Ron Paul ends N.H. recount effort

This letter was just sent out by a Ron Paul supporter:

Update: Vote fraud at Iowa caucuses

This is an update to the previous entry I put together in the wake of the Iowa Caucuses about a week ago: ["Rumor: Vote fraud at Iowa Caucus?"].

The 2008 New Hampshire Primary Aftermath: Gender politics trumps liberal white guilt, the war hero beats the CEO

A lot will be written and said about the aftermath of the 2008 New Hampshire primary in the coming months and maybe even the coming years. It would make a great case study in presidential politics. And, with so many people contributing to the process - regular/mainstream and alternative media, like citizen journalists and blogs - there is a lot to take in. But for this political junkie, looking at the very long [and yes, too long] campaign and the ultimate outcome, it is easy to call the process a complete mess of monumental proportions, while at the same time, wondering how long our state can hang on to the first-in-the-nation primary status. What the primary did do though was defy the Democratic naysayers who claimed that because New Hampshire was not “diverse enough,” minorities and women could not get a fair shot. Please note: A woman finished first, a black man finished second, and a Latino man finished fourth, in one of the whitest states in the country. Hopefully, the diversity card will not be played against New Hampshire [and Iowa for that matter] ever again.

On the Republican side, grassroots politicking and honesty by one candidate trumped the millions poured in by another candidate. Republicans, with the help of independents, also denied the more negative candidate of the top two the prize.

But it is safe to say, that the days of our primary could be numbered for other reasons. A deep analysis is needed to look at the entire process. That will come later. For now, let us look at what happened yesterday. 

McCain running away with it

Clinton and Obama neck and neck. It's going to be an interesting evening.
I wonder if a slew of people came up from Massachusetts to vote in the primary, at the urging of the Clintons and Boston Mayor Tom Menino. With same-day registration, there are opportunities for cheating and fraud.

Rumor: Vote fraud at Iowa Caucus?

Update 3: I have a new update here: ["Update: Vote fraud at Iowa Caucuses"].

Update 2: Here is some more information: The site was in eastern Iowa, not very far from the Illinois border. At about 6:30 p.m. about 60 locals had gathered to caucus on the Democratic side. Most of the people were chatting because they were acquainted with each other.

How Inevitable is Hillary?

Guest Perspective/Former state Sen. Burt Cohen
The campaign was pumped. Between 4,000 and 5,000 people jammed a campaign rally in Portsmouth, featuring the undisputed Democratic front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton. And oh yes, her husband, former President Bill Clinton was also there.
The important political question is: what percentage of the crowd came to see Bill Clinton, and how many of the crowd are supporting Hillary Clinton?
I've spoken to many people who were there. My unscientific, yet surprisingly consistent sample revealed that they all went to see the former president, and also, sure, also take a look at Hillary. Each came away either still undecided or still supporting their candidate. For most I spoke to, that was Sen. Barack Obama.
At a well attended fund-raiser for John Lynch, the governor asked for a show of hands, who had chosen a candidate. Three hands in a crowd of about 70 opinion leaders went up.
Very revealing.
The Labor Day corner has been turned. As the summer ends, the limited universe of activists has pretty much settled into one camp or another. Now the real campaign, the effort to win the life-beyond-politics primary voter begins. For most of us, the New Hampshire priimary has just barely begun.
The road to the White House is littered with summer front-runners. As fall approaches, there is the inevitability factor for Sen. Clinton, but deeper than that, who knows.
One thing Granite State voters, both Democrat and Republican, always look for is authenticity. Many at the rally got the sense that every word was poll tested. I asked a thoughtful Hillary supporter her reason for that support. She said it's because Sen. Clinton knows how to "walk the fine line." That's exactly the point. Merely offending the fewest just doesn't cut it. That's not leadership and people sense it.
Caution sometimes works, but not usually. Former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, with an acknowledged reputation for consistently hewing the middle of the middle, obviously got elected governor three times. But on the other hand, when she served as national co-chairwoman for the Kerry campaign, the general election strategy became balancing on the microscopic center of the proverbial fence.
But being not-George Bush was just not enough. Who exactly was John Kerry? By November, no one knew. Again, authenticity was missing in action and he lost because of it (well, GOP shenanigans in Ohio were also a factor, as was his distancing from running mate Edwards).
Primary voters are hungry to have faith in their leaders restored. We can sense insincerity a mile away. Kerry's handlers did not get this, and it appears Clinton's handlers may be of the same mindset.
All things to all people may still occasionally work, but as 2006 showed, the strategy is less and less effective. What worked last November for people like U.S. Reps. Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes was that, after taking a measure of them, voters had no doubt they were for real. This unmistakable authenticity will work for them again in 2008. People respect, and vote for, candidates whom they trust to mean what they say, even if they may not agree on every issue. Trust me, from my own electoral history, I know what I'm talking about.
There is a large degree of theater in politics. If your story line climaxes too early, like in the summer, where are you at the dramatic moment in January when the votes are actually cast? Gov. Bill Richardson, Sen. Chris Dodd, and Sen. Joe Biden have not peaked too early. There's a lot of drama left in this play.
The presidential primary is wide open. At this point, in September 2003, then-Vt. Gov. Howard Dean looked inevitable. But as that great sage Yogi Berra put it, "It ain't over 'til it's over." It's just beginning.

Former state Sen. Burt Cohen served seven terms in the state Senate from 1990-2004. He now hosts "Portside," a twice weekly interview program on WSCA-LPFM, streaming live Tuesdays and Thursday, from noon to 1 p.m. at portsmouthcommunityradio.org. He also serves as a political analyst for WNTK in New London. More columns and audio samples are available at his Web site, burtcohen.net.

Equal time
Add this linked editorial to the list of reasons why the editorial page editors of the Wall Street Journal have no clue when it comes to reality, with or without Rupert Murdoch owning the newspaper.
This morning, they suggested that equal time requirements and provisions on television and radio stations for political candidates be eliminated: ["Mr. Thompson in Repeat"].
While the Web is grand and exciting, it doesn't make up for television and to a lesser extent, radio, especially when trying to connect with voters. Especially good voters - older ones who tend to still watch television and listen to radio.
Since television and radio licenses are still regulated by the federal government and are exempt from entrepreneurial competition, fairness standards need to be reimplemented and equal time provisions need to remain in place. In fact, having seen and experienced this form of political discrimination myself, I would suggest that the FCC needs to vigorously investigate whether or not licensed television and radio stations are adhering to the equal time provision now, not eliminate the provisions. They should also fine or even deny license renewals to broadcasters who refuse to adhere to the rules. This would seem to weigh heavier on talk radio stations and television stations, which actually perform debates. But so be it. Instead, the FCC seems completely preoccupied with things like Janet Jackson's bare breasts flipping out by accident during the Super Bowl halftime show instead of real and true violations of the public trust. That should change.
The WSJ is correct about cable. Cable is not a broadcast frequency or license. And, technically, anyone can start a cable station to compete against the others, if they have the money. So, they can do what they want. If they are a cable news station then they obviously would want to adhere to standard journalistic practices and fairness. That isn't always the case but one can hope.
If the provision were to be eliminated, there would be no rule. That would mean that television and radio stations can make their own rules. Viewers/listeners and candidates would have no way of objecting to their biased or uneven coverage. For example, elimination of this rule would allow a station to have a debate and then not allow all the candidates who are on the ballot a seat at the debate, for whatever reason. This goes against the public trust and responsibility of owning those licenses. Again, as I've said before, you can't just go out and create a television or radio station. Well, you can but you will quickly find yourself in jail. You can create new newspapers, magazines, or Web sites if you don't like the coverage of the ones who serve you. But the public owns the airwaves and the government regulates them - or supposedly regulates them. The public should not be denied the opportunity to see every candidate who is on the ballot in whatever race. This change would allow that to take place.
It should be noted that even with the protections which are currently the law, television and radio stations have kept candidates who are on the ballot off the air and denied them fair access to the airwaves, over and over again. I have a litany of examples which I could rattle off but won't at this time. So, the current system isn't perfect. But strengthening the rules, not weakening them, is the answer.

Declarations
Former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan, however, has this pretty good column about the recent Republican debate at UNH, in her weekly "Declarations" column: ["Off to the Races"]. I don't normally agree with her on most things but I read her every week [well, when I actually get the WSJ delivered]. And this week, she has dead ringer after dead ringer. See if you don't disagree.

On Paul being against the war:
"After Mr. Paul spoke, it seemed half the room booed, but the other applauded. When a thousand Republicans are in a room and one man of eight on the stage takes a sharply minority viewpoint on a dramatic issue and half the room seems to cheer him, something's going on."

On why Huckabee isn't considered in the top tier:
"Maybe he is and we don't know it."

On Rudy and the dredging up of 9-11 and leading NYC:
"Enough already, we heard you, move on."

On Romney:
"Mitt Romney is -- well, he continues to seem like someone who's stepped from the shower and been handed a dress shirt by his manservant George. ... he should get shirt-sleeved, dig deeper, get to his purpose."

That's the great thing about New Hampshire. We have the ability to really take a look at these people and get to know them. We wouldn't really have that if they had a national primary or probably even a regional primary scheme.

The Real Rudy

Oh wow, Greenwald does it again. Check this out:

Boy, does this guy have time on his hands or what? BTW, guess which one is leading? Yeah, the emergency command center at the #1 terrorist target, at 38 percent. Faulty radios for firefighters was second, at 32 percent.

When Hillary Calls ...

No, this isn't a horror movie. This is an actual experience.
On Friday, we received a robo call from the Hillary Clinton for President campaign. Paraphrasing, it went something like this: Hi, I'm Hillary Clinton. My husband Bill and I will be at the State House for a rally on Sunday ... blah, blah, blah. Great.
Well, we deleted the message, one of four or five we have received from the woman's campaign in the last few months [Campaign calls, so far: five robo calls from Clinton's; one robo and three personal calls from Edwards' campaign; one personal call from Obama's campaign; one robo call from Richardson's]. It seems that every time she is within a 25 miles of my house, we get an invite to come "meet" her.
Of course, it is kind of a stretch to call Hillary's events "meet-and-greets" or "listening"-anythings. There isn't a lot of listening and there isn't a lot of greeting. There seems, to me at least, to be a lot of huge stadium-type events and the whole, "I'm Hillary, shut up and listen to me ..." speech. And what is this "change agent" stuff? Give me a break.
Anyhow, so I'm sitting at the house on Saturday, early evening, after a trip to the Fair which Hillary would crash herself on Sunday, and I get a phone call from a 703 area code in Virginia.
"Hello?" I ask, wondering who the heck would be calling me from there.
"Hi, is Anthony there?"
"This is Anthony."
"Hi, I'm so-and-so from the Hillary Clinton for President campaign."
Oh, a live one now. Great.
"Hi. What can I do for you?"
"Sen. Clinton will be at the State House for a rally on Sunday and she would like you to be there so she can meet you."
Yeah, right.
"Will you be attending?"
I ponder at what to say.
"Ah, no, I can't make it, sorry."
"Oh," the woman says, sounding surprised. "Well, have you decided who you plan on voting for in the primary yet?"
"No," I say, pausing for dramatic effect, "I haven't quite decided yet. But, I won't be voting for Hillary Clinton."
Silence.
"Oh, OK, well thank you."
"Thank you."
Click.
I thought for a moment after I revealed to the Clinton campaign that I would be a 4 and not a 1 or 2 on primary day, whenever that day is set, and whether that was such a good idea. It is always best not to reveal your position to the enemy. And believe me, Hillary is the enemy. Imagine her in control of the nation with all the draconian Executive Orders and laws implemented by the Bush Administration. Yikes! But, then again, if her campaign stops robo-calling my house, in order to save the 15 cents, that would be a welcome change.

We Need Candidates With Good Judgment

Guest Perspective/Lee H. Hamilton

All over the country, political candidates, consultants, reporters, campaign volunteers, and politically active citizens are pondering a single question: What do voters want in a candidate? Will voters be motivated in next year's elections by issues, personalities! or some intangible mix of qualities in the candidates they're considering?

Every voter makes up his or her mind differently, of course, but my suspicion has always been that most voters weigh a mix of considerations; the true "single-issue voter" is rare. To be sure, they want to know candidates' stands on the issues they care about - how they articulate them and what they consider most important. They also want to get a sense of the candidates' overall vision and where they want to take us as a nation, how they see the role of the federal government at home and whether they propose a muscular or more restrained foreign policy.

They look for less tangible things as well, qualities that would make them comfortable with a candidate. Voters generally want a sense that a candidate knows why he or she is running for office - and in particular, that it has to do with a desire to accomplish goals or to improve the common good, rather than simply to slake some person! al ambition.

Voters also want to feel good about a candidate's values, intelligence, and sensitivity to their concerns. This is why candidates who are masters of statistics and dense policy arguments sometimes leave voters cold, while candidates who can present a compelling "story" attract attention and support.

Over the years, poll after poll has suggested that voters put "integrity" and personal honesty at the top of their requirements in a candidate. My sense is that other concerns come higher. If voters like what a politician stands for or find some deeper personal connection, they can forgive a lot: Witness the re-election of Richard Nixon in 1972 or the high poll numbers Bill Clinton enjoyed despite questions about his personal conduct.

One such consideration, generally dismissed by pundits but clearly embraced by voters, is simple likability. Americans want to feel at ease with the person they're voting for. And while they won't admit it, at least not to pollsters, they take physical attractiveness into account, as ! a string of handsome presidents in the television age - John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, both Bushes, Bill Clinton - suggests.

But I have always thought that perhaps the most important trait in a political leader is invisible, or at least difficult to discern ahead of time: sound judgment. It often gets confused for intelligence, but intelligent people can misjudge affairs if they're led astray by ideology, dogmatic thinking, or even good intentions.

On the other hand, you can often tell if candidates lack good judgment: If they are unable to be wary of their own passions, inclined to dismiss other views, unsuspecting of the information they receive, or unwilling to admit that their views might be wrong, then it's a good bet they will mishandle people, events and the difficult situations that confront our nation regularly.

A great deal is at stake in this regard. Historians note, for instance, that while George Washington was neither a good speaker nor a! scintillating intellect, he possessed very good judgment about people and events. The course of our nation's history would surely have been different had he been otherwise.

Good political judgment calls for a keen sense of what will work and what won't in a given set of circumstances, and what the best means might be to achieve policy goals - in essence, it requires that leaders see the world as it is, not as they would like it to be. It demands great insight into others: who is competent and who is not, who will speak the truth to them and who will not, whom to believe and whom not to believe, who will persevere and who will fold.

It demands equally keen insight into complex situations and events, and an ability to discern possibilities for progress that others might miss. Finally, it requires a keen sense of what can be accomplished given the personalities and events in play: when to compromise, when to yield, and when to stand firm.

It is probably expecting too much that voters will be able to see all this as they go ! about choosing whom to vote for. But we can certainly hope they will try.

Lee Hamilton is Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.

Daily Kos August Straw Poll

Yikes, more than 29,000 respondents. Wow. That's bigger than a convention.
Here are the results: Edwards 34 [down from a peak of 40 in April], Obama 30 [back up from lower numbers previously], Clinton 9 [steady], Kucinich 8 [gaining], Richardson 6 [steady], Other 5, No Freakin' Clue 4, Dodd 2 [the poll was posted a day before the IAFF endorsement], Biden 1 [steady], and Gravel 1 [steady, 167 votes separate Biden and Gravel].

Dodd gets big endorsement ... but will it really help?

I don't know. But the IAFF, representing tens of thousands of firefighters, could help in some key states. It might give Sen. Dodd a few extra points. I just don't see him getting much more than that out of this. He, frankly, is too far down in the polls at this point to really factor in. He is barely middle tier, if there was a middle tier. Richardson is middle tier, alone. Dodd is barely a blip on the screen, a point or two above Gravel. Unlike John Kerry, who was in the top tier of candidates when he received the IAFF endorsement.
Anyhow, here is some video from the endorsement:



Bubba's $$$
I was sent this link from an aquaintaince who thought I might be interested in Hillary Clinton's financial disclosures. I wasn't, really, but clicked through anyway. Here is the link: ["U.S. Senate Financial Disclosure Report"]. What shocks me about this disclosure is that Bubba is making $150k to $250k a speech! No wonder everyone wants to be president!! The post-presidency speaking fees!

I love this woman
Katherine Prudhomme-O'Brien, rightwing trollop or gadfly Goddess? You decide, but I know what I think: ["Inquisitive NH Voter Reacts to Giuliani Remark"]. This is the same lady who asked Al Gore in 1999 during a town hall meeting what he thought about Juanita Brodderick's rape allegations against Bill Clinton and Gore looked dumbfounded and said, Hmm, hmm, alot, without really saying anything. Had he had the stones and said he believed her or thought Bubba should apologize or something relevant instead of looking like a mannequin, he would have shown he was a true leader ... and champion of women's rights, too.

Short cuts
* Someone punk'd Rove's car: ["White House pranks punk Rove's car"].
* Ted Nugent was a chickenhawk!: ["Facing a draft, Nugent wet his pants"]. For all his big, bad-ass talk about machine guns and Democrats, and he found a way to get out of it. He should shut up and play his guitar.
* Interesting potential czar find: ["Find Could Be Russian Heir's Remains"].

* While this tart is out of jail after one day, the guy who stole the slice of pizza and it was his third strike, is still in jail: ["Lohan Gets 1 Day in Jail on DUI Plea"].
* A cartoon about Mormon history: ["What Mormon Theology Is Really All About"]. I love the bit about the "Mormon Jesus" and his wives and how blacks are neutral in the war between the "Mormon Jesus" and Satan and that is why they are black. Oh my word.
* Hmm, this is interesting: ["Hannity's "Freedom" concerts are reportedly a money scam"]. I wonder how much money is actually getting to the kids.
* I got a nice mention in Chris Lovett's piece on whether or not Boston should cancel its preliminary election during non-mayoral race years: ["For Council at Large: Later and Less Often"]. Civil Boston, Lovett's blog, is a good read.
* The Weekly World News is now, officially, defunct: ["Weekly World News"].

John Edwards in Concord

John Edwards campaigned at Concord's historic White Park on Saturday afternoon.
I finally got a chance to go out and see a presidential campaign here in New Hampshire. Today, Edwards dropped into Concord, holding an outdoor town hall meeting at Concord's White Park. I figured out that my crappy digital camera actually records video although only about 5 minutes worth. So, there isn't a lot here:

Last week's Iowa debate

I missed the Iowa debate last week so I didn't offer comment on it. However, I did find this lovely debate clock, again courtesy of the Dodd campaign. And like the previous ones, this one says a lot:

John Edwards is in Concord today, holding a town hall forum at White Park. I'm going to try and go to it today and check it out. I will post photos or video or something later on.

Ted Nugent ... unhinged
Like anyone is surprised by this footage from a recent concert. Should he really be advocating such activity, sauntering around on stage with what looks like two AK-47s, threatening Barack Obama and suggesting that Hillary Clinton and Dianne Feinstein "suck on my machine gun?" Eh ... Even if this is all in "good fun," he really gives advocacy for the Second Amendment a bad name:

Trippi on Rove

This came out via email yesterday morning but I didn't get to post it until now. It is interesting ... very interesting ... Later today, I will post some of the SUSA state by state polls, showing Hillary beating most of the GOP runners in states Democrats have historically lost. Sigh.

To: Interested Parties
From: Joe Trippi
Re: Karl Rove's Worst Nightmare

You may have seen Karl Rove's recent attacks on Hillary Clinton in the news.

This is a page straight out of his tired old playbook—Rove is attacking Hillary Clinton because he doesn't want John Edwards to win the Democratic nomination.

Rove knows that Democrats will rally around whomever he attacks—so he attacks the candidate he thinks Republicans can most easily defeat.

It may seem backwards, but Rove and his cronies did the same thing last time around. In 2004, they were scared of John Edwards, so they attacked John Kerry.

Don't take it from me—take it from Rove's own lieutenant on the Bush-Cheney 2004 reelection campaign, Matthew Dowd:

"Whomever we attacked was going to be emboldened in Democratic primary voters' minds. So we started attacking John Kerry a lot in the end of January because we were very worried about John Edwards." [Los Angeles Times, 8/19/07]

Rove and the Republicans want our opponents to win—because they know John will be the strongest candidate in the general election.

We may not be the richest campaign—but John is the strongest candidate. This time around, the candidate with the boldest ideas for changing America—the candidate who can take on the special interests in Washington, D.C. and win—is also the most electable. We know it—and the Republicans know it, too. But they won't be able to stop us if we have the support of people like you.

Can you make a contribution today—and send Karl Rove the message that his efforts to influence the Democratic primary won't work this time?

www.johnedwards.com/roves-nightmare

It is no secret that John is the only Democratic candidate who can beat any of the Republican candidates hands down. Just look at the polls conducted by Rasmussen Reports—a major national polling firm—over the past few months. They show that John is the Democratic candidate who consistently beats all of the Republicans candidates in head-to-head match-ups in battleground states—and by the widest margins.

Rove and the Republicans are seeing the same numbers we are—and drawing the same conclusions. So Rove is using his sneaky, underhanded tactics to try and trick Democrats into rallying around a candidate who won't be as strong as John in the general election.

But with your support, we can make sure that Rove's plan doesn't work this time. We are building a strong grassroots organization in the key early states and across the country. John has the best and boldest ideas for bringing big change to America, he can take on the special interests and win, and of all the Democratic candidates he will be the strongest in the general election—in other words, John Edwards is Karl Rove's worst nightmare.

All we need is your support to drive right past Karl Rove's see-through tactics—and keep our campaign on the road to victory.

Quotes from candidates
Here are some interesting quote from candidates of late:

John Edwards, in Iowa, from the NYT:

"I've been fighting these people all my entire life. I fought them in the courtroom, and I've beat them. ... We've got to stop being mealy-mouthed and careful. We've got to get rid of the robber barons. We need to have some guts."

Rudy Giuliani, in New Hampshire, telling voters why he can win in states like New Jersey and Pennsylvania:

“The only other candidate that I see has a chance in at least some of those states is (Arizona Sen.) John McCain. I think the others lose by more than double digits to Hillary Clinton there. Those are states we have to put in play to win the presidency. They are also states we have to win back Senate and congressional seats.’’

Unlike the children of some candidates, Joe Biden's son will be heading to Iraq next year, from Radio Iowa:

"I don't want him going. But I tell you what, I don't want my grandson or my granddaughters going back in 15 years and so how we leave makes a big difference. There's no political point worth my son's life. There's no political point worth anybody's life out there. None."

Mike Huckabee in the WSJ:

"We have to show that we are also problem-solvers, not just ideologues. People are not going to tolerate a government that just is led by people who just believe something. They want a government that is led by people who can do something. And all the beliefs in the world don't change the dynamics if we're unable to function and function effectively."

Republicans Can Cut Pentagon Waste, too
Guest Perspective/Jack Shanahan

Presidential candidates routinely rail against big government, but they're often silent when it comes to denouncing the biggest source of waste, redundancy, and inefficiency in the federal bureaucracy. That is, the Pentagon.
This year, against a backdrop of ballooning deficits and serious threats from terrorists, we're already starting to see a few candidates break freefrom the taboo against calling for serious cuts in defense spending.
But if you listen closely to the presidential hopefuls traipsing though Iowaand New Hampshire these days, you'd think it's only a few of the Democrats who will cut Cold War weapons systems from the Pentagon budget - and their proposed cuts are mostly nominal compared to the potential savings that could be realized.
Sen. Joe Biden, for example, opposes space-based weapons. Gov. Bill Richardson wants to cut 10 percent from the Pentagon budget. Both candidates would cut the V-22 Osprey and the F-22 Raptor fighter plane. And Sen. John Edwards opposes Star Wars.
All of these programs are big bonanza projects for defense contractors, butare of little or no use for our national defense.
The failures of missile defense are the stuff of legend, and offensive space-based weapons are almost literally pie-in-the-sky ideas that could trigger an arms race in space.
The Osprey, a helicopter-airplane hybrid, offers only marginal improvements to our existing helicopters, yet costs five times as much and has killed 23 Marines in test flights.
The F-22, designed to fight Soviet jets, brings little to an Air Force that has easily proven its superiority in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is why the Air Force has tried to convert the F-22 to close-air support missions. But at 25 times the cost of a regular A-10, it's hard to see the value of a supersonic stealth fighter to attack ground targets.
Cutting these programs would potentially save taxpayers more than $80 billion over the next four years without affecting our national security.
Republicans on the presidential stump can hardly manage to name a single multi-billion dollar system that they would cut, though most deserve credit for at least acknowledging the fact that substantial waste can be found over at the Pentagon.
This is strange, because some brave Republicans have indeed stood up in the past and called for an end to the Pentagon's Cold War relics.
When he was Defense Secretary, Dick Cheney canceled the Osprey, only to have it saved by Congress. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld tried to scale back production of the F-22.
Just last year, President Bush tried to scale back the Army's ambitious Future Combat System, a bloated weapons project, only to be overruled by the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Sen. John McCain is famous for his scorn for pork spending, including wasteful defense programs, and has fought to rein in cost overruns on big acquisition projects.
But it's one thing to talk about cutting waste in the abstract, and quite another to single out programs that have built-in constituencies in Congress and the defense industry.
In an era where it's considered politically safe to lavish money on defense budgets regardless of the threat to America, it takes leadership to stand above parochial interests.
Now is the time for Republican candidates to muster some of the courage they will surely need if elected President, and name specific Cold War weapons systems that would be cut under their Administrations.
And it's time for Democratic candidates, like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who have yet to name specific Cold War relics that should be axed, to tell us what they plan to cut.
And all candidates, Republicans and Democrats, should go further, offering their own plans to save tens of billions in wasteful defense spending. There's no doubt the savings are there for the taking.

Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan (USN, ret) formally commanded the U.S. Second Fleet and heads the Military Advisory Committee of the Priorities Campaign.

Editor's Notes: If you would like to submit a guest perspective to Politizine, feel free: Email it to politizine@yahoo.com to be considered. Second point: $80 billion is a pretty good chunk of change. The next time you see, say, a certain Republican senator by the name of Judd Gregg going on and on about entitlements and how we are bankrupting the future for our children but when you point to a study by Public Citizen which showed more than $300-plus billion in corporate welfare, subsidies, giveaways and abuse, and he responds to you that Public Citizen is a "liberal" organization or says, eliminating those line items would be "raising taxes," point to the $80 billion mentioned here. Let's see if he can stammer through that one. Or, will he just call you a liberal and slough you off?

Is Edwards pulling out of Nevada?

If he is, it's a mistake: ["Edwards Opts to Redirect Nevada Staff"] and ["Edwards Lowers Nevada Status"]. I would probably bet that the campaign's comments are correct on this but I have to wonder. It seems to be in a bit of disarray right now at a time when it shouldn't be, but, the flip of this is that it shouldn't be that surprising when you consider what is going on out here in the real world.
The Edwards campaign has some good people. But, as I've already noted on this blog, they seem a tad rudderless at times. This can sometimes happen in a campaign. You can't be 100 percent everyday. And, it is still early ... although time is starting to run out. I don't have a lot of detail about the ground game here in New Hampshire right now and I can't explain why. I do, however, sense an unease about the whole thing right now.
In addition, if someone is going to knock Hillary down a few pegs, and end the air of inevitability, it will have to be someone like Edwards [Obama is finding his own ways to peg himself down]. Pretty much, everyone else is out of it. Richardson has a very slim long shot but I agree with most perceptions that he is running to be vice president [I do, however, happen to like some of his more conservative stances, like his comments on taxes and gun ownership].
What is shocking about this though is that as a candidate, Edwards is really on top of his game right now. In forums and debates, he is straightforward and pointed, and that might be why he isn't holding up out there, too.

Sidebar: Let's look at some poll numbers from the last two weeks. The good news for Edwards ... the Iowa remains: Edwards 30, Hillary 22, Obama 18. But look elsewhere. New Hampshire: Clinton 37, Obama 22, Edwards 14. Florida: Clinton 40, Obama 20, Edwards 16; Michigan: Hillary 45, Obama 26, Edwards 16. South Carolina: Clinton 36, Obama 33, Edwards 12. North Carolina: Clinton and Edwards 29, Obama 23; Georgia: Clinton 35, Obama 25, Edwards 17. Missouri: Clinton 40, Edwards 22, Obama 15. California: Clinton 51, Obama 27, Edwards 14. When does the "Stop Hillary" movement start?

John Edwards, unfortunately, might be scaring some people away with his talking points. He is on all cylinders. He is jabbing at the important things which need to be fixed - tackling the poverty problem, standing up for American workers, figuring out what to do with the health care system [something Hillary royally effed up back in 1993 when Bill Clinton had an elected MANDATE to fix the problem], going after lobbyists and attempting to limit their influence over public policy, etc. These issues aren't just about fixing the nation either. It's about reforming the Democratic Party, too, something folks like me have been writing about for close to 20 years.
But pulling folks out of Nevada, if it is true, is a mistake ... unless, of course, you're sending them to Florida and Michigan, which seem hellbent on getting in front of everyone.

Why Is Congress So Partisan?

Guest Perspective/Lee H. Hamilton

Early in my career in the U.S. House, I trekked over to the Senate side one day to watch a debate between Hubert Humphrey and Barry Goldwater, two of the great ideological warriors of the era. I don't recall the issue, but I do remember the heat they generated as they went at each other hammer and tongs. They were knowledgeable, passionate, and deeply committed to their vastly different points of view.
I remember just as keenly what happened after they'd tried to eviscerate each other rhetorically: They joked together as they left the floor, heading off to have a drink.
I have a hard time imagining such a scene in today's Washington, where a moment of camaraderie like that might be viewed with deep suspicion, as though personal friendship somehow undercuts ideological integrity. In the intensely partisan atmosphere that reigns today on Capitol Hill, it is much less common for two legislators to pursue their beliefs with such intensity of purpose, yet remain fast friends or work together when their interests coincide.
Americans of all stripes have noticed this, too, and they don't like it. The partisanship that divides Congress, and its members' apparent inability to transcend their divisions, is one important reason the institution's public standing is at historic depths.
How did we get here? In part, the answers lie in a series of long-term political trends that have converged to create this current unhappy mood.
For one thing, computers have enabled state legislators - or members of Congress eager to dictate to them - to draw congressional district lines that create safely Democratic or Republican districts. The result is that politicians running for the U.S. House don't have to appeal to the center to win, they need to appeal to the core of their parties' supporters.
This has happened at the same time that the parties themselves have moved toward their ideological extremes, pushed by the interest groups that fund and try to influence them. As members become spokesmen for particular points of view, their positions take on a harder edge, since they are playing to potential campaign funders or to an interest group whose supporters' votes they need at election time. The upshot is that moderate Democrats and Republicans are the exception in office these days, not the rule.
The sad truth, though, is that the electorate, too, is divided, which manifests itself at the moment in a Congress that is narrowly controlled by one party and faces a President of the other. Over the last decade, each party has been struggling to become the majority party, and so every vote on Capitol Hill has taken on heavily partisan implications, since the leadership hopes that by taking the position it does - and forcefully encouraging rank-and-file members to go along - it will pick up a few extra seats at the next election. This invites partisan struggle.
These political trends have been cemented by changes within Congress. If it is hard to find moderates there, it is even harder to find institutionalists - people who worry about the role of Congress as a separate and independent branch of government and who focus on strengthening Congress as an institution. Preoccupation with partisanship and political calculation erodes Congress' role as a deliberative body; "debate" these days is generally two sets of talking points hammering at each other, rather than a genuine effort to reach consensus on the best course for the American people to follow.
Even something as mundane as the congressional schedule now works in favor of partisanship. As their time on Capitol Hill has come to focus on committee hearings, floor debate and other opportunities for confrontation, and as their weekends now are often taken up with travel back to their states to meet with constituents, members of Congress in recent years have found far fewer opportunities to develop the kinds of friendships that cross party lines - and that produced such close friends as Humphrey and Goldwater.
These are all deep-seated trends, and they are not easy to reverse. My hope, oddly enough, lies in the low standing Congress currently enjoys. For all its faults, it does respond to public pressure, and if enough Americans let their members know that they're unhappy with the intense partisanship they see, change will come.
Perhaps it will be a move in some states to abandon partisan redistricting and move to some more neutral way of drawing lines; perhaps it will simply be a change in attitude and a greater emphasis on Capitol Hill on careful deliberation and comity, or greater respect for the institution of the Congress. Whatever the case, even little moves in the right direction would be an improvement over the situation as it stands today.

Lee Hamilton is Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.