Politalk

Dec. 4

Let's see...a month ago Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons was so dangerous the President warned us of World War III. Now the NIE says Iran halted that program 4 years ago.
The President says that doesn't change his opinion about Iran at all. Really? 16 agencies say all the crying of wolf by Misters Bush and Cheney was without foundation...and there are some reports indicating that the President knew the contents of the report BEFORE he made his World War III comments. Talk about rattling sabers...it's like the run-up to Iraq all over again. Discount or downplay any doubts or evidence other than your pre-formed opinion and push ahead. But this administration's credibility is in such tatters with the vast majority of Americans that I'm not sure anyone really pays attention anymore.

Dec. 6

Mitt Romney decided to deal with his religion head on today. In a speech at the George Bush Presidential library, he defended his Mormon faith, but also said his religion would not play a part in any decision he might make as President.
I thought he appeared calm and poised, and did a good job of making his case. But will that put the issue to rest with voters? What do you think? Should a candidate's religion have anything to do with his (or her) qualifications for President?

Dec. 20

So...almost everytime I see Mike Huckabee now, I see a guy in the background who looks familiar. Oh, yeah, it's um, er, ah, Chuck Norris, that's right. Yep, he's endorsed the former Arkansas Governor... and Oprah is stumping for Obama...and Magic Johnson is for Hillary.
Do celebrity endorsements make a difference? Clearly in terms of star power endorsements, Oprah's has to outshine all the others. But is anyone really going to vote for Obama because Oprah likes him? The candidates themselves must think so...since they try to line up stars for their side.
I find the whole thing a little silly, but I'm sure the candidates think even if it just means a few votes, that could make the difference. As Lyndon Johnson used to say, "If you do absolutely everything, you will win."

December 31st
First of all, Happy New Year everyone. I hope 2008 is everything you want it to be for you and yours.
For a bunch of candidates who have been canvassing Iowa like crazy for what seems like eternity, it's obvious what they want the New Year to bring, and quickly.
Which brings me to the recent poll I saw, and the media coverage of it. The headlines said, Romney back on top, Huckabee's bubble bursts, or something very close to that. In the body of the story, it explained that Romney was now ahead in Iowa, 29% to 27%. Only in the small print, did it also mention that the poll had a margin of error of plus or minus five percent. Any decent pollster will tell you a poll with that big a margin of error is virtually worthless. It means the numbers for Romney and/or Huckabee could be off as much as ten points...which would dramatically change the whole story, wouldn't it? So why run the story at all?
Who's going to win in Iowa? I don't know, but I do know the poll didn't shed any light at all on what will happen there.