Partial transcript from an interview with CNSNews.com:
Huckabee: ... You know, it's interesting, the California decision as well as the Massachusetts decision, I don't think should ever have been implemented by the governors, Schwarzenegger and Romney. They were both decisions that the governors simply could have said the court has said that we have to do it, but let them enforce it. Because those were administrative decisions that had to put that in place and there was no mandate.
Jeffrey: Right, but Governor Romney actually went ahead and certified same-sex marriages without an act of his state legislature.
Huckabee: It should never have happened. It should never have happened. And while we want to blame the courts-
With the February 5th primary election approaching rapidly, in which voters in California and 21 other states will pick which presidential candidates represent each party, we have a rare opportunity to make a monumental decision.
For the first time in years, we have an opportunity to elect a president who will give the global climate crisis the level of attention that is required to tackle it.
But how are we to know where the candidates stand on global warming, if reporters simply refuse to ask the right questions? Of the 2,938 questions asked of the presidential candidates since January 2007, just 6 mentioned global warming (source: League of Conservation Voters).
(XPosted in the BluePalmSpringsBoyz Blog 1/29/2008 7:50 PM PST on MyDesert.com)
The National and local news media usually only focus on who 'wins' the caucus or primary race. They provide little information on election night regarding the important race, that for delegates.
This is interesting stuff from CNN.com, see http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#R for the Republican totals and http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=D for the Democratic totals.
The National and local news media usually only focus on who 'wins' the caucus or primary race. They provide little information on election night regarding the important race, that for delegates.
This is interesting stuff from CNN.com for the Republican totals and CNN.com for the Democratic totals (kudos to grodriguez for providing the link in his blog).
The magic number of delegates for the Democratic nominee is 2,025. Thus far, 443 Democratic delegates have been chosen, including those from today's South Carolina Democratic primary as well as the so-called Super Delegates (e.g., governors, U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives). This means that only 10.94% of the Democratic delegates are committed to date.
The National and local news media usually only focus on who 'wins' the caucus or primary race. They provide little information on election night regarding the important race, that for delegates.
This is interesting stuff from CNN.com, see http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20... for the Republican totals and http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/20... for the Democratic totals (kudos to grodriguez for providing the link in his blog).
The magic number of delegates for the Democratic nominee is 2,025. Thus far, 386 Democratic delegates have been chosen, including those from today's Nevada Democratic caucuses as well as the so-called Super Delegates (e.g., governors, U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives). This means that only 9.53% of the Democratic delegates are committed to date. Hillary Clinton leads the field far and away (I have deleted the Democratic candidates who have thus far dropped out of the race). The results are as follows:
I got 5 hours of sleep, but managed to write this last night for Beyond Chron.
Barack Obama's victory in the Iowa caucus last night sent a powerful message of change - as a record turnout (especially among young voters) picked him the winner with 38% of the total vote. John Edwards, who likewise ran a populist campaign that emphasized change, came in second place with 30%. When asked what was the most important factor in a candidate, voters picked "change" over "experience" by a 51-20 margin - giving Hillary Clinton's establishment campaign a humiliating 3rd place finish at 29%. Obama defied expectations by even beating Clinton among women and registered Democrats, which questions her viability as a candidate. But while Obama's insurgent campaign has crystallized the message of change, the dirty little secret in presidential primaries is that the establishment always wins. As the fight moves to New Hampshire and other states, Obama's campaign will have to defy historical precedent to dethrone the Clinton dynasty. I believe he can prevail, but it will be a different story for Mike Huckabee - who won last night's Republican caucus.
34% Huckabee
25% Romney
14% Thompson
13% McCain
10% Paul
Other
So allowing for a possible 1% fluctuation somewhere, how does this impact the race and California's role therein? Thus far, California numbers have mirrored national polling almost exactly. Anybody want to guess where the Iowa bounce takes us?
UPDATE: Most recent Field Poll (pdf) has California looking this way two weeks ago:
Remember the 1970's game show with Monty Hall called "Let's Make a Deal"? Contestants on the program would pick a prize behind one of three curtains, and some would inevitably get stuck with a "gag prize" - such as a high chair with a screaming baby, a giant hot water bottle, or a pet donkey. Today's gag prize is the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, as the political climate for next year should be very problematic for the G.O.P. While the Republican presidential field is more fluid this year than the Democratic side, that's because (a) each candidate is seriously flawed, (b) voters aren't happy with any of them, and (c) unless the Democrats really screw up, 2008 should be a terrible year for Republicans. Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee can enjoy the sudden burst of media attention that his high placement in the polls has garnered, but - assuming he wins the nomination - how much would that prize really be worth? Nobody should care who wins the Republican nomination, because it probably won't matter much in the end.
I'm supposed to tread with the utmost sensitivity when discussing religious issues because of some distorted version of political correctness created by the religious right. Because they want to reserve the ability to cry "you religion-hater" when you simply report on what they've been doing lately. To wit:
Last week, (Pastor Wiley S. of the Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park) Drake got out his church letterhead again, and announced his endorsement of Mike Huckabee for the GOP presidential nomination -- an endorsement he repeated on his radio show, just in case anyone missed it. "I announce," wrote the pastor, "that I am going to personally endorse Mike Huckabee. I ask all of my Southern Baptist brothers and sisters to consider getting behind Mike and helping him all you can. First of all pray and then ask God, what should I do to put feet to my prayers [...]
Americans United for Separation of Church and State struck back quickly. Yesterday, they filed a formal complaint with the IRS, documenting Wiley's actions as a clear breach of tax laws that prevent churches and ministers from endorsing political candidates [...]
Wiley's retort to AU was swift, ferocious -- and bizarre. Caught dead to rights, he didn't even try to respond to particulars of AU's IRS complaint. Instead, he immediately launched into the kind of wild-eyed, paranoid magical thinking you'd expect from any embattled cult leader. Which is to say: In a press release issued yesterday, he ordered his flock to petition God, who in turn would avenge this attack by smiting AU's staff with poverty, starvation, scattered familes, and death.
No shit, the guy actually names specific staffers to target through prayer. Go read the whole thing.
We're not supposed to talk about this, we're supposed to "give the church a break," when obviously I'm talking about a specific situation of intolerance, bigotry and hatred that doesn't reflect on every religious man or woman in the country. If we are silent about these things that do matter, we allow these views to fester and grow. There is no difference between what this pastor in Buena Park is doing and what Islamists did in calling for the head of Salman Rushdie, for example. And this possibly falls under the legal standard of harrassment.
These fundamentalists, who believe they own the ultimate moral authority, are now showing what they plan to do with it: they would call for the summary execution of anyone who disagrees with them or points out their faults. That's the danger we face with theocrats like this and it should be spotlighted.
Here's the rub: Drake asked his followers to "target Joe Conn or Jeremy Learing." Except, Jeremy's last name is "Leaming."
So, here's the theological question of the day: if a bunch of people pray for God to punish some guy named "Jeremy Learing," who had nothing to do with this incident, does it still count? What, if anything, happens to Jeremy Leaming?
