For the time being, I'm blogging solely at SquareState. Don't want to search for my diaries? Skip straight to my SquareState page. It even has its own RSS feed.
The Coloradolib archives are still alive and kicking. Link away.
DeGette's stem cell bill will be voted on in the Senate next week, according to the Post. And yesterday I got two press releases from her office. The first reported her urgings that Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt appoint "a new Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Population Affairs who is committed to family planning and women's health." The second read that next Tuesday, DeGette "will host a roundtable discussion on pending federal reauthorization of the State Children's Health Insurance Program."
Photo: DeGette speaking at the Point to help launch a new Fannie Mae program to assist minority home ownership in Denver.
Obama/Edwards supporters don't seem inclined to support the other one. Clinton is a popular 2nd choice as well as 1st one, and when Obama or Edwards are excluded from the poll their support largely shifts to Clinton.
Conventional wisdom, thrown under the bus by the truth.
That poll also shows support for Edwards as first choice nearly doubling from 9% to 19% since November 2006, while Obama's support has remained level at 19% - 20% since the day he declared. And there I go, evidencing Atrios' interpretation. I lean towards Edwards and I find myself bashing Obama.
Meanwhile, a very recent University of Iowa poll (found here) reveals this:
Results show that Edwards remains the leader among likely Democratic caucus goers, competing primarily with Clinton for caucus support. Edwards led by a substantial margin with 34.2 percent. Clinton followed with 28.5 percent, and Obama with 19.3 percent... Although Edwards led in support among Democratic caucus goers, this same group believed Clinton was the strongest candidate.
Why would the caucus-going supporters of two theoretically similar candidates default not to each other, but to a third, less-similar candidate? Consider the CD7 primary of 2006, where Peggy Lamm, a female centrist with a history of cooperating with Republicans, faced off against two ostensibly liberal male contenders. One was Ed Perlmutter, a Democratic insider with high name recognition and a long history of campaigning in the contested district. The other was Herb Rubenstein, an intelligent, affable newcomer who could claim early opposition to the Iraq War. Three months before the election, the polls put Perlmutter at 51%, Lamm at 31% and Rubenstein at 6%.
Now exit the realm of provable facts and consider a theory.
In a Democratic primary, voters are torn by competing forces. They want a candidate they can ethically support and they also want a candidate who can win a general election. An ideologically-driven candidate's mission, then, is not just to sell him or herself, but to sell the idea that an ideologically-driven candidate can win the general election. If the candidate fails, primary voters shrug their shoulders and vote for the centrist.
In CD7, Perlmutter succeeded because the voters of CD7 knew him as a person. Edwards is following a similar path in Iowa, where he has been campaigning forever.
Rubenstein did not have Perlmutter's name recognition or ground game, so he tried an alt-strategy, reaching out to anti-war voters, bloggers and activists. Similarly, Obama has not spent as much time in Iowa as Edwards, so he is trying his own alt-strategy, becoming a fundraising juggernaut and outright celebrity who the voters of Iowa may soon see as a potential winner.
If Edwards/Perlmutter or Obama/Rubenstein supporters conclude that their candidate is a loser, they are likely to default not to a similar candidate, but to someone they view as a general election winner.
There are doubtlessly imperfections in this comparison. But if you're thinking I'm forcing it just to give myself an excuse to start posting Christina Aguilera videos again, well, that's just crazy. Since you brought it up, though:
A lawsuit has been filed over the pre-HB-1338 robocalls I mentioned here. Yesterday, the Postreported:
Two state lawmakers filed ethics complaints Tuesday accusing lobbyists for Colorado homebuilders of falsely claiming the legislators were pushing a bill that would raise taxes and help trial lawyers. The allegations come amid an aggressive campaign by builders against a measure that would restore the ability of some homeowners to sue over construction defects.
E-mails contradict a lobbyist's claim that his well-heeled organization had nothing to do with a deceptive phone-call campaign conducted in March... In March, the calls went to senior citizens in certain Democratic districts. The seniors were told their local lawmaker supported a bill that would increase taxes. No such bill existed at the time. The bill eventually introduced, House Bill 1338, does not increase taxes.
Eliot Spitzer once wrote that the secrets to success are, "Never write when you can talk. Never talk when you can nod. And never put anything in an e-mail." It's a lesson Colorado Representative Mike Merrifield learned too late.
Merrifield has "stepped down as chairman of the House Education Committee." But in the resulting furor, the media lost perspective. Here are five facts that voters would do well to remember.
• Indications are that Merrifield wasn't talking about all charter school advocates, just two former School District 11 board members. [Source]
• The whole thing was uncovered only because of a "fishing expedition into private emails sent prior to session." [Source]
• The mainstream media has sometimes failed to note the biases of the rightwing website that broke the story. [Source]
• The dust-up was absolutely not more embarrassing than the Mark Foley scandal. And it is morally reprehensible to suggest that it is. [Source]
• The case should be considered closed. It's silly to suggest that Senate Education Committee chairwoman Sue Windels - the recipient of Merrifield's email - should also step down. [Source]
UPDATE: CoCo is reporting on who filed the open records request and why. Meanwhile, Jason Bane explains how the GOP managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
[Ed. - Since this is a live-blog, accuracy of all quotes is subject to how fast my fingers can type.]
8:09 - Listening to WHO, courtesy of a link off of the Rocky. Tancredo is on. The host says there are journalists waiting around.
8:11 - Tancredo thanks talk radio for pushing the issue of illegal immigration. It is "talk radio that has allowed us to get where we are today." He claims 15 million are here illegally.
8:12 - "The melting pot is cracked."
8:15 - "Diversity can be positive, but not when it becomes a sort of state religion... Our national leaders have forgotten this... I am going to run for President of the United States."
8:17 - Host thanks Tancredo. Says listeners love him. Tancredo makes a fundraising pitch.
8:23 - Back from commercial. Host asks what "pushed Tancredo over the edge." He answers "the field of candidates." He says they all are for some form of amnesty, in some form of another. Host asks for Tancredo's plan on immigration; says in Iowa there are between 50,000 to 60,000 illegal immigrants who cost taxpayers millions of dollars, even if they are hard-working. Tancredo answers with a "controversial" part of his platform - "Enforce the law." Includes building a "barrier" on the border.
8:28 - Bush is working with "McKennedy" to stage "high-profile" raids that are largely for show, not because there is any real commitment to enforcing the law. Tancredo states we must go after employers. "It is not necessary to talk about rounding up millions of people." There will be attrition if you prosecute employers and enforce the borders.
8:32 - Host mentions a Cardinal Mahony saying there is a religious duty to help immigrants. (I assume it's this guy.) Tancredo says we should show compassion for American workers whose wages have been depressed and countries of origin, where people have been left behind.
8:41 - Tancredo asked to weigh in on Alberto Gonzales. Tancredo calls for his resignation. Not so much because of the current scandal, but because of Gonzales' prosecution of border agents.
8:47 - Caller asks about Tancredo's support for Fair Tax proposal. Tancredo says he supports it because it gets rid of the "burdensome" IRS. Tancredo claims a consumption tax will stimulate the economy and create millions of jobs.
They will do another segment, but I have to move on. My personal opinions later.
UPDATE: Oval Office 2008 questions Tancredo's timing, the Rocky and CNN's Political Ticker cover the story, Oreo fills us in on Tancredo's connections to hate groups, and Tancredo Watch wonders if "his candidacy will help frame the debate at all within the Republican party."
UPDATE: I had Tancredo at about 250-1 to secure the GOP nomination. After listening to Republican talkshow host Hugh Hewitt rake him over the coals on a wide range of subjects, I think 500-1 might be more like it:
HH: ...GOP question, just two years and three months ago, Tom, you endorsed an American Independent Party candidate over the Republican nominee in a special election out here in Orange County. Is that material to a campaign for the GOP nomination, that you threw the Republican overboard just two years ago?
Meanwhile Wonkette writes that Tancredo is "officially the 51st person and 4th diagnosed psychotic to enter the race." That's not just Wonkette being pithy. According to Raoul Lowery Contreras writing at TownHall, "Historians should note that when [Tancredo's] student deferments ran out at Northern Colorado University during the Vietnam War, Tancredo informed his Selective Service Board (the Draft) that he was mentally ill and suffered anxiety attacks."
The Politico reports that Tancredo is currently not one of the nine GOP hopefuls who will debate on May 3. Yikes. Tancredo has too many devoted followers to finish 10th in the early primaries. But he'll be hard pressed to break into the top 6, which means he may well decide to hang onto his CD6 seat in 2008.
Morgan Carroll, Jay Leno and Diana DeGette, that's who.