Blowing Down Gore's House of Straw Polls

Only in America can only thirty-five people gather in a living room to talk politics, cast a vote for their favorite candidates, and find the results of their tiny get-together linked to as a major story on the Drudge Report, a news site that attracts around 14.5 million hits per day. Matt Drudge is a master of titillating or misleading headlines, and Wednesday's story link "Gore Wins Democratic Straw Poll in Arizona" was a good example of Drudge's subtlety. Everything in the headline was technically true. Al Gore did in fact win a straw poll in Arizona. The Drudge headline, however, was apparently selected to create the impression among potential readers that Al Gore won a substantive political victory in a statewide Democratic straw poll in Arizona, when in reality his straw poll victory was neither statewide nor substantive. Forty Democrats from the Scottsdale area gathering in a living room to vote in a straw poll is hardly a sweeping political movement worthy of international media attention, nor can any credible political observer extrapolate from it the eventual outcome of the Arizona Democratic primaries. But don't tell that to Matt Drudge, whose headline gave Gore credibility where none was merited.

The epic tale of Gore's Lilliputian victory in a Scottsdale living room straw poll as championed by Drudge appeared in the Arizona Republic, and the Republic clearly made every effort to report the straw poll results as a genuine story with deep political ramifications not only for Arizona Democrats, but for the national race for the party's nomination as well. However, a careful reading of the article revealed that only thirty-five of the forty Democrats who showed up for the straw poll actually paid the $20 fee to obtain a ballot and vote. Votes for "first choice" and "popularity" were later tallied accurately (no hanging chads in the Southwest), and unannounced but quietly salivating at the prospect candidate Al Gore won the "first choice" vote with 51 percent followed in a distant second place by John Edwards with 17 percent of votes cast. These numbers may seem meaningless, but as they say in TV infomercials, "but wait, there's more!"

We rarely associate the words "Democratic votes" and "calculator" with the words "fun" or "interesting," yet the application of a calculator to the Scottsdale straw poll results generates more entertainment than one would initially think. For example, it was fascinating that Democrats, who have whined for 7 years that the popular vote should count more than electoral votes or percentages reported the Scottsdale straw poll results in, of course, percentages only. No raw vote count totals were provided in the Republic news report. Why? Perhaps because the media can take insignificant poll results and make them sound as if the participants in the poll represented a much larger segment of the overall population than they really did. A handy calculator helps illustrate how this is achieved.

The Arizona Republic reported the vote count as follows:

When tallying the votes, the local party leaders considered both the "first choice" of voters and the "popularity" of candidates.

The popularity vote was important because it showed who voters would chose if Gore does not run.

Gore won the first choice by 51 percent, followed by Edwards with 17 percent, national front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton with 14 percent, Sen. Barack Obama by 9 percent, Sen. Joe Biden by 6 percent and Rep. Dennis Kucinich by 3 percent.

Edwards won the popularity vote by 29 percent, followed by Gore with 26 percent, Obama with 19 percent, Clinton with 14 percent, Kucinich with 6 percent, Biden with 4 percent and Richardson with 2 percent.

All those double-digit percentages certainly helped readers forget that only 35 people actually participated in this vote. Thus, Al Gore's 51 percent, which when converted to actual votes signified that he was the first choice of a whopping 17.85 actual voters in an Arizona living room, seems much less impressive than merely reporting that he garnered 50 percent of an Arizona straw poll. Perhaps if they find that hanging chad or a pregnant chad gives birth they will find the other 0.15 of a vote.

Likewise, Edwards' second place finish with 17 percent converts to only 5.95 actual votes. However, the big mystery was Bill Richardson, who as Governor of New Mexico and a fellow southwest Democrat, only polled 2 percent, which when converted is only 0.7 of a vote. By reporting Richardson's straw poll showing in percentages rather than vote count, the Arizona Republic performed a small act of sympathetic kindness. When your party holds a straw poll in a neighboring state and you receive only seven-tenths of a vote, it may be finally time to "redeploy" and wait for other career options than the presidency.

Despite a valiant reporting effort by the Arizona Republic and international recognition courtesy of a Drudge Report link, a community straw poll involving thirty-five votes simply could not be taken seriously, especially when compared to the well-organized statewide Republican straw poll held in Iowa and won by Mitt Romney. Romney's opponents and snide media pundits were quick to minimize the perceived importance of Romney's decisive victory in the Iowa straw poll, but perhaps the irrelevance of the Scottsdale Democratic straw poll will serve as a contrast that will bring Romney's success in a larger poll more sharply into focus.

The time fast approaches when Al Gore's performance in straw polls and primaries will signify something substantial and ominous in the realm of electoral politics. The Scottsdale straw poll was not the long-awaited sign of the Al Gore apocalypse upon us. The so-called "Democratic straw poll in Arizona" merely gave one homeowner and thirty-four members of her community a few moments to bask in the global warming of a media spotlight.

Technorati Tags: Al Gore Straw Poll Arizona Democrats Arizona Republic Drudge Report Matt Drudge Presidential Candidates Scottsdale Bill Richardson John Edwards Poll Results

McCain: "I'm Sure I have a Policy on That, I Just Need to Check What it is"

After 25 years in Washington (as a Congressman and Senator), 2008 presidential candidate Senator John McCain, when asked his position on government subsidies for contraception, made the following statement on the campaign trail in Iowa, as reported by the Telegraph (UK):

"I'm sure I have a policy on that. I just need to check what it is," he replied, before seeking illumination from his aides.

Can a candidate or elected official really claim to have a policy on any issue if it is not ingrained sufficiently into his knowledge base that he can recall it without prompting from an aide? This one sentence response illustrates much of what is lacking in political campaigning and in a larger sense, in governance itself. Elected officials believe themselves too busy to dedicate themselves to any actual study and internalization of issues, preferring instead to hire cadres of aides to learn the issues for them and advise the politicians of what they should think and say about an issue. While this approach allows the politicians more time to engage in glad-handing and stump speaking for their election and reelection campaigns, it also has the unfortunate consequence of assuring that the individuals Americans actually vote for suffer a deplorable paucity of personal awareness of the issues on which they vote. Those issues seriously affect the nation’s course in economics, health, morality, and national security, but are deemed less important than campaigning by candidates while others learn the issues for them.

The question asked of Senator McCain was not a complicated one. Either you believe that the government should spend taxpayer money to buy contraceptives for America’s youth who choose promiscuity over abstinence, or you don’t. It is highly improbable that Senator McCain did not know what he thought about such a question, and if one defends his response by praising his wisdom in clarifying his position before answering, one is actually defending a candidate’s right to say what others want to hear rather than what he personally believes or what needs to be said. Stating what you believe and saying what needs to be said are demonstrations of leadership. Declining to answer questions until you can confer with aides and read your politically correct cue cards is a demonstration of unprincipled ambition. Soothsayers tell the masses whatever is popular and what they want to hear. Leaders tell the masses what needs to be done and why, knowing that it will likely be unpopular.

McCain also seems to be seeking a career as soothsayer to Europe and other regions that harbor anti-American sentiment (hat tip to Wizbang Politics). During his speech to the farmers of Cedar Falls, Iowa, McCain expressed great concern for America’s image around the world, particularly in Europe, and that restoring a good image (i.e. being more like them and less like us) will be a “top priority” if he is elected president in 2008. On the surface, the concept of improving relations with our once loyal European allies seems laudable, but then McCain explained what steps he would take to improve America’s image abroad and the pandering to European popularity takes an ominous turn:

"I would immediately close Guantanamo Bay, move all the prisoners to Fort Leavenworth (an army base in Kansas) and truly expedite the judicial proceedings in their cases," he said. "I would reaffirm my commitment to address the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. I know how important this is in Europe in particular."

Perhaps Senator McCain’s aides, who apparently tell him what his positions are, should advise him that he was elected to represent Arizona in the Senate, not The Hague, and that if elected president in 2008 he would be obligated to implement the will of the American electorate, not the EU. Climate change is also very important to Al Gore, so perhaps Senator McCain is auditioning for a VP spot in Gore’s undeclared but inevitable run for the White House, since these statements embracing liberal ideologies will assure McCain’s quick exit in the GOP primaries and availability as Gore’s running mate.

More troubling than his desire to please Europe is the fact that he embraces the idea of closing the Guantanamo detention facility, where enemy combatants are held and interviewed. At Guantanamo, terrorists captured during our counterterrorism actions worldwide are kept them from killing our troops in the field, and we receive the added benefit of occasionally gleaning valuable information from them that disrupts future terrorist attacks or provides better understanding of the structure and operational tactics of al Qaeda and other groups.

John McCain is opposed to torture, and based on his well-documented experience as a POW in Vietnam, the reasons for his opposition are valid and unassailable. However, Guantanamo is not Abu Ghraib, and as confessed 9/11 planner and self-proclaimed super terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed clearly stated in his testimony last week, he was never tortured at Guantanamo and no part of his confession was the result of coercion or was extracted through torture tactics.

I wrote recently about the legal and practical dangers associated with closing Guantanamo and relocating the detainees to military brigs inside the U.S. Proposals for closure and relocation have come from Democrats in Congress, but Senator McCain has allied himself with their cause, another issue on which he has ignored the will of the people in order to cast himself as a “maverick” or as more palatable to the liberal media than his more conservative opponents for the GOP presidential nomination. Virginia’s citizens, regardless of party, are opposed to the relocation of Guantanamo detainees to Quantico or other facilities within the Commonwealth.

If Senator McCain’s support for facility closure is sincere, he should also be in favor of relocating the terrorist detainees to Arizona for criminal trials in federal courts in his own state. So far, Senator McCain has been silent on whether his Arizona constituents would approve of having hundreds of terrorists transported to and housed in their state. Perhaps the Senator has a policy on this, but needs to check with his aides to learn what it is.

Throughout his Senate career, Senator McCain has straddled the fences between the two parties far too often to be trusted by either one. In some respects, though he worded it differently, McCain echoed a sentiment he apparently shares with John Kerry. Kerry, as readers will remember, called America “an international pariah” during a World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland. McCain, in his Cedar Falls speech, stressed his desire to counter the “ugly American” image prevalent in Europe. Kerry and McCain seem to share the conviction that anti-American sentiment in Europe is America’s fault, and that American policies and administrations (President Bush in particular) are responsible for giving Europeans cause to dislike America.

Conservative media, including Spy The News!, lambasted Kerry for his remarks, but McCain deserves equal condemnation for ignoring history (which he claims to study and love). Europeans have always disdained America and its culture. We were considered uncouth ruffians by the French during the Revolutionary War, and that opinion has not been changed by 231 years of global leadership in technology, industry, transportation, medicine, and military achievement. Not even our generous rebuilding of nations destroyed in world wars has moved European nations permanently into America’s corner.

Liberating France in WWII did not create an eternal debt of gratitude among the French, and rebuilding Germany did not prevent that nation from protesting against American Cold War policies or opposing our post 9/11 military actions. The Marshall Plan was unparalleled in human history for its strategic compassion and generosity, yet few of the nations restored to viability by that plan can be counted today as reliably pro-American. The idea that if America would stop being so American, and would try to be more like Europe, then Europe would love America and never oppose it again is patently ludicrous. The same logic is put forward by anti-war demonstrators who claim that if America will address the root causes of terrorism, or if America will stop supporting Israel, or if America will just sit down and negotiate with the terrorists, the terrorists will stop wanting to kill us.

Appeasement will always fail, regardless of whether the appeasement is given to “friend” or foe. America did not cause anti-American sentiment. Blaming America is an international pastime rivaling only soccer in popularity. Whether it stems from envy, revenge, fear, insecurity, or ignorance, the motivation behind anti-Americanism is rarely the result of American action or inaction, though we are demonized for both. They dislike America for what America is and for what the EU aspires to be but falls short.

Senator McCain’s aides may wish to consider researching whether the American electorate wants America to be more, or less, like Europe. Europe is gravitating, rather quickly, toward universal socialism via the EU. Religion has been purged from political discourse, and politically correct tolerance there has resulted in a severe decline in societal morals and families bound by marriage. The only segments of European society that are continuing to marry and produce children are religious immigrants from the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. Senator McCain, Senator Kerry, please remind us again why we want to be more like Europe? Other than 2 hour naps during lunch time and a mandatory month of annual summer vacation, there is little reason for America to adopt European societal or political habits.

Presenting Europe, and the rest of the world, with a strong, confident, and noble America that says and does what is right may not always win friends among the feckless, but it is a demonstration of leadership. McCain and Kerry consistently place their concern for global popularity ahead of what America’s voters want from their leaders. Also not surprisingly, McCain’s declining appeal to presidential election voters will assure that he, like Kerry, will remain a soothsaying Senator with frustrated presidential aspirations.

Hillary's "Tough" Leadership: "Please, Please, Please Don't Leave Iraq to Me!"

Hillary Clinton’s first campaign visit to Iowa this weekend provided an opportunity for potential voters to test and witness the Senator’s self-proclaimed mettle. Although Clinton sought to demonstrate her forcefulness and caste herself as presidential timbre, she exhibited much more cowardice than conviction when it comes to Iraq.

Pressed repeatedly to explain her vote for war in Iraq, the Senator could have defended her vote with the truth, which was that all available intelligence agreed Iraq possessed WMD and was funding terrorists. Clinton instead trotted out the tired, “If I had known then what I know now . . .” Monday morning quarterback excuse. When truth was on her side, she eschewed it for a partisan attack on the President instead, choosing to ride her Congressional colleagues’ coattails by claiming that President Bush “misled Congress.” Hillary showed her disregard for truth by blaming President Bush, when she and Senator Kerry and nearly all others in Congress accepted as fact the National Intelligence Estimates on Iraq that they, Prime Minister Blair, and the President acted upon in good faith.

While trying to convince potential voters that she had the courage, strength, and background to stand up to “evil and bad men,” Hillary instead communicated a cowardly lament that she, if elected president, may be forced to face difficulties in the Middle East. Hillary is so entrenched in anti-Bush rhetoric that she now refuses to take credit for actually standing up to an “evil man” through her vote to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein. When asked to clarify to whom she referred with the phrase “evil and bad men, “ Clinton mentioned Bin Laden but not Hussein, a man who gassed Kurds, waged war on Iran, and tortured and killed thousands of Iraqis. She laudably stood up to him but is now so ashamed of it she blames Bush for tricking her into supporting the war. That Hillary, whom many insist is the shrewdest woman in politics, could be duped by a President endlessly ridiculed by Democrats for being ignorant, stupid, and anti-intellectual, is laughably ironic.

In her Iowa remarks, Clinton disingenuously stated that President Bush intended to leave the Iraq War for his successor to resolve: "I am going to level with you, the president has said this is going to be left to his successor," Clinton said. "I think it is the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it." Compare that with what the President actually stated to USA Today: "The War on Terror will be a problem for the next president. Presidents after me will be confronting ... an enemy that would like to strike the United States again.”

The War on Terror and terrorist attacks clearly will continue through many future presidencies, but the President did NOT state that he intended to leave the Iraq War for his successor to conclude. Perhaps she would prefer that President Bush solved the Iranian, Palestinian, and Syrian situations as well prior to leaving office so she can focus exclusively on issues more dear to her than national security, such as socialized medicine. That Clinton would resent being forced to deal with difficult international and national security issues speaks volumes about her alleged competence and toughness.

Was Truman out on the stump while FDR was on this deathbed telling reporters, “FDR told me this war is going to be mine to solve as his successor, and I think that is irresponsible and deeply resent it! He better end this war before he passes away!”? No, Truman took the reins when handed them, and demonstrated a determination to end the war through overwhelming victory. When that succeeded (yes, victory is the best exit strategy), he presided over an amazingly compassionate rebuilding and protection of the former enemy nations, in essence what we are trying to achieve in Iraq on a smaller scale.

Truman was praised for implementing the Marshall Plan after the elimination of Hitler, which protected a new government in Germany from being overrun by the Soviet Union and others looking for postwar spoils until it could stand on its own. President Bush seeks to do the same in Iraq after the removal of a dictator, and the obvious reality is the Iraqi government is not yet ready to sustain and defend itself. Should a time limit be imposed, a drop dead date by which if they are still not capable we should abandon them to whatever fate may bring (it will bring an Iranian invasion)? Fortunately Truman and succeeding administrations were not as shortsighted as the current stable of Democratic presidential aspirants. A viable democracy in the Middle East is no less worthy a goal than rebuilding Germany or Japan, and our commitment to help Iraq until it is self-sustaining or officially rejects American intervention should not depend on any politically motivated timetable.

If Senator Clinton wants to be viewed as legitimately qualified on national security and military matters, she should demonstrate a willingness to take on difficult challenges, not run from them. She should not beg and plead publicly for President Bush to hurry and resolve the Iraq War so she will not be required to resolve it if elected. A true executive would relish the opportunity to step in where others have (in her view) failed, and if necessary, lead in a new direction or finish the work of the preceding executive. In many respects, this is why former governors are generally better prepared and suited for the presidency than Senators or Congressmen. For Senator Clinton to openly shun the responsibilities of executive leadership and plead for issues to be resolved before she might face them personally signals an appalling lack of courage, optimism, charisma, and leadership.

Technorati Tags: Iowa Marshall Plan National Intelligence Estimates Executive Leadership Intelligence Failures Bush Administration National Security Iraq War Global War On Terror Hillary Clinton