Media Campaign Coverage

According to Pollster.com's national Republican Presidential Primary page, Giuliani continues to enjoy a substantial lead over Thompson, McCain, and Romney.

But if you look at the State Primary polls (scroll down for links), Romney has solid leads in Iowa and New Hampshire with positive trend lines.  He and Giuliani are pretty much tied in Nevada.  Giuliani leads in South Carolina (barely), Florida, and Michigan (also barely), but his trend lines are all slipping.  Giuliani doesn't enjoy any comfortable leads anywhere except California and New York.

Why isn't this a bigger story?  If the early races really are as important as everyone seems to think, Giuliani will be out of the race long before the California and New York primaries.  Not to mention the fact he's clearly slipping everywhere except Nevada, where he's only just regained the top spot from Romney.

If you believe that the early primaries are the key to the nomination, and if you believe the polls (and the national media gives every impression that they believe both), then you've got to be looking at Romney as a real front-runner, televangelist endorsements notwithstanding.

My take:
1. The polls are unreliable indicators.
2. The national media want Giuliani to win, thus they continue to push the Giuliani-leading-national-polls angle along with the Robertson endorsement.

AND: It should be noted that Romney is investing the bulk of his time in Iowa and New Hampshire.  The two states that are seeing the most of him like what they see.  I wonder if he's planning to branch out a bit more now that his lead seems to be solidifying.

Pres. Clinton on Sen. Clinton, Sen. Kerry, and Vice-President Gore

Defending his wife after a recent gaffe, President Clinton said this...

The point I'm here to make to you is whoever you're for, this is a really big election. We saw what happened the last seven years when we made decisions in elections based on trivial matters. When we listened to people make snide comments about whether Vice President Gore was too stiff.

And when they made dishonest claims about the things that he said that he'd done in his life. When that scandalous Swift Boat ad was run against Senator Kerry.

Al Gore didn't lose because he was "stiff," he lost because he's an attention-mongering lightweight who was too close to the Clintons.  John Kerry didn't lose because of the dishonest claims about his Vietnam service, he lost because of "I voted for it before I voted against it."

And in this case, what has military service or personal appearance have to do with Sen. Clinton's debate response?  The moderator asked a policy question, and she gave a policy answer.  She should indeed be criticized for stumbling.

But every candidate stumbles, and I'm sure Sen. Clinton will recover.  I believe the above comments show a different problem.  Pres. Clinton wields a tremendous amount of influence, which he is calling on to sway voters on his wife's behalf.  Having the two of them in office is, in my opinion, an egregious concentration of power.  I'm tired of the Bush family, I don't want to go through the whole thing again for another eight years with the Clintons.

And on a different tangent, I'd love to see a reporter stick a microphone in Pres. or Sen. Clinton's face and ask "Do you believe illegal immigration is a trivial matter?"

Reuters Fark

Reuters reports that President Bush has vetoed a "popular water projects bill."

Bush had long threatened to veto the $23 billion bill, targeted for projects including coastal restoration in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina and improving the Florida Everglades, saying it was too expensive because it had unneeded projects supported by individual lawmakers.

There are two things that stand out about the Reuters report. First, the author doesn't mention the bill's designation. How am I supposed to participate in the republic if I don't know what bill I'm talking about? How would I reference the legislation if I wanted to write my congressional representatives about it? I can search Thomas Online, but it'd be much easier if I had the official name or the bill number.

Second, note this para...

Democrats said they would try to override the president's veto as early as next week.

Why "Democrats"? The story goes on to note that the bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support: 81-12 in the Senate, 381-40 in the House. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "Congressional leaders" or even "Democratic leaders"?

I happen to know a bit more about this particular bill thanks to Instapundit and Ed Morissey. I note that the Reuters article fails to mention the added $8-9 billion in the final bill. I note also that the article focuses entirely on political analysis rather than substance.