3/12/2007

Potpourri

I have been busy lately, so I haven't had much time to update The 7-10 or do much of anything else. But here are a few links to keep you and your mind busy until the smoke clears and I have more time to spend scouring the web for news to feed your political mind:

Is this man responsible for the nonsensical mess that is supposed to be our primary season? Speaking of which, it looks like New York wants to join in the frontloading fun as well. Lovely. Good luck to the second tier candidates who wish to compete in the expensive New York City market.

Looks like Newsweek agrees with me regarding how voters tend to look for a president who represents the opposite of what the previous one did. Is an "Urban Cowboy" (Giuliani) a little too similar to the "Tough Talking Texan" we have in the White House right now?

It's amazing how losing an election can send you from self-aggrandization to self-repudiation in a few short months.

As of last week, Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton were leading the endorsement race among congressional members. I'm not sure what this means outside the Beltway, although it might lend itself to organizational support at the state and local levels.

Does this response from the Conservative Political Action Conference go far enough in repudiating Ann Coulter's recent inflammatory remarks? And does Mitt Romney wish that this landmine happened before the advent of YouTube? (More on this later.)

Could Chuck Hagel be the best hope Republicans have for retaining the White House in 2008 even if he splits a ticket with a Democrat? Or is telling fellow senators to go sell shoes a bit too close to the truth for the establishment to handle?

Regarding Bush's foreign policy prowess in comparison to that of other presidents, 1104 scholars can't all be wrong. Also, at what point do record low poll numbers cease to have any significance regarding the current president?

I recently heard a quote attributed to former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan: "When it comes to the presidency, people don't elect resumes. People elect men." That might not be an exact quote, but the spirit of it helps explain why George W. Bush was able to prevail over Al Gore and John Kerry, both of whom had superior resumes. Noonan's words seem to be validated by the 2008 campaign which has Clinton, Obama, and Edwards ahead of veteran politicians Richardson, Dodd, and Biden. Similarly, Romney and Giuliani are giving McCain a run for his money while veteran Duncan Hunter is stuck at the back of the pack. Why does character trump policy?

How likely is it that voters are suffering from a bit of buyer's remorse after last year's elections put Democrats at the helm of Congress? Not likely, at least after this little article in Congressional Quarterly.

Have Democrats found a new strategy for dealing with Fox News? Did Obama and Edwards start something big?

3 comment(s):

Reginald Harrison Williams said...

I find it interesting that even though Clinton has more endorsements than Obama, most of them are from her own state (as is Obama's endorsements). As for those outside their "home field advantage": 4 for Clinton; 3 for Obama. It's still a close race between them no matter how we cut it.

Something else interesting: nobody in the state of Massachusetts is supporting Romney endorsement-wise. Not surprising, but very intriguing.

It should raise some eyebrows with voters who love to lay their voting decisions on flip-floping.

Anthony Palmer said...

For what it's worth, the congressional delegation of Massachussetts consists entirely of Democrats. All the House members, both senators, and the governor are Democrats. There might be some former Republican Massachussetts governors out there who are endorsing Romney, but the tally in The Hill (the site I linked to) concerns only those who are sitting members of Congress now. That's why it appears that Romney has no home-state supporters.

I'm actually surprised that Romney has attracted as many endorsements as he has in Southern states. I honestly think he would be the most formidable GOP nominee because he has strong natural political skills, was able to get health care in Massachussetts, and doesn't come across like another club-toting Republican wingnut. His conservative rhetoric is paired with a moderate image. He (not Giuliani) is the Democrats' worst nightmare.

Romney could put Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan in play. Simply put, if he can swipe two of those states, it's lights out for the Democrat.

Anthony Palmer said...

I found some more news on Romney and home state Republicans. Check this out.

Not good.

Copyright 2007-2008 by Anthony Palmer. This material may not be republished or redistributed in any manner without the expressed written permission of the author, nor may this material be cited elsewhere without proper attribution. All rights reserved. The 7-10 is syndicated by Newstex.