Iowa to Caucus on Saturday

From the Wall Street Journal,

The Democratic and Republican Parties of Iowa have agreed to a date for the 2010 caucuses–and for the first time they will be held on a Saturday afternoon, the Des Moines Register reports.

While Iowa’s midterm election year caucuses garner little national interest, the Register notes that “it will serve as a great test” ahead of the 2012 presidential caucuses.

The date is set for Jan. 23, 2010, and may alleviate criticism that holding caucuses on a week-day limits attendance for the working class and elderly, among others.

Advertisements

Ron Paul on Iran

Agree with his politics or not, you have to admire Ron Paul.

From the transcript of a speech he gave on the House floor, debating the recent resolution to offer support for Iranian protesters:

While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about “condemning” the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives.

The reality is, the isolationist Constitution to which Rep. Paul adheres just isn’t practical in the present age. Still, you have to respect the guy for sticking to his principles when the politically and, well, morally convenient thing to do would be to go along with the resolution.

The American Response to Iran

Ten days have passed since the Iranian election. And still, many persist in perpetuating the notion that — somehow — America has something to do with it. Part of this is a product of the nature of our media; the need to localize stories, even foreign ones, has framed much of the Iran happenings in terms of their relationship to America. But I suspect it stems more from American importance as the de facto hegemon in global politics. (Notice I didn’t say self-perceived importance; I do think America’s influence is both real and powerful in the global scheme. In a lot of ways, most everything does come back to the U.S. I’m just not sure if the stirrings of revolution in Iran do to the extent many think.)

The usually impeccable Economist even falls into the trap, asking foreign policy giant Joseph Nye in a recent Q&A, “It seems that Barack Obama has been somewhat successful in exporting hope and optimism to Iran. But if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad retains power, has Iran’s election shown up the limits of soft power?”

A Thought

Can you imagine American reaction to the Iran goings on had it been a West-backed president who’d (allegedly) stolen votes? Like, say … former Pakistani President Musharraf? I don’t think we’d be framing the protests as inspirational expressions of democracy.

Just a thought.

Evidence of Iranian Vote Fraud?

It’s pretty hard to assess voter fraud from afar, especially given the reality that most Americans tend to presume the worst about regimes we don’t like. I’m not suggesting that foreign correspondents are making things up, but I will say that Ahmadenijad has already been found guilty in the court of American columnists.

But let’s run down what we do know.

The reason tampering is on everyone’s minds to begin with is, in the weeks leading up to the election, top Ahmadenijad challenger Mir-Hossein Mousavi was gaining ground, and even surpassing the incumbent president in some polls.

Here’s a run-down of some such polls, from FiveThirtyEight.com:

Now, as 538’s Renard Sexton cautions, these polls were conducted with somewhat dubious methodology, by American standards, and there may have been some push-polling going on. Nevertheless, as the numbers of undecided voters waned, support for Mousavi grew, which is not out of the ordinary for a surging challenger.

One thing you’ll notice immediately is that not a single poll has Ahmadenijad anywhere close to the 62 percent share he earned on election day. In fact he only reached the 50 percent plateau needed to avoid a run-off in one.

So this is the initial basis for skepticism. Again, doesn’t prove a thing, but it should certainly raise eyebrows.