Monday, December 24, 2007

Pre-holiday political roundup

Here are some things going on in the political world. After this, Politizine is going to take a break for a few days. But we'll be back posting with extensive coverage of the Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary, including numerous reports from the field here in New Hampshire.

First, it has been months since I have filled out some political candidate selector polls to see who I "should" vote for. Let's look at some of the results:

This one, says barely any of the candidates receive a passing grade:

Chris Dodd - 60 percent
Ron Paul - 60 percent
Barack Obama - 59 percent
Mike Gravel - 59 percent
Dennis Kucinich - 57 percent
John Edwards - 50 percent

Everyone else is under 50 percent.

Over at Candidate Calculator [] the results came out this way:

Dennis Kucinich - 69.84 percent
Ron Paul - 68.25 percent
Mike Gravel - 62.7 percent
Joe Biden - 61.9 percent
Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd and Barack Obama - 55. 56 percent

All the rest were less than 50 percent [John Edwards was 49.21 percent on this one and John McCain came in at 47.62 percent].

After taking this test, I began to wonder about the results as well as the tests in general.
For example, I found another one at Kucinich's site and took that. It's located here: ["Pick Your Candidate"].
After taking this one, the list came out Paul, Kucinich, Gravel and Obama, with the others well below them. The neat thing about this test is that it lists all the issues in which there is disagreement between you and the candidate.
But the problem here is that the answers don't quite match up with reality.
For example, the test has Edwards down as a supporter of sanctions and military action against Iran but that just is not the case. Edwards has come out against military action against Iran. On withdrawal of troops from Iraq, it has a bunch of the candidates down as not being for withdrawal when they have said they are for withdrawal [Maybe the catch word there is "immediate" which is a trick. Only Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul support immediate, day after elected full withdrawal].
The test ranks me as closer supporter of fringe Republican candidate John Cox [!] than Bill Richardson, John Edwards, or John McCain, which isn't really accurate. The test also had no questions about international trade like the other ones had. I truly wonder if it is skewed in order to convince people to vote for Kucinich.
Obviously, you can't be 100 percent agreement with any one candidate. It is nearly impossible. But, getting 60 percent and then having it be someone like Dodd, who I would never vote for because of his support of NAFTA and GATT/WTO, his support for the Telecom Bill in 1996, and many other bad things he has voted for in the Senate, is pretty sad. Linking me with Cox over Richardson, Edwards, or McCain is ridiculous. I would vote for McCain before Cox any day of the week. McCain is a friggin' hero and Cox is a semi-delusional businessman [As I told a pro-life activist friend of mine who interviewed him back in 2006, "Any kinda fringy, lower-tiered candidate who starts bandying about words like, "The day after I'm inaugurated I'm going to do such-and-such," instead of, "If you vote for me, here is what I'm going to do ..." is worrisome. It shows that they aren't playing with a full deck because they actually believe they are going to win when they are never going to get elected in a million years].
I would be interested to hear from other people about their test results. Obviously, it is just for fun. But I wish they would at least get the positions accurate.

The Union Leader had another endorsement for Sen. John McCain on Saturday: ["Kill the pork!"]. No offense to my friends at the UL but what is this, three, four endorsements? Come on. How many are you going to write and publish?

According to Politics1, the FEC certified funds for some of the presidential candidates on Friday. Here are the amounts each will get in March: Edwards $8.8M, McCain $5.8M, Tancredo, who just dropped out and endorsed Romney, $2.1M, Dodd $1.1M, Biden $857k, and Kucinich and Hunter will get $100k each. To qualify, each candidate must raise at least $100k by collecting at least $5k from 20 states in amounts no greater than $250.

I wasn't going to comment on Rep. Tom Tancredo dropping out at first but the more I thought about it, the more I figured, what the hell.
First, why quit two weeks before the first voting? Is it actually better to quit before you lose or quit after you lose? At least if you quit after you lose, you have a reason. You lost. I mean, with elections, you never know what can happen. Sure, his odds were very, very long. But why quit two weeks before a vote is even cast? That just seems stupid to me.
Second, the Tancredo candidacy never really took off the ground. While people care about illegal immigration, it isn't a top issue. The top issues are health care, the economy, energy, and the war. Illegal immigration is a middle issue at best. And that is all Tancredo had.
I interviewed Tancredo in 2005 for a preview radio feature to promote a speaking event he was doing in the state. He had some interesting things to say. But just before the end of the interview, he said something very curious: If another candidate embraces deportation of illegal aliens as an issue, I won't run and I will support that candidate.
So I said, Hmm, so you're saying if Hillary Clinton started campaigning on deportation of illegal aliens, you would support her?
He backtracked immediately saying, No, no, I meant any Republican candidate who endorsed the policy.
Oh, OK, I said.
In the end, Tancredo endorsed the candidate with the illegals tending to his lawn.

Edwards support spot
The Friends of the Earth are promoting this ad to caucus for Edwards in Iowa ... because money don't vote:

Hillary's Christmas ad
Well, we put up Huckabee's. Why not Hillary's? Actually, this is kind of amusing, although I wonder why she hasn't sponsored any of these bills as a U.S. Senator:

No comments: