New Hampshire results

The latest numbers from MSNBC show the following results from New Hampshire:

REPUBLICAN
McCain: 37%
Romney: 32%
Huckabee: 11%
Giuliani: 9%
Paul: 8%

DEMOCRAT
Clinton: 39%
Obama: 36%
Edwards: 17%

To some extent, the results are entirely unsurprising. Libertarian, conservative New Hampshire has always loved McCain, and was going to be more comfortable with Massachusett's Romney than southern preacher Huckabee. Likewise, centrist Clinton was a better play than liberal Obama or populist Edwards.

I think Obama did surprisingly well, given those political realities. Clinton won her must-win race, but Obama is still the one to beat. Edwards, for his part, is pinning his hopes on South Carolina. He'll need a strong showing there to avoid becoming the odd man out in the Democratic dance.

McCain, likewise, had a must-win here, but it does not mean he has recovered and is now a frontrunner. Had he lost, he was probably out; winning simply means the Republican race is still totally up in the air.

Of more interest is the showings of Giuliani and Paul. I expected Paul to do better in the Granite State, given his politics. People can and will debate whether his old newsletters played a role, but it doesn't matter all that much: the number is high enough for him to keep going. Giuliani, meanwhile, largely ignored Iowa and New Hampshire (this report notwithstanding) in order to focus on Florida and Super Tuesday. He risks losing momentum before then -- and the poll numbers from Florida aren't encouraging. He needs a win, and soon, to remain relevant.

So enjoy the vote results, but don't read too much into them. Basically, nothing much changed. Nobody died, nobody broke out ahead of the pack. On to the next!

New Hampshire, politics, midtopia

How does your Congressmember rank?

The National Journal has published its latest ranking of Congress members, labeling them liberal or conservative based on their voting record.

Such rankings can be very problematic, in that there as many reasons to vote for or against a bill as there are people. For instance, on the recent Iraq war resolutions, both liberals and conservatives opposed them -- the conservatives because they thought the resolutions went to far, the liberals because they thought the resolutions didn't go far enough.

Everything is also complicated by the party-line nature of many votes.

The NJ's methodology addresses some of those concerns, and I generally have high regard for their efforts. But it remains a highly subjective process, so take it with a grain of salt.

That said, here are some of the findings:

SENATE
Most conservative
1. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.
2. Jim Bunning, R-Ky.
3. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
4. John Cornyn, R-Texas
5. Jeff Sessions, R.-Ala.

Most conservative Democrat: Ben Nelson, D-Neb., ranked 48th overall

Most liberal
1. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.
2. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
3. Ted Kennedy, D.-Mass.
4. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
5. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa

Most liberal Republican: Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., ranked 43rd overall.
Most liberal serving Republican: Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, ranked 45th overall

So here's one reason to suspect that the rankings don't actually say much: I don't happen to believe that the party and ideological divide in this country is so stark that, except for two outliers (Nelson and Chafee), Senate Republicans and Democrats reliably line up at opposite ends of the spectrum. I think this either reveals a flawed methodology, or it says more about party discipline than the actual political beliefs of individual senators.

The same pattern holds true for the House, where you have to go down more than a hundred names to find a Democrat on the conservative list or a Republican on the liberal one.

The most liberal House Republican: Jim Leach, Iowa.
The most conservative House Democrat: Dan Boren, Oklahoma.
Spots separating the two: 41.

That means 392 of 435 members are part of blocs at either end of the spectrum. Those blocs get even bigger if you count Leach and Ron Paul, R-Texas, as GOP outliers. Then the size of the "muddy middle" shrinks to 21 people.

Our politics may be polarized, but that polarized? I just don't buy it.

There are also individual rankings in three areas: foreign policy, economic policy and social policy. Those rankings, being more specific, are probably more accurate, although I have my doubts considering that the composite score is drawn from the three individual scores.

My Congress members rank as follows:
Rep. Jim Ramstad: 52.3 liberal, 47.7 conservative
Sen. Mark Dayton: 81 liberal, 19 conservative
Sen. Norm Coleman: 46.2 liberal, 53.8 conservative

politics, midtopia

American credibility eroding

I can't say I'm surprised at this, but this report says America's image problem is getting worse.

In increasing numbers, people around the globe resent American power and wealth and reject specific actions like the occupation of Iraq and the campaign against democratically elected Palestinian leaders, in-depth international polling shows.

America's image problem is pervasive, deep and perhaps permanent, analysts say -- an inevitable outcome of being the world's only superpower.

But there is worse news. In the past, while Europeans and Asians and Arabs might have disliked American policies or specific U.S. leaders, they liked and admired Americans themselves.

Polls now show an ominous turn. Majorities around the world think Americans are greedy, violent and rude, and fewer than half in countries like Poland, Spain, Canada, China and Russia think Americans are honest.

"We found a rising antipathy toward Americans," said Bruce Stokes of the Pew Global Attitudes Project, which interviewed 93,000 people in 50 countries over a four-year time span.

Lots of people, myself included, have pointed to this as one of the main drawbacks to the Bush administration's go-it-alone foreign policy. Fighting an enemy as amorphous as terrorism requires international cooperation. Bush's first term was marked by constant and at times deliberate snubbing of both proven and potential allies, with the invasion of Iraq marking a pinnacle of sorts. That not only squandered good will; it damaged our ability to track terrorists and deny them safe havens.

Keeping the peace, winning the war on terrorism and other critical goals are achievable "only if people like you and trust you," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center.

Kind of a "duh" moment, you'd think. But this administration has only belatedly realized it. Now even our allies aren't thrilled with us.

Almost half of those polled in Britain, France and Germany dispute the whole concept of a global war on terrorism, and a majority of Europeans believe the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. More than two-thirds of Germans, French and Turks believe American leaders lied about the reasons for war and believe the United States is less trustworthy than it once was.

What bothers me is that the study says the problem isn't just Bush; many foreigners have come to believe that the problem is Americans themselves. So it will take more than one election to overcome that.

Obviously, we shouldn't focus solely on winning popularity contests. Sometimes the right thing or the necessary thing isn't the popular thing. But we also shouldn't go out of our way to antagonize other countries, as we have done; we shouldn't appear to be hypocrites, as we have done; and we should listen with an open mind to what other countries have to say, even if we don't always heed their advice. That's what builds bridges and creates allies instead of enemies.

Bush, diplomacy, foreign policy, politics, midtopia

Another NSA poll

You won't see me dealing with polls much here, simply because they are too inconsequential, meaningless, and subject to change.

But since much has been made of last week's poll apparently showing 2-1 support for the NSA phone database, I thought I'd mention this one.

A majority of Americans disapprove of a massive Pentagon database containing the records of billions of phone calls made by ordinary citizens, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. About two-thirds are concerned that the program may signal other, not-yet-disclosed efforts to gather information on the general public.

The survey of 809 adults Friday and Saturday shows a nation wrestling with the balance between fighting terrorism and protecting civil liberties.

By 51%-43%, those polled disapprove of the program, disclosed Thursday in USA TODAY. The National Security Agency has been collecting phone records from three of the nation's largest telecommunication companies since soon after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The discussion on this topic has just begun, so neither of these polls are gospel. But it's worth noting that this poll had double the sample size (and thus a smaller margin of error) than the earlier poll, and comes after people had had several days to read and think about the NSA program.

Also worth noting is this:

Most of those who approve of the program say it violates some civil liberties but is acceptable because "investigating terrorism is the more important goal."

So a strong majority thinks it violates civil liberties; it's just that a sizable minority think the trade-off is worth it.

I don't, obviously, for reasons I've outlined before. But I will be heartened if the discussion on these sorts of programs moves away from simplistic assertions like "security is paramount" and weak justifications like "it's not clearly illegal", and toward the broader question of "exactly what sort of infringements on civil liberties are we willing to tolerate in pursuit of physical safety?" And that, of course, begs for the follow up question: "are all these infringements touted as 'necessary' really necessary, or are there less-intrusive ways to protect us?"

And finally, the big question: "when push comes to shove, do Americans have the courage that it takes to live in a free society?"

I do. I hope a strong majority in this country do, too.

security, privacy, NSA, civil liberties, terrorism, politics, midtopia