January 8th: Bad News for NH

Shortly before Thanksgiving, New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner did the expected: he set the date for the New Hampshire Primary to be January 8, 2008. And the big winner with that decision: The Iowa Caucuses.

Gardner, to his credit, felt that he was hamstrung by the NH statute that required the primary to be set at least seven days before any 'similar' event -- in this case, the Michigan primary, scheduled for January 15th. While most Democrats (all except Hillary and Mike Gravel) have eschewed the Michigan contest (to support to the DNC-mandated protection of the 'early' states), the Republicans expect to have a full-throated contest, which forced Gardner's hand.

While everyone has been focusing on the scant five-day period between Iowa and New Hampshire, it also matters which five days. Iowa itself is just two days after New Year's Day; and occurs on a Thursday. Coverage of Iowa will dominate the Friday (1/4) papers and broadcasts, and the "winners"(*) will also get the benefit of an additional day of bounce because Saturday (1/5) is a traditionally slow-news-day.

The battle to be on the Sunday (1/6) talk shows will pit Democrat against Republican, especially among those top-tier candidates who did not perform well in Iowa, and who need a New Hampshire bounce to stop the bleeding. Monday's (1/7) coverage will be about the
various candidates racing around the state, followed by 'soft' news stories about the early voting at Hart's Location and Dixville Notch.

The bottom line is that whomever "wins"(*) Iowa will have a huge leg up on New Hampshire, and that the cycle of press coverage is likely to make a double-winner -- like John Kerry did in 2004.

Meanwhile, somewhere in the US Capitol, Senator Lamar Alexander shakes his head and thinks of what might have been in 1996, a primary that was held on February 20th. (Alexander finished a strong third in Iowa, behind Senator Bob Dole and TV commentator Pat Buchanan; Buchanan then won New Hampshire, but Dole held off Alexander by a mere 6,000 votes, meaning that Dole became the 'insider' hope to prevent a Buchanan nomination.)

(*) - "win" means to perform above press expectations, and/or win outright.

More from Daly City

As blogged yesterday, the Hillary Clinton campaign (and the John Kerry campaign in 2004) received numerous contributions from one Norman Hsu, together with many from a Paw family that currently resides in a rather modest home once owned by Hsu.

Today, the Los Angeles Times reports that Mr. Hsu previously pled guilty to grand theft in California, agreed to serve three years in jail, and then disappeared.

While it is not expected that Mrs. Clinton (or any other candidate) personally vets campaign contributors, it is undoubtedly true that no campaign wants to accept money from convicted felons, or allow them to 'bundle' funds on behalf of the candidate. Hillary's campaign pushed back yesterday on the WSJ story:

"Norman Hsu is a longtime and generous supporter of the Democratic Party and its candidates, including Sen. Clinton," Howard Wolfson, a spokesman for the campaign, said Tuesday.

"During Mr. Hsu's many years of active participation in the political process, there has been no question about his integrity or his commitment to playing by the rules, and we have absolutely no reason to call his contributions into question or to return them."

But with today's news, it seems likely that Mrs. Clinton will be returning at least the $44,000 that Mr. Hsu personally gave her. Other politicians, including (according to the LA Times), Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, Barack Obama of Illinois and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, may follow suit.

McCain's Meltdown Continues

The on-going highway accident that is the McCain 2008 campaign continued yesterday, with departure of two more senior aides, on the heels of a not-so-flattering WSJ story earlier in the week about the campaign contracts held by Rick Davis' private company. Mr. Davis is also acting campaign manager.

Unlike previous presidential campaigns (Gore 2000 and Kerry 2004), where staff changes signaled a new direction (and better performance from the respective campaigns), these changes appear to be the sign of despair and disorganization (like Dean post-Iowa in 2004), rather than a candidate making tough choices. At this point, it's hard to see McCain -- who was considered to be the front-runner less than 6 months ago -- righting the ship.

Money Troubles

The McCain campaign has borne the brunt of the press maelstrom this week, as disappointing 2nd quarter numbers were followed by a mass-exodus of senior staff. Unlike the John Kerry staff shake-up in 2003 (ahead of the early 2004 primaries), the McCain changes have the ring of a rats-off-a-sinking-ship, rather than Kerry's calculated -- albeit callous (he was heard eating his dinner while informing the remaining staff of the decision) -- dismissal of Jim Jordan.

McCain is not the only GOP candidate with money trouble however. Romney's financial reports, released Friday, showed that he spent virtually every dollar he took in during the 2nd quarter, but that includes a $6.5M loan the candidate wrote to the campaign. Without that loan (and the resources to make it), Romney's senior campaign staff might also be in hot water.

The Pope and Mitt Romney

Pope Benedict, on a plane headed to Brazil, made news last night when he suggested that Catholic politicians who vote in favor of abortion (or, presumably, other Catholic doctrine), would be subject to ex-communication from the Church. The Pope was apparently referring to Mexican politicians who recently liberalized abortion rights in that country, but his comments must be read in the context of a Church increasingly calling Catholic politicians to account (in Italy in 2005, with John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential race) when they vote -- or support -- abortion rights.

Kerry struggled with the abortion issue, and his Catholic faith, throughout the 2004 campaign. While he continued to go to Mass and stated his personal opposition to abortion, was he considered (and is) a reliable pro-choice vote. In the Spring of 2004, a number of bishops stated that he should not continue to receive the sacrament of communion if he were to continue to vote against Church doctrine.

Kerry's position -- personal belief against abortion, but political support of pro-choice legislation -- harkens back to the Catholic politician's "position-of-choice" since 1960, when John Kennedy faced anti-Catholic sentiment in his bid for the White House. The original JFK felt that he needed to address the concern that, if President, he would be subject to instruction from the Pope or other church leaders. Speaking in Houston, in September of 1960, he said:

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured -- perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again -- not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me -- but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

The original JFK put the 'religious issue' behind him once and for all. (To be sure, Kennedy had tried to deal with the issue earlier in the campaign (e.g., a speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors in April, 1960), but the Houston speech was the one that is remembered as effectively ending the issue in the general election.) His Houston speech has become part of the American political experience: of course the Leader of the Free World may consult with the Pope from time-to-time, but as one head of state to another, not as a Catholic seeking, in Kennedy's words, "instructions."

So what does all of this have to do with Mitt Romney?

Mormons (or Latter Day Saints) stand in a somewhat parallel position today to Catholics in 1960. The religion, while wide-spread in the United States, is not well-understood and has suffered a history of persecution; the current PBS series "The Mormons" highlights some of the mis-understandings.

Analagous to the Pope for Catholics, Mormons are led by a sole individual (the President of the Church, the most senior member of the Apostles (a select group of 12 individuals)). The (Mormon Church) President's views, while perhaps not perceived as 'infallible', undoubtedly carry great weight for Latter Day Saints.

If the Pope continues to press the issue with the Catholics in the Presidential race (Dodd, Biden, et al), it will make them uncomfortable. But the attention that the Pope (or other Catholic bishops) bring to the Catholic politicians will -- sooner or later -- raise the Romney/Mormon President issue. And while Catholic politicians may reference JFK's Houston speech, Romney have to define his own relationship with his church, and its leaders.

Update: Another potential politican with a "Catholic doctrine" problem: Rudy Giuliani, who yesterday decided that he will run a 'pro-choice' GOP campaign.

Nominees Finish...Second?

Today's Globe article by Scott Helman featuring a leaked (or perhaps lost) Romney campaign strategy memo contains the following:

The plan concedes that, with McCain and Giuliani in the race, Romney is unlikely to be the top pick for those voters looking for a "war/strong leader." His goal appears to be establishing himself as a credible second choice for those voters, but the first pick for voters looking for an energetic, optimistic, and innovative chief executive. (A page titled "Own the future" dubs McCain the past, Giuliani the present, and Romney the future. )

Running for second place, or at least running to be the second choice of McCain- or Giuliani-supporters is a little reminescent of the last Massachusetts politician to run for President:

Bumper Sticker in Iowa and NH: "Dated Dean, Married Kerry."

The National Primary

Dick Morris argues today that the traditional primary venues of Iowa, New Hampshire, and (now) South Carolina are being replaced by a 'national media primary' that will declare the "winners" of each party long before any one goes to caucus or to the polls. Key quote:

The old model — a Jimmy Carter labors in obscurity in the Iowa vineyards and then is discovered nationally after he wins there and sweeps all remaining primaries — is quaint but obsolete. Now you have to win the American Media Primary of 2007 and then your victory is ratified in the primaries and caucuses of 2008.

Morris is correct in stating that the national media has pulled the process further and further forward. We have developed, in essence, a two separate Presidential campaigns, with the primary being decided in the early part of the Presidential year, followed by a pause (while both prospective nominees go back to their donors to raise money for the fall), and then a furious general election that begins in the late spring and continues, at least in 2000, until just before the Electoral College meets.

But Morris' argument hinges on a distortion of the 2004 record, which is the most relevant for the brave new world of the National Primary. Morris claims that if the front-runner is in control on Labor Day, he/she will coast to the nomination. Yet on Labor Day 2003, Howard Dean had (seemingly) seized control of the race, and was the target of all other candidate in the debates that began that month.

Moreover, Morris writes:

Kerry’s victory in Iowa a few weeks later [in January 2004] was no more than a projection on the Iowa screen of the results settled at the national level the previous month.

While it was clear by December of 2003 that Dean was in trouble (he was clearly hurt by the capture of Saddam Hussein on December 13th), it was far from clear who would benefit; Edwards appeared to be surging and captured the Des Moines Register endorsement just before the caucus. The final margin (Kerry 37.6%, Edwards 31.1%) could have gone either way.

Morris is clearly onto a trend with the 'nationalization' of the primary process. But as for the being the front-runner on Labor Day - ask Howard Dean how that worked out for him.

Update: It should have been mentioned that the most likely way that Giuliani could win the GOP nomination is for a MSM-driven national primary to occur. Here's what conservatives are writing about Giuliani now.

"...and the dream will never die."

Scot Lehigh's column in today's Globe put it bluntly: "And so the dream ends for John Kerry. He will never be president."

By removing himself from the 2008 campaign, Kerry has effectively ended his aspirations; the end of a life-long dream must be difficult for a man who worked so hard, and so long, to put himself in position to be President.

One question that must be ringing through Kerry's mind (together with those close to him) this morning: could he have done more to try to win Ohio (or one of the other swing-states) in 2004?

Finally, Lehigh's column brings back the end of the Presidential dreams of another Massachusetts senator:

"For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end. For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."

Senator Edward M. Kennedy - August 12, 1980

New Iowa Poll

Iowa's KCCI release a new poll of "likely Iowa voters" (not likely-caucus-goers).

Here are the Democratic results:

Democrats
John Edwards 22%
Barack Obama 22%
Tom Vilsack 12%
Hillary Clinton 10%
Al Gore 7%
John Kerry 5%
Wesley Clark 4%
Dennis Kucinich 4%
Joe Biden 1%
Evan Bayh 1%
Bill Richardson 1%
Undecided 11%

Big mover: Obama. Edwards' supporters are hanging in there.

Iowa for Edwards?

All of the media excitement in recent weeks has been focused on two names: Hillary and Obama. Yet in a poll released yesterday and reported in the Des Moines Register, it was John Edwards - 2004 VP nominee and second place finisher in the 2004 Iowa caucus - who led.

Here's the field, as identified by the Register:
Edwards 36% of "likely caucus goers"
Clinton 16%
Obama 13%
Vilsack 9%
Kerry 6%
Biden 5%
Clark 3%
Richardson 2%
Bayh <1%
Dodd <1%
Undecided 8%


A few points:
* The Harstad Strategic Research poll indicated it questioned "likely caucus-goers." Not clear from the Register article if in fact many of those people have caucused before (i.e., 2004), which in my experience is the best way to tell if they are truly likely to caucus in 2008.

* The Register also reported that "32 percent of the caucusgoers say global warming is an extremely serious problem," which may reflect the poll's sponsor, Environmental Defense (sic). May also reflect hidden Gore support.

* The poll was done Oct 12 to 19, but not released until yesterday. Obviously, that means that the data is stale, and the poll does not reflect the recent Obama-boomlet, Vilsack's announcement, and Hillary's pre-announcement.

* Kerry won Iowa in 2004; he is (as of October) mired in single digits. Morover, the poll was done before Kerry's "botched joke" in the late stages of the 2006 campaign.

* Vilsack, if he is running a serious campaign, must move his numbers by organizing his state. The question is: where will his support come from?

...And So It Begins

The spirit of this blog is captured in a piece I wrote back in 2004, which applied the March Madness brackets to the then-nascent Presidential contest between John Kerry and George Bush. A different take on politics, business, law...and sports.