test
ArchPundit
test
February 2007
Can Mr. Smith Get to Washington Anymore?
“Can Mr. Smith Get to Washington Anymore?” (10:30 p.m. Tuesday, WTTW-Ch. 11) has not only a catchy title but an intriguing concept at its core. In these days of megabucks candidates raising millions of dollars for statewide and even local races, let alone national contests, it is worth examining whether a grassroots politician with little dough and few connections can win a seat in Congress.
In 2004, then-29-year-old novice Jeff Smith — yes, he’s named Smith, just like the candidate in the Jimmy Stewart movie — decided to try just that. With no money, no political support from established party types and with an army of young volunteers, the educator mounted a race in the Democratic primary for a St. Louis-area congressional seat.
Russ Carnahan, scion of a Missouri political dynasty, was also in the race, and it’s a measure of Carnahan’s apparent lack of sizzle and Smith’s indefatigable energy that Smith, who was initially dismissed by other candidates and by the press, ended up being a credible candidate. Even if you’re not a political junkie, this documentary offers a sliver of hope that a candidate with no money for negative TV ads but lots of energy, yard signs and caffeinated volunteers can accomplish something in politics.
On the downside, “Mr. Smith” is far too long and doesn’t do a good job of tracking Smith’s progress to the front rank of candidates or putting the race in a local or national context.
The Facebook Group for the movie is here There are a bunch of still shots there as well–fortunately, Matt left out my brief shot in the movie. I didn’t look good. David Loebsack is in a couple scenes, as are several folks from the Chicago area.
MySpace here
Robert Gibbs is the AntiChrist
Everyone thought it was Barack, but it’s actually Gibbs and I have photo proof:
Gibbs probably threw himself under the bus…
Original below the fold because it’s just too damn cute.
Desecration: Antichrist Takes the Throne (Left Behind No. 9)
Berkowitz Finds His Interview Being a Great Tool for the Obama Campaign
Creating a tough choice of whether to be happy for the exposure or annoyed that his work would do such a thing:
And don’t forget Jeff’s site–I’m sure I’ll be reminded I don’t link enough. 😉
Perhaps if he claimed to be the father of Anna Nicole’s Daughter
Obama on the news media:
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/6n7jAVMLgQw" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
While Obama is certainly getting a fair amount of press even if much of it is half-assed coverage, this reminds me of 2000 when Bill Bradley suggested to the press that he rob a bank to get some coverage.
The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
Calling All Gadflies
The AP apparently doesn’t have any real news to dig up so they’ll be interviewing you shortly.
Maybe next you can find an employee of Bobby Rush to say something unflattering about Obama.
How To Win Friends and Influence People
Kirk Dillard isn’t really a Christian.
Really, Jill Stanek says so.
Who Can Mutter More to Themselves
Next, you “experts” assume that just because viable, credible black candidates end up winning overwhelming majorities of black votes that polls currently showing Hillary Clinton leading Obama among African Americans are somehow important.
Wrong again.
In Illinois, at least, large numbers of black voters tend to take their time making up their minds. In political parlance, they ”break late.”
Ten months before the March 2004 U.S. Senate primary (about where we are now before the Iowa caucuses), Obama’s own polls showed him winning just 34 percent of the black vote. About a month before the primary, African-American voters began ”breaking” in large numbers to his candidacy. As they began focusing on the campaign, black voters saw he was viable, liked his message and a significant percentage finally realized he was African American. He ended up winning just about all their votes.
This same pattern has been repeated time and time again during the past 25 years here. Harold Washington didn’t start off his campaign with the majority of black support against a white female with a huge war chest and the powers of patronage and incumbency, but he certainly ended that way.
Like Byrne, Hillary Clinton is almost universally known and has a strong record of backing issues important to many Democratic African-American voters. Obama is far less known. It’s perfectly natural that, right now, many black voters are siding with Clinton. But, if Obama’s candidacy remains viable through early next year, I’d bet that the vast majority of African-American voters will end up with him.
To recap, because I know you’re all very busy: Black leadership endorsements of white candidates over black opponents are not necessarily important because they don’t automatically translate into black votes; and black voters take their time deciding whether to vote for a fellow African American, but if that candidate looks like a potential winner, they usually end up voting for him or her.
I hope this helps.
And I mean this as a compliment to Rich, none of this is new and anyone who knows the first thing about African-American voting patterns understands the above. The amazing thing is that Rich had to write it.
Hence, your national press corps is filled with morons. Seriously, the national press works on nothing except gossip and conventional wisdom that has no historical basis. It would be malpractice in most fields.
Keyes’ Company: IR Version for the day
John Ruskin, he of Barack Obama really must of have gone to a madrassa regardless of evidence and the historical impossibility fame, attacks Democrats supporting Halvorson and Jakobbsen’s bills to mandate the HPV vaccine.
The arguments about like one might find in a Junior High term paper, but let’s look at his charges.
First he claims the mandate is anti-choice and here he could be correct if the bills didn’t include a simple opt out procedure of writing the school to say the parent or guardian chooses not to have their child vaccinated. As I’ve said, I think mandating insurance coverage of the vaccine would probably be adequate, but it’s hardly a high burden to opt out of the vaccine.
In terms of corporate welfare, does anyone think that Halvorson isn’t doing this because she believes it? Seriously–one can disagree with her on many grounds, but her interest in the subject is personal, not because she got a donation.
But here’s the gem:
Democrats are anti-science: Democrats refuse to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that the HPV vaccination is not ready for market. Both the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) have publicly come out against this vaccine. AAFP said it was “premature” to consider HPV mandates because “long-term safety with widespread use” needs to be clarified. AAFP President Rick Kellerman, MD, said problems can crop up with a vaccine after it goes to market. He cited as an example Rotashield, which was FDA approved in 1998 to immunize against rotavirus but withdrawn from the market a year later after 76 cases of intussusception were reported. And Dr. Joseph A. Bocchini, MD, chair of the AAP’s Committee on Infectious Diseases, agreed that “it’s too early to consider mandates. There are other priorities that are more important right now.”
This is where it’s hard to tell if Ruskin is lying, stupid, or both:
American Academy of Family Physicians
“The AAFP feels it is premature to consider school entry mandates for human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV) vaccine until such time as the long term safety with widespread use, stability of supply, and economic issues have been clarified.”
Background:
The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), have recommendations for the use of human papillomavirus vaccine (HPV) which calls for routine vaccination with three doses of HPV for females 11-12 years of age. The vaccination series can be started in females as young as 9 years of age. Catch-up vaccination is recommended for females 13-26 years of age who have not been vaccinated previously or who have not completed the full vaccine series. These recommendations can be accessed on the Recommended Adolescent Immunization Schedule (PDF file: 1 page/89KB; More information on PDF files) and the Recommended Adult Immunization Schedule.Recently, there has been increasing state level action considering mandating HPV vaccination with proof of vaccination required for school attendance. Several issues should be considered regarding a mandated school attendance requirement. These include that HPV does not adhere to the public health model for control of infectious disease in a school setting. (e.g. measles, chicken pox); a universal school attendance requirement would come as a sudden significant cost that may not be able to be paid for by patients, state public health departments, and the healthcare system; and assurance of an adequate HPV supply for such a sudden increased demand and ability to administer it.
CDC, AAFP, and AAP all recommend the vaccine for girls age 11 and 12. They do feel it is ready for market. The distinction is that they don’t think it should be mandated yet which is prudent for several reasons as they mention.
The next nugget Ruskin tries to throw out there is that HPV is simply the result if irresponsible actions so we shouldn’t be rewarding irresponsible actions by protecting against them and by doing so one is hurting freedom. That’s such a mess it’s hard to know where to start. This is akin to saying we shouldn’t offer bypass surgery to those who eat poorly.
Finally:
Democrats are obsessed with sex: When it comes to the issue of government mandated HPV vaccine, all the Democrats can focus on is sex. Unable to argue their pro-mandate position on merit, they’ve been forced to throw up a smoke screen that attempts to focus debate solely on the erotic aspect of their proposed legislation. They introduce the issue via Sen. Halverson’s public discussion of private behavior; then take umbrage when the anti-mandate side engages in the debate. They accuse detractors of being obsessed with sex. But the Democrats single-minded focus – to the exclusion of all other debate (e.g. choice, rights, science, profits, etc.) – is an obsession with sex akin to that of a teenager.
What is the erotic part of the legislation? Halvorson didn’t have a public discussion of private behavior, she had a public discussion of a private medical condition. Attacking her for that and suggesting she’s a slut would seem to be where the obsession with sex lies.
Jackson-Claypool Coalition to Take on Stroger
Jackson Jr. jumps in the fray and takes on Stroger’s budget. It’s time to start the Claypool 2010 campaign about now.