February 02, 2005
Hugh on Dennis Miller Last Night
Driving home yesterday I caught the last few minutes of Hugh Hewitt's radio broadcast. He encouraged his listeners to watch him flog Blog on Dennis Miller's show that evening, so I clicked on the tube when I got home to check it out. Miller's intro was very shaky and a bit R-rated, but Hugh did a fine job with his segment.
If you haven't purchased your copy of Blog, please do. The book will help you understand better what this project is all about. (Disclosure: Hugh flogs the old SCO a couple of times, but that's not why I'm encouraging you to buy his book. Buy and read the book because it's good and will teach you a few things about the new media!)
Posted by Rick at 10:35 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
February 01, 2005
Clinton(s) 2008
There should be no doubt that Hillary is running for higher office. Hillary Rodham's recent statements aimed to paint her as a centrist by seeking common ground on abortion make it clear that she is gunning for the presidency in 2008.
But is Bill also running for higher office? I've wondered before, but Kofi Annan's announcement today makes me think that something is up.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan has selected former President Clinton to be the U.N. point man for tsunami reconstruction and ensure that the world doesn't forget the needs of those devastated by the Dec. 26 disaster, a U.N. diplomat said Tuesday.
President Clinton is an excellent candidate for this job. The relief effort will be well managed under his leadership. But forgive me for being a bit cynical when it comes to the Clintons: Could this be just the opportunity for Bill to launch his campaign for UN Secretary General? I'll bet the thought has at least crossed his mind.
Dick Morris once wrote that "Bill and Hillary Clinton have one central idea in their uncluttered, ambitious minds: Hillary in 2008."
Dick's analysis here may not be is correct; after all, Morris thought the SBV Ads would "backfire"). But what if he is correct and Bill is obsessed with the idea of Hillary as President?
As UN Secretary General, Bill Clinton could use the bully pulpit to confront President Bush on global policy like no other person could. And, let's face it folks, he is much better on that bully pulpit than our dear W. He could hammer conservative politics and, with the MSM having heart palpitations over his return to the spotlight, his message would be carried into every American home, every day.
But, what if Bill's candidacy for UN Secretary General is some type of move to preempt Hillary's candidacy? Can anyone imagine having one Clinton run the United States, while the other Clinton ran the world (so to speak)? And, if Clinton were to wear the 5-star Blue Helmet, do you think he would give up the power that comes with that helmet so that Hillary could run for President?
I have no idea. But, I think it's safe to say that the Clintons are up to something.
UPDATE: Former Senator Jessie Helms weighs in:
"I'm sure you might agree that putting a left-wing, undisciplined and ethically challenged former President of the United States into a position of such power would be a tragic mistake," wrote the 83-year-old Republican, who left office in 2003 after five terms.
The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter Tuesday. It contains a petition asking President Bush to "rebuke all efforts by Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and every other liberal in Congress to push for Bill Clinton to become Secretary-General of the United Nations."
Is the first shot in a long drawn out war? Or is Senator Helms just ranting?
There was another line in the Helms article that caught my attention:
"Clinton has said nothing publicly about wanting to lead the U.N" (emphasis added). Hmmmm...
Posted by Rick at 03:07 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack
Is the "Governator" No Longer Invincible?
The headline of this AP story screams: "Once-Invincible 'Governator' Dips in Polls."
A new survey by the Public Policy Institute of California shows that while 60 percent of the state's residents still approve of the job he is doing, he has lost considerable ground among Democrats and Independents, who together form the vast majority of the state's voters.Well...not exactly.
The PPIC poll compared the Governor's January 2005 job approval rating to his January 2004 approval rating. Exhibit 1 compares the data for both years by party and for all Californians.
The single-tail p-values for the change in the proportion of those who “Approve” from 2004 to 2005 were as follows: Dem (.10), Rep (.28), Ind (.30), Californians (.26). Statistically, the Governor's "Approval" rating did not change from 2004 to 2005, even amongst the surveyed Democrats. Although, the survey indicates that Californians shifted from not knowing if they approved or disapproved of the Governor's performance in 2004 to expressing firm disapproval of his job performance in 2005. As noted in the PPIC report, this shift was largest amongst Democrats and Independents.
What do you think could account for this marked shift in opinion of the Governor amongst Democrats, Independents, and even some Republicans?
I suggest that much of the shift can be attributed to the PPIC survey design and administration.
In this year's survey, the job approval question was #22. I suggest that questions #19 or #21, which preceded the approval rating question, provided information that may have "pushed" Californians (Dem. and Ind. in particular) from "Do Not Know" in 2004 to "Disapprove" in 2005.
These questions informed the survey respondents that the Governor's budget includes "withholding money from K to 12 public education," "reducing certain health and human services and general government spending," and asked "how concerned" Californians were about the effects of the Governor's proposed "spending reductions."
In 2004, surveyed voters were asked to make value judgments based on their prior knowledge of the issues. The survey questionnaire did not provide the type of preamble, like it did most prominently in questions #19 and #21 of the 2005 survey.
If the article suggests that in 2004 Arnold was "Invincible," this survey does not indicate an Achilles Heal for the Governator. Given the preamble of questions #19 and #21 in the survey, why did the Governor's "Approval" rating remain unchanged across party lines? Now there's the story!
Posted by Rick at 10:06 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack