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

Debate Sponsored by Fox News too Intimidating for 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidates?

Candidates for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination are scrambling to intentionally schedule alternative debates and public appearances in Nevada in order to avoid the upcoming August primary debate co-sponsored by Fox News. Yesterday I wrote about the thin skin of Russian President Vladimir Putin, but even his skin appears to be much thicker than that of Democrats who apparently cannot tolerate the existence of a major media outlet that presents news without liberal spin and are afraid of being mocked by conservative pundits.

The Daily Kos is actively contacting the campaign staffs of major Democratic presidential candidates to encourage them not to participate in the Fox sponsored debate. Kos happily reported yesterday that “the first to definitely say ‘no’ is John Edwards.” Kos then quotes from an email he received from Deputy Campaign Manager Jonathan Prince and declares it to be “great news”:

We will not be participating in the Fox debate. We're going to make lots of appearances in Nevada, including debates. By the end of March, we will have attended three presidential forums in Nevada - and there are already at least three proposed Nevada debates. We're definitely going to debate in Nevada, but we don't see why this needs to be one of them.

Kos goes on to laud the Edwards campaign, remarking that they were “showing real leadership on this issue. Hopefully others will soon follow.” Kos further set forth the reasoning behind the push for his party to shun a Fox sponsored debate:

It's not a position they want to be in, and I'm sure they're cursing whoever it was that negotiated the deal with Fox News. (That Democratic Party decision maker, by the way, is still secret. Everyone claims they don't know who signed the deal.)

The campaigns could make things easier for themselves by just stating, en masse, that they won't do a Fox News debate, but that they'll be happy to debate in Nevada with another media partner.

The issue here isn't to screw over Nevada or its Dems (it's a state where we should be far more competitive, and will be in the next few cycles), and to deprive them of a close look at the field.

The issue is to deprive the right wing's premier propaganda outlet an easy opportunity to take cheap shots at our guys.

If Republicans ran in fear from appearances on news networks that mock and misrepresent them, there would have been no televised presidential debates or White House press conferences held in the past 50 years. Forgotten by Fox News critics is the important distinction that the network’s claim is not to be completely objective or impartial, but rather it is to be “fair and balanced,” which it accomplishes simply through its existence as a balancing alternative to the blatantly liberal traditional networks and newspapers. If there is a traditional major network news channel that has not mocked, belittled, or impugned the integrity of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, Spy The News! invites Kos to bring it to our attention. Republicans have been good sports in the past about attending debates orchestrated by CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and others, with full knowledge that the Republican message would be twisted and distorted by the news anchors within seconds of the event’s conclusion. Yet they participated anyway. Democrats should do likewise, even if makes them squirm a bit.

Small people avoid big challenges, and Edwards has demonstrated by his choice to duck the Fox debate in Nevada that there really are two Americas as he frequently argues, only it is not a rich versus poor divide but rather a clear distinction between courageous America and cowardly America. Considering that it took him longer to decide to pull out of the Fox debate than it did for him to advocate pulling out of Iraq should give voters little confidence in his courage to make tough decisions. In both cases he has chosen the easy path.

Democrats should consider that Fox News is the most watched cable news channel in America, with an audience nearly triple CNN’s and quadruple MSNBC’s. It has more viewers than both of its chief competitors combined. Fox News hosts also sweep the top 3 spots for their individual programs, with the O’Reilly Factor and Hannity & Colmes consistently holding the top two spots. Democrats should also keep in mind that many Fox News viewers also watch CNN and other networks in order to witness examples of media bias. In essence, although conservatives tend to agree with Fox News’ presentation of the news, they are keenly aware of how those same stories are being described in the liberal media. Fox News is clearly not the Democrats’ preferred news network, but for Democrats to advocate avoiding political debate simply because Fox has paid to co-sponsor the event suggests that what is actually feared may be the exposure to scrutiny their political views would receive.

Edwards insists there are 2 Americas, one rich and one poor, but the media outlets he deigns worthy to interview him never ask him pointed questions like “Isn’t the involuntary taxation of the rich to give to the poor also called socialism?” Another question he likely would not want asked is “How many doctors did you drive out of practice or out of state in North Carolina with your frivolous malpractice lawsuits? And Senator, if I may, did your persecution of doctors in North Carolina result in lower or higher healthcare costs for both rich and poor citizens of your state?” I wonder if Fox News has recorded chirping cricket sounds or perhaps the Final Jeopardy theme to play while Edwards crafts a reply.

All joking aside, Edwards should have no fear of a debate on an opposing network, since, as he claimed in many of his malpractice trials, he possesses clairvoyant abilities to channel spirits that reveal important facts of his cases to him. As reported by the New York Times, while “channeling” the spirit of a baby girl who allegedly died of doctor error resulting in delivery-induced cerebral palsy, Edwards told the jury:

"She speaks to you through me," the lawyer went on in his closing argument. "And I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."

The jury came back with a $6.5 million verdict in the cerebral palsy case, and Mr. Edwards established his reputation as the state's most feared plaintiff's lawyer.

In the decade that followed, Mr. Edwards filed at least 20 similar lawsuits against doctors and hospitals in deliveries gone wrong, winning verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million, typically keeping about a third.

He should have no difficulty calling on sympathetic liberal spirits to warn him in advance what questions he will be asked and how he should answer. The only tough question he should face from them is how much he will charge by the hour for his channeling services.

Daily Kos, MoveOn.org and others advocating a boycott of the Fox News sponsored Nevada primary debate should heed the surprisingly astute advice of the Nevada Democratic Party as quoted in the Las Vegas Sun: “The debate in August is not an endorsement of Fox News. Instead, it is an effort to reach out to Fox News viewers. We will not win elections if we don't win over new people."

If speaking or debating only in front of comfortable network accomplices is so desperately sought by the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates, one can only assume that as president they would not be comfortable debating serious issues with a foreign head of state sitting across the table from them. If they cannot face potential mockery from Fox News, how will they be trusted to stand up to Ahmadinejad? If “fair and balanced” strikes fear in their hearts, how will they react to being called “the Great Satan” that should be annihilated?

It is not surprising that John Edwards was the first to personify Monty Python’s cowardly character Sir Robin, whose adventures were captured so well in song: “When danger reared its ugly head, he [Edwards] bravely turned his tail and fled.” We will surely soon hear Edwards’ response, echoing Sir Robin’s denials: “I did not. . . I never did.”

"Cut and run" as a policy may be the Democrats’ wish for Iraq, but in the case of debate avoidance it demonstrates a decidedly thin-skinned and cowardly approach to political discourse. The days of political immunity in the media for liberals are over, and hopefully a new “fair and balanced” ratio of liberal and conservative media will one day result in televised political debates hosted by a variety of networks of all political stripes. Democrats should show confidence in their political views and willingly debate each other regardless of the sponsoring network. The only message Democrats will send by boycotting a Fox News sponsored debate is that the liberal version of "freedom of the press" is extended only to traditional liberal sycophant networks.

Ann Coulter's CPAC Remark: Room in Politics for "Loving the Sinner, but not the Sin?"

Is it possible in today’s instant-media politics to “love the sinner but not the sin?” At what point does a person’s worth become synonymous with his/her actions or words, especially if those actions or words become a political liability for anyone considered a friend or supporter? In today’s politics it seems that members of both political parties routinely rush to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater whenever someone speaks frankly but perhaps with little tact. Influential organizations, with media complicity, demand that politicians not only distance themselves from “inflammatory” or “intolerant” statements made by others, but they are further urged to personally condemn or malign the person who made the comments. In effect, political correctness today demands nothing less than a complete shunning of anyone whose friendship or support could be viewed as political baggage. Ambition trumps friendship, and popularity eschews loyalty.

Recent examples of this phenomenon illustrate the political danger presidential candidates face when someone they know and have publicly associated with does or says something controversial. Their perceived risk of being associated with a controversial figure or policy position almost immediately results in the candidates’ lemming-like dash to jump into the abyss of political correctness to preserve their popularity and appeal.

Unfortunately Ann Coulter placed several 2008 Republican presidential candidates in an awkward position with her controversial remarks at the 34th annual CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) on Friday. The candidates’ political views and personalities were overshadowed by the media focus on one sentence uttered by Coulter and the efforts of top Republican 2008 presidential contenders Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Senator John McCain to distance themselves from her remark. If you missed it, during her speech to CPAC Coulter made the following comment:

I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.

Clearly, Ann Coulter has a low opinion of Senator John Edwards, but the number of Republicans (and many Democrats as well) who hold similarly low opinions of Senator Edwards is legion. Coulter expressed her sentiment in a forceful manner, leaving no doubt about her disdain for Senator Edwards as a politician and as a person. One could reasonably question her judgment in using a term that has been ascribed only one possible meaning in today’s politically correct climate. It can also be reasonably assumed that she intentionally used the term on such an austere occasion to gain publicity, as the analysis by Right Wing News convincingly argues in the post titled, “Ann Coulter's Juvenile Comment at CPAC.”

Coulter, in manner ironically similar to John Kerry after his derogatory comments toward the intelligence of U.S. Military personnel, explained that her remark was an attempt at humor, or in Kerry’s words, “a botched joke.” When asked about criticism of her comment, Coulter stated, “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

Traditional liberal media outlets, including the Washington Post, who defended Senator Kerry by immediately labeling his insult to U.S. troops in Iraq as nothing more than a botched joke, did not offer similar protective coverage to Ann Coulter in this incident. There were no headlines in the Post softening Coulter’s image with blind acceptance of her Kerry-esque “it was a joke” explanation. On the contrary, she was universally condemned by the liberal media, and also by the leading Republican 2008 presidential candidates.

The following are the reactions of each candidate to Coulter’s remark as reported by the New York Times and Fox News, respectively:

Rudy Giuliani- “The comments were completely inappropriate and there should be no place for such name-calling in political debate.”

Mitt Romney- (via a spokesperson) “It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.”

Senator McCain- “Wildly inappropriate.”

The larger question raised by the Coulter flap is: what is the appropriate long-term response when someone who supports you does or says something controversial? Should Mitt Romney follow the advice of the liberal critics who demand that he refuse Coulter’s campaign support? The difficulty with this situation is that Coulter, though acerbic in delivery, happens to wield the most sarcastic pen in political punditry, and often provides valuable insight and political analysis couched in phrases no candidate or current office holder would dare to utter. Her remark about Edwards was inappropriate, particularly in a forum of candidates carrying the banner of the Republican Party. Yet as ill-advised as her attempt at humor was, it does not necessarily invalidate all of her past and future political analyses.

By nature politics is a controversial business. One cannot take a position without being excoriated by those holding opposing ideas, even if those opponents are in one’s own party. Should all Republican candidates shun Coulter for one sentence in one speech? The Clintons were wise to remain loyal to James Carville and others within their party who spoke bluntly and controversially in much the same fashion as Coulter. Much of the Clintons’ electoral success can be directly attributed to Carville’s strategies, demonstrating that even “flame throwers” have value beyond their publicity stunts.

Politics as a profession leaves little room for repentance, rehabilitation, or forgiveness, and the media appears determined to punish any candidate who gives any appearance of friendship with Coulter. Attempts by the media to link the candidates personally to Coulter began almost immediately, as the New York Times placed the following sentence directly beneath Coulter’s sarcastic explanation of her intended joke: “At the conference, she said she was likely to support Mr. Romney.”

Apparently the liberal media took notice that Romney won the CPAC straw poll and may be emerging as the preferred candidate among conservative Republicans. Liberal bloggers adopted the strategy of creating the impression that since Coulter officially endorsed Romney, he should be smeared with the stain of her allegedly anti-gay comment. The most egregious misrepresentation of Romney’s Coulter connection can be found on the highly popular liberal blog The Daily Kos in the post titled “Coulter and the Candidates.” Daily Kos contributor MissLaura portrayed the incident as follows:

One of the conservatives whose support Romney drew, of course, was Ann Coulter. The two spent some quality time together before she went onstage to call John Edwards a "faggot."

Can we therefore expect him to refuse to be further associated with someone like Ann Coulter, whose entire career as a prominent conservative is based on the notion that people who disagree with her should be treated with contempt, disrespect, and vituperation?

I'll be looking for him to refuse her support of his candidacy just any minute now.

Thus, according to “tolerant” liberals and Republicans infected with political correctness, if one makes a controversial comment, regardless of intent, that person should be jettisoned permanently. The comments submitted to this Daily Kos post were likewise illustrative of the true nature of liberal tolerance. Readers were outraged by the above photo of Romney backstage PRIOR to Coulter’s speech. Romney was vilified by one reader for “flashing his most cordial smile” at Coulter, as if civility and personal kindness should never be directed toward those with whom one disagrees.

To the right you will see a photo of Nancy Pelosi “flashing her most cordial smile” at President Bush despite having said this of him in 2004: “Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader. He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon.” Hillary Clinton, in another flashed a very cordial smile to Vice President Cheney prior to taking her oath of office in the U.S. Senate, all while the very friendly Bill Clinton had his hand on the Vice President’s shoulder. These types of photos indicate nothing about the beliefs and policy views of the persons in the photos, they merely demonstrate that snubbing people and burning bridges win few friends and minimal influence in politics. I suppose the tolerant liberal approach to standing next to someone backstage in a green room must consist of glares, the silent treatment, or refusals to stand next to someone with differing views. Romney was obviously being gracious with a well known media figure, and there is nothing substantive to indicate any more or less than this, especially from one photograph.

For liberals, tolerance appears to be a precious commodity only extended to those who agree with them. The comparison between the media treatment of John Kerry and Ann Coulter does not excuse or defend Coulter’s remark, which was truly juvenile, but it does expand on what Hugh Hewitt wrote about this incident. Hugh rightly pointed out that both the Democratic and Republican parties have individuals who embarrass them and Republicans should use caution in using past liberal behavior to justify present conservative missteps like Coulter’s. Hugh stops there, but the difference is that Republicans tend to shun or officially censure those within their ranks who embarrass the party through their behavior or words, as Coulter did at CPAC. Democrats, as in the case of John Kerry’s repeated insults to troops recently and in 1971, or Speaker Pelosi’s personal attacks of the President’s intellect and competence, seem to reward controversial behavior with high office and unwavering support. Hugh Hewitt makes an excellent point by reminding Republicans that they should seek to rise above the standard set by the other party and expect more dignity from its members.

The Republican reaction to Coulter should be sincere and hopefully will send a message that John Edwards’ political views provide sufficient fodder for reasoned, analytical refutation without resorting to personal attacks. While Republican candidates should make it clear that epithets are discouraged, they should likewise not close the door completely on Coulter’s other, more civilized contributions to political discourse. If every public figure, whether in politics, entertainment, sports, or the media, were to be permanently shunned for one lapse of judgment or poor choice of words, few in these fields today would survive the scrutiny. Forgiveness is perhaps the rarest of all human gifts, but is the one commodity that should be meted out, no pun intended, liberally.

Spy The News! Poll Results: 2008 Presidential Candidates

The results are in from last week's Spy the News! poll, which asked readers to identify which 2008 Presidential candidate best represented their values. Here are the results of our poll:

Mitt Romney 33%
Rudy Giuliani 33%
Newt Gingrich 17%
John McCain 6%
John Edwards 6%
None on list 6%

Those not receiving any votes: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joseph Biden, Sam Brownback, Bill Richardson.

Visit Spy the News! to participate in this week's poll: Which Single Issue Would Prevent You From Voting For a 2008 Presidential Candidate?