or will fourth still do? My guess is that New Hampshire won’t factor much for Edwards. Since the expectations for him were already so low, the second place finish will carry him to South Carolina. Furthermore, the media will want to ensure a horserace at least until February 3rd, so the conventional wisdom will soon be that South Carolina (where he was born and right next door to the state he represents) will be his big test. Thus, my best guess is Iowa has given him enough to get to South Carolina.
John Kerry: This is easily the toughest. Does his win in Iowa now put more pressure on him to do well in the Granite State? Or does the Iowa victory suddenly alleviate some of the pressure, and will a second or third place finish now suffice to keep him in the race? Even if he doesn’t place first or second in New Hampshire, pundits will still suggest that his Iowa win shows that he can win in states that he is not expected to win. He pulled a surprise in Iowa, they may speculate, maybe he can pull another surprise down the road. Here’s my best guess: with a second or third place finish, he’ll spin it as, “New Hampshire has helped me become the comeback kid” and that will keep him alive for a while. With a third place finish in New Hampshire, he’ll have to win South Carolina. With a second place finish in New Hampshire, he can survive a second place finish in South Carolina. But he won’t survive for long.
Well, my promise of a few hours ago of no more predictions just disappeared like a fart in the wind. What the heck! This is why politics is so much fun.
. . .
A NIGHT AT THE CAUCUS
My new column at the American Spectator.
. . .
OH CRAP…
Well, that was a nifty surprise, wasn’t it? Jeff Cordts emailed me to say, “Man, did I miss by a ton on my predictions or what! Hence, the reason I don't play the lotto.”
Jeff thinks he was off? Not only did I put a prediction on my site, I have this article back from December that will be in cyberspace for a long time to come.
Only Don predicted that Kerry would win, so hats off to him.
So, I’m going to forsake predictions from here on. Well, at least until just before the New Hampshire primary.
. . .
ONE THING TO TAKE AWAY FROM LAST NIGHT
One lesson that I learned came from Bill Kristol last night on FoxNews. The gist of the remark was how everyone was saying how important organization is in Iowa. He claimed he never believed that (Kristol, wouldn’t, would he?), that what really mattered was the momentum toward the end. That is definitely the lesson to take out of last night’s caucus result.
. . .
ONE OTHER THING
On Saturday I had dinner with Jeff, Don, and Chad from Tusk and Talon. They were all extremely nice—exactly the kind of gentlemen you want to have a round of beers with. The conversation could have gone on all night, and might have if I hadn’t needed to drive back to Burlington.
Gentlemen, thanks for a great evening, and here’s hoping that it’s he first of many more to come.
Oh, and it was nice to see you again too, Joe.
. . .
Monday, January 19, 2004
IOWA BLOGGERS’ CAUCUS PREDICTIONS
Here’s a round up of various Iowa bloggers and their caucus predictions. They are actually quite varied: Each of the big four candidates is chosen by at least one of the bloggers. Here they are: Over at Tusk and Talon, there’s Jeff, Chad, and Don. Here’s Cedar Pundit, Yin blog, and Jason Steffens. Well worth your time. For my prediction, just scroll down a little.
. . .
MORE ON WHY DEAN IS SLIPPING
This article at the Spectator adds to my blog post from last Friday.
. . .
WHO WILL WIN THE IOWA CAUCUS?
Given how tight the polls are, this seems little more than a fool’s errand. Oh well. Here’s my prediction: Dick Gephardt will win, by about 2 to 3 percentage points.
In Iowa, more than any other state, a candidate’s organization—the troops on the ground who can get people out to the polls—matters. A caucus, however, requires more effort than simple voting. A caucus-goer actually has to attend a meeting and listen to speeches. Sometimes, he or she has to sit through multiple votes. Obviously, the ability to get the more dedicated folks to the caucus is going to have a big impact. The two best organizations in the state are Gephardt and Dean.
So, why not Dean? As I’ve examined elsewhere (here and here), Dean seems more fly-by-night: someone who gets you excited for a while, but when you calm down you wonder if there’s any real substance. I suspect that at the end of the day, a lot of undecideds will not go with Dean. That leaves Gephardt, Kerry and Edwards. Each will get their share of the undecideds. But Gephardt’s share, along with his organization, should put him over the top.
Finally, it’s worth noting that Gephardt’s has generally been somewhere between 18% and 22% in almost all of the polls. It seems that about 1 in 5 likely caucus-goers are solidly for Gepahrdt. Thus, Gephardt has a strong core base of support upon as a starting point upon which to add undecideds. The other three, Dean, Kerry, and Edwards, have been up and down like a monkey on a stick.
Hence, my money is on Gepahardt. We’ll know soon enough.
. . .
Sunday, January 18, 2004
WHY IS KERRY SURGING?
This phenomenon is probably the most difficult to explain. Senator John Kerry until very recently had run a dreadful campaign, going from front runner early last year to plunging in the polls in his must win state of New Hampshire. Any article written about his campaign even two weeks ago probably would have begun, “It is time to write the obituary of the presidential aspiration of John Kerry.” In fact, a recent article in National Review did pretty much just that. Now, however, in today's Des Moines Register poll, he has pulled ahead.
My guess is that two factors are contributing to Kerry’s sudden rise. My sources tell me that Kerry has dramatically improved his campaigning style. (I haven’t seen Kerry speak at any Iowa events lately, so this info is second hand.) In the past he came off as the stiff, boring technocrat. Funny how Massachusetts seems to produce a lot of those types of politicians, at least the ones that don’t drive off bridges. From what I hear, Kerry’s style is now warmer and more approachable. Since a candidate can meet a lot of caucus-goers in the last month before the caucus, an improvement in campaign style can boost one’s position in the polls. Although, Slate would disagree with me, so I have to admit I’m on shaky ground with this point.
Second, in the last two weeks the Kerry campaign has been running what is the early nominee for best campaign commercial of 2004. The campaign features a woman, Elizabeth Hendrix, that is in her mid to late 40s, somewhat overweight, with a soft yet firm voice—i.e., an Iowa woman. She speaks sincerely, telling us that her husband died of cancer a few years ago and she is now raising four boys on $28,000 a year. She goes on to say it makes sense to roll back tax cuts, but not to raise them on the middle class. You need to see this campaign to realize how effective it is (If you have Windows MediaPlayer, go here). For the bleeding hearts that populate the Democratic Party, this ad only makes them bleed more.
The ad is hitting Dean is a weak spot, and it makes Kerry seem very compassionate. The big question, of course, is will it be enough to salvage what has been a dismal campaign thus far?
. . .
WHY IS EDWARDS SURGING?
After months of dawdling in the single digits Senator John Edwards suddenly finds himself in second place in the Des Moines Register poll. Again, I think there are two factors at work here.
The first, much to my chagrin, is the Des Moines Register editorial page’s endorsement of Edwards. For those of you unfamiliar with the Register editorial page, think New York Times, only a lot dumber. (For more on this, take a look at the Rob and Rekha show.) Thus, the editorial page does have some influence over the Democrats in this state. The editorial itself was an exercise in vacuity best summarized as “Dean can’t beat Bush.” Fortunately for Edwards, most Democrats probably didn’t read the editorial, but only heard about it. This probably has compelled a lot of caucus-goers to go to an Edwards event.
That leads to the second reason: When the caucus-goers attend an Edwards’ event, they encounter what is easily the most charming of the candidates in the race. I saw him when he came through Mt. Pleasant (where I work) and Burlington (where I live) last Thursday. He gets up in front of a crowd and gets it energized in a very positive, upbeat way. After hearing him speak I thought, “He’s Senator Tony Robbins!” If Edwards wasn’t in politics, he could easily make a handsome living as a motivational speaker. On a side note, it’s no mystery how he made a fortune as a trial lawyer, given how persuasive he must have seemed to a jury. Anyway, for those Iowans looking for a more positive alternative to some of the other candidates, Edwards is a breath of fresh air.
The problem for Edwards, as Shawn Macomber recently put it, is he thinks it’s 1992. There may be too much negativity among Democrats this year for someone like Edwards to prevail.
. . .
ONLY 3%?
Glenn Reynolds claims the Des Moines Register poll shows why he doesn’t trust polls. He finds it hard to believe that Wesley Clark has only 2%, putting him behind the tinfoil-hat-crowd-favorite Dennis Kucinich.
Frankly, I’d question the result of only 3% for Kucinich. He has billboards up in Des Moines that say, “Healthcare…not Warfare.” I’ve seen a lot of Kucinich yard signs around lately, even in Henry County, where I work, which is pretty heavily Republican. He’s even run a commercial (at least once, because I’ve seen it!) It’s the one called “Inspire the World.”
3%! No way! He should have 5 or 6, easy!
My only explanation for the result in the Register poll comes from the nature of a discussion I had with a man at an Edwards rally the other day. More Democrats would back Kucinich, but they fear it would endanger his life. Like Paul Wellstone, Kucinich is too much of a threat to the corporate-military-media-Trilateral Commission alliance, and thus would have to be taken out by Bush operatives.
. . .
|
. . .
|
