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.

Yeah, but is he John Doe#2?
After years and years of being held in prison, it looks like the federal government finally figured out a way to jam up Jose Padilla on some pretty flimsy terrorist charges: ["Padilla Convicted of Terror Support"]. What happened to the "dirty nuclear bomb" charge? I also find it interesting that somehow his defense of wanting to go and learn more about Islam would get twisted around to being membership in Al-Qaida. It doesn't make any sense, not unlike everything about this case.
But here is my question: Is he John Doe#2? Because, he sure looks like he is: ["Is Jose Padilla John Doe Number 2 at the Oklahoma City Bombing?"]. It seems to me that there is more suspicion that he is John Doe #2 than a pal of Osbama bin Ladin.

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.

New 3WK stream
3WK, the online music streaming station, has added a third network to their site: Classic Alternative Radio. I don't know when they added it but it wasn't there last week. And the stream is pretty good. It features all the best of the 1980s and 1990s. Already today I've heard Translator, Juliana Hatfield's "Spin the Bottle," and the Psychedelic Furs' masterpiece, "Book of Days." Very, very nice.
Frankly, this is the format of the future, as we late baby boomers and X-ers long to hear the music of our lives and I'm surprised that rock radio stations haven't moved some of these tasty tracks into their playlists. While I dig 3WK's indie rock stream, I may be coming back to this stream a bit more often.

900th post
OK, I've reached the 900th post here on Politizine. Almost five years and 900 posts. Wow. I was going to write up something special for the 1,000th post but I'm not there yet. I probably would be if I did what other bloggers do, and put everything in an individual post. I just don't have time for that, frankly. And, I like a bunch of stuff on one page. To celebrate, here is a link to some very cool UFO footage, supposedly from Haiti. I don't know what these things are and I don't know if they are real. But, if they are toys, someone tell me where to get one because I want one!

R.I.P. Merv Griffin
["Merv Griffin, popular talk-show host, creator of 'Jeopardy!' dies"]

Thoughts on Ames

W. Mitt Romney easily won the Iowa Ames Straw Poll, as expected. Here are the results:

1. W. Mitt Romney: 32 percent
2. Mike Huckabee: 18 percent
3. Sam Brownback: 15 percent
4. Tom Tancredo: 14 percent
5. Ron Paul: 9 percent
6. Tommy Thompson: 7 percent
7. Fred Thompson: 1 percent
8. Rudy Giuliani: 1 percent
9. Duncan Hunter: 1 percent
10. John McCain: less than 1 percent
11. John Cox: Less than 1 percent

Some thoughts: First, the Republican nomination is still anyone's race, especially with Giuliani leading polls in various places and nationally, Thompson, the ghost candidate waiting to emerge, and Romney now winning Ames and leading in polls in New Hampshire. But Ames may not mean a whole lot when you consider that McCain was campaigning in New Hampshire and Giuliani was hanging out at home in New York [Giuliani is currently second in most Iowa caucus polls].
Huckabee coming in second and Brownback third is interesting but not a surprise. A former Baptist minister, Huckabee is good one-on-one and Baptists have always done well at this event. Pastor Pat Robertson won it in 1988, scaring the bejesus out of everyone at the time. Brownback reportedly spent more than $300k on the event - a huge amount of money before this campaign cycle. Tommy Thompson is expected to end his campaign. There is no word on anyone else dropping out but there are rumors that Hunter is probably a goner, too.
Tancredo was the victim of a political dirty trick, reported here: ["Hoax aimed at Tancredo's straw poll chances"]. No word on whether the 500 people targeted showed or not. But, if they didn't, the campaign might be able to claim that it affected the results: Tancredo's fourth place finish was 230 votes shy of Brownback's third. A Tancredo third place finish would have probably made big news.
Kudos to the NYT and others for including John Cox in any of their results. Cox has been forwarding himself as the Reagan candidate and has been getting hammered all over the Web for being delusional. No information on Alan Keyes' write-in efforts.
Adam Reilly of the Boston Phoenix has his take here: ["And the results ..."]. I think Adam is right on Ron Paul, who turned in an impressive 9 percent showing at Ames, even though he is considered a "fringe" candidate. The Atlantic blog has some details: ["Ames: The Romney Victory"].

Speaking of Cox, he has a rock video out now about illegal immigration: ["John Cox video"].
I find it interesting that Cox, while criticizing illegals trying to flee to a better life, at the end says we should only accept skilled immigrants who are willing to become Americans. No disagreement there. But, what about all the thousands and thousands of Americans who can be trained to do the jobs Cox's acceptable immigrants would do? We don't need skilled immigrants; we need the people who are already here trained to do the jobs the marketplace needs filled. In actuality, the jobs which the marketplace needs filled - many of them currently filled by illegals - won't be done by Americans because the pay isn't good enough. I know Americans who will clean office buildings and pick lettuce if the price was right. They just won't do it for $3 an hour.
What is also interesting is that while chatting with Cox after his interview at a local radio station back in 2006, I randomly stated that I thought it was funny when Keyes was filmed by MTV in a moshpit back in 2000 [We were all talking about how great the New Hampshire primary was and all the fun things that happen covering campaigns]. I said, the event and coverage humanized and normalized the candidate. And it was a lot of fun to watch. Cox scoffed at my comments, stating that such activity was an undignified stunt not worthy of the office of President of the United States. But, somehow, a silly music video, which was probably done without the permission of Jimmy Page and Robert Plant, is dignified? OK, whatever. We all know that parody is allowed under copyright laws, but this kinda isn't a parody. It is probably a violation of the copyright law. Which would make it illegal and against the terms of agreement for YouTube. How undignified is that?

The Village Voice has this biting piece on Giuliani: ["Rudy Giuliani's Five Big Lies About 9/11"].

Edwards at the YearlyKos Convention

On lobbying reform:

"We don't have to wait for a new law - the Democratic Party can end the game today - and from this day forward say to Washington lobbyists - your money is no good here anymore. The system in Washington is broken - it's rigged to serve the interests of those with the most money to throw around, rather than the best interest of the American people. The type of change America needs will never be achieved if we just replace the insiders from one party with the insiders from another party. That's why the Democratic Party must lead the way in taking a bold step toward reform that will return the power in Washington back to where it belongs."

Cramer melts down on CNBC

It's all right here:

I love his line about "they're building homes in Iraq ..." Yeah, right. Somehow, we can't help an American who might be in a jittery financial situation because of say, very high health care bills or some debt based on said bills, but they can give away billions overseas? Come on. We need to get this fixed, pronto.
Interestingly, on videos here: ["TheStreet.com"], Cramer says the housing industry isn't a big deal, only $35 billion, or about a quarter of what ATT's stock is worth. If it crashes, big deal, is what he is implying. Hmm. I wonder. I also like that he explains what he did saying, I was just telling it like it is.

Making Economic Growth Work Ecologically

Guest Perspective/Roy Morrison

Our hearts tell us what we should do. Prices tell us what we will do.
The principle is clear if we want to make economic growth mean ecological improvement, not ecological destruction. More pollution must mean a decrease in the rate of profit. Less pollution must mean increasing profits.
It’s not hard. We need to tax consumption, not income. Pay taxes on whatever we buy or use. More pollution, more tax. Lower pollution, less tax. Ecological consumption taxes can enlist the invisible hand of Adam Smith in the cause of ecological sustainability.
An average 18 percent ecological value added tax, or E-VAT, can replace all U.S. government taxes on income, fund the federal budget, and get the prices right by raising taxes on more polluting goods and services. The more polluting, the higher the E-VAT tax rate, and the lower the rate of profit.
Helping save the planet and our kids’ futures is to phase out income taxes and the IRS. How painful is that? Just make the E-VAT rate on all goods and services increase with the amount of pollution, depletion, or ecological damage. That is the path to ecological sustainability and peace, instead of climate change and resource wars for oil, water, and fertile high ground.
We can phase in the E-VAT over 10 years as we phase out income taxes. The E-VAT is simple for consumers. You pay a sales tax at the point of purchase. You file no tax forms. You avoid taxes by buying less polluting goods or services with lower tax rates indicated by color codes.
And the E-VAT is simple and largely self-enforcing for businesses. Businesses file only a simple form reporting the tax you collected from your sales and taking credit for the tax you paid your suppliers. You send the difference between what you collected and what you paid to the government. This credit for invoices system means that the value sellers add to their product is only taxed once. The E-VAT could be based, first, on average amounts of pollution, depletion, and ecological damage by S.I.C. code (Standard Industrial Classification) with less polluting items applying for reductions.
The E-VAT is consistent with WTO rules that permit taxes on imports with exemptions for exports. If the U.S. adopted an E-VAT, it would make exporters from China to Germany change their practices.
The E-Vat tax base is final sales to domestic purchasers, more than $13 trillion a year. An 18 percent average E-VAT, with allowances for collection and non-compliance, could replace all personal , corporate, and payroll taxes.
The E-VAT as a tax on all consumption, not simply on pollution, is positively reinforcing. As the market responds to E-VAT rates, highest polluting items would lose market share. To maintain revenues, the tax on moderate polluting items would rise. Over time, this would mean the E-VAT would tend toward a flat tax on most items that were sustainable in impact with high taxes indeed on the few polluting outliers.
The regressive nature of the E-VAT can easily be remedied by a targeted negative income tax. An additional $64.5 billion for a negative income tax would keep federal tax rates flat for the 40 percent of U.S. households with the lowest income. My forthcoming book, "Markets, Democracy & Survival," discusses the E-VAT in detail.
The simple relationship between less pollution and higher profit will lead in short order to a fundamental transformation in the way we do business and make investment and consumption decisions. If polluting goods and services cost more, we just need to be price conscious shoppers and businesspeople. Our ethics and our pocketbooks will be once more aligned.

Roy Morrison is Director of the Office of Sustainability at Southern New Hampshire University.His latest book, "Markets, Democracy & Survival," is forthcoming in 2007. "Markets, Democracy & Survival" available now for download in PDF from: www.RMAenergy.net.

GOP Iowa Debate
I didn't see the GOP debate today on ABC [I assume it was on "This Week," but I'm not sure], but others did. Here are some polls about who won.

ABC News has an online poll, with almost 24,000 voting, here are the results: Paul 13,355, Romney 2,133, Giuliani 1,912, Nobody, I'm waiting for Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich 1,597, Huckabee 1,529, Nobody won. I'm voting Democratic 1,342, Brownback 704, Tancredo 429, McCain 381, Thompson 259, and Hunter 239.

Over at Drudge, he also has a poll, with more than 61,000 voting: Paul 37 percent, Brownback 32, Giuliani 12, Romney 10, Huckabee 3, Tancredo and T. Thompson 2, Hunter and McCain 1.

Here is some coverage: ["ABC News Politics"].

Smaller Times, save money
Tomorrow, you might see something different about the NYT: ["Honey, They Shrunk The ... Times?"]. I can say that I did notice a difference in the WSJ when it shrank but I have to admit that between the redesign and the size cut, it is an easier, more thorough read. Now that I'm working in Massachusetts again, I've been flipping through the Boston Globe on an irregular basis. They also recently cut the size down but the also shrunk the font text and it is a bit harder to read.

If I were a Simpsons character ...

... this is what I would look like! For those of you who know me, you'll see that this isn't a bad representation, although not perfect. I couldn't get the hair or ears correct, but whatever. Feel free to Simpsonize yourself here: ["Simpsonize Me"]. This is a pretty cool promotional tool.

It's difficult to be a journalist these days
A lot has been written about all the journalists who are dying in Iraq. But they are being killed right here at home too: ["7 Arrested in Death of Oakland Newspaper Editor"]. Dan Kennedy also has this interesting piece from the Guardian's Web site: ["The people's presses"].

Gingrich continues his own version of the Straight Talk Express
Like it wasn't juicy enough when he called the entire GOP field a bunch of pygmies, now he's going after the War on Terror: ["Gingrich says war on terror 'phony'"]. Then, he steals a progressive/leftwing line, from the subhead - "Former speaker says energy independence is key" ... gee, how many of us have been saying that? Is Gingrich going off the deep end? One has to wonder.

Tasteful classic music ...
... can be enjoyed or used as a weapon: ["Wash. City Using Classical Music To Chase Gangs from Bus Stop"].

WRKO responds to Herald hit piece

In the ongoing, and amusing, media battle down here in Boston, here is the PD of WRKO responding to a Herald hit piece: ["Unfair to Finneran"]. Here are some of the responses over at radio-info.com: ["Jason Wolfe vs. The Boston Herald"].
I'll report on the fab Cheap Trick/Squeeze show in Boston last night in the next day or two. I might include some comments about all the changes at the South Boston Seaport District too, which are pretty impressive.

Well, this had to happen
["WRKO sues Howie Carr"]

R.I.P: Tom Snyder
Seventy-one is a pretty good clip, especially for a chain-smoker. Although these days, it may seem young: ["Broadcaster Tom Snyder Dies at 71"].

Huckabee wins Warren County straw poll
According to the Gov. Mike Huckabee campaign, the candidate won a recent straw poll in Iowa. I couldn't find any news about it under Google News, but here is some of text sent out by the campaign:

To be eligible to vote at the Warren County Straw Poll the voter had to be a registered Warren County Republican, or register as one at the Straw Poll.

The Warren County Auditorʼs office provided the Straw Poll workers with an up-to-date list of registered Warren County Republicans. Poll workers matched the voters nameʼs to the list provided by the auditors office and then checked the name off the list to eliminate double votes.

The voting machine used was a Diebold, which uses no computer software and is 100 percent accurate. Over 100 people participated.

The campaign has also acknowledged that it will participate in the Republican version of the CNN/YouTube debate, scheduled for next month. The other candidates participating include Sen. John McCain, Rep. Pon Paul, and former Gov. Tommy Thompson.
Thompson responded this way: "We'll answer questions from any American who wants to ask one and that includes one dressed up like a snowman."
It is kinda hilarious that the other candidates want to lead the free world and yet they can't face off in a debate which features real questions from real Americans, via video clips. Don't they look like a bunch of chickensh*ts? Here's former Gov. Willard Mitt Romney's response: "The presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman." Balk, baulk baulk, balkah ... McCain said this: "I just don’t think that questions from snowmen are appropriate in presidential campaigns ... But I think that this is serious: We’re in a war." But later, he agreed to participate.
There is now a Web site to galvanize support for participation in the debate: ["Save the Debate"].

Gravel's numbers
Speaking of the YouTube debate, according to this blog entry posted this afternoon by the USA Today [don'tcha just love blogs!], former Sen. Mike Gravel's video clip from the debate about campaign finance reform has been viewed more than 271,000 times: ["By the numbers, Gravel is ahead in post-debate views"]. Compare that to the other candidate numbers. Wow.

Short cuts
This is really cool: ["Plant Sugars Seen As Energy Substitute"].
This is cool, if you hate Hillary: ["No Hillary Clinton"].
An old friend complains about crime in his former local newspaper: ["Is the Journal spiking crime reports"].