Articles that leave out the real story

In the Salt Lake Tribune today, we get this enigmatic headline: "Leavitt makes surprise SUU visit"

Gee, why would Former Governor Leavitt unexpectedly show up at Southern Utah University?



Could it be he needed to take care of his laundry?

Leavitt pretended to be there about "he need for Americans to get fit and stay fit." Yet when questions returned to his sham charity, he refused to talk to reporters. "I'm not doing interviews," he said. "I'm on vacation."

Meanwhile, the Washington Post that other local paper, decides to mention a trival bit of news for their article on Leavitt:

The Internal Revenue Service plans to audit a foundation that channeled tax-deductible donations from the Leavitt family through Southern Utah University back to the Leavitts in the form of student rent for family-owned student housing,

Why leave this key item in the story? Apparantly this news was broken by the Trib itself. So why not connect the dots or raise the issue? Mark my words, Leavitt may have to resign for "personal reasons" in a few months. I am no tax expert, but this looks pretty nefarious. Finally something is sticking to Governor Teflon, even if he is now Secretary of HHS.

Is there a non-corrupt/crony Republican in power in Washington these days? Please name one for me, because I can't think of one off the top of my head.

quote of the day

Just back from filing her candidacy credit: Reuters

Porn Star Mary Carey, who ran in 2003's recall election as a Republican, is once again going to run as a Republican against Arnold for Califiornia's Governorship.

Her campaign slogan: "Finally, a politician you want to be screwed by"

Other gems:

"I think I'm more serious now," Carey said as she arrived at a Los Angeles County elections office to launch her 2006 gubernatorial campaign. "As you can see I'm dressed more seriously. I've got brown in my hair because brunettes are taken more seriously."

She also decided to lose weight and get new implants. Her core constituency, horn-dog young men.

She promised to give up on alcohol (at least until November) and her movie career like Arnold "Although my movies only take a day or two to shoot, so I could probably do them on weekends," she said.

McKinney's conspiracy theory redux

ex-Rep. Cynthia McKinney lost (again) a primary to a mainstream Democrat. And just like in 2002, she is blaming Republicans and Diebold for her loss, not her record of insanity.

“We aren’t going to tolerate any more stolen elections,” Ms. McKinney said in her concession speech, though crossover voting is legal in Georgia.
[...]
Under Georgia’s system, voters may choose either a Republican or a Democratic ballot in the primary election. If there is a runoff, primary voters must stick with the party they originally selected, but voters who did not vote in the primary are free to vote for either party.

Even if GOPers voted 100% for her opponent, that still wouldn't have been enough to unseat her by the 13 points she lost by. This too, is like 2002. I guess we should be thankful that her and her father aren't blaming the Jews for this one as well...although they tried to insinuate that all of ex. County Commissioner/Congressman-elect Hank Johnson's money was coming from Jews.

I am glad that Tuesday night was a massacre night for incumbents. Joe, Cynthia and endangered species sane GOPer Tim Schwartz (who was targeted by Club for Growth much more than MoveOn.org/DFA/DailyKos/MyDD targeted Lieberman) all went down hard. All deserved it for being out of touch with their constituents. Joe and Tim's constituents wanted a partisan, not a faux-compromiser. Cynthia's wanted a non-embarressing member of congress.

In other news, I don't buy this latest "thwarted Al Qaeda attack." Maybe all the manipulation and abuse of intelligence, the scaremongering, and lies of the Bush Administration has jaded me so that when their really is a wolf, I don't believe it. But why does Al Qaeda only threaten the U.S. at the end of the summer/early fall of even numbered years, just when the GOP looks like they might lose an election?

How many times last year was there a terror alert...that's right zero. And don't tell me the British were behind it, weren't they the stodges behind the "yellow cake?" Tony Blair is really the UK's version of Joe Lieberman. He used to be a respectable Third Way New Labour/New Democrat, but now he thinks being strong on security is supporting Bush's foreign policy without question or hesitation. The British public might soon can Blair like CT voters nixed Lieberman.

And I suspect that Lieberman will be crushed in November. He will lose a significant chunck of his primary supporters and overtime the rest of CT voters will grow weary of selfish Joe. This all started in 2000 when he refused to just run for VP, such that had Gore actually been inaugurated, now-convicted felon then GOP Governor would have picked CT's senator to replace Joe. It all went down hill from there. People say Joe was just following Gore's terrible adivsors strategy about being soft on Cheney. But once Joe realized (and he should have) that Cheney was trying to be CEO grampa and not the truely evil man he is, he should have ditched the script and gone for the juggular. And Lieberman shouldn't have nixed Gore's decision making on the military ballots during the recount. And on and on I could go. But we all know how it ended: with Karl Rove calling Joe Lieberman after losing his primary, and Joe accepting the call. Joe's people claim Karl never offered consultants/staff/money etc. But Karl's people say otherwise...and this point, I trust Karl on his political strategem. It is not in his interests to make Joe look bad.

A tale of two speeches

Thanks to CSPAN (the internets were overloaded with Joementum's hackers), I was able to keep abreast of the numbers of the Connecticut Senate Primary as they trickled in. A close, tough loss for Lieberman, and a hell of a game plan by the Lamont people.

Lieberman would have won had he not decided to run Indy should he lose, and had he quesnot scaled back on his GOTV. Also, he totally blew off Bridgeport, where DLC ally Gub. candidate Dan Malloy was mayor, and that too could have been the 4 points he needed. It was a high turnout primary and the message was pretty clear: Democrats are tired of Joe.

But I also got to watch Joe and Ned's speeches via C-SPAN. Joe's was very good under the circumstances of losing and demanding a Mulligan. It was obviously drafted way in advance, so Joe was expecting to lose. The theme will be: Washington is too partisan, and even though I have been a senator for 18 years while it got partisan and was unable to stop it, send me back so I can fix it as an "Independant Democrat." It was a load of hogwash, but it was as good a theme as he could come up with.

Ned's speech, by contrast was terrible. First he started out with talking point lines from some of the many rallies he must have been going to the last couple of days. Then he settled down, stopped shouting into the microphone and thanked a couple people. Then he remembered the one scripted bit, a nice classy talk about Joe. He thanked Lieberman for his service and hoped that Joe would come to his senses in a few days and give up on his grudge match. This should have come first. I also liked his tale about CA Rep. Maxine Waters. Revs. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton (and Randy Jackson from American Idol's stunt double) stood in the back akwardly, giving those fist high-fives to people like Tom Swain. Al Sharpton is such a tag-a-long. Oh well. Today is the big CT-Dem unity rally, I am looking forward to the awkwardness when they mention or are asked about Joe.

Also, Joe's line that it is "half-time and Lamont is up" reminded me of Joe's "three way tie for Third Place" in 2004. It was just as laughably pathetic. I wonder if people will ask for their money back. That is also what the Netroots should do, call Democrats who gave big to Joe to a) not give him any more and b) ask for a refund.

The last time a sitting senator lost in a primary was 2002, when Bob Smith was ousted by the establishment for being too crazy, running briefly as an indy for president, and having no chance against then NH Gov. Jeanne Shaheen. This one was totally opposite. I didn't give any money to Ned, and I don't plan on doing so now either. The man has hundreds of millions of dollars. But I congratulate my friends in the blogosphere who worked long and hard for this, enjoy it.

Then go examine and challenge those signatures, strip him of his committees, revoke his endorsements, dry up his money, and make him the laughing stock of DC that he deserves to be.

those other primaries

Despite the media coverage, there are other primaries to watch today besides Joe v. Ned...but it sure has been the most fun. I was hoping McKinney would do something stupid to spark more interest, but this time they learned to shut up. But she will probabbly still lose to Hank Johnson, whom I have endorsed. UPDATE: I spoke too soon; McKinney is blaming the police, Diebold

Also the CO-07 congressional race seems to have died down, with DLCer Ed Perlmutter pulling away from the ex-governor's daughter Peggy Lamm.

Michigan has a house race that is the opposite of CT, a hard right winger supported by the Club for Growth challenging a moderate incumbent GOPer. This is a 54% Bush district...but maybe if the nutjob wins, the Democrat can cut into that.

The most interesting number out of the Washington Post poll for me was the extremely low approval number people gave their own congress(wom)man--55%. Usually, people hate congress, but love their congresscritter and then are some how surprised that congress doesn't change. This time, there is a pretty strong anti-incumbent mood in the country, the 55% is the lowest since (you guessed it) 1994. So maybe lots of congress critters will be working on K street this fall. The fact that a plurality, 49 to 34, think Democrats will do a better job on the war on terrorism (and a solid majority think Democrats will do a better job on Iraq) is also key. Seems like people are ready for a change.

To me this is 1992 all over again. The Dems had their chance to change (after all, lots of incumbents lost in 1992) but they didn't change enough, plus they were pissed at Clinton, and that is why 1994 happened. So if the GOP survives 2006 with majorities and doesn't change their ways dramatically, 2008 will be a big year for Democrats. Likewise, if Democrats get control of congress and go back to their late 80s early 90s ways, 2008 will be a year of reckoning for them as well.

Gregerson is an idiot

In a jailhouse interview with the media, he claimed that "It wasn't a full-fledged confession," to the FBI. "I told them the basics, and they filled in the gaps and exaggerated the details. I don't think what I said will hurt my case."

Um yeah it will because what you said helped them get a warrant and then they found A DEAD GIRL IN TUPPERWARE IN YOUR BASEMENT. The also did an autopsy and found that you had had sex with her AFTER SHE WAS DEAD. So unless you can through out the confession, and/or contest the warrant, and/or cast doubt on the autopsy, you might be executed because of your confession, so I think that might have hurt your case.

Gregerson decided also to nip the insanity defense in the bud, saying "I was sane when this happened." Also he is appearantly really bad at PR, and is prejudicing himself against the jury:

Gregerson was calm during the interview, according to KSL-TV, and at several points had a "perpetual grin" on his face. He denied reports that he helped look for Destiny during the massive community searches or attending candlelight vigils for the girl.
"When I saw that on the news I laughed because it wasn't true," the television station quoted him as saying.

He also decided it was a good idea to introduce the porno defense:

When asked why he did it, Gregerson reportedly said: "I really want to answer that, but my lawyer is preventing me from doing that right now in light of the case. I can tell you this: I have now become a strong advocate against pornography."
When pressed, Gregerson told KSL-TV that he was "addicted to pornography at one point . . . it was ruining my life and affecting my relationship with my wife."

Brilliant stuff. I hope this moron's lawyer is smart enough to be able to talk Gregerson into shutting up and taking a guilty plea. That's his best shot.

Hillary, stay in the senate

Today the Boston Herald reported a series of Dick Bennett (who rungs those ARG polls in NH) focus groups of 410 Democratic primary voters in NH had really negative feelings about the junior senator from New York.

“Lying b**** . . . shrew . . . Machiavellian . . . evil, power-mad witch . . . the ultimate self-serving politician.”
[...]
Hillary’s growing brain trust in the party’s upper reaches already knows she has high “negatives” among ordinary Democrats. They think she can win those voters over with the right strategy and message.
But they should get out of D.C., New York and L.A. more often, and visit grassroots members.
Because we’re not talking about “soft” negatives like, say, “out of touch” or “arrogant.”
We’re talking: “Criminal . . . megalomaniac . . . fraud . . . dangerous . . . devil incarnate . . . satanic . . . power freak.”
Satanic.
And: “Political wh***.”

"Dick Bennett has been polling New Hampshire voters for 30 years. And he’s never seen anything like it." I have said this for a long time, that Hillary's lead in these super early polls is name recognition only and that her support amoung primary voters in at least the early states is pretty soft. Still, "55 percent of ARG’s sample was either neutral or positive about Sen. Clinton. Thirty-two percent currently say they plan to vote for her in the primary." In a multi-person race, that is still a pretty big lead. I think that is Kerry or Dean numbers in 2004 New Hampshire. And really, Democrats can't ignore the Granite State. It was the lone 2000 Bush state to swing to Kerry. Bottom line: "It’s hard to see any Democrat winning the White House without carrying the state in the presidential election. And it’s hard, right now, to see Hillary carrying the state."

The grassroots is really not behind Hillary, and she already has enough battles to face against the GOP machine. Also, I would really like it if we didn't have a Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton line of succession. We are a Democracy, and no matter how great the Clinton brand is, I would like to a Clark or a Warner give it a shot.