|
Saturday, November 02, 2002
Golisano Dropping Out? The Jewish Sabbath just concluded, so I'm only now catching up on news from...three hours ago. It's beginning to look like Golisano option #1(endorsing McCall) -- is the reason why he's dropped the ads. If there's any sign that McCall has run a truly horrible campaign, it's by the numbers in this Times story (link via OxBlog) that have Pataki with a 21-point lead over McCall when Golisano is taken out of the equation. Of course, this shouldn't be much of a surprise, since a helluva lot of Golisano's support relies on Republican and anti-establishment themes, neither of which helps McCall. Of course, recently, Golisano's been chasing more-Democratic coatheels with marijuana legalization and, of course, his "McCall won't win" ads.
This development will mean that McCall was able to coax two well-funded candidates into quitting and being thoroughly unable to capitalize their support into a winning campaign. With Golisano, McCall will have won every major gubernatorial contender -- Phil McConkey supported Cuomo, and de La Guardia supported Golisano -- and near-zero support. Cuomo was polling well with Hispanics, McCall isn't; Golisano is polling well upstate, McCall likely won't.
AND, the #1 way you know that Joel Siegel doesn't have a clue what's going on is that he still thinks Cappelli is the guy with the answers to his questions (towards the bottom here).
AND another thing: Golisano people will still vote Golisano especially since he'd be dropping out with only 48 hours left until the election. Cuomo dropped out with a full week left and still garnered 90,000 votes.
OF COURSE, given this, it's not entirely impossible that we won't see Golisano option #3 -- some sort of scandal that's making him drop out; given the shoddy impact of his endorsing McCall, as already outlined, this becomes a viable possibility.
AND IT WOULDN'T BE FAIR to say all this without acknowledging that he might have some kind of crazy last-minute strategy planned -- maybe a five-million-dollar field operation, just not likely.
Steven I. Weiss 6:05:00 PM
Friday, November 01, 2002
Why is Charlie Rangel mailing campaign literature with a picture of Mike Bloomberg? This is a question all Democrats should be asking about a very unconventional piece of campaign literature recently sent from his office. Among the other quirks is the lack of a "Paid for By" notice, and the odd way that he attempts to make it look like an official mailing rather than campaign literature.
UPDATE: I just placed a call to Rangel's office, and was refused a chance to speak to anyone on the record. One guy, who repeatedly said that he'd "take my comments under advisement,"(he wasn't the guy who made the literature, though -- they didn't connect me to whoever did). He said of Bloomberg, "even though he's a Republican, we still have to work with the mayor, he is committed to working with elected officials in New York." When I pointed out that there was no picture of Rangel with, say, George Pataki, and that it would seem odd, in campaign literature, for him to be posing with someone whom he ostensibly campaigned against in 2001 and would, again ostensibly, campaign against in 2005, he said he "hadn't really looked at it like that," while declaring that "the congressman is one of the staunchest Democrats in the United States," while noting that this line of argument was "a valid point."
State Democratic Party Chair Denny Farrell has no comment.
State Assemblymember Adam Clayton Powell is out of town, and will be back Monday.
Mike Bloomberg's Press Office took a message and promised to get back to me.
Steven I. Weiss 1:30:00 PM
PoliticNY has the most level-headed analysis of theGolisano ad-dropping. None of the wire stories had any context when they rushed copy out yesterday, and all of the dailies have crappy coverage as a result, with everyone assuming that this might be a Golisano exit strategy.
I don't know why Golisano would spend a ton of money for TV ads on election day, anyway, but in pulling them he might have been adding resources to other outlets -- something his campaign suggested, but was essentially ignored. No one called any print or radio to find out what he's been doing there -- isn't that important context?
But there is a valid question to ask why he did pull these ads -- is he conceding NYC to Pataki/McCall? Did he finally obtain a field operation thanks to people like Vito Lopez(about whose field operation I know nothing)? It'd make sense. Bloomberg dumped a ton of money last year into last-minute GOTV prep; maybe Golisano's closing on the same strategy.
Steven I. Weiss 12:53:00 PM
Thursday, October 31, 2002
Human Rights Watch condemns Palestinian suicide bombings according to the BBC; murmurs in the Jewish community had always been that Human Rights Watch held a different position, but I have yet to do any research to confirm this as a flip-flop.
Steven I. Weiss 11:22:00 PM
Mondale states his positions in a fluff-piece in MN's Star-Trib. As they note, his positions are highly Wellstone-esque, with the primary exception being free trade. Perhaps most notably, he says he would have voted against Bush's Iraq resolution.
Steven I. Weiss 11:19:00 PM
Chechen terrorists to be buried in pigskin according toArutz Sheva. I really don't know what kind of call to make on this -- is this moral? Let me know what you think.
Steven I. Weiss 8:35:00 PM
There's a specious claim circulating the Web that the Wellstone memorial was DNC-planned to be politically-charged. It's cited by Josh at OxBlog, who cites Powerline who cites this article.
This is a very aggressive claim, one that shouldn't be made without contacting Rick Kahn and others in Minnesota -- something the author doesn't even attempt to do.
Not a single named source, and even the quotes themselves seem rather sketchy; who in their right mind in the DNC would, first of all, leak such a story, but, stranger, say something as stupid as this:"There were two agendas at work," one source said. "We needed to draw attention to the election. Between the sniper and Iraq, the election has been lost in the news. And then we needed to energize the Democratic base and Wellstone supporters in Minnesota." Or this"That was the plan all along and it was one of the reasons we didn't want Cheney at the event," says one Democratic political operative who spoke only under promise that his name not be used. "It was a high stakes gamble but this is a campaign that demands high risks." Who says such things?
UPDATE: A call placed to the "Campaign Headquarters"(nee Wellstone Campaign Office), brought the response from whoever answered the phone that this claim is "blatantly false". But, realizing her position within the campaign, she wouldn't give her name, but took down my e-mail address for potential on-the-record comments from the campaign.
Steven I. Weiss 7:20:00 PM
RIP Jesse Helms according to the past tense exercised by Tapped. As to his point regarding the reason why Wellstone can be universally memorialized, he's essentially on-target: the politics of tolerance are respectable, while the politics of bigotry are not.
Steven I. Weiss 5:59:00 PM
Keigher? Someone punched Lautenberg last night in New Jersey, according to the conclusion of the NYT's debate coverage. Sounds creepily familiar to a confrontation between a certain Franks supporter with Schundler's campaign last year...
Steven I. Weiss 1:52:00 PM
How do you know when the Minnesota race has permeated pundits' consciousness? When people like Tapped start using terms like"You betcha."
Steven I. Weiss 1:04:00 PM
John Zogby lets fly against the Marist Institute claiming, in a press release, "Marist Results Unreliable, Misrepresent Upstate Support". The harshest critique actually comes from Golisano campaign manager Charles Halloran, who claims Marist polls "consistently over-represent Republicans by as much as 25% in their survey." But wouldn't Zogby be more credible in making critiques of this nature, given that he's the pollster? That the campaign used Halloran to say it must mean that Zogby wouldn't allow himself to be quoted saying it, which must mean that it's not really true.
Meantime, Halloran's big shtuch, "The Marist Institute should change its name to the Institute for Republican Public Opinion"(emphasis his), is pretty weak, as they go. Why even keep the word "Public" in there? It's just distracting. Halloran has not learned the lesson of Terry McAuliffe.
Steven I. Weiss 10:51:00 AM
With the Israeli ruling coalition collapsing it remains unclear what will happen with Sharon/Netanyahu/Likud. Josh Chafetz at OxBlog points to several polls showing Sharon secure. However, the variables in this situation may make it more complicated.
If, indeed, Sharon comes to include far-right parties in his regime, will they come to demand a more-right leader, like Bibi? Further, Netanyahu proved eminently capable of pulling a mini-coup this summer with at the Likud Party Convention -- is there any reason to think that, adding in the new lack of confidence in Sharon, Netanyahu cannot take over?
Lastly, Josh, like many others, points to the claimed reason for Labor's exit -- funding of settlements. But as most thorough opinions have pointed out, the funding in question was relatively small, and this is more a show of political dispute than an actual one. So, Labor will now be either rejected or embraced for its bold move -- if embraced, it will indicate a willingness of the constituency to engage in the politics of symbolism; if rejected, it will show them unwilling. Either position has major ramifications for future dealings.
Steven I. Weiss 10:03:00 AM
Wednesday, October 30, 2002
White extremists blamed for South Africa bomb blasts. There's just something profound about this headline. You kind of wonder what Daniel Pipes or various profiling types would respond.
Steven I. Weiss 9:06:00 PM
Why did the NYT endorse Pataki? V2.0 Shmiel chips in with the following:
The Times didn't endorse Pataki because they are balanced or non-partisan, since they are extremely unmistakably (and often enough dishonestly) partisan - at least in section A - and they probably didn't do it to appear non-partisan (they don't seem to recognize their partisanship, so why would they fix it?), but chances are they felt this is a simple way to curry favor with a moderate incumbent when his opponents seem to have little chance anyway.
There's just one problem: As TAPPED pointed out, the NYT endorsed Republican Nancy Johnson for Congress in Connecticut, as well, which is a race that can be said to either have no incumbent or two incumbents(It's a new district and both candidates are currently in the House).
Steven I. Weiss 2:22:00 PM
An OK editorial on the college-radio royalty crisis byThe Crimson, but something they, along with everyone else on this issue, has failed to mention is the actual fee structure for college stations when broadcasting -- is the one imposed for streaming by the DMCA any larger than previous broadcasting fees? If it is, then we have a clear-cut argument to make the fee structure equal. If it's not, then the stations have nothing to complain about. Without that crucial comparison, no one should be taking sides.
Steven I. Weiss 11:52:00 AM
Wow.RNC Cartoon.
Steven I. Weiss 11:39:00 AM
The Gingrich team attempts to defend itself for its lying/deception about Mondales' record in a letter to Talking Points. This is hilarious and, as TP rightly notes, actually more problematic for Gingrich than if he had simply said he'd been given wrong information.
With oppo research like this, Mondale must be shaking in his boots.
Steven I. Weiss 11:31:00 AM
Is the Times no longer as unshakeably partisan as it was, say, a couple of months ago? That's what TAPPED seems to want to say. Of course, we can point to numerous other indicators of how partisan the Times is...still, why did they endorse Republicans in this race? To garner credibility with the right wing?
Steven I. Weiss 8:55:00 AM
Once again, the myth of an unassailable Pataki rears its head, this time in The Observer. Again, we have the storyline of reporters asking Pataki "we have reports of a scandal," Pataki saying "no, you don't," and the reporters saying, "gee, I guess we don't." This is how the beat reporters attempt to cover scandal, and it makes them appear incompetent. If you have a claim of scandal that can be confirmed by public records, you go and get those public records and slap them on the front page, regardless of what the accused says. No major political scandal was ever discovered by the individual in question actuall offering the information. Come on guys, grow up and do your jobs right.
Steven I. Weiss 8:43:00 AM
Tuesday, October 29, 2002
I hadn't heard about Paul Wellstone's death until around 4:30 on Friday, and it was really shocking, but my eyes didn't get really teary until just now, when I read the NYT piece on the memorial that had this graf:
"I don't think this would be a memorial if you didn't have this bus here," said Dick Miller, 66, a retired teacher who once drove it on the campaign trail for Mr. Wellstone. "He used to walk up the stairs and say, `I love this bus. Are we ready? Let's go!' "
I don't think anything else I've read captures the human passion the way this guy did.
Steven I. Weiss 11:32:00 PM
Why are Republicans failing in the opposition research battle? First, Bill Simon crashed with a false hit on Gray Davis, and now national Republicans are burning after they really screwed up in attacking Walter Mondale for a position he never maintained. The GOP started quick on this one, bringing in Gingrich on Meet the Press and getting National Review to post an article within 48 hours of Wellstone's passing.
In the first place, the hit on Mondale was tedious and dishonest -- it was a very, very poor job, and, besides, can't they come up with something better? How about the fact that their essentially-in-remembrance, nearly-beatified former President Reagan thought he was a joke and whupped him everywhere except, but almost, Minnesota. "Minnesota has a chance to finish what it failed to start in '84" is how I'd phrase it.
But back to the main point: if even the national GOP can't vet its oppo research well enough to withstand elementary criticism, will the press stop taking it? Will this have a spillover for Dems' research, as well?
UPDATE: I forgot about the wannabe voter registration scam in South Dakota...this really is turning into an epidemic.
Steven I. Weiss 11:10:00 PM
Iabomber: Is Amiri Baraka really an anti-Semite? No.
Steven I. Weiss 4:52:00 PM
Monday, October 28, 2002
My name is... Stephen, apparently.
Steven I. Weiss 10:57:00 PM
Walter Mondale will win because Aaron Spelling wants him to. In what I had assumed was a universally-known bit of Mondale trivia, Beverly Hills 90210's Brandon had a car named "Mondo", after Walter Mondale. Apparently, leading Dems were unaware of this trump card until I mentioned it; now they know. Expect to see this make waves -- big waves.
Steven I. Weiss 10:42:00 PM
Andrew Sullivan catches up with the Iabomber in this Salon piece that is achingly similar to my post of last week. Such is life.
Steven I. Weiss 10:23:00 AM
If Pataki doesn't do his job, the responsibility falls on Hevesi's shoulders? That certainly seems to be the NYT's perspective in today's endorsement of Alan Hevesi. Once again, the Times demands that a state officeholder meet their campaign-finance reform demands. But this time around, they're demanding it of the comptroller -- someone who has little, if any, power to guarantee such a result. And the NYT can't come up with a better reason to endorse Hevesi than the mere facts that he was city comptroller & an assemblymember?
Isn't the NYT supposed to be all about the issues that John Faso is explicitly against?
Strange...and stupid.
Steven I. Weiss 8:40:00 AM
Sunday, October 27, 2002
If the New York Times forgets its principles concurrently with many Democrats, does it make a sound? Apparently not, since they endorsed Pataki today despite the fact that he didn't live up to the one, single, measly condition that was set out for him in 1998 by the times: to enact campaign finance reform. Four years later, Pataki hasn't lifted a finger, and McCall is a major-party candidate with barely a dime to run with...or an endorsement from the paper that should have stuck to its guns.
Steven I. Weiss 10:19:00 PM
Dems win the Iraq debate...at least according to Peter Beinart. This is the kind of poll-parsing you can't expect from a major news agency; it'd be nice if we could see it more often. Overall, what do these poll results mean? That we'd like to go to war if it's absolutely necessary -- he notes that even Wellstone voted for some authorization of force, but that we're pissed off about war-mongering. Sounds like a solid philosophy.
Steven I. Weiss 9:37:00 PM
|