Daily News Roundup, 10/29/07: A Raucous Caucus

First the Republicans in Iowa decided to have their caucus on January 3, leaving the state's Democrats to decide whether to join them in the earliest start to Presidential voting ever or to split the date, keeping their caucus on January 14.

Yesterday, Democrats in Iowa decided to join the Republicans on January 3rd, locking in at least one early state on one early date. This is on a Thursday, which seems weird, but the earliest Tuesday in January is January 1st, which wasn't plausible for obvious reasons. Now we'll just have to wait and see what New Hampshire decides: their primary is still unscheduled.

In other presidential news, Mike Huckabee continues to make noise and be the topic of heady conversation. As an example, you might check out this Washington Times article which seriously discusses Huckabee as the best hope for stabilizing evangelicals from leaving the fold and pursuing a third-party candidate. The Times' Ralph Hallow doesn't pull any punches on Huckabee's fiscal record, even though they seem to like his social stances:

"We called him a pro-life, pro-gun liberal, when I was in the state legislature and he was governor," said Randy Minton, chairman of the Arkansas chapter of Phyllis Schlafly's national Eagle Forum.

Mr. Minton voices the concerns of many conservatives that while Mr. Huckabee governed as a social conservative in opposing abortion and same-sex "marriage," he was a treacherous liberal on taxes, social welfare spending and illegal immigration.

"A treacherous liberal," no less. I was surprised to see so much talk about that potential split within the GOP when it began, and the fact that it keeps appearing in the news makes me think that it might be closer to a reality than I had initially thought possible. The split also seems to be happening within the churches themselves, which is a very interesting development. Apparently, evangelicals are burning out on the fear-based politics you find from time to time:

So when Fox announced to his flock one Sunday in August last year that it was his final appearance in the pulpit, the news startled evangelical activists from Atlanta to Grand Rapids. Fox told the congregation that he was quitting so he could work full time on “cultural issues.” Within days, The Wichita Eagle reported that Fox left under pressure. The board of deacons had told him that his activism was getting in the way of the Gospel. “It just wasn’t pertinent,” Associate Pastor Gayle Tenbrook later told me.

Fox, who is 47, said he saw some impatient shuffling in the pews, but he was stunned that the church’s lay leaders had turned on him. “They said they were tired of hearing about abortion 52 weeks a year, hearing about all this political stuff!” he told me on a recent Sunday afternoon. “And these were deacons of the church!”

It isn't totally unexpected, but I guess I thought the Moral Majority core would always manage to keep their balance and not rail continuously on the strenuous stuff, so I consequently thought this kind of separation was still a long ways away. But here it is.

On the Democratic side, a new report out today examines the media coverage of the Presidential race as it stands so far, and reveals a couple of interesting facts. Senator Clinton has received the most coverage while Senator Obama has received the most positive coverage. John McCain takes home the prize for the most negative coverage thus far, but his campaign staff troubles were bound to put him in that category. The following was of the most interest to me:

The study found that Democrats received more coverage than Republicans but said that was in part because Republicans with big money war chests announced their bids later than Democrats.

Strong organizations and strong plans allowed Democrats to get out there first, thus providing more coverage on the aggregate and probably setting the tone for the rest of the primary season. That's something for Democrats to be happy about.

Lastly today, Chris Cillizza examines the open House seats in 2008 and brings two points to light. First, Democrats have an extremely large advantage in open seats they have to defend: 13 confirmed open for Republicans and 2 for Democrats, which could be as many as five. Second, Democrats are well situated to pick up some of the seats vacated by Republicans, and the last couple of months have taught us how important a veto-proof majority in either chamber can be.