Happy Tax Day

From Political Wire:

A new Gallup Poll finds 48% of Americans saying the amount of federal income taxes they pay is "about right," with 46% saying "too high" -- one of the most positive assessments Gallup has measured since 1956. Typically, a majority of Americans say their taxes are too high, and relatively few say their taxes are too low.

First Read: "In the last few years, the GOP has seen its advantage on the issue of taxes deteriorate, and it's something that has thrown the party for a loop -- as without taxes as a rallying cry, the GOP has found itself with fewer issues to brag to the public about."

And, of course, the obligatory soundtrack:

Bush Finally Helps the Economy

Forget what the Liberal media says about unemployment reaching a 26-year high. The fact is, George W. Bush has actually helped create new jobs.

At least in Turkey...

Stampede for 'Bush shoe' creates 100 new jobs

Ramazan Baydan, owner of the Istanbul-based Baydan Shoe Company, has been swamped with orders from across the world, after insisting that his company produced the black leather shoes which the Iraqi journalist Muntazar al-Zaidi threw at Bush during a press conference in Baghdad last Sunday.

Baydan has recruited an extra 100 staff to meet orders for 300,000 pairs of Model 271. . . .

Orders have come mainly from the US and Britain, and from neighbouring Muslim countries, he said.

Around 120,000 pairs have been ordered from Iraq, while a US company has placed a request for 18,000. A British firm is understood to have offered to serve as European distributor for the shoes, which have been on the market since 1999 and sell at around £28 in Turkey. A sharp rise in orders has been recorded in Syria, Egypt and Iran, where the main shoemaker's federation has offered to provide Zaidi and his family with a lifetime's supply of shoes.

To meet the mood of the marketplace, Baydan is planning to rename the model "the Bush Shoe" or "Bye-Bye Bush".

Meanwhile, the lawyer for shoe-thrower Muntazar al-Zaidi denies that his client apologized for his actions, as had been reported recently. He also claims that al-Zaidi's medical condition is "very bad" after being beaten by Iraqi security.

"Muntazer al-Zaidi considers what he did when he threw his shoes at President Bush as exercising his freedom of expression, in opposing and rejecting the occupation, which has brought misery to Iraq."

Al-Sa'adi said al-Zaidi was not considering giving an apology to the US president, "not now, nor in the future". . . .

"There are visible signs of torture on his body, as a result of being beaten by metal instruments," al-Sa'adi said.

"Medical reports have shown that the beating he was subjected to has led to him losing one of his teeth as well as injuries to his jaw and ears.

"He has internal bleeding in his left eye, as well as bruises over his face and stomach. Almost none of his body was spared.

If you haven't done so already, you can play the "throw shoes at Bush game" at Sock and Awe.

Reason #47 To Keep the Tums Handy Until November 5

(See Also: Reason #119 To Stay Drunk Until November 5.)

From today's Political Wire: "Obama Poll Shows Tighter Race in Pennsylvania."

An internal poll from Sen. Barack Obama's campaign in Pennsylvania has him just two points ahead of Sen. John McCain, according to The Hill.

"WILK radio host Steve Corbett said Tuesday he obtained an Obama campaign e-mail about the internal poll showing a tight race." The Obama campaign "wouldn't confirm the internal poll numbers, but said that the e-mail was sent without permission."

I will not look at poll numbers.
I will not look at poll numbers.
I will not look at poll numbers.

The Result of the McCain-Palin Negative Attack Campaign

From today's New York Times article, "Obama Appeal Rises in Poll; No Gains for McCain Ticket."

In the last month, Obama's Favorable rating among Independents has gone from 34% to 51%, +17 points. Biden went from 31% to 47%, +16.

In the same time period, McCain's Favorable rating among Independents went from 42% to 39%, -3 points. Palin's rating went from 42% to 38%, -4 points.

McCain's Unfavorable rating went up an astounding 20 points, from 24% to 44%. Palin's Unfavorable rating jumped 14 points, from 19% to 33%.



Click on the image for a closer view.

Across the board, Obama and Biden made significant gains, whereas McCain and, especially Palin, went down, down, down.

The nasty attacks by McCain and Palin may have pleased the right-wing extremist Republican base, but there aren't enough of them to win an election without moderate Republicans and Independents.

What a bizarre campaign McCain has run. In a year when he absolutely had to court Independents, he seems only to have pandered to a dwindling extremist base.

The Polling Thing in New Hampshire

CNN pollsters hard at work

So, the media's freaking out because they say the polls were terribly wrong in New Hampshire. But, really, they're paying about as much attention to the numbers now as they did before the primary.

I highly recommend reading, "New Hampshire: So What Happened?," by Mark Blumenthal, Editor/Publisher of Pollster.com. It's the best article I've come across on the subject.

If you look at the last polls before New Hampshire, and look at the actual results, and you take into account the "margin of error" that the polls always mention and everyone always ignores, the numbers for all of the candidates in each party were on target.

With the single exception of Hillary Clinton.

And I think that can be easily explained by the fact that Diebold machines were used for the voting and the Clintons hacked into the system.

I'm kidding.

Well, I'm kidding about the Clintons hacking the system. Although, some bloggers are shouting "Fraud!" And one blogger claims "Those Diebold op-scan machines are the exact same ones that were hacked in the HBO documentary, Hacking Democracy." And, now that I think about it, Hillary did compare herself to Lyndon Johnson the other day, though I still can't figure out why. She said that Martin Luther King Jr. may have had the dream, but it was President Johnson that brought about the change with the Voting Rights Act. Which is about the stupidest remark I've heard in the entire campaign. Why a woman who voted for the Iraq War would want to compare herself to LBJ, while comparing Obama to Dr. King is really beyond me, as much as I think LBJ was a better president than he's given credit for. But now that I've spoken poorly of Mrs. Clinton and planted seeds of doubt about her victory, what about the real story?

The question is: Why were her numbers so far off? Some last-minute swing? The choking-up thing? Women feeling sorry for her? Actually, several of the 3-day polls, if you look at them more closely, showed Hillary gaining significant ground the last day or so. But they were 3-day polls, so the numbers didn't reflect that momentum much.

Jeff brought up the problem of cell phones not being counted in polls, and that is a concern in general. I would argue, though, that by excluding cell phones, which are used more by younger people, the numbers - if the were really impacted - would have been better for Obama in the end, as many of his supporters would've been ignored before the primary.

New Hampshire had a huge amount of voters who didn't make up their minds until the last day - 17% for the Democrats and 19% for the Republicans. And 21% more of the Democrats didn't make up their minds until the last 3 days. So, 38% of the Democratic voters didn't know until the end. Hard to poll that.

I crunched some numbers, and McCain got 38,000 votes from people who made their minds up in the last day or last 3-days. Obama lost by 7,500 votes. A lot of Independents were torn between McCain and Obama, and I think Barack lost some votes that way, because people thought he was far enough ahead that it didn't matter. But again, his numbers were actually on target.

So, something last-minute got missed in Hillary's numbers. As time goes on, I'm sure more thorough explanations will be forthcoming.

Pollsters certainly aren't perfect, but a lot of the blame lies on the way the media covers the polls, and on us for not paying more attention ourselves. I'm not that worried about the polling. It is what it is. You wanna bet on horse racing using only speed ratings? Go ahead. But those numbers are only part of the picture.

What happened in New Hampshire is probably a good thing, because pollsters will have to be even more careful and attentive with their polling, reporters and pundits will actually have to look more closely at the numbers, and the rest of us will have to take these things with a bigger grain of salt. That's never bad.

News and No News

Glenn Greenwald at Salon on the "Surge" you haven't heard about, and why:

Is there any distinction between what a "reporter" does and what a "pundit" does covering this campaign? There doesn't seem to be any.

As but one example, consider this new daily tracking poll today from Rasumussen Reports. At least according to this poll, it is true that there has been one candidate who has been genuinely surging in the last week or two among Democratic voters nationally -- John Edwards:

Edwards -- who, just one week ago, was 10 points behind Obama nationally among Democrats -- is now only two points behind him. Less than a month ago, he trailed Clinton by 29 points. Now it's 13 points. He is, by far, at his high point of support nationwide.

Yet to listen to media reports, Edwards doesn't even exist. His campaign is dead. He has no chance. They hate Edwards, hate his message, and thus rendered him invisible long ago, only now to declare him dead -- after he came in second place in the first caucus of the campaign.

There are certainly horse-race counterarguments to all of this. This is only one poll. Obama is ahead in New Hampshire, where his support has increased, etc. etc.

But I'm not focusing on the accuracy of horse-race predictions here, but instead, on the fact that the traveling press corps endlessly imposes its own narrative on the election, thereby completely excluding from all coverage plainly credible candidates they dislike (such as Edwards) while breathlessly touting the prospects of the candidates of whom they are enamored. Their predictions (i.e., preferences and love affairs) so plainly drive their press coverage -- the candidates they love are lauded as likely winners while the ones they hate are ignored or depicted as collapsing -- which in turn influences the election in the direction they want, making their predictions become self-fulfilling prophecies.

It's just all a completely inappropriate role for political reporters to play, yet it composes virtually the entirety of their election coverage.

And now for a newsflash from across the pond . . .

BBC: Recession in the US 'has arrived'
Times (London): Merrill calls US recession
Daily Telegraph: US recession is already here, warns Merrill
Scotsman: Banking giant warns US economy in recession

Meanwhile, back at the ranch . . .

New York Times: Bush Admits Economy Faces Challenges

“We cannot take growth for granted,” Mr. Bush said in a speech to a group of business leaders in which he acknowledged that “recent economic indicators have become increasingly mixed.”

On top of it all, the beloved Golden Globe Awards show has been canceled because of some scruffy, sushi-eating, latte-drinking, left-wing, pinko writers out on strike.

(In my book, anyone who can get an awards show canceled should be considered a HERO!)

But don't despair, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have returned.

Huckabee Rising

According to a new Rasmussen poll of likely GOP Caucus Goers, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee has taken the lead in Iowa, with 28% of the vote, just ahead of Mitt Romney, who has 25%. (Rudy 12%, Thompson 11%, Ron Paul 5%, everyone else <5%.)

Hendrik Hertzberg's article on Huckabee in this week's issue of The New Yorker is one of the Most Read on the magazine's web site.

The New York Times featured three articles on Huckabee over the last few days, including yesterday's "Success Is Testing the Huckabee Campaign" and Michael Luo's article on Wednesday: "In Iowa, Mormon Issue Is Benefiting Huckabee.

"Mr. Huckabee’s rise in Iowa — some recent polls now put him in a dead heat with Mr. Romney, who had led surveys for months — has been fueled by evangelical Christians, who believe Mormonism runs counter to Christian orthodoxy."

This morning's Associated Press's article "Huckabee Hopes for New Hampshire Boost," starts off thus:

"Barely a blip on New Hampshire's political radar screen a month ago, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is generating buzz, curiosity and speculation that a decent showing here could secure his spot in the top tier of GOP presidential contenders."

In fact, Huckabee is suddenly all over the media, with everyone talking about his sudden rise in Iowa - he was polling around 2% in Iowa back in May. Longtime political analyst Mark Halperin, now at Time, said Huckabee did the best at this week's Republican debate, and other conservatives agreed. National Journal has even come up with the term "Huck-a-mania" to describe what's happening. Everybody, it seems, now hearts Huckabee.

Oh yeah, he's also got Chuck Norris campaigning for him. Chuck's in Huckabee's new ad, and he showed up at the debate the other night as well, drawing more attention to Huckabee. The Norris angle is interesting enough that the Los Angeles Times wrote about it yesterday: "Is Chuck Norris Huckabee's secret weapon?" [First line: "Chuck Norris doesn't endorse candidates, he kicks them into the stratosphere."] Author Tina Daunt says that after Chuck announced his endorsement,

"Huckabee became the presidential example of tough-guy cool. You thought Fred Thompson was going to be the law-and-order candidate? He was looking like a worn-out hound dog Wednesday night as Huckabee strode into the debate with the still buffed-up, 67-year-old Norris by his side."

I've been puzzled all along why Huckabee wasn't doing better, especially when you look at the other Republican candidates. For months there were media reports about Evangelical "leaders" like Dobson not knowing which Republican to support. These hypocrites wouldn't even consider Huckabee, even though he's a Baptist minister and solid evangelical, because he didn't have enough money. Look for stories in the next week or so about God suddenly telling them to endorse Huckabee.

What's interesting is to see how many Liberals actually respect Huckabee, even though they disagree with him on various issues. He's been called likable, thoughtful and well-spoken (though not "articulate"). This has been going on for months in the Liberal blogworld, and the trend has carried over into the mainstream media pieces on Huckabee. I recommend reading Hertzberg's article for what he has to say bout Huckabee - it's a good introduction to the man - and how he says it. His conclusion, for example:

To all appearances, Huckabee’s gentle rhetoric is a reflection of temperament, not a stylistic tactic. Arkansans caution that he is capable of churlishness. But his history suggests that he prefers consensus to confrontation, that he regards government as a tool for social betterment, and that he has little taste for war, cultural or otherwise. He seems to regard liberalism not as a moral evil, a mental disease, or a character flaw—merely as a political point of view he mostly disagrees with. That may not seem like much, but it makes a nice change.

The money issue is real - Huckabee hasn't been able to raise much at all. Despite going up against Romney's millions, however, he's now in the lead in Iowa or close enough in other polls to call it an even race. More importantly, he's getting serious media buzz at just the right time. What might he accomplish if he does start to raise real money?

A likable and conservative white male versus Hillary Clinton. Evangelicals energized by a Baptist minister running for President and Hillary being the opponent. A large group of Democrats and Independents discouraged by Hillary getting the nomination. (And I'm sorry - it's not just me. I talked to about a dozen people over Thanksgiving - New York area liberals from various backgrounds, many of whom didn't know each other. Not a single one liked Hillary. Her high "unfavorable" numbers don't come from the vast right-wing conspiracy alone - they often come from within her own party.) Could Huckabee actually be competitive against Hillary in the general election? In a Zogby Poll released this week, Huckabee defeats Clinton in a head-to-head matchup, 44% to 39%. Hillary actually loses to all five major Republican candidates, but she loses to Huckabee by the widest margin. [Obama beats all five Republicans, including Huckabee 46%-40%. Edwards beats four of the five, tying with McCain.]

I'm not sure Huckabee can win the Republican nomination. His lack of money will hurt him in the long run. He's going to need a win in Iowa, a good showing in New Hampshire, the fists of Chuck Norris, and the continued love of the media. But the Republican rank and file are still looking for someone they can get behind. That much is clear. Would it really be that surprising to see them turn to Huckabee?

Romney Leads All Candidates in Surprising New Poll

It's really hard to keep track of all the policy positions of the various Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, or to remember who's leading who in whichever up-to-the-minute and totally inconsequential poll. I hope this report helps clarify your choice for the next Godfather President of our country.

The Fall of King George, Part 17

I totally stole this post from the blog Modest Cake, which was channeling a recent Pew Research Center survey:

"Please tell me what one word best describes your impression of George W. Bush."

Top five descriptions. Look for patterns . . .

FEB 2004: 1. Honest 2. Fair 3. Leader 4. Liar 5. Arrogant
MAY 2004: 1. Honest 2. Good 3. Liar 4. Leader 5. Arrogant
FEB 2005: 1. Honest 2. Good 3. Integrity 4. Arrogant 5. Incompetent
JUL 2005: 1. Honest 2. Incompetent 3. Arrogant 4. Good 5. Integrity
MAR 2006: 1. Incompetent 2. Good 3. Idiot 4. Liar 5. Christian
FEB 2007: 1. Incompetent 2. Arrogant 3. Honest 4. Good 5. Idiot*

Homeland Arrogance and Incompetence Alert: ELEVATED

See the full survey: PEW RESEARCH CENTER FOR THE PEOPLE & THE PRESS FEBRUARY 2007 POLITICAL SURVEY

*If combined, Idiot/Stupid/Ignorant would actually rank #1 in FEB 2007.