The Battle for the Senate (and House)
...just got more interesting. It seems that in Oklahoma, the Republican "nominee-in-waiting" a Oklahoma City mayor named Kirk Humphreys, has been such a flop that ex-Congressman Tom Colburn was "drafted" into running to replace retiring Republican Senator Don Nickels. Congressman Brad Carson, the Democratic nominee-in-waiting, has been polling much better than Humphreys. This is a seat that Democrats actually could pick up, given that Carson is popular and the Governor is a Democrat. All they need is ex-Sooner's coach Barry Switzer to endorse Brad, and he is golden (worked for the Governor).
Alaska looks to be a great race too, with former Governor Tony Knowles running against Lisa Murkowski, the appointed daughter of ex-Senator now Governor Frank M. More than just nepotism, Alaskans are taking it out on Lisa because her dad has been a terrible governor thus far. He even, gasp, raised taxes. Polls show Tony with a narrow (5 points) lead over Lisa. I am sure it will come down to a few hundred votes.
Illinois will be a pick up for the Democrats, but the major question is who will it be? Multimillionaire Blair Hull was cruising to a win with all of his money that he spent (he even paid people to put up lawn signs) until reports came out that he verbally threatened to kill his ex-wife (she was his wife at the time). He even called her a f*cking c*nt. Nice, huh? So now the race may swing to Comptroller Dan Hynes or State Senator Barrack Obama. Hynes is running old-school statewide race, which Obama is running Chicago out. Barrack is a progressive Black man with a cool name (too bad it sounds like Osama) and Hynes is more moderate, although they are both loved by the DLC (the DLC loves winners).
Georgia looks like a Republican pick up, as we can't find a good dog catcher to run.
Louisiana looks like a toss up, as does Florida (both Democratic Seats). South Carolina is looking better than it should considering how conservative the state is. But Inez Tannenbaum is running hard and well (sorry I only cover candidates with cool names). North Carolina is going to be tough but I think we have a good shot with ex-Clinton CoS Erskine Bowles.
Colorado looks to be suddenly a good race. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, the original party switcher (D->R) is in hot water because his staff seems to have taken kickbacks for legislation. Assuming its true, its bad news for the only Native American in Congress: either he knows about it and his criminally liable, or he is a old aloof man that shouldn't be sitting there (plus he's got health issues). A rich, DLC-aligned Think Tank owner, Rutt Bridges, is running for the Democratic nod and a Dean-grassroots type Mike Miles is opposing him in the primaries. I would like either one against Campbell.
On the House side, there is the not-so-secret secret that 2006 looks better. The four year plan is to hedge losses and hope that Dubya is so bad that they win back a lot of seats. The best shot will come in 2012, when redistricting happens again. Of course, there will be no more partisan redistricting if I have my way. But that is a story for a different day.
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
Monday, March 01, 2004
Notice something different?
Dear Readers,
I have slightly changed the layout and style of this site and I hope you like it slightly better. Also, please note that the comments section is back up. I switched to another free comments provider after the other got all full. After all, I don't want to get on the black list of BOPNews' MattS. ;)
Many thanks to blogExtra for this free comments log. Please try it out, especially during the gay marriage debate on March 11th, when I will be there until the cows come home on the crappy roads they made in Boston and Cambridge.
Post away!
Dear Readers,
I have slightly changed the layout and style of this site and I hope you like it slightly better. Also, please note that the comments section is back up. I switched to another free comments provider after the other got all full. After all, I don't want to get on the black list of BOPNews' MattS. ;)
Many thanks to blogExtra for this free comments log. Please try it out, especially during the gay marriage debate on March 11th, when I will be there until the cows come home on the crappy roads they made in Boston and Cambridge.
Post away!
When rumor is fact?
Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide is now on the telephone from the Central African Republic on CNN and is claiming he was forced to resign. He further says his resignation letter was dictated to him by U.S. Embassy officials and that then U.S. Marines "forcibly escorted" him onto a plane. CNN's Cooper Anderson (the guy from the Mole) seems to seriously doubt Aristide's claims, since those truth tellers, the Bush Administration, says so.
Aristide also told the same thing to the Congressional Black Caucus, who have been very vocal in their critique of the President over the weekend and the administration's handling of the situation. So has my man for Secretary of State (assuming Clark is VP) Richard Holbrooke: "By calling for Aristide to leave and then having him leave within a few days, the administration has really taken ownership of the problem. Whether one likes it or not, whether one thinks we're getting too involved or not. ... They cannot walk away from the consequences of their actions" ("This Week," ABC, 2/29).
Is this rumor true? If so, a HUGE blow to US credibility. Why are we such thugs to Haiti? Shouldn't we be helping them instead? After all, Clinton tried to do something with one hand tied behind his back by the GOP congress. Now Bush is holding up his hands while his goons apparently do the dirty work.
Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide is now on the telephone from the Central African Republic on CNN and is claiming he was forced to resign. He further says his resignation letter was dictated to him by U.S. Embassy officials and that then U.S. Marines "forcibly escorted" him onto a plane. CNN's Cooper Anderson (the guy from the Mole) seems to seriously doubt Aristide's claims, since those truth tellers, the Bush Administration, says so.
Aristide also told the same thing to the Congressional Black Caucus, who have been very vocal in their critique of the President over the weekend and the administration's handling of the situation. So has my man for Secretary of State (assuming Clark is VP) Richard Holbrooke: "By calling for Aristide to leave and then having him leave within a few days, the administration has really taken ownership of the problem. Whether one likes it or not, whether one thinks we're getting too involved or not. ... They cannot walk away from the consequences of their actions" ("This Week," ABC, 2/29).
Is this rumor true? If so, a HUGE blow to US credibility. Why are we such thugs to Haiti? Shouldn't we be helping them instead? After all, Clinton tried to do something with one hand tied behind his back by the GOP congress. Now Bush is holding up his hands while his goons apparently do the dirty work.
$31 million well spent?
According to the end-of-the-year FEC reports, Bush spent a little over $31 million of his $130 war chest in 2003. By now, he has doubtlessly raised much more money and spent more too, by guess he is getting close to the $150 million range, which is obscene considering he has no primary opposition.
Meanwhile, Kerry has about a million or two to his name and 7-8 million in debt ($6M of which is his home loan) and spent about $35 million or so. So, what's Bush spending his money on?
According to a TIME magazine article, Bush has one of the best "grassroots" organizations I have ever heard of (I like to call it "astroturf" when you buy your grassroots support network).
And "what has given the Bush campaign the most confidence during these dark days is its ground organization." While Dems "were attacking, the Bush team says it was quietly laying track." The campaign "has county chairs in all the 1,189 counties in 18 of the target states from 2000. It has held 127 regional training sessions. By June, it will have made 800,000 phone calls to Republicans. Almost 200,000 volunteers have signed on. It boasts that it will be able to run the first 'national precinct campaign,' involving lieutenants in all the 10,020 precincts of every swing state, a level of blanketing usually reserved for smaller campaigns." If you are a "swing-state Republican, lean that way or happen to share an interest like NASCAR or the N.R.A., someone is probably going to knock on your door between now and Election Day. You may already know G.O.P. officials from the church potluck or Little League, but if you don't, they hope to lavish attention on you."
Holy Sh*t. I guess you could argue that Howard Dean blew money on crap like this too, but that was for a primary and for people that he needed to persuade, not religious nuts or gun zombies (of course, there aren't many of those, most gun owners and church goers are normal folks but they definitely lean GOP on issues like gay marriage and gun control). The whole grassroots are going to get all reved up by wedge issues. They're called, by the illustrious Ed Killgore "the 4 Gs:" Guns, Gays, God, and Gas chambers.
These issues are the reason Democrats lose in the South and Middle America. Because if people voted economic interest, Dems would win in a landslide. There aren't enough millionaires out there to vote for the president without his religious conviction (AKA gay marriage amendment). So the question will be, can Bush use these wedge issues to distract swing voters long enough for them to forget about 2 costly, badly run wars, 3 million lost jobs, a $1 trillion swing in the federal budget deficit, exploding health care costs, and a string of broken promises to the moon and back.
Let's work to open people's eyes to the facts: No one is going to take your guns away from you, unless you are a criminal. No one is going to force your church to marry gay people, unless they want you. No one is going to tell state's they can't execute heinous criminals, unless your state bans it. But some one is going to cost you jobs; some one will cost you more money than the pithy tax cut he gave you in higher state fees, health care costs, interest payments, etc.; someone is going to make you pretend to be Canadian when you travel abroad; someone is going to make this country more divided than ever; someone is willing to go to any length to win reelection lives or constitution be damned. Ladies and Gentlemen, that some one is George W. Bush.
According to the end-of-the-year FEC reports, Bush spent a little over $31 million of his $130 war chest in 2003. By now, he has doubtlessly raised much more money and spent more too, by guess he is getting close to the $150 million range, which is obscene considering he has no primary opposition.
Meanwhile, Kerry has about a million or two to his name and 7-8 million in debt ($6M of which is his home loan) and spent about $35 million or so. So, what's Bush spending his money on?
According to a TIME magazine article, Bush has one of the best "grassroots" organizations I have ever heard of (I like to call it "astroturf" when you buy your grassroots support network).
And "what has given the Bush campaign the most confidence during these dark days is its ground organization." While Dems "were attacking, the Bush team says it was quietly laying track." The campaign "has county chairs in all the 1,189 counties in 18 of the target states from 2000. It has held 127 regional training sessions. By June, it will have made 800,000 phone calls to Republicans. Almost 200,000 volunteers have signed on. It boasts that it will be able to run the first 'national precinct campaign,' involving lieutenants in all the 10,020 precincts of every swing state, a level of blanketing usually reserved for smaller campaigns." If you are a "swing-state Republican, lean that way or happen to share an interest like NASCAR or the N.R.A., someone is probably going to knock on your door between now and Election Day. You may already know G.O.P. officials from the church potluck or Little League, but if you don't, they hope to lavish attention on you."
Holy Sh*t. I guess you could argue that Howard Dean blew money on crap like this too, but that was for a primary and for people that he needed to persuade, not religious nuts or gun zombies (of course, there aren't many of those, most gun owners and church goers are normal folks but they definitely lean GOP on issues like gay marriage and gun control). The whole grassroots are going to get all reved up by wedge issues. They're called, by the illustrious Ed Killgore "the 4 Gs:" Guns, Gays, God, and Gas chambers.
These issues are the reason Democrats lose in the South and Middle America. Because if people voted economic interest, Dems would win in a landslide. There aren't enough millionaires out there to vote for the president without his religious conviction (AKA gay marriage amendment). So the question will be, can Bush use these wedge issues to distract swing voters long enough for them to forget about 2 costly, badly run wars, 3 million lost jobs, a $1 trillion swing in the federal budget deficit, exploding health care costs, and a string of broken promises to the moon and back.
Let's work to open people's eyes to the facts: No one is going to take your guns away from you, unless you are a criminal. No one is going to force your church to marry gay people, unless they want you. No one is going to tell state's they can't execute heinous criminals, unless your state bans it. But some one is going to cost you jobs; some one will cost you more money than the pithy tax cut he gave you in higher state fees, health care costs, interest payments, etc.; someone is going to make you pretend to be Canadian when you travel abroad; someone is going to make this country more divided than ever; someone is willing to go to any length to win reelection lives or constitution be damned. Ladies and Gentlemen, that some one is George W. Bush.
Objects in rear view mirror may be closer than they appear, but they are still behind you
Senator Johnnie-come-lately Edwards finally got around to attacking Senator John Kerry yesterday, when no one was watching (hopefully because Dan Rather made an ass of himself again). Some say it is too late. But others think the "Washington" attack lines won't work when the attacker is himself a sitting senator. Details, Details.
Finally, some one at the Boston Globe put down in words why I don't like Kerry and thing he is the worse choice of nominee, lack of political courage. The closer: "At the age of 25, John Kerry's courage was indisputable. Now, at age 60, it is more or less undetectable." LA Weekly says its because Kerry always wanted to be an insider and never really was. You really are an outsider when you go to St. Paul's in NH, Yale (and Skull 'n Bones), and marry two millionaire heiresses. Must be tough. [if you can't figure it out, I don't buy that argument]
Tomorrow millions of people vote, and if the polls are to be believed Kerry wins most, if not all, the contests. Edwards says he will stay in for at least another week, but I almost wonder why he would bother if he can't win. Maybe it is because Kerry is annoyed with Edwards, despite their LA knoodling, and won't pick him for VP. Latest rumor: ex-Sen. Max Cleland (GA) will be it.
Let's hope the 25 year old big-chinned Kerry shows up, and the cautious 60 year old Senator from Massachusetts disappears.
Senator Johnnie-come-lately Edwards finally got around to attacking Senator John Kerry yesterday, when no one was watching (hopefully because Dan Rather made an ass of himself again). Some say it is too late. But others think the "Washington" attack lines won't work when the attacker is himself a sitting senator. Details, Details.
Finally, some one at the Boston Globe put down in words why I don't like Kerry and thing he is the worse choice of nominee, lack of political courage. The closer: "At the age of 25, John Kerry's courage was indisputable. Now, at age 60, it is more or less undetectable." LA Weekly says its because Kerry always wanted to be an insider and never really was. You really are an outsider when you go to St. Paul's in NH, Yale (and Skull 'n Bones), and marry two millionaire heiresses. Must be tough. [if you can't figure it out, I don't buy that argument]
Tomorrow millions of people vote, and if the polls are to be believed Kerry wins most, if not all, the contests. Edwards says he will stay in for at least another week, but I almost wonder why he would bother if he can't win. Maybe it is because Kerry is annoyed with Edwards, despite their LA knoodling, and won't pick him for VP. Latest rumor: ex-Sen. Max Cleland (GA) will be it.
Let's hope the 25 year old big-chinned Kerry shows up, and the cautious 60 year old Senator from Massachusetts disappears.
Friday, February 27, 2004
More fuel for the gay-baiting fire
Just when conservatives thought that an outbreak of gay marriage in Massachusetts, San Francisco, and DuVall Co., New Mexico were on their way to be contained and even squelched, New Paltz, New York joined the list of places in America where gay marriage licenses were being issued. [Just where is New Paltz? Why its "located not far from the Hudson River and the Shawangunk Mountains, a ridge of rugged and rocky cliffs popular with rock climbers."-- Thanks Times!]
NY Governor George "I want to be president in 2008" Pataki is thinking about how to stop this unruly mayor. "This law states that a marriage is between a man and a woman," Pataki told the Times, according to a transcript provided by his office. "Our attorneys are talking with the Health Department and with the attorney general's office to see what steps they may determine are appropriate."
In addition to New Paltz, the mayor of Schenectady, NY was also considering allowing same-sex marriage ceremonies, according the Times piece. Man alive, soon those Gay people will have full rights under the 14th Amendment, run for the hills! They might make responsible parents!
Just when conservatives thought that an outbreak of gay marriage in Massachusetts, San Francisco, and DuVall Co., New Mexico were on their way to be contained and even squelched, New Paltz, New York joined the list of places in America where gay marriage licenses were being issued. [Just where is New Paltz? Why its "located not far from the Hudson River and the Shawangunk Mountains, a ridge of rugged and rocky cliffs popular with rock climbers."-- Thanks Times!]
NY Governor George "I want to be president in 2008" Pataki is thinking about how to stop this unruly mayor. "This law states that a marriage is between a man and a woman," Pataki told the Times, according to a transcript provided by his office. "Our attorneys are talking with the Health Department and with the attorney general's office to see what steps they may determine are appropriate."
In addition to New Paltz, the mayor of Schenectady, NY was also considering allowing same-sex marriage ceremonies, according the Times piece. Man alive, soon those Gay people will have full rights under the 14th Amendment, run for the hills! They might make responsible parents!
WaterBoy, staring Denny Hastert
In a classic Bush move, Dubya says he wants to give the 9/11 Commission (something he has tried to trip up for a long time, particularly by naming secret monger Henry "War Crimes" Kissinger to be its head at first) 60 more days to reach its conclusions, but he is doing absolutely nothing to urge Hastert to extend the deadline. Many folks with a brain would call this "good cop, bad cop" with Hastert taking the heat for the president via his letter to Bush saying "no dice". Fine, then postpone the panel until after the election, like Bush's WMD intelligence failure "investigation;" 9/11 widows are furious at the stonewalling, and you should be too.
In other House scandals, Roll Call reports that the FBI is investigating Rep. Nick Smith's allegations of bribery during the Medicare Reform Bill vote. Although
Nick has since changed his tune somewhat, the story of a $100,000 campaign donation to his son Bradley's (Nick is retiring and Bradley is running for his seat) campaign in exchange for a yes vote on the "$400 billion" prescription drug bill (turned out to be $565, thanks to the White House finally coming clean). Otherwise, he was told, be prepared for a stiff GOP primary challenge against your son. Nick voted no anyway.
Meanwhile in Massachusetts...
Resigned Senator Cheryl Jacques (who now heads the Human Rights Campaign) Chief of Staff Angus McQuilken is the Democrat running against a ho-hum Republican for her seat (my boss said, "he's one of those guys that is just there."). If Angus wins, that is one more vote against any amendment to the constitution, if he loses, the tally stays the same.
According to the Beacon Hill Insider, Angus, should he win, will have trouble getting seated in time to vote in the Constitutional Convention. That's because Mitt "the Sh*t" Romney gets to decide when to swear him in, plus there is that minor detail of certifying the election. If it is close, the winner may not be decided in time. Meanwhile, The Onion makes fun of the whole thing.
Ever Mr. Serious Furrowed (with or without Botox), MA Sen. John Kerry loudly said he supports a civil unionamendmentnt to the MA Constitution, telling the Globe "I think that you need to have civil union. That's my position." Wow something clear from the Senator. Now some readers have beedisappointeded by this latest Kerry-finger-in-the-wind leadership. This is his way of batting down the "Massachusetts Liberal" label anytime they try to bring it up. Of course, the GOP now has settled on Flip-Flopper, which Kerry dismisses by pointing out all of Bush's flops and broken promises. While this is not a bad tactic, it failed to directly address the question (denying the truth won't do any good either). A better bet would be to say, "Over the course of my long career in public service [from county prosecutor to US Senator], I have come to believe different things at different times. I have changed my views as I have grown older, and wiser."
Oh yeah, the debate!
CNN/LA Times sat Kerry and Edwards next to each other. The way they placed the camera made Democrats, or at least me, want more and more for this to be the ticket. I expect there will be pressure of Kerry to name Edwards.
There was good-natured ribbing and slight differences shown. As Kerry said about Edwards:"I know he's looking for some differences because you need them" I thought Edwards proved he is a good man who knows his issues and is more charismatic anempatheticic sounding. Kerry proved that he is tough, CNN's Larry "Womanizer" King asked Kerry "A person who kills a 5-year-old should live?" Kerry: "My instinct is to want to strangle that person with my own hands"
Kerry just worries me. He seems too liberal, too wishy-washy, and too old-Washington Democrat to win. I wanted Clark, but I prefer Edwards over Kerry. Kerry-Edwards is a great ticket. Too bad he will never do it.
In a classic Bush move, Dubya says he wants to give the 9/11 Commission (something he has tried to trip up for a long time, particularly by naming secret monger Henry "War Crimes" Kissinger to be its head at first) 60 more days to reach its conclusions, but he is doing absolutely nothing to urge Hastert to extend the deadline. Many folks with a brain would call this "good cop, bad cop" with Hastert taking the heat for the president via his letter to Bush saying "no dice". Fine, then postpone the panel until after the election, like Bush's WMD intelligence failure "investigation;" 9/11 widows are furious at the stonewalling, and you should be too.
In other House scandals, Roll Call reports that the FBI is investigating Rep. Nick Smith's allegations of bribery during the Medicare Reform Bill vote. Although
Nick has since changed his tune somewhat, the story of a $100,000 campaign donation to his son Bradley's (Nick is retiring and Bradley is running for his seat) campaign in exchange for a yes vote on the "$400 billion" prescription drug bill (turned out to be $565, thanks to the White House finally coming clean). Otherwise, he was told, be prepared for a stiff GOP primary challenge against your son. Nick voted no anyway.
Meanwhile in Massachusetts...
Resigned Senator Cheryl Jacques (who now heads the Human Rights Campaign) Chief of Staff Angus McQuilken is the Democrat running against a ho-hum Republican for her seat (my boss said, "he's one of those guys that is just there."). If Angus wins, that is one more vote against any amendment to the constitution, if he loses, the tally stays the same.
According to the Beacon Hill Insider, Angus, should he win, will have trouble getting seated in time to vote in the Constitutional Convention. That's because Mitt "the Sh*t" Romney gets to decide when to swear him in, plus there is that minor detail of certifying the election. If it is close, the winner may not be decided in time. Meanwhile, The Onion makes fun of the whole thing.
Ever Mr. Serious Furrowed (with or without Botox), MA Sen. John Kerry loudly said he supports a civil unionamendmentnt to the MA Constitution, telling the Globe "I think that you need to have civil union. That's my position." Wow something clear from the Senator. Now some readers have beedisappointeded by this latest Kerry-finger-in-the-wind leadership. This is his way of batting down the "Massachusetts Liberal" label anytime they try to bring it up. Of course, the GOP now has settled on Flip-Flopper, which Kerry dismisses by pointing out all of Bush's flops and broken promises. While this is not a bad tactic, it failed to directly address the question (denying the truth won't do any good either). A better bet would be to say, "Over the course of my long career in public service [from county prosecutor to US Senator], I have come to believe different things at different times. I have changed my views as I have grown older, and wiser."
Oh yeah, the debate!
CNN/LA Times sat Kerry and Edwards next to each other. The way they placed the camera made Democrats, or at least me, want more and more for this to be the ticket. I expect there will be pressure of Kerry to name Edwards.
There was good-natured ribbing and slight differences shown. As Kerry said about Edwards:"I know he's looking for some differences because you need them" I thought Edwards proved he is a good man who knows his issues and is more charismatic anempatheticic sounding. Kerry proved that he is tough, CNN's Larry "Womanizer" King asked Kerry "A person who kills a 5-year-old should live?" Kerry: "My instinct is to want to strangle that person with my own hands"
Kerry just worries me. He seems too liberal, too wishy-washy, and too old-Washington Democrat to win. I wanted Clark, but I prefer Edwards over Kerry. Kerry-Edwards is a great ticket. Too bad he will never do it.
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Nader wanted to be Dean's VP
On Jerry Springer's blog, Mike Ford writes: "....For the last 6 months or so I was a senior advisor to Howard Dean.
"'Bout three months ago Ralph Nader and his entourage walked into our Vermont headquarters off the street to 'dialogue'.
"He was quite impressive intellectually and the firmness of his vision was also impressive. At the time of the visit, Howard was still the front runner and the Nader entourage made a blatant pitch for a Nader Vice Presidential nomination. [own emphasis added]
"The point of all this is to say that the only thing that impressed me more than Nader's brain was his outsized ego. [own emphasis added] Got to say, that's what seems to be the driver here and it's more about his personal agenda and, I think, about that huge ego rather than beating Bush. Who died and made you King Ralph? To each her own, EH? What do you think? "
Kos backs up this source saying "Mike Ford is the guy that ran all of Jerry Springer's early campaigns (for mayor and councilmember of Cincinnati). Lest the "Springer" connection make you skeptical, he's also Joe Trippi's best friend and comrade in arms. They have worked together on a slew of presidential campaigns in the past. So the source is solid. And his take on Nader is as well. "
So much for the corporate lines of Nader; he just wants power, or attention. And we're not going to give him either.
On Jerry Springer's blog, Mike Ford writes: "....For the last 6 months or so I was a senior advisor to Howard Dean.
"'Bout three months ago Ralph Nader and his entourage walked into our Vermont headquarters off the street to 'dialogue'.
"He was quite impressive intellectually and the firmness of his vision was also impressive. At the time of the visit, Howard was still the front runner and the Nader entourage made a blatant pitch for a Nader Vice Presidential nomination. [own emphasis added]
"The point of all this is to say that the only thing that impressed me more than Nader's brain was his outsized ego. [own emphasis added] Got to say, that's what seems to be the driver here and it's more about his personal agenda and, I think, about that huge ego rather than beating Bush. Who died and made you King Ralph? To each her own, EH? What do you think? "
Kos backs up this source saying "Mike Ford is the guy that ran all of Jerry Springer's early campaigns (for mayor and councilmember of Cincinnati). Lest the "Springer" connection make you skeptical, he's also Joe Trippi's best friend and comrade in arms. They have worked together on a slew of presidential campaigns in the past. So the source is solid. And his take on Nader is as well. "
So much for the corporate lines of Nader; he just wants power, or attention. And we're not going to give him either.
Three states hold a primary, and no one cares. Plus: Bush is too right-wing for even Tom DeLay
According to Yahoo! News Kerry easily won all 3 states (UT, ID, and HI) while Kucinich's visit to Hawaii paid off with a second place win and 6 delagates. Congratulations Dennis J!
Speaking of nice trips and nice hotels, Rev. Al Sharpton is in trouble for "excessive campaign donations, the way in which he reported his debt, and why he didn't itemize large payments made to him personally." The NY Post says that, "Two payments - one for $21,200.87 and the other for $799.13 - are simply made out to Sharpton and are not itemized as is required." The FEC previously fined him for accounting shenanigans when he was still in his "exploratory" phase. Al has been in the news about his pricey hotels ($1,000 a night) when his campaign debt is as much as Dean's ($500,000).
Meanwhile Edwards is annoyed that Bush didn't pick on him in his first speech. "It isn't quite the two-man race that Sen. John Edwards envisioned," said the Charolette Observer. "So Edwards updated his line Tuesday in acknowledging Bush's jabs at Democratic rival John Kerry. 'I have got a message today for somebody in Washington,' Edwards told supporters in Atlanta. 'And that message is this -- Not so fast, George Bush. George Bush doesn't get to pick our nominee, and he doesn't get to decide what this election is about.'" But Edwards really didn't want to talk about (and neither did Kerry, who is holding a big lead in NY and CA) was Gay marriage. Both support civil unions but don't want to alientate conservative swing state voters. Speaking of swing states, Florida Senator Bob Graham is endorsing John Kerry (say VP three times fast).
Both Kerry and Edwards argeed that Bush's constitutional amendment was a terrible idea. It is really a sad statement that the man who claimed he was "a uniter, not a divider" is taking up the most divisive issue of our time and playing politics with it to get elected. BOPNews' Matt Stoller gives a good summary of the blogsphere's opinion.
Even his own staff private admit that there is no chance of it actually passing. They just think they need to energize their base who is mad at them about things like immgration reform, fiscal irresponsibility, and other issues near and dear to true conservative hearts. The more I think about Bush's move, the more angry and sad I get. Even Right-wing reactionary US House Majority Leader Rep. Tom DeLay told the Times "This is so important we are not going to take a knee-jerk reaction to this," Mr. DeLay said that, although he loves Bush's "Moral Leadership," "We are going to look at our options and be deliberate about what solutions we may suggest."
How could people be so stupid as to vote for him last time? I understand why conservatives would, but moderates...man what were you thinking?
According to Yahoo! News Kerry easily won all 3 states (UT, ID, and HI) while Kucinich's visit to Hawaii paid off with a second place win and 6 delagates. Congratulations Dennis J!
Speaking of nice trips and nice hotels, Rev. Al Sharpton is in trouble for "excessive campaign donations, the way in which he reported his debt, and why he didn't itemize large payments made to him personally." The NY Post says that, "Two payments - one for $21,200.87 and the other for $799.13 - are simply made out to Sharpton and are not itemized as is required." The FEC previously fined him for accounting shenanigans when he was still in his "exploratory" phase. Al has been in the news about his pricey hotels ($1,000 a night) when his campaign debt is as much as Dean's ($500,000).
Meanwhile Edwards is annoyed that Bush didn't pick on him in his first speech. "It isn't quite the two-man race that Sen. John Edwards envisioned," said the Charolette Observer. "So Edwards updated his line Tuesday in acknowledging Bush's jabs at Democratic rival John Kerry. 'I have got a message today for somebody in Washington,' Edwards told supporters in Atlanta. 'And that message is this -- Not so fast, George Bush. George Bush doesn't get to pick our nominee, and he doesn't get to decide what this election is about.'" But Edwards really didn't want to talk about (and neither did Kerry, who is holding a big lead in NY and CA) was Gay marriage. Both support civil unions but don't want to alientate conservative swing state voters. Speaking of swing states, Florida Senator Bob Graham is endorsing John Kerry (say VP three times fast).
Both Kerry and Edwards argeed that Bush's constitutional amendment was a terrible idea. It is really a sad statement that the man who claimed he was "a uniter, not a divider" is taking up the most divisive issue of our time and playing politics with it to get elected. BOPNews' Matt Stoller gives a good summary of the blogsphere's opinion.
Even his own staff private admit that there is no chance of it actually passing. They just think they need to energize their base who is mad at them about things like immgration reform, fiscal irresponsibility, and other issues near and dear to true conservative hearts. The more I think about Bush's move, the more angry and sad I get. Even Right-wing reactionary US House Majority Leader Rep. Tom DeLay told the Times "This is so important we are not going to take a knee-jerk reaction to this," Mr. DeLay said that, although he loves Bush's "Moral Leadership," "We are going to look at our options and be deliberate about what solutions we may suggest."
How could people be so stupid as to vote for him last time? I understand why conservatives would, but moderates...man what were you thinking?
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Notes from the field: Edwards Meetup
Tonight I went to an Edwards meetup in the heart of liberal Cambridge: Central Square. You could literally throw a rock and hit the Dean Headquarters, which solicited me for my vote in the Boston Common at 5. "Vote for Dean: he's still on the ballot." (Great slogan, kid).
So the Meetup was moved from a restaurant to an Elks lodge because there was about 50 people there, many of whom where former Dean people, a couple former Clark supporters and 5 people from New Hampshire. Can you imagine? New Hampshirites usually don't even bother to put up a sign, let alone drive into Cambridge for a meetup months after their primary. He really is a snake charmer. Anyway, the vibe in the room was that of a rally with a much smaller crowd. The biggest campaign person they could get was a guy that went dinner with the Senator in 2002 (and he is on the National Finance Committee and fellow Trial Lawyer).
Before I got there, I got accosted by those crazy Kucinich people who failed to tell me that he would actually be at the church on Church Street tonight. Of course, no sightings of Kerry folks, except at work where Representatives are compelled to wear buttons and I get calls from US Rep. Markey's staff to do fundraising calls.
Anyway, back to Edwards. 20-30% of those there were ex-Deanies, including the guy that showed the DVD they handed out in NH (of a town hall meeting, rough camera work guys). Another third were BC/BU folks who had marched some troops over there. They were trying to get us all excited about trying to get delegates in every congressional district (AKA 15%) with excessive group clapping. Feels a bit big brothery the way we had to clap for everything people said.
Somethings did impress me: they told us to never say anything negative, especially about Kerry. "John Kerry is a great, but John Edwards is better. Kerry is a great Senator ... and I want him to stay our Senator." This was said over and over again. We are to keep expectations low so as to exceed them and get press (the Bart Simpson strategy). We will get on the news if we are holding a sign doing "Viz" as they call it. Damn they are hip. Oh yeah, no swearing in the sketchy Elks Lodge where the meetup was held.
Tonight I went to an Edwards meetup in the heart of liberal Cambridge: Central Square. You could literally throw a rock and hit the Dean Headquarters, which solicited me for my vote in the Boston Common at 5. "Vote for Dean: he's still on the ballot." (Great slogan, kid).
So the Meetup was moved from a restaurant to an Elks lodge because there was about 50 people there, many of whom where former Dean people, a couple former Clark supporters and 5 people from New Hampshire. Can you imagine? New Hampshirites usually don't even bother to put up a sign, let alone drive into Cambridge for a meetup months after their primary. He really is a snake charmer. Anyway, the vibe in the room was that of a rally with a much smaller crowd. The biggest campaign person they could get was a guy that went dinner with the Senator in 2002 (and he is on the National Finance Committee and fellow Trial Lawyer).
Before I got there, I got accosted by those crazy Kucinich people who failed to tell me that he would actually be at the church on Church Street tonight. Of course, no sightings of Kerry folks, except at work where Representatives are compelled to wear buttons and I get calls from US Rep. Markey's staff to do fundraising calls.
Anyway, back to Edwards. 20-30% of those there were ex-Deanies, including the guy that showed the DVD they handed out in NH (of a town hall meeting, rough camera work guys). Another third were BC/BU folks who had marched some troops over there. They were trying to get us all excited about trying to get delegates in every congressional district (AKA 15%) with excessive group clapping. Feels a bit big brothery the way we had to clap for everything people said.
Somethings did impress me: they told us to never say anything negative, especially about Kerry. "John Kerry is a great, but John Edwards is better. Kerry is a great Senator ... and I want him to stay our Senator." This was said over and over again. We are to keep expectations low so as to exceed them and get press (the Bart Simpson strategy). We will get on the news if we are holding a sign doing "Viz" as they call it. Damn they are hip. Oh yeah, no swearing in the sketchy Elks Lodge where the meetup was held.
Bush protects his right flank
Under pressure from the Christian Conservative Wing of the party and that crazy right wing part of his mind (not the "I must win at all costs" part), Bush has decided to push for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. I guess Karl Rove thought this one would win them votes, even if all the other bull didn't. Bush is also worried about AL ex-Supreme Court Justice Roy (Mr. 10 Commandments) Moore running for president in a third party. As Slate's Timothy Noah points out, Moore is far more dangerous to Bush than Nader is to Kerry or Edwards.
Meanwhile, the Times seems to be under the false impression that Rep. Musgrave's amendment is a moderate position. Sorry, nope, it would enshire discrimination in all venues, like housing, just ask Yale Law professor Jack Balkin. Conservative Andrew Sullivan is livid. Liberal Altrios is also very upset.
I am looking forward to all those emails from Red States asking my boss to sign on to the Federal Amendment even though my boss isn't a member of congress (geniuses) and voted in favor of gay rights. "I support President Bush, and you should too..." these letters write themselves. Joy.
Under pressure from the Christian Conservative Wing of the party and that crazy right wing part of his mind (not the "I must win at all costs" part), Bush has decided to push for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. I guess Karl Rove thought this one would win them votes, even if all the other bull didn't. Bush is also worried about AL ex-Supreme Court Justice Roy (Mr. 10 Commandments) Moore running for president in a third party. As Slate's Timothy Noah points out, Moore is far more dangerous to Bush than Nader is to Kerry or Edwards.
Meanwhile, the Times seems to be under the false impression that Rep. Musgrave's amendment is a moderate position. Sorry, nope, it would enshire discrimination in all venues, like housing, just ask Yale Law professor Jack Balkin. Conservative Andrew Sullivan is livid. Liberal Altrios is also very upset.
I am looking forward to all those emails from Red States asking my boss to sign on to the Federal Amendment even though my boss isn't a member of congress (geniuses) and voted in favor of gay rights. "I support President Bush, and you should too..." these letters write themselves. Joy.
Bush to Edwards: It's over
In his first real campaign speech of 2004 (besides the ones at all the fundraisers) to GOP governors at the Governor's Conference in DC, Bush decided to take on John Kerry, not John Edwards. "The other party's nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group, with diverse opinions. For tax cuts, and against them. For NAFTA, and against NAFTA. For the Patriot Act, and against the Patriot Act. In favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts." The "this guy flip-flops" attack line is much better than the Mass. Liberal one because it is undeniably true. Kerry can say he has taken firm positions, but I don't think that passes the laugh test. Every vote he has taken he wonders off from when it is politically expedient. The best example of course, is Iraq. He said he voted for it when Saddam was captured and when Baghdad fell, but all the other times, he says he was duped and really wanted voted for Bush to go to the UN. At least that is what I can decipher.
Meanwhile, it looks like Bush is attacking the one who will win. John Kerry leads John Edwards 56-24% in a new Los Angeles Times CA poll. At the same time, Kerry has a slightly bigger lead over Edwards in NY (58% to 22%). Together, that is bad news for Johnny Millworker. I haven't seen any Ohio or Georgia polling, but he loses CA and NY like this, he will absolutely need wins in the other two states to even pretend he can win.
Edwards "stumbled" yesterday, according to the LA Times "when asked about looming European trade sanctions." Edwards: "I'm not sure I even know what you're talking about" (I'll give you a hint-- Bush's ill conceived steel tariffs). Also a bad move, The Center for Disability Rights noticed that "Edwards didn't have sign language interpreters and instead patted the heads of people in wheelchairs" in his Rochester, NY speech.
Quote of the Day
"As one who grew up on the receiving end of insensitive remarks, I should have chosen my words better" -- U.S. Education Secretary Rod Paige, apologizing for calling the NEA a "terrorist organization."
This from a guy who was in Charge of the "Huston Miracle," where test scores and drop out rates miraculously revered, thanks to Enron-style accounting (students who didn't make the cut where not allowed to take the test. Students who dropped out were classified as "transferred" or "moved"). The man can't even show his face in GOP stronghold Utah because of the No Child Left Behind Act.
The Bushies: every last one of them is a corrupt, lying SOB who is slowly trying to ruin our country in their respective fields
In his first real campaign speech of 2004 (besides the ones at all the fundraisers) to GOP governors at the Governor's Conference in DC, Bush decided to take on John Kerry, not John Edwards. "The other party's nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group, with diverse opinions. For tax cuts, and against them. For NAFTA, and against NAFTA. For the Patriot Act, and against the Patriot Act. In favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts." The "this guy flip-flops" attack line is much better than the Mass. Liberal one because it is undeniably true. Kerry can say he has taken firm positions, but I don't think that passes the laugh test. Every vote he has taken he wonders off from when it is politically expedient. The best example of course, is Iraq. He said he voted for it when Saddam was captured and when Baghdad fell, but all the other times, he says he was duped and really wanted voted for Bush to go to the UN. At least that is what I can decipher.
Meanwhile, it looks like Bush is attacking the one who will win. John Kerry leads John Edwards 56-24% in a new Los Angeles Times CA poll. At the same time, Kerry has a slightly bigger lead over Edwards in NY (58% to 22%). Together, that is bad news for Johnny Millworker. I haven't seen any Ohio or Georgia polling, but he loses CA and NY like this, he will absolutely need wins in the other two states to even pretend he can win.
Edwards "stumbled" yesterday, according to the LA Times "when asked about looming European trade sanctions." Edwards: "I'm not sure I even know what you're talking about" (I'll give you a hint-- Bush's ill conceived steel tariffs). Also a bad move, The Center for Disability Rights noticed that "Edwards didn't have sign language interpreters and instead patted the heads of people in wheelchairs" in his Rochester, NY speech.
Quote of the Day
"As one who grew up on the receiving end of insensitive remarks, I should have chosen my words better" -- U.S. Education Secretary Rod Paige, apologizing for calling the NEA a "terrorist organization."
This from a guy who was in Charge of the "Huston Miracle," where test scores and drop out rates miraculously revered, thanks to Enron-style accounting (students who didn't make the cut where not allowed to take the test. Students who dropped out were classified as "transferred" or "moved"). The man can't even show his face in GOP stronghold Utah because of the No Child Left Behind Act.
The Bushies: every last one of them is a corrupt, lying SOB who is slowly trying to ruin our country in their respective fields
Monday, February 23, 2004
Edwards-Dean 2004?
Edwards "stepped up his courtship" of Howard Dean supporters and maybe the Doctor himself, calling Dean "a powerful voice for change" and "somebody I believe has changed the face of politics forever in America." True on both counts Mr. E. Even ex-Dean supporter Kos is in Edwards' corner now. The ex-Deaniacs started their own website to this effect.
Could the Lawyer team up with the Doctor to get his supporters? Could be a hellava team. I don't know if Dean is readdy to play second fiddle but he is a talented politican who made some big time mistakes he might never live down. Like he is in $500,000 of debt now. He raised over $50 million (my guess was like 44) yet he is half a million in the hole? So much for ballanced budgets. Where did all of that spending get him? 0-17. Then again Bush has spent $46 Million against nobdy. What the hell are the doing; convincing his daughter to vote Republican?
Meanwhile, it looks like money can buy you love in the land of Lincoln. A Chicago Tribune/WGN-TV poll on the Illinois Senate Race, Investment banker Blair Hull (who has already spent tens of millions of his own money) won 24%, next was state Sen. Barack Obama with 15%; Compt. Dan Hynes with 11%; Cook Co. Treas. Maria Pappas with 9% and ex-Chicago school board chief Gery Chico with 5%. Among GOPers, teacher/ex-investment banker Jack Ryan had 30%, followed by dairy owner Jim Oberweis with 12%. Good news for Dems: this Jack Ryan wasn't in any Tom Clancy novels and has the same name as the last corrupt Governor of IL.
Edwards "stepped up his courtship" of Howard Dean supporters and maybe the Doctor himself, calling Dean "a powerful voice for change" and "somebody I believe has changed the face of politics forever in America." True on both counts Mr. E. Even ex-Dean supporter Kos is in Edwards' corner now. The ex-Deaniacs started their own website to this effect.
Could the Lawyer team up with the Doctor to get his supporters? Could be a hellava team. I don't know if Dean is readdy to play second fiddle but he is a talented politican who made some big time mistakes he might never live down. Like he is in $500,000 of debt now. He raised over $50 million (my guess was like 44) yet he is half a million in the hole? So much for ballanced budgets. Where did all of that spending get him? 0-17. Then again Bush has spent $46 Million against nobdy. What the hell are the doing; convincing his daughter to vote Republican?
Meanwhile, it looks like money can buy you love in the land of Lincoln. A Chicago Tribune/WGN-TV poll on the Illinois Senate Race, Investment banker Blair Hull (who has already spent tens of millions of his own money) won 24%, next was state Sen. Barack Obama with 15%; Compt. Dan Hynes with 11%; Cook Co. Treas. Maria Pappas with 9% and ex-Chicago school board chief Gery Chico with 5%. Among GOPers, teacher/ex-investment banker Jack Ryan had 30%, followed by dairy owner Jim Oberweis with 12%. Good news for Dems: this Jack Ryan wasn't in any Tom Clancy novels and has the same name as the last corrupt Governor of IL.
Sunday, February 22, 2004
The most selfish man in America
No it is not Ken Lay, or any of Bush's other friends, who are pretty open about their greed. The man of the year for this dubious honor is Ralph Nader, who despite costing Gore the election in 2000 and having absolutely no support for his run this time, is running again in 2004 as an independent. He told Tim Russert this is because even the nutty Green Party, who he ran into the ground last time, doesn't want him on their ticket.
In 2000, he got 2.7%, way less than Perot got either time, but yet it was enough to swing New Hampshire and Florida to Bush. Just think of all the things that would have different had Ralph decided to be a cabinet member of Gore's White House (EPA director or something) instead. No war in Iraq, the war on terror would going much better, our economy would be better, and we would have allies.
Instead, Nader lives in the fantasy world where he things there is this huge mandate for a candidate like him and that he will either win or his issues will be so pervasive that they will have to be address, ala Perrot and the deficit in 1992. Guess what, Ralph, you are about as clueless as your namesake on the Simpsons.
No money will go to you. Since you are running as an independent, and not with a fringe party, you will have to raise much more money to even appear on the ballot in many states, money that nobody will give you. Sure Kucinich has raised some decent amounts of money, but he is still in the race, precisely to drain your potential resources (sorry Dennis). Democrats and Liberals are united in wanting to beat Bush, they won't be fooled again to vote for you or volunteer or even give you money.
Over and over again, I read stories from former Nader voters or supporters who say "Ralph Don't Run" and although "I don't regret voting for him in 2000, I won't do it again." This time, it is painfully obvious that there is a difference between the two parties.
One clearly cares more about clean elections, clean environment, reigning in corporate power, providing health care for citizens, and all the other issues you care about than the other. Independents, liberals, and dissolutioned Democrats know from experience what a Bush White House is like, they know that we can't let him get another 4 year in power.
For God's sakes, your old public advocacy groups like Public Citizen, lost 20% of its funding after 2000, specifically due to your run. No one wants you to run except Karl Rove (and you)! Can't you see that it would hurt all the causes you care about? People won't return your calls any more, your influence has waned. Your "exploratory committee" can't release its' address because the staff fears for thier lives. Isn't that a sign, like Mel Gibson's actor for the Passion of the Christ getting struck by lighting?
Asked if he would withdraw if he concluded his candidacy would merely ensure President Bush's re-election, Nader told Meet the Press, "When and if that eventuality occurs, you can invite me back on the program and I'll give you the answer." OK, now come back and answer the question.
Potential VP candidate and current Governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson explained Nader's motiviation better than I could:
"It's his personal vanity because he has no movement. Nobody's backing him," Richardson said Sunday in advance of Nader's announcement.
"The Greens aren't backing him. His friends urge him not to do it. It's all about himself," Richardson told "Fox News Sunday".
"Now, Ralph's made some great contributions to consumer issues over the years, but clearly it's not going to help us," he said. "I don't think he'll have a sizable impact, but it's terrible if he goes ahead because it's about him. It's about his ego. It's about his vanity and not about a movement that supposedly he headed for many years very effectively."
No it is not Ken Lay, or any of Bush's other friends, who are pretty open about their greed. The man of the year for this dubious honor is Ralph Nader, who despite costing Gore the election in 2000 and having absolutely no support for his run this time, is running again in 2004 as an independent. He told Tim Russert this is because even the nutty Green Party, who he ran into the ground last time, doesn't want him on their ticket.
In 2000, he got 2.7%, way less than Perot got either time, but yet it was enough to swing New Hampshire and Florida to Bush. Just think of all the things that would have different had Ralph decided to be a cabinet member of Gore's White House (EPA director or something) instead. No war in Iraq, the war on terror would going much better, our economy would be better, and we would have allies.
Instead, Nader lives in the fantasy world where he things there is this huge mandate for a candidate like him and that he will either win or his issues will be so pervasive that they will have to be address, ala Perrot and the deficit in 1992. Guess what, Ralph, you are about as clueless as your namesake on the Simpsons.
No money will go to you. Since you are running as an independent, and not with a fringe party, you will have to raise much more money to even appear on the ballot in many states, money that nobody will give you. Sure Kucinich has raised some decent amounts of money, but he is still in the race, precisely to drain your potential resources (sorry Dennis). Democrats and Liberals are united in wanting to beat Bush, they won't be fooled again to vote for you or volunteer or even give you money.
Over and over again, I read stories from former Nader voters or supporters who say "Ralph Don't Run" and although "I don't regret voting for him in 2000, I won't do it again." This time, it is painfully obvious that there is a difference between the two parties.
One clearly cares more about clean elections, clean environment, reigning in corporate power, providing health care for citizens, and all the other issues you care about than the other. Independents, liberals, and dissolutioned Democrats know from experience what a Bush White House is like, they know that we can't let him get another 4 year in power.
For God's sakes, your old public advocacy groups like Public Citizen, lost 20% of its funding after 2000, specifically due to your run. No one wants you to run except Karl Rove (and you)! Can't you see that it would hurt all the causes you care about? People won't return your calls any more, your influence has waned. Your "exploratory committee" can't release its' address because the staff fears for thier lives. Isn't that a sign, like Mel Gibson's actor for the Passion of the Christ getting struck by lighting?
Asked if he would withdraw if he concluded his candidacy would merely ensure President Bush's re-election, Nader told Meet the Press, "When and if that eventuality occurs, you can invite me back on the program and I'll give you the answer." OK, now come back and answer the question.
Potential VP candidate and current Governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson explained Nader's motiviation better than I could:
"It's his personal vanity because he has no movement. Nobody's backing him," Richardson said Sunday in advance of Nader's announcement.
"The Greens aren't backing him. His friends urge him not to do it. It's all about himself," Richardson told "Fox News Sunday".
"Now, Ralph's made some great contributions to consumer issues over the years, but clearly it's not going to help us," he said. "I don't think he'll have a sizable impact, but it's terrible if he goes ahead because it's about him. It's about his ego. It's about his vanity and not about a movement that supposedly he headed for many years very effectively."
Friday, February 20, 2004
Advice for Bush
I know, I shouldn't help him out, but I bet he has already though about this, almost every morning. Fire Scott McClellan
Ever since Ari "best liar in the world" Fleisher left as press secretary, the whole Bush White House has come unraveled. There was a temporary lapse with the capture of Saddam, but it has pretty much been like the Titanic-- a huge ship that is slowly, but surely sinking.
They need Karen Hughes and Ari like Edwards needs over 400 delegates-- i.e. they can't win without them. Little Scotty has been taking a pounding since the New Year on the WMD bogus info, the Plame affair, Halliburton, the FY 2005 budget, Bush's AWOL National Guard duty, and the Jobs forecast. Sure, part of it is the press core finally got fed up with being snookered and started hammering home at the tough reality that Bush's team has lied to us since about day one. But just look at this recent example of McClellan's ineptness.
QUESTION: Scott, on taxes and jobs, your campaign chairman, Marc Racicot this morning said that the job prediction or the job forecast in the CEA report was a "goal." You indicated to us yesterday that it was simply a figure that was based on economic modeling. So what is it? Is it an objective analysis of the current state of the economy, or was that a political document?
Scott McClellan: John, I think it is what it is. The data is a snapshot that economists use at a point in time for economic modeling. That's what I said yesterday. So it is what it is --
QUESTION: Right, but Racicot --
Scott McClellan: -- and it's based on the data available at that point in time.
QUESTION: So was Racicot wrong in describing it as a goal?
Scott McClellan: I haven't seen those specific remarks. I'll be glad to look at them, but it is what it is, and it is how I described it yesterday.
[Here there's a short and snappy back-and-forth between John and Scott on the difference between predictions and goals, and what the definition of 'is' is.]
Scott McClellan: John, I'm giving you the facts. It is what it is.
QUESTION: And the meaning of the word "is" is?
Scott McClellan: Well, John, I think that where the discussion of policy should be -- or the discussion should be is on policy. And the President is a decision-maker. The President leads by making policy decisions. And the policies we are implementing are working to strengthen our economy and create an environment for robust job creation. New jobs are being created. The unemployment rate is declining. The policies this President has advocated and passed are working. And I think the American people think the discussion should be there on the policy decisions that are being made. Some don't want to discuss the policies. But it's important for a President to lead and make decisions, and then defend those decisions.
QUESTION: You understand the difference between a forecast based on economic modeling and a stated goal. Racicot just seems to indicate that this is a stated goal.
Scott McClellan: It is the economic forecast for our annual Economic Report. That's what it is.
QUESTION: So it's not a goal?
No silly, the goal is to be re-elected!
I know, I shouldn't help him out, but I bet he has already though about this, almost every morning. Fire Scott McClellan
Ever since Ari "best liar in the world" Fleisher left as press secretary, the whole Bush White House has come unraveled. There was a temporary lapse with the capture of Saddam, but it has pretty much been like the Titanic-- a huge ship that is slowly, but surely sinking.
They need Karen Hughes and Ari like Edwards needs over 400 delegates-- i.e. they can't win without them. Little Scotty has been taking a pounding since the New Year on the WMD bogus info, the Plame affair, Halliburton, the FY 2005 budget, Bush's AWOL National Guard duty, and the Jobs forecast. Sure, part of it is the press core finally got fed up with being snookered and started hammering home at the tough reality that Bush's team has lied to us since about day one. But just look at this recent example of McClellan's ineptness.
QUESTION: Scott, on taxes and jobs, your campaign chairman, Marc Racicot this morning said that the job prediction or the job forecast in the CEA report was a "goal." You indicated to us yesterday that it was simply a figure that was based on economic modeling. So what is it? Is it an objective analysis of the current state of the economy, or was that a political document?
Scott McClellan: John, I think it is what it is. The data is a snapshot that economists use at a point in time for economic modeling. That's what I said yesterday. So it is what it is --
QUESTION: Right, but Racicot --
Scott McClellan: -- and it's based on the data available at that point in time.
QUESTION: So was Racicot wrong in describing it as a goal?
Scott McClellan: I haven't seen those specific remarks. I'll be glad to look at them, but it is what it is, and it is how I described it yesterday.
[Here there's a short and snappy back-and-forth between John and Scott on the difference between predictions and goals, and what the definition of 'is' is.]
Scott McClellan: John, I'm giving you the facts. It is what it is.
QUESTION: And the meaning of the word "is" is?
Scott McClellan: Well, John, I think that where the discussion of policy should be -- or the discussion should be is on policy. And the President is a decision-maker. The President leads by making policy decisions. And the policies we are implementing are working to strengthen our economy and create an environment for robust job creation. New jobs are being created. The unemployment rate is declining. The policies this President has advocated and passed are working. And I think the American people think the discussion should be there on the policy decisions that are being made. Some don't want to discuss the policies. But it's important for a President to lead and make decisions, and then defend those decisions.
QUESTION: You understand the difference between a forecast based on economic modeling and a stated goal. Racicot just seems to indicate that this is a stated goal.
Scott McClellan: It is the economic forecast for our annual Economic Report. That's what it is.
QUESTION: So it's not a goal?
No silly, the goal is to be re-elected!
Thursday, February 19, 2004
The Loneliest Person in America
Dennis J. Kucinich, US Representative from Ohio and protest candidate for President, has two delegates, one of whom is himself. So who is this other guy? The one that tells me wins a prize.
Granted, there will be a bigger club membership, probably after Super Tuesday, especially in his home state of Ohio. This might hurt Edwards, but still, one delegate?
Dennis J. Kucinich, US Representative from Ohio and protest candidate for President, has two delegates, one of whom is himself. So who is this other guy? The one that tells me wins a prize.
Granted, there will be a bigger club membership, probably after Super Tuesday, especially in his home state of Ohio. This might hurt Edwards, but still, one delegate?
Like shooting fish in a barrell
Remember Mel Gibson, and his highly-controversial movie that is being shamelessly promoted on right-wing congregations? Let's here from the man who raised him, Hutton, his 85 year old father what his opinion is of some things to see if this movie truely is or isn't anti-semitic or extremist, shall we?
On Jews: "They're after one world religion and one world government," radio interview that will air Monday night.
On the Holocaust: "They claimed that there were 6.2 million in Poland before the war, and they claimed after the war there were 200,000 - therefore he must have killed 6 million of them," he said. "They simply got up and left! They were all over the Bronx and Brooklyn and Sydney, Australia, and Los Angeles." same interview.
On the US Federal Reserve: "Greenspan tells us what to do. Someone should take him out and hang him."
On 9/11 and Ossama Bin Laden: "Anybody can put out a passenger list," the elder Gibson told The Times.
"So what happened? They were crashed by remote control." NYTimes interview Let me guess, the Jews conspired on this one too.
The Gibson's theology, writes Christopher Noxon in the New York Times piece, "is a strain of Catholicism rooted in the dictates of a 16th-century papal council and nurtured by a splinter group of conspiracy-minded Catholics, mystics, monarchists and disaffected conservatives -- including a seminary dropout and rabble-rousing theologist who also happens to be Mel Gibson's father."
In the 1992 El Pais interview, Gibson said that "For 1,950 years [the church] does one thing and then in the 60s, all of a sudden they turn everything inside out and begin to do strange things that go against the rules.
"Everything that had been heresy is no longer heresy, according to the [new] rules. We [Catholics] are being cheated. ... The church has stopped being critical. It has relaxed. I don't believe them, and I have no intention of following their trends. It's the church that has abandoned me, not me who has abandoned it," he said.
Rush out and see that one, if you like the historical accuracy level of Holocaust denyers.
Remember Mel Gibson, and his highly-controversial movie that is being shamelessly promoted on right-wing congregations? Let's here from the man who raised him, Hutton, his 85 year old father what his opinion is of some things to see if this movie truely is or isn't anti-semitic or extremist, shall we?
On Jews: "They're after one world religion and one world government," radio interview that will air Monday night.
On the Holocaust: "They claimed that there were 6.2 million in Poland before the war, and they claimed after the war there were 200,000 - therefore he must have killed 6 million of them," he said. "They simply got up and left! They were all over the Bronx and Brooklyn and Sydney, Australia, and Los Angeles." same interview.
On the US Federal Reserve: "Greenspan tells us what to do. Someone should take him out and hang him."
On 9/11 and Ossama Bin Laden: "Anybody can put out a passenger list," the elder Gibson told The Times.
"So what happened? They were crashed by remote control." NYTimes interview Let me guess, the Jews conspired on this one too.
The Gibson's theology, writes Christopher Noxon in the New York Times piece, "is a strain of Catholicism rooted in the dictates of a 16th-century papal council and nurtured by a splinter group of conspiracy-minded Catholics, mystics, monarchists and disaffected conservatives -- including a seminary dropout and rabble-rousing theologist who also happens to be Mel Gibson's father."
In the 1992 El Pais interview, Gibson said that "For 1,950 years [the church] does one thing and then in the 60s, all of a sudden they turn everything inside out and begin to do strange things that go against the rules.
"Everything that had been heresy is no longer heresy, according to the [new] rules. We [Catholics] are being cheated. ... The church has stopped being critical. It has relaxed. I don't believe them, and I have no intention of following their trends. It's the church that has abandoned me, not me who has abandoned it," he said.
Rush out and see that one, if you like the historical accuracy level of Holocaust denyers.
More signs of a looming Dean-Edwards endorsement
I just read on Hotline that Al Gore is subbing for Edwards in Idaho, where Edwards is punting Kerry's vacation home state and the Beehive state to focus on Ohio, upstate New York, Georgia, and maybe California for Super Tuesday. Of course, Edwards says he will compete everywhere. If by "compete," you mean "name is on the ballot" than so is Dean and Clark. Gee, who did Gore support again? Next thing you know, Edwards will send Carol Mosley Braun to IL for him. The Underdog, of course always picks his battles and wants to debate the front runner mano y mono.
Things are starting to get testier between Kerry and Edwards. Kerry, who nearly blew a huge lead in Wisconsin, said this about Edwards' opposition to NAFTA "He wasn't in the Senate back then. I don't know where he registered this vote, but it wasn't in the Senate." Meanwhile, Kerry is slipping back into his bad, old habbits that got to be written off in the first place.
And now there's some more unflattering news from "special interest fighter" Kerry. John Kerry "sent 28 letters" on behalf of CA defense contractor Parthasarathi "Bob" Majumder, "who pleaded guilty last week to illegally funneling campaign contributions" to Kerry and four other congressmen. This is why it is a bad idea to nominate a Bob Dole guy: someone who has been in Washington for decades.
Nevertheless, Bay State supporters seem pretty confident in Kerry beating Bush. The Globe is reporting that MA lawmakers are going to pass a bill that would prevent GOP Gov. Romney from appointing someone to replace Kerry in the Senate. The legislation would "leave Kerry's seat vacant for two months or more, until a special election is held." If it is an open seat, they figure, openly gay US Rep. Barney Frank will win.
Meanwhile, Nader's re-elect Bush committee...I mean "presidential exploratory committee" won't tell the Hartford Courant where the headquarters are because, "It's for security reasons. We have too many adversaries." I am sure they are predicting a landslide victory. My bet: Nader enters and gets 1% at best. Here's what we need: Kucinich telling him to get off the stage. "If you wanted to get your issues out, you should have ran a protest candidacy in the Democratic Primary like I did."
I just read on Hotline that Al Gore is subbing for Edwards in Idaho, where Edwards is punting Kerry's vacation home state and the Beehive state to focus on Ohio, upstate New York, Georgia, and maybe California for Super Tuesday. Of course, Edwards says he will compete everywhere. If by "compete," you mean "name is on the ballot" than so is Dean and Clark. Gee, who did Gore support again? Next thing you know, Edwards will send Carol Mosley Braun to IL for him. The Underdog, of course always picks his battles and wants to debate the front runner mano y mono.
Things are starting to get testier between Kerry and Edwards. Kerry, who nearly blew a huge lead in Wisconsin, said this about Edwards' opposition to NAFTA "He wasn't in the Senate back then. I don't know where he registered this vote, but it wasn't in the Senate." Meanwhile, Kerry is slipping back into his bad, old habbits that got to be written off in the first place.
And now there's some more unflattering news from "special interest fighter" Kerry. John Kerry "sent 28 letters" on behalf of CA defense contractor Parthasarathi "Bob" Majumder, "who pleaded guilty last week to illegally funneling campaign contributions" to Kerry and four other congressmen. This is why it is a bad idea to nominate a Bob Dole guy: someone who has been in Washington for decades.
Nevertheless, Bay State supporters seem pretty confident in Kerry beating Bush. The Globe is reporting that MA lawmakers are going to pass a bill that would prevent GOP Gov. Romney from appointing someone to replace Kerry in the Senate. The legislation would "leave Kerry's seat vacant for two months or more, until a special election is held." If it is an open seat, they figure, openly gay US Rep. Barney Frank will win.
Meanwhile, Nader's re-elect Bush committee...I mean "presidential exploratory committee" won't tell the Hartford Courant where the headquarters are because, "It's for security reasons. We have too many adversaries." I am sure they are predicting a landslide victory. My bet: Nader enters and gets 1% at best. Here's what we need: Kucinich telling him to get off the stage. "If you wanted to get your issues out, you should have ran a protest candidacy in the Democratic Primary like I did."
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Close, but no cheese
unexpectedly, Edwards managed to make the race much closer, losing to Kerry by a mere six points (40-34). Edwards got so close due to his recent trend of attracting independents and cross-over Republicans to vote for him. He could use that as an argument it is he, and not Kerry who can better beat Bush.
"Today the voters of Wisconsin sent a clear message. ... Objects in your rearview mirror may be closer than they appear," said Edwards.. Of course, we didn't get to hear that because Kerry came out within minutes of Edwards to steal his free TV time; smart jerk.
Meanwhile Dean (18%) is going to "suspend campaign operations" but let people waste their vote for him. I guess Howard People-Power generator needs some repairs.
With Dean out, can Edwards get enough ABKBNB (anybody but Kerry but not Bush) voters to his side by Super Tuesday? Sure he might win Georgia, but he needs to win some industrial rust-belt states with his anti-NAFTA contrast message against Kerry. Some point to Ohio as a must win, and New York too. In any event, he can't keep coming in second, he needs to win. Right now the score is Kerry 17-Edwards 1-Dean 0 (Clark 1).
Speaking of Clark, one guy who endorsed him won. That's right, ex-KY AG and Gov candidate Ben "Happy" Chandler won in a virtual landslide in a GOP-ish district against Sen. Mitch McConnell proxy Kerr. This state is supposed to be a bellwether. Much like 2003 looked good for Bush with a GOP Gov win, this bodes well for Democrats looking to win back the White House and the Congress.
98 percent of districts reporting:
Chandler (D): 54.6
Kerr (R): 43.6
This race was big for my BOP friends in a way, since it proves the power of the internet, as Josh Marshall says. However, it has become clear that the internet is the best way for Democrats to raise money not win elections. Chandler spent $2,000 on internet ads on places like DailyKos and TalkingPointsMemo, and got $100,000 from it; that's a really good return. Democratic House Candidates from all over are now already copying the model to make their competitive races even better with small (>$100) contributions from folks online.
We have two more very winnable special elections for the House coming up. SD's seat in June, and LA 3 around Easter. Both of which, I predict, we will win. That's three less seats we have to worry about (or worry less about) in the steep uphill climb to retake control of congress. Maybe Dean can be useful after all, in campaigning/raising money for all these would be congressmen/women. Send Joe Trippi to run the CO Senate race for Mike Miles, who is running a Trippi style campaign out there vs. Ben Nighthorse Campbell.
unexpectedly, Edwards managed to make the race much closer, losing to Kerry by a mere six points (40-34). Edwards got so close due to his recent trend of attracting independents and cross-over Republicans to vote for him. He could use that as an argument it is he, and not Kerry who can better beat Bush.
"Today the voters of Wisconsin sent a clear message. ... Objects in your rearview mirror may be closer than they appear," said Edwards.. Of course, we didn't get to hear that because Kerry came out within minutes of Edwards to steal his free TV time; smart jerk.
Meanwhile Dean (18%) is going to "suspend campaign operations" but let people waste their vote for him. I guess Howard People-Power generator needs some repairs.
With Dean out, can Edwards get enough ABKBNB (anybody but Kerry but not Bush) voters to his side by Super Tuesday? Sure he might win Georgia, but he needs to win some industrial rust-belt states with his anti-NAFTA contrast message against Kerry. Some point to Ohio as a must win, and New York too. In any event, he can't keep coming in second, he needs to win. Right now the score is Kerry 17-Edwards 1-Dean 0 (Clark 1).
Speaking of Clark, one guy who endorsed him won. That's right, ex-KY AG and Gov candidate Ben "Happy" Chandler won in a virtual landslide in a GOP-ish district against Sen. Mitch McConnell proxy Kerr. This state is supposed to be a bellwether. Much like 2003 looked good for Bush with a GOP Gov win, this bodes well for Democrats looking to win back the White House and the Congress.
98 percent of districts reporting:
Chandler (D): 54.6
Kerr (R): 43.6
This race was big for my BOP friends in a way, since it proves the power of the internet, as Josh Marshall says. However, it has become clear that the internet is the best way for Democrats to raise money not win elections. Chandler spent $2,000 on internet ads on places like DailyKos and TalkingPointsMemo, and got $100,000 from it; that's a really good return. Democratic House Candidates from all over are now already copying the model to make their competitive races even better with small (>$100) contributions from folks online.
We have two more very winnable special elections for the House coming up. SD's seat in June, and LA 3 around Easter. Both of which, I predict, we will win. That's three less seats we have to worry about (or worry less about) in the steep uphill climb to retake control of congress. Maybe Dean can be useful after all, in campaigning/raising money for all these would be congressmen/women. Send Joe Trippi to run the CO Senate race for Mike Miles, who is running a Trippi style campaign out there vs. Ben Nighthorse Campbell.
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
PM exits: is there gonna be an Edwards revival?
Matt Drudge reports "LATE AFTERNOON EXIT POLLS SHOW JOHN EDWARDS PULLING A STRONG SHOWING AGAINST JOHN KERRY, TOP MEDIA AND CAMPAIGN SOURCES TELL DRUDGE... KERRY 42%, EDWARDS 31%, DEAN 15%" If this is true (given the phoney intern story on Kerry) that would be a huge coup for Edwards, as Kerry has sunken about 10+ points.
And Dean's result is super dissipointing for his crowd. Even Kos says, "I think most of us can agree that Dean is history."
One national poll shows Kerry fading:
Rasmussen tracking poll. 2/14-16. MoE 4%. (2/11-13 results).
Kerry 43 (51)
Edwards 25 (18)
Big dip, but still there is 18 point gap. Can Edwards ever make that up? If Kerry slips, he might.
Matt Drudge reports "LATE AFTERNOON EXIT POLLS SHOW JOHN EDWARDS PULLING A STRONG SHOWING AGAINST JOHN KERRY, TOP MEDIA AND CAMPAIGN SOURCES TELL DRUDGE... KERRY 42%, EDWARDS 31%, DEAN 15%" If this is true (given the phoney intern story on Kerry) that would be a huge coup for Edwards, as Kerry has sunken about 10+ points.
And Dean's result is super dissipointing for his crowd. Even Kos says, "I think most of us can agree that Dean is history."
One national poll shows Kerry fading:
Rasmussen tracking poll. 2/14-16. MoE 4%. (2/11-13 results).
Kerry 43 (51)
Edwards 25 (18)
Big dip, but still there is 18 point gap. Can Edwards ever make that up? If Kerry slips, he might.
Ashcroft sued by AUSA on terror efforts
According to The Journal, "A federal prosecutor in a major terrorism case in Detroit has taken the rare step of suing Attorney General John Ashcroft, alleging the Justice Department interfered with the case, compromised a confidential informant and exaggerated results in the war on terrorism."
"Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Convertino of Detroit accused the Justice Department of "gross mismanagement" of the war on terrorism in a whistleblower lawsuit filed late Friday in federal court in Washington." Isn't he a political appointee? If so, wow, that man has balls and my vote.
Ashcroft is a favorite whipping boy of the left, but now he has proven to be an equally bad AG in terms of simply winning cases. "The government [read Ashcroft-led Justice Department] now admits it failed to turn over evidence during the trial that might have assisted the defense, including an allegation from an imprisoned drug-gang leader who claimed the government's key witness made up his story."
I love whistleblowers. The made the laws in the 1970s to prevent another Watergate, and now the people that worked for Nixon/Ford are feeling the rath. How great.
On a different note, where are the leaked 12/1 PM exits from Wisconsin or the KY 06 special? Could it be that the press feels bad for doing it the last 3-4 times? I am going to assume that the polls were right and that Chandler eeks out a win again Foggy-Kerr in Kentucky and Kerry pounds everyone in Wisconsin. Edwards might get 3rd, but Dean's done either way (close battle for 2nd though at 20-25% a piece).
According to The Journal, "A federal prosecutor in a major terrorism case in Detroit has taken the rare step of suing Attorney General John Ashcroft, alleging the Justice Department interfered with the case, compromised a confidential informant and exaggerated results in the war on terrorism."
"Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Convertino of Detroit accused the Justice Department of "gross mismanagement" of the war on terrorism in a whistleblower lawsuit filed late Friday in federal court in Washington." Isn't he a political appointee? If so, wow, that man has balls and my vote.
Ashcroft is a favorite whipping boy of the left, but now he has proven to be an equally bad AG in terms of simply winning cases. "The government [read Ashcroft-led Justice Department] now admits it failed to turn over evidence during the trial that might have assisted the defense, including an allegation from an imprisoned drug-gang leader who claimed the government's key witness made up his story."
I love whistleblowers. The made the laws in the 1970s to prevent another Watergate, and now the people that worked for Nixon/Ford are feeling the rath. How great.
On a different note, where are the leaked 12/1 PM exits from Wisconsin or the KY 06 special? Could it be that the press feels bad for doing it the last 3-4 times? I am going to assume that the polls were right and that Chandler eeks out a win again Foggy-Kerr in Kentucky and Kerry pounds everyone in Wisconsin. Edwards might get 3rd, but Dean's done either way (close battle for 2nd though at 20-25% a piece).
Morning roundup
I am not really going to be talking about the WI primary as it was over so long ago, despite what Howard Dean says. Dean, who fired his National Campaign Chair Steve Grossman for expressing reality, is now being told by his hometown newspaper, the Burlington Free Press to quit the race and have "the grace to leave." More from the editors: "It's over. Dean will not be elected president in 2004."
Former President Clinton was asked about picking a Vice President: "It is a deeply personal decision who you pick as your running mate." On Kerry's choice, "I have not taken sides with regard to any of the candidates for president. I like Wes Clark, but it would be disloyal of me to favor any individual when so many have been helpful to me." So maybe the rumors were true, Clinton wanted to support him all along. I guess he saw what happened to Gore and decided to keep his support for Clark underground. Would there really be a Kerry/Clark ticket? Here are some cheezy mottos I made up on the spot...
Kerry-Clark 2004: Two Patriots. No Act. K-C : they know what's cookin' and "Support our Troops: Elect some" or "Support of veterans: Elect them" The site of the two doing competing pushups with the troops at the Army-Navy football game would be a great Photo-Op, too bad it will be in December, after the election.
Speaking of using troops for a photo-op, the Bush administration wants to "have discussed bringing in U.S. troops to boost security" at the GOP convention, "but the NYPD doesn't think it needs them." Isn't it bad enough to lay the 9/11 memorial cornerstone during the convention and have a view of Ground Zero from the hotel and have it all take place a few days before 9/11? I guess not.
Meanwhile, in the Kentucky special election to the house Democrat Ben Chandler (ex-AG ex-Gov candidate) "says he's cautiously optimistic about his chances for a win" today against GOPer Alice Forgy-Kerr. The last poll I saw had him 8 points up. This could be the first of 2-3 special election wins for the Democrats before November in the House. (the other two are South Dakota special and Louisiana special where Billy Tauzin is looking for a lobbying job at MPAA-- the guys that arrest teens for downloading MP3s) Good way to starting taking back the House in 2004.
Remember that unsubstantiated rumor that Kerry had an affair with a reporter. So far we have gotten nothing but denials from both sides and no proof (even if you counted an off-record quote by Wes Clark, his people say once again, that was a misconstrued misquote from off the record-- and hence not supposed to be quoted anyway). Meanwhile Larry Flynt, the smut peddler who cares, has dredged up more on real sounding proof on Bush. Flynt was instrumental in helping nail GOPers in 1998-9 for having affairs while impeaching Bill Clinton for having one. "I've talked to the woman's friends. ... I've tracked down the doctor who did the abortion, I tracked down the Bush people who arranged for the abortion. ... I got the story nailed" said Flynt, who "says he plans to market a Bush abortion story as genuine." Flynt "claimed that Bush arranged for the procedure in the early '70s." Does this mean this aborted fetus was Bush's would-be baby? Or was he just being a nice guy and helping out a friend? Guilty by association according to the press, if true. This is especially true when you are loud pro-life politician. Seems pretty hypocritical.
Folks, it isn't even March and already it has gotten ugly with these rumors and the National Guard stuff. Can't want to see how nasty it gets by the fall-- oh wait, yes I can.
I am not really going to be talking about the WI primary as it was over so long ago, despite what Howard Dean says. Dean, who fired his National Campaign Chair Steve Grossman for expressing reality, is now being told by his hometown newspaper, the Burlington Free Press to quit the race and have "the grace to leave." More from the editors: "It's over. Dean will not be elected president in 2004."
Former President Clinton was asked about picking a Vice President: "It is a deeply personal decision who you pick as your running mate." On Kerry's choice, "I have not taken sides with regard to any of the candidates for president. I like Wes Clark, but it would be disloyal of me to favor any individual when so many have been helpful to me." So maybe the rumors were true, Clinton wanted to support him all along. I guess he saw what happened to Gore and decided to keep his support for Clark underground. Would there really be a Kerry/Clark ticket? Here are some cheezy mottos I made up on the spot...
Kerry-Clark 2004: Two Patriots. No Act. K-C : they know what's cookin' and "Support our Troops: Elect some" or "Support of veterans: Elect them" The site of the two doing competing pushups with the troops at the Army-Navy football game would be a great Photo-Op, too bad it will be in December, after the election.
Speaking of using troops for a photo-op, the Bush administration wants to "have discussed bringing in U.S. troops to boost security" at the GOP convention, "but the NYPD doesn't think it needs them." Isn't it bad enough to lay the 9/11 memorial cornerstone during the convention and have a view of Ground Zero from the hotel and have it all take place a few days before 9/11? I guess not.
Meanwhile, in the Kentucky special election to the house Democrat Ben Chandler (ex-AG ex-Gov candidate) "says he's cautiously optimistic about his chances for a win" today against GOPer Alice Forgy-Kerr. The last poll I saw had him 8 points up. This could be the first of 2-3 special election wins for the Democrats before November in the House. (the other two are South Dakota special and Louisiana special where Billy Tauzin is looking for a lobbying job at MPAA-- the guys that arrest teens for downloading MP3s) Good way to starting taking back the House in 2004.
Remember that unsubstantiated rumor that Kerry had an affair with a reporter. So far we have gotten nothing but denials from both sides and no proof (even if you counted an off-record quote by Wes Clark, his people say once again, that was a misconstrued misquote from off the record-- and hence not supposed to be quoted anyway). Meanwhile Larry Flynt, the smut peddler who cares, has dredged up more on real sounding proof on Bush. Flynt was instrumental in helping nail GOPers in 1998-9 for having affairs while impeaching Bill Clinton for having one. "I've talked to the woman's friends. ... I've tracked down the doctor who did the abortion, I tracked down the Bush people who arranged for the abortion. ... I got the story nailed" said Flynt, who "says he plans to market a Bush abortion story as genuine." Flynt "claimed that Bush arranged for the procedure in the early '70s." Does this mean this aborted fetus was Bush's would-be baby? Or was he just being a nice guy and helping out a friend? Guilty by association according to the press, if true. This is especially true when you are loud pro-life politician. Seems pretty hypocritical.
Folks, it isn't even March and already it has gotten ugly with these rumors and the National Guard stuff. Can't want to see how nasty it gets by the fall-- oh wait, yes I can.
Monday, February 16, 2004
President's Day vs. Precedent's Day
Now lots of my more pessimistic friends (and my father) still believe that George W. Bush will ultimately win in November, because no unchallenged (in the primary) incumbent president has ever lost re-election in the modern era.
The American legal system is also based on precedent: what judges have ruled before, must, by definition still be right now. It should be based on the present, or even better, the future. That is, what will be true or what is now true.
Many conservatives are complaining about the MA SJC's ruling on Gay Marriage. But what about Brown v. Board of Education, or Roe v. Wade? As times change, the law should change with it. So too, can the so called rules of politics and elections. Some say that tea Democrats should, therefore, abandon the South and seek haven in the Southwest and Midwest (as well as the coasts). Others think that the Internet has turned campaigns and their management upside down, from a pyramid to a sphere, Dean's huge public belly flop notwithstanding.
How about starting our own trend by defeating the man who is, in comparison, the worst U.S. President before and after the modern era both before he assumed office, and during his tenure (we can't evaluate after just yet, but we will with other former Presidents).
Let's compare Bush vs. Hoover. Well Hoover lost more jobs, and a bigger percentage of jobs, but it was after all the Great Depression and the Great Dustbowl. All Bush has to blame is his own ineptness, massive tax cuts (which should stimulate the economy, if you believe in the Laffner curve), corporate cronyism (which he looked away from and was a part of in his day, as well as his Administration). Bush likes to blame 9-11 [which of course were something that was to a degree forewarned and also did not do anything about (at least Clinton dropped some bombs).
Bush vs. Rutherford B. Hayes: Both lost the popular vote, and then somehow became President although Hayes was far more shady than Bush Supreme Court 5-4 decision (you don't hear conservatives yelling about the courts on Bush v. Gore do you? Funny) Unlike Hayes, who promptly promised to only serve one term to quell the furor (although he singlehandly stopped the Reformation and his immediate legacy was Jim Crow), Bush has done nothing of the sort and ruled as if he won by landslide. Furthermore, Bush has raised in real terms far more than any President ever for re-election, most of it from the same industries that he carried water for in his first term.
Bush vs. Nixon: Like Nixon, he is very good at lying through his teeth (remember the old Checkers speech?), hiding in secrecy (Energy Commission) and blaming his bad deeds, when caught on others (both have had a string of resignations and damning revelations from people high in the White House). Unlike Bush, Nixon got us out of Vietnam (after not-so-secretly bombing Cambodia), created the EPA, banned cigarette advertising on TV, and was there when Man landed on the Moon. Of course, these were due to massive pressure and the legacy of Kennedy, but I am getting ahead of myself here.
Bush vs. Ford: Ford also came to power in a contested fashion. Ford did a create many number of progressive things, but this was because his hand was forced by the overwhelmingly progressive post-Watergate Congress. He was a weak president mostly because he was A) not elected and B) pardoned Nixon but at least the man tried. A great many lieutenants of Ford are now in the Bush White house, and like W. they are trying their version of "Quantum Leap" -- setting Right, what once went wrong the last time they had power.
Bush vs. Reagan. Like Bush, Reagan raised spending, especially on weapons systems, while cut taxes for the richest few. But Reagan had the Democratic congress to blame, and also cut a deal to go after those loopholes and tax cheats. Bush is working to widen the loopholes and relax regulation for his friends who are tax cheats. Reagan too lied about wars like Iran-Contra. But at least the Democratic congress held his feet to the fire and people were carted off to jail. Bush has a Republican congress that wouldn't dream of doing anything to hurt him.
George W. Bush vs. George H.W. Bush: OK, this has been well documented but lets do a fly by....41 took politically courageous steps to balance the budget, 43 did nothing of the sort. 41 called himself the environmental president, but helped big plotter's continue. 43 calls himself a man of peace, and you know what the results of his "peace" have been. 41 pardoned his aides who might squeal on the aforementioned Iran-Contra, 43 might do that for his own skin as well. 41 pulled out Willie Horton against Mike Dukakais, 43's henchmen pulled out Osama and Saddam on Max Cleland. Both had recessions both are hopelessly rich and out of touch with everyday Americans. Landmark legislation: 41-- Americans with Disability Act , 43-- No Child Left Behind. 'Nuff said.
Add it all up and you've got the worst president ever. One who is more interested in Photo-Ops than achievement, approval ratings than accomplishment, words rather than deeds. History will look back and say, "What in the world were 48.7% of Americans thinking?"
Speaking of presidents, one wannabe just got another big blow. Howard Dean's Campaign Chair Steve Grossman (once head of the MA Democratic Party and failed 2002 Gov candidate) is quitting the campaign. "I have no doubt he'll support the nominee in any way he can, no matter who the nominee is and obviously that nominee looks to be John Kerry," Grossman said in a telephone interview with the Post from Vermont. "He may say that Tuesday night. He may wait until Wednesday or Thursday to say that."
Meanwhile the AFP (via Yahoo! News) is reporting that Dean is getting ready to turn his campaign into a PAC and use it to attack Bush and repair his profile in the party. Guess he isn't planning on winning in Wisconsin either.
Now lots of my more pessimistic friends (and my father) still believe that George W. Bush will ultimately win in November, because no unchallenged (in the primary) incumbent president has ever lost re-election in the modern era.
The American legal system is also based on precedent: what judges have ruled before, must, by definition still be right now. It should be based on the present, or even better, the future. That is, what will be true or what is now true.
Many conservatives are complaining about the MA SJC's ruling on Gay Marriage. But what about Brown v. Board of Education, or Roe v. Wade? As times change, the law should change with it. So too, can the so called rules of politics and elections. Some say that tea Democrats should, therefore, abandon the South and seek haven in the Southwest and Midwest (as well as the coasts). Others think that the Internet has turned campaigns and their management upside down, from a pyramid to a sphere, Dean's huge public belly flop notwithstanding.
How about starting our own trend by defeating the man who is, in comparison, the worst U.S. President before and after the modern era both before he assumed office, and during his tenure (we can't evaluate after just yet, but we will with other former Presidents).
Let's compare Bush vs. Hoover. Well Hoover lost more jobs, and a bigger percentage of jobs, but it was after all the Great Depression and the Great Dustbowl. All Bush has to blame is his own ineptness, massive tax cuts (which should stimulate the economy, if you believe in the Laffner curve), corporate cronyism (which he looked away from and was a part of in his day, as well as his Administration). Bush likes to blame 9-11 [which of course were something that was to a degree forewarned and also did not do anything about (at least Clinton dropped some bombs).
Bush vs. Rutherford B. Hayes: Both lost the popular vote, and then somehow became President although Hayes was far more shady than Bush Supreme Court 5-4 decision (you don't hear conservatives yelling about the courts on Bush v. Gore do you? Funny) Unlike Hayes, who promptly promised to only serve one term to quell the furor (although he singlehandly stopped the Reformation and his immediate legacy was Jim Crow), Bush has done nothing of the sort and ruled as if he won by landslide. Furthermore, Bush has raised in real terms far more than any President ever for re-election, most of it from the same industries that he carried water for in his first term.
Bush vs. Nixon: Like Nixon, he is very good at lying through his teeth (remember the old Checkers speech?), hiding in secrecy (Energy Commission) and blaming his bad deeds, when caught on others (both have had a string of resignations and damning revelations from people high in the White House). Unlike Bush, Nixon got us out of Vietnam (after not-so-secretly bombing Cambodia), created the EPA, banned cigarette advertising on TV, and was there when Man landed on the Moon. Of course, these were due to massive pressure and the legacy of Kennedy, but I am getting ahead of myself here.
Bush vs. Ford: Ford also came to power in a contested fashion. Ford did a create many number of progressive things, but this was because his hand was forced by the overwhelmingly progressive post-Watergate Congress. He was a weak president mostly because he was A) not elected and B) pardoned Nixon but at least the man tried. A great many lieutenants of Ford are now in the Bush White house, and like W. they are trying their version of "Quantum Leap" -- setting Right, what once went wrong the last time they had power.
Bush vs. Reagan. Like Bush, Reagan raised spending, especially on weapons systems, while cut taxes for the richest few. But Reagan had the Democratic congress to blame, and also cut a deal to go after those loopholes and tax cheats. Bush is working to widen the loopholes and relax regulation for his friends who are tax cheats. Reagan too lied about wars like Iran-Contra. But at least the Democratic congress held his feet to the fire and people were carted off to jail. Bush has a Republican congress that wouldn't dream of doing anything to hurt him.
George W. Bush vs. George H.W. Bush: OK, this has been well documented but lets do a fly by....41 took politically courageous steps to balance the budget, 43 did nothing of the sort. 41 called himself the environmental president, but helped big plotter's continue. 43 calls himself a man of peace, and you know what the results of his "peace" have been. 41 pardoned his aides who might squeal on the aforementioned Iran-Contra, 43 might do that for his own skin as well. 41 pulled out Willie Horton against Mike Dukakais, 43's henchmen pulled out Osama and Saddam on Max Cleland. Both had recessions both are hopelessly rich and out of touch with everyday Americans. Landmark legislation: 41-- Americans with Disability Act , 43-- No Child Left Behind. 'Nuff said.
Add it all up and you've got the worst president ever. One who is more interested in Photo-Ops than achievement, approval ratings than accomplishment, words rather than deeds. History will look back and say, "What in the world were 48.7% of Americans thinking?"
Speaking of presidents, one wannabe just got another big blow. Howard Dean's Campaign Chair Steve Grossman (once head of the MA Democratic Party and failed 2002 Gov candidate) is quitting the campaign. "I have no doubt he'll support the nominee in any way he can, no matter who the nominee is and obviously that nominee looks to be John Kerry," Grossman said in a telephone interview with the Post from Vermont. "He may say that Tuesday night. He may wait until Wednesday or Thursday to say that."
Meanwhile the AFP (via Yahoo! News) is reporting that Dean is getting ready to turn his campaign into a PAC and use it to attack Bush and repair his profile in the party. Guess he isn't planning on winning in Wisconsin either.
Sunday, February 15, 2004
Kerry's reply
I missed it yesterday, but the Sunday talk shows pointed it out Kerry's reply to Bush's internet attack ad with one of his own, pointing out that Bush has taken far more special interest money than anyone else.
True, the point of the Bush ad was to point out Kerry's message vs. reality, but they do it in typical GOP distortion fashion. Don't believe me, check out a non-partisan break down on it all by the FactCheck.org: "Kerry also has reported raising and spending more than $2 million through a separate political organization, the "Citizen Soldier Fund." But even counting that group's special-interest donations still don't bring Kerry's totals close to the Bush campaign's totals in any category." Even in the one area where Kerry has taken money from special interest, paid lobbists, "Bush has reported getting four times more than Kerry in this presidential race."
It's not even close, Bushies. Of course, both of these candidates are throwing bricks from glass houses. It's just that Bush's house is a giant glass mansion, whereas Kerry's is a glass shack.
I missed it yesterday, but the Sunday talk shows pointed it out Kerry's reply to Bush's internet attack ad with one of his own, pointing out that Bush has taken far more special interest money than anyone else.
True, the point of the Bush ad was to point out Kerry's message vs. reality, but they do it in typical GOP distortion fashion. Don't believe me, check out a non-partisan break down on it all by the FactCheck.org: "Kerry also has reported raising and spending more than $2 million through a separate political organization, the "Citizen Soldier Fund." But even counting that group's special-interest donations still don't bring Kerry's totals close to the Bush campaign's totals in any category." Even in the one area where Kerry has taken money from special interest, paid lobbists, "Bush has reported getting four times more than Kerry in this presidential race."
It's not even close, Bushies. Of course, both of these candidates are throwing bricks from glass houses. It's just that Bush's house is a giant glass mansion, whereas Kerry's is a glass shack.
Friday, February 13, 2004
And they're off!
Back to the 2004 Presidential race. Bush has decided that Kerry has already won (as has most of the media and everyone but Howard Dean and John Edwards die hards), so he decided to put out his first direct attack ad (or first ad) that named just one candidate, instead of "Angry Democrats" [aka Howard Dean].
The ad, of course, is online so that he won't have to put his mug on there and say, "My name is George W Bush, and I support this message because..." Don't ask me what his reason for slandering Kerry is, oh wait, "...I want to be re-elected." True, I have made charges of hypocrisy on Kerry's part for starting this message. Here's the solution as I see it: Fire Bob Shrum.
That way, you kill the messenger of this lame message that flopped for Al "the people vs. the powerful" Gore and you make Harold Ickles Jr. happy and that is good for Kerry because he controls about $100 Million that he will spend against Bush between now and the official nomination.
Back to the 2004 Presidential race. Bush has decided that Kerry has already won (as has most of the media and everyone but Howard Dean and John Edwards die hards), so he decided to put out his first direct attack ad (or first ad) that named just one candidate, instead of "Angry Democrats" [aka Howard Dean].
The ad, of course, is online so that he won't have to put his mug on there and say, "My name is George W Bush, and I support this message because..." Don't ask me what his reason for slandering Kerry is, oh wait, "...I want to be re-elected." True, I have made charges of hypocrisy on Kerry's part for starting this message. Here's the solution as I see it: Fire Bob Shrum.
That way, you kill the messenger of this lame message that flopped for Al "the people vs. the powerful" Gore and you make Harold Ickles Jr. happy and that is good for Kerry because he controls about $100 Million that he will spend against Bush between now and the official nomination.
The Morning After
It seems clear to me that the leadership couldn't attract enough votes (101) to pass their bill so they adjourned until March 11th, much to my dismay. In fact the internal state house news says, "Lacking the votes to pass a
constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman only
while authorizing civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, House and
Senate leaders let their proposal wilt without a vote Thursday night.
The move underscored the inability of legislators over two full days to
draft a consensus marriage amendment. After three close votes and endless
behind the scenes negotiations, it became clear that the Legislature is too
divided right now to make progress on any amendment."
In the meantime, we continue to get gems such as these:
"God, very specifically, told Adam and Eve (one man & one woman) to 'be fruitful and multiply.' Two men or two women cannot do that. God did not intend that. Please stand against same sex marriages and please stand up for the Lord and what he tells us to do. Like I tell my children all the time, think about the end results of your actions. America was very fast to pray to God when the tragedies of 9/11 happened. Will God continue to protect us if we continue to ignore his teachings? Maybe so, because he's God, and He loves us no matter what. But, maybe not because he loves us. Tough Love, ya know? Please vote against such a law as licensing gay marriages. Thank you, Dianne Latour, LA "
So are you planning on annulling marriages between infertile or impotent couples? It is ok to be married as long as there is viagra? Calling ex-Sen. Bob Dole Are people like Senator Kerry, who have had prostate cancer and had their "tubes tied" effectively be operations unable to continue to be married? I think not. Marriage is about a lot more than procreation. True that is important, but I feel that with 7 billion or so people on the planet, humans are far from being extinct any time soon.
Marriage is about mutual commitment, love and responsibility between two invididuals that does not, dramatically increase the likelihood of genetic abnormalities due to a kiddie-sized gene pool. This definintion precludes poligomy, beastiality, sibling/parental marriages, marriages between children or adults and children, and so on. There is no slippery slope that some folks talk about. We are never going to have to amend the constition to allow people to marry their animals or multiple partners or whatever.
I would also like to give a shout out to my boss, without naming, of course. Great speech over these last two days. We have already gotten several emails from around the country (Alabama, Pennslyvania, Michigan, New York, and Massachusetts) praising the speech. This is from a man in Alabama:
"I want to thank you for your comments when you addressed your colleagues at approximately XXXX [blacked out to preserve boss' identity]. Your words were very inspiring and I truly appreciated them after hearing so much spin regarding the issue of gay marriage on most of the cable news networks. I felt that you cut through to the essence of the issue. Hearing you speak made me more proud to be a citizen of this nation than I've felt in some time. You are indeed a credit to your district and they should be proud to have you serving them.
Perhaps some day the socio-political climate in this beautiful State I live in will allow for the same level of measured, open-minded, and open-hearted discourse as I witnessed tonight.
Thank you for being a voice of reason, a champion for the dignity and liberty of ALL people. Thank you for holding up a light of hope in a time when the darkness of fear leads some to say that gay marriage threatens the very foundation of our society. It is sadly ironic that an amendment which would enshrine discrimination of any form in the Constitution would in fact threaten the true foundation of our society: the equality of ALL people."
This is from a constituent:
"Dear X,
I just finished watching this evening proceedings at the State House. I wanted to drop you a note to say that I am extremely proud to have you as my X. What you spoke about tonight must have taken serious courage. I would imagine the pressures of local, state and national religious and "family" groups must be very strong, but you have stuck by your convictions and I appreciate that.
I actually have wanted to send you a note many times lately to tell you that I think you have done a wonderful job. I know that I supported Chris in the election, he is a close friend, but you have certainly proven yourself far more than worthy of the position. If there is anything I can do to help you in your future elections please let me know.
One final note; when I moved out to San Diego for graduate school, I received my Master's Degree in Leadership Studies. My favorite professor of Leadership used to say that true leadership is the rubbing up against the defined/standard morals and values of society to bring upon positive change. This is exactly what I heard in your speech tonight. This fight that you have taken on will positively impact many generations of people in our state and country.
Again, I am very proud to have you as my State X. Your leadership has not gone unnoticed.
Bob"
It seems clear to me that the leadership couldn't attract enough votes (101) to pass their bill so they adjourned until March 11th, much to my dismay. In fact the internal state house news says, "Lacking the votes to pass a
constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman only
while authorizing civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, House and
Senate leaders let their proposal wilt without a vote Thursday night.
The move underscored the inability of legislators over two full days to
draft a consensus marriage amendment. After three close votes and endless
behind the scenes negotiations, it became clear that the Legislature is too
divided right now to make progress on any amendment."
In the meantime, we continue to get gems such as these:
"God, very specifically, told Adam and Eve (one man & one woman) to 'be fruitful and multiply.' Two men or two women cannot do that. God did not intend that. Please stand against same sex marriages and please stand up for the Lord and what he tells us to do. Like I tell my children all the time, think about the end results of your actions. America was very fast to pray to God when the tragedies of 9/11 happened. Will God continue to protect us if we continue to ignore his teachings? Maybe so, because he's God, and He loves us no matter what. But, maybe not because he loves us. Tough Love, ya know? Please vote against such a law as licensing gay marriages. Thank you, Dianne Latour, LA "
So are you planning on annulling marriages between infertile or impotent couples? It is ok to be married as long as there is viagra? Calling ex-Sen. Bob Dole Are people like Senator Kerry, who have had prostate cancer and had their "tubes tied" effectively be operations unable to continue to be married? I think not. Marriage is about a lot more than procreation. True that is important, but I feel that with 7 billion or so people on the planet, humans are far from being extinct any time soon.
Marriage is about mutual commitment, love and responsibility between two invididuals that does not, dramatically increase the likelihood of genetic abnormalities due to a kiddie-sized gene pool. This definintion precludes poligomy, beastiality, sibling/parental marriages, marriages between children or adults and children, and so on. There is no slippery slope that some folks talk about. We are never going to have to amend the constition to allow people to marry their animals or multiple partners or whatever.
I would also like to give a shout out to my boss, without naming, of course. Great speech over these last two days. We have already gotten several emails from around the country (Alabama, Pennslyvania, Michigan, New York, and Massachusetts) praising the speech. This is from a man in Alabama:
"I want to thank you for your comments when you addressed your colleagues at approximately XXXX [blacked out to preserve boss' identity]. Your words were very inspiring and I truly appreciated them after hearing so much spin regarding the issue of gay marriage on most of the cable news networks. I felt that you cut through to the essence of the issue. Hearing you speak made me more proud to be a citizen of this nation than I've felt in some time. You are indeed a credit to your district and they should be proud to have you serving them.
Perhaps some day the socio-political climate in this beautiful State I live in will allow for the same level of measured, open-minded, and open-hearted discourse as I witnessed tonight.
Thank you for being a voice of reason, a champion for the dignity and liberty of ALL people. Thank you for holding up a light of hope in a time when the darkness of fear leads some to say that gay marriage threatens the very foundation of our society. It is sadly ironic that an amendment which would enshrine discrimination of any form in the Constitution would in fact threaten the true foundation of our society: the equality of ALL people."
This is from a constituent:
"Dear X,
I just finished watching this evening proceedings at the State House. I wanted to drop you a note to say that I am extremely proud to have you as my X. What you spoke about tonight must have taken serious courage. I would imagine the pressures of local, state and national religious and "family" groups must be very strong, but you have stuck by your convictions and I appreciate that.
I actually have wanted to send you a note many times lately to tell you that I think you have done a wonderful job. I know that I supported Chris in the election, he is a close friend, but you have certainly proven yourself far more than worthy of the position. If there is anything I can do to help you in your future elections please let me know.
One final note; when I moved out to San Diego for graduate school, I received my Master's Degree in Leadership Studies. My favorite professor of Leadership used to say that true leadership is the rubbing up against the defined/standard morals and values of society to bring upon positive change. This is exactly what I heard in your speech tonight. This fight that you have taken on will positively impact many generations of people in our state and country.
Again, I am very proud to have you as my State X. Your leadership has not gone unnoticed.
Bob"
Thursday, February 12, 2004
I think this is going to be an even more narrow vote than before. Some folks in the gallery are getting antsy. I tell you, there were hundreds of pro-gay marriage and anti-gay marriage, and dozens of members of the press from around the globe all surrounding the house floor like an armed camp. This is history folks. They will burn the midnight oil folks.
I am hoping that the amendment fails but I think the leadership won't let them go until they approve at least one amendment. The pro-DOMA folks are chanting "We want to vote!" out side so loudly that they shut the door and may have to call in the gestpo dressed state troopers to move poeple or remove them (one trooper got out her camera to take a picture of these historic protests).
I am hoping that the amendment fails but I think the leadership won't let them go until they approve at least one amendment. The pro-DOMA folks are chanting "We want to vote!" out side so loudly that they shut the door and may have to call in the gestpo dressed state troopers to move poeple or remove them (one trooper got out her camera to take a picture of these historic protests).
Took my boss' advice
I am home now, after I saw my boss and her colleagues meeting in hearing rooms to caucus about the third compromise "Finneran-Rodgers-Travaglini-Leeds-O'Flaherty" amendment. I think Andrew Bayer is correct that they don't have a good hard whip count on this latest bill, and members don't feel comfy voting for it since they have never laid eyes on it.
Stay tuned with me as we go back live at 10:05 EST.
I am home now, after I saw my boss and her colleagues meeting in hearing rooms to caucus about the third compromise "Finneran-Rodgers-Travaglini-Leeds-O'Flaherty" amendment. I think Andrew Bayer is correct that they don't have a good hard whip count on this latest bill, and members don't feel comfy voting for it since they have never laid eyes on it.
Stay tuned with me as we go back live at 10:05 EST.
More funny business
Andrew Bayer makes a good observation: "Travaglini just tried to adjourn the Constitutional Convention until March 10th. Seriously. It's looking like his attempt is going to fail and they're going to go past 9. Gotta think they don't have the votes to pass the amendment yet..."
I have no clue about their whip system. But it seems like they have no clue. There are loud cheers again coming from the Great Hall, where gay rights folks are watching it on TV.
Andrew Bayer makes a good observation: "Travaglini just tried to adjourn the Constitutional Convention until March 10th. Seriously. It's looking like his attempt is going to fail and they're going to go past 9. Gotta think they don't have the votes to pass the amendment yet..."
I have no clue about their whip system. But it seems like they have no clue. There are loud cheers again coming from the Great Hall, where gay rights folks are watching it on TV.
Third time's the charm?
This new one seems to be more likely to pass...All the votes have been so damn close. This one allows for all the rights except the right to call a same-sex union a marriage. No one knows hows it is going to go.
If they can't get it done tonight, then they will start back up on the 23rd! That's right they take the week off for MA winter school vaction for more arm twisting. I too am holding my breath.
This new one seems to be more likely to pass...All the votes have been so damn close. This one allows for all the rights except the right to call a same-sex union a marriage. No one knows hows it is going to go.
If they can't get it done tonight, then they will start back up on the 23rd! That's right they take the week off for MA winter school vaction for more arm twisting. I too am holding my breath.
While you are waiting for the next vote
I walked up to the Members' Lounge, and the scene was amazing. Hundreds of people, gay and straight, crowded around with their signs and stickers while some sang "God Bless America" (before that they sang My Country Tis of Thee, the Star Spangled Banner, and America the Beautiful).
I entered into the Lounge and said hello to Representative Walsh, who gave his first ever speech on the House floor today. It was a pretty good one, so I congradulated him. It looks like the Senate and House leadership just offered their next compromise admendment. Stay Tuned.
I walked up to the Members' Lounge, and the scene was amazing. Hundreds of people, gay and straight, crowded around with their signs and stickers while some sang "God Bless America" (before that they sang My Country Tis of Thee, the Star Spangled Banner, and America the Beautiful).
I entered into the Lounge and said hello to Representative Walsh, who gave his first ever speech on the House floor today. It was a pretty good one, so I congradulated him. It looks like the Senate and House leadership just offered their next compromise admendment. Stay Tuned.
Sample Email
Dear Honorable Dignities:
What happened to the world? Are they getting stupid or crazy?
Even the Animals, Birds & Fish know that their mates are from the opposite sex. Males and females they are created and this is the only way to get together. This is the only way to multiplicate on earth. Otherwise is from the lust of the hearts. Are we going to change the nature just to please the minorities whose hearts full of dirty lust?
Hope you dear friends in authority do not let this to happen.
Your good citizen,
Mansour Boutros
Dear Honorable Dignities:
What happened to the world? Are they getting stupid or crazy?
Even the Animals, Birds & Fish know that their mates are from the opposite sex. Males and females they are created and this is the only way to get together. This is the only way to multiplicate on earth. Otherwise is from the lust of the hearts. Are we going to change the nature just to please the minorities whose hearts full of dirty lust?
Hope you dear friends in authority do not let this to happen.
Your good citizen,
Mansour Boutros
Suddenly, I am famous
To you ten normal readers, thanks. For those pointed here by Altrios or BOPNews, welcome.
UPDATE: The Travis amendment, the primary DOMA bill that started this whole mess, lost 96-103. [my boss voted no]
The gay rights supporters in the Great Hall are cheering wildly. And I am happy too, because I don't think intolerance and bigotry should be inshrined in the MA constitution. Plus, I am happy because I just snuck up to the Members' lounge and got some food. I had some pasta, salad, and an eclair, if you are curious.
Another blogger, Andrew Bayer is blogging based on what he is seeing on TV. I am glad he too is covering this and pointing to my site. Excellant coverage. I can't post as often becuase I have to answer the phone and all the bigoted emails. If people are curious, I can post some of them.
To you ten normal readers, thanks. For those pointed here by Altrios or BOPNews, welcome.
UPDATE: The Travis amendment, the primary DOMA bill that started this whole mess, lost 96-103. [my boss voted no]
The gay rights supporters in the Great Hall are cheering wildly. And I am happy too, because I don't think intolerance and bigotry should be inshrined in the MA constitution. Plus, I am happy because I just snuck up to the Members' lounge and got some food. I had some pasta, salad, and an eclair, if you are curious.
Another blogger, Andrew Bayer is blogging based on what he is seeing on TV. I am glad he too is covering this and pointing to my site. Excellant coverage. I can't post as often becuase I have to answer the phone and all the bigoted emails. If people are curious, I can post some of them.
A Point of Parliamentary Inquiry
This is the way MA lawmakers get to interrupt speakers debating the same-sex marriage issue. And my question is, why is Tom Finneran considered a leader? For years, he wouldn't let Civil Unions come up for a vote. He basically forced the hand of the SJC in the Goodridge case. He pulled a parliamentary stunt to get his amendment heard first, and it failed. Later last night, he gaveled the session over for the day despite clearly losing a voice vote on adjournment.
Now, this supposedly polite and proper debate is getting nastier and nastier. St Rep. Marie Parente (D) was droning on and on about her background as a foster kid and Italian American and how she isn't "anti-color" which a assume means racist in 1930s English. I learned one thing from her, however, appearantly the word "Nasty" comes from Thomas Nast's anti-Catholic political cartoons. Speaker Finneran tried to interrupt her to adjourn "briefly" but she talked right through him several times, stating that lawyers briefs were anything but. Then Finneran just turned off her microphone and gaveled the session adjourned to get rid of her.
Next, the members and Senators will be meeting behind closed doors to see the first glimpses of the latest "compromise" bill, which is a compromise between Finneran and Travaglini I guess, since nobody else has any clue what it in it. It is an all out effort to prevent Rep. Travis' amendment from making it to the floor.
After all, this is a guy that complained about "white slaves" in his speech today. But the best speech of today was Sen. Barrios, who told a personal tale of how his son got sick (104.5 degree fever) once and he couldn't take him to the hospital, because the papers had his partner listed as the parent and not him. He spoke eloquently and, in my view persuasively, about how a DOMA would, in fact preclude any civil marriages.
He cited California, and Pennsylvania, and Georgia and on and on. He explained that over and over again, those who pushed DOMAs, and who at the time promised that this wouldn't prevent civil unions or any rights for same-sex couples. Yet, after such DOMAs passed, they actively fought in the state courts to prevent such unions or rights and won. So either real civil unions now, or full gay marriage, or full ban on all gay unions, there are no real other options. In my view, only the first two are remotely palatable.
This is the way MA lawmakers get to interrupt speakers debating the same-sex marriage issue. And my question is, why is Tom Finneran considered a leader? For years, he wouldn't let Civil Unions come up for a vote. He basically forced the hand of the SJC in the Goodridge case. He pulled a parliamentary stunt to get his amendment heard first, and it failed. Later last night, he gaveled the session over for the day despite clearly losing a voice vote on adjournment.
Now, this supposedly polite and proper debate is getting nastier and nastier. St Rep. Marie Parente (D) was droning on and on about her background as a foster kid and Italian American and how she isn't "anti-color" which a assume means racist in 1930s English. I learned one thing from her, however, appearantly the word "Nasty" comes from Thomas Nast's anti-Catholic political cartoons. Speaker Finneran tried to interrupt her to adjourn "briefly" but she talked right through him several times, stating that lawyers briefs were anything but. Then Finneran just turned off her microphone and gaveled the session adjourned to get rid of her.
Next, the members and Senators will be meeting behind closed doors to see the first glimpses of the latest "compromise" bill, which is a compromise between Finneran and Travaglini I guess, since nobody else has any clue what it in it. It is an all out effort to prevent Rep. Travis' amendment from making it to the floor.
After all, this is a guy that complained about "white slaves" in his speech today. But the best speech of today was Sen. Barrios, who told a personal tale of how his son got sick (104.5 degree fever) once and he couldn't take him to the hospital, because the papers had his partner listed as the parent and not him. He spoke eloquently and, in my view persuasively, about how a DOMA would, in fact preclude any civil marriages.
He cited California, and Pennsylvania, and Georgia and on and on. He explained that over and over again, those who pushed DOMAs, and who at the time promised that this wouldn't prevent civil unions or any rights for same-sex couples. Yet, after such DOMAs passed, they actively fought in the state courts to prevent such unions or rights and won. So either real civil unions now, or full gay marriage, or full ban on all gay unions, there are no real other options. In my view, only the first two are remotely palatable.
Day 2
Last night, something amazing happened: MA state lawmakers voted twice against their leadership. The final vote, a compromise measure by Senate President Travaglini and the Miniority Leader Leeds, failed 104-94 (101 needed to pass).
The first vote on Speaker Finneran's amendment was even closer, 100-98. But his crafty maneuvering is what spelled this measures doom (that and the patently flimsy promise of civil unions). "Do not be seduced by this piece of paper," said Representative Michael E. Festa, a Melrose Democrat. "We throw them not even a fig leaf. We throw them half a piece of paper, and say, `Trust us.' "
Now, the leadership thinks that it has another solution. No not letting the members vote on its own bills and amendments, but another one of their own. The Globe's Rick Klein reports that "Last night, Finneran allies began drafting several new approaches. The one most likely to emerge early in proceedings today was drafted by one of Finneran's top deputies, House Ways and Means Committee chairman John H. Rogers.
The Rogers amendment would ban gay marriage and establish civil unions, though it would not explicitly identify as many rights and benefits as the Travaglini approach." I am betting on another thumbs down.
The atmosphere in there is tense. The building is besieged by two diametrically opposed interests, with Christian conservatives praying for the souls of pieced homosexuals. The press have set up their own den outside the house floor and now I get a sense of what it must have been like to live in Vicksburg, MS during the Civil War. The members lounged was filled with gossiping members and catered food.
One plan, which was somewhat foiled, was that the liberals would vote for the Travaglini amendment to go to 3rd reading (where, true to form, they don't actually read it) at which point they would vote against it to have NO constitutional amendment on gay marriage and the court ruling would be in full force. The bill failed to make it to 3rd reading, and despite members interest to hear openly gay Senator Jarret Barrios' amendment or the original Representative Travis DOMA (both Democrats believe it or not). Members spoke emotionally, although I wouldn't necessarily say eloquently. For my taste, there were too many citations of JFK, RFK, MLK, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and Lincoln. Better were cases when Afro-American members got up and spoke about their first hand experiences of being discriminated against and being second class citizens. It is much better than a white Jewish woman from the wealthy suburbs of Newton talking about the historical persecution of Jews. True, it did happen and 6 million murdered was beyond words (that's why they call it The Holocaust), but it is not comparable.
The speaker and the senate president conspired to stop the proceedings last night after their amendments failed. We start all over at high noon today. Stay tuned for more posts as I can make them.
Last night, something amazing happened: MA state lawmakers voted twice against their leadership. The final vote, a compromise measure by Senate President Travaglini and the Miniority Leader Leeds, failed 104-94 (101 needed to pass).
The first vote on Speaker Finneran's amendment was even closer, 100-98. But his crafty maneuvering is what spelled this measures doom (that and the patently flimsy promise of civil unions). "Do not be seduced by this piece of paper," said Representative Michael E. Festa, a Melrose Democrat. "We throw them not even a fig leaf. We throw them half a piece of paper, and say, `Trust us.' "
Now, the leadership thinks that it has another solution. No not letting the members vote on its own bills and amendments, but another one of their own. The Globe's Rick Klein reports that "Last night, Finneran allies began drafting several new approaches. The one most likely to emerge early in proceedings today was drafted by one of Finneran's top deputies, House Ways and Means Committee chairman John H. Rogers.
The Rogers amendment would ban gay marriage and establish civil unions, though it would not explicitly identify as many rights and benefits as the Travaglini approach." I am betting on another thumbs down.
The atmosphere in there is tense. The building is besieged by two diametrically opposed interests, with Christian conservatives praying for the souls of pieced homosexuals. The press have set up their own den outside the house floor and now I get a sense of what it must have been like to live in Vicksburg, MS during the Civil War. The members lounged was filled with gossiping members and catered food.
One plan, which was somewhat foiled, was that the liberals would vote for the Travaglini amendment to go to 3rd reading (where, true to form, they don't actually read it) at which point they would vote against it to have NO constitutional amendment on gay marriage and the court ruling would be in full force. The bill failed to make it to 3rd reading, and despite members interest to hear openly gay Senator Jarret Barrios' amendment or the original Representative Travis DOMA (both Democrats believe it or not). Members spoke emotionally, although I wouldn't necessarily say eloquently. For my taste, there were too many citations of JFK, RFK, MLK, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and Lincoln. Better were cases when Afro-American members got up and spoke about their first hand experiences of being discriminated against and being second class citizens. It is much better than a white Jewish woman from the wealthy suburbs of Newton talking about the historical persecution of Jews. True, it did happen and 6 million murdered was beyond words (that's why they call it The Holocaust), but it is not comparable.
The speaker and the senate president conspired to stop the proceedings last night after their amendments failed. We start all over at high noon today. Stay tuned for more posts as I can make them.
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Closed Curcuit
Finneran has tried a terrible stunt to short curcuit the long proceedings. While the Senate 's Bipartisan compromise bill was supposed to be introduced and speak, the Speaker basically cut in line and introduced his first.
The effect? If his admendment passes (which would try to stall the issuing of marriage licenses and then never make civil unions available) no one could vote on the Senate bill. This is the worst move I have ever seen, in full view of the entire gallery and the 198 other members of the MA General Court (state legislature). I sure hope he not only loses this vote but also loses his power. All the parlimentary manuvers in the world can't disquise the fact that you are a horrible, lying human being. Go ahead, fire me, Tommy boy.
Finneran has tried a terrible stunt to short curcuit the long proceedings. While the Senate 's Bipartisan compromise bill was supposed to be introduced and speak, the Speaker basically cut in line and introduced his first.
The effect? If his admendment passes (which would try to stall the issuing of marriage licenses and then never make civil unions available) no one could vote on the Senate bill. This is the worst move I have ever seen, in full view of the entire gallery and the 198 other members of the MA General Court (state legislature). I sure hope he not only loses this vote but also loses his power. All the parlimentary manuvers in the world can't disquise the fact that you are a horrible, lying human being. Go ahead, fire me, Tommy boy.
Profiles in Courage
If JFK's ghost writer Ted Sorenson had was still penning that famous book, he might just have to add a chapter on the Massachusetts State Legislators, finally.
In fact, In an indication of the anger and emotion at the State House, State Rep. Charles Murphy (D), who has been critical of House leadership, called on MA House Speaker Thomas Finneran (D) to resign. Murphy blamed Finneran for failing over the years to allow floor votes on civil union and domestic partnership bills pushed by gay rights advocates. Murphy said the court case that led to the SJC decision might have never occurred had the House worked with the Senate on gay rights legislation.
"Tom Finneran has gotten us into another constitutional crisis," Murphy
said. "He's been sitting on this. He's an embarrassment. And I think, quite frankly, Tom Finneran should resign. I am not happy with his leadership. We need new leadership in this House. I'm pissed. I'm tired of it." Finneran, who is known for his ruthless wielding of power, was not immediately available to comment.
While it is true that the legislature has punted serveral times on the issue while Goodridge was being decided, they agreed to face the music today.
The vote will be close. No one knows how it will come out, although it might be likely that a ban on gay marriages is directly tied to approving civil unions in the constitution. Although the leadership wants this, the far right and far left and working overtime to kil it.
“This hurts us,” said Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay
and Lesbian Political Caucus. She worried the amendment would undercut
support for same-sex marriage by offering lawmakers an alternative that
appears to be equitable to gays and lesbians. MA Senate President Travaglini (D) said it is equivalent in the rights it confers. Isaacson told the State House News that civil unions offer 1,000 fewer benefits – for example hospital visitation rights in other states. MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) and other opponents of gay marriage have said they oppose enshrining civil unions in the state Constitution.
After hundreds of calls and letters, my boss decided to stick to her conscience and not bow to the whims of those who had called and written to threaten her political life. The more calls I get from people detesting "fudge packers," the more I am inclined to agree with my boss and not let the people vote on this issue in 2006. Clearly, gay and lesbians are in the minority. And while Massachusetts has a liberal reputation, the Catholic church is working overtime to defeat this bill.
Speaking of votes, political lives and so on, my dream candidate, General Wesley Kanne Clark (Retired), is appearantly bowing out of the race today after finishing distant third in Virgina and a more narrow third in Tennesse. Kerry, of course, won both states handily
It all leaves me extremely sad and wondering what went so wrong? I think Clark has the answer: "I wish I had, too. Everything might have been different" -- Clark, in response to a supporter who said he should have competed in IA. It was all about momentum. No one knows much about Kerry, except he served in Vietnam and vowed to be tough. His special interests Bob Shrum speech isn't doing it. It is the fact that he won IA from behind, and then didn't lose until OK and SC, but then won all the rest. He is seen as a winner because he has won primaries and caucus, not because he is actually electable. It would have worked about the same way for Edwards and maybe even Dean (although I think the South won't have been as kind to him).
Another trouble with Clark is that he was a mix of Kerry, Edwards, and Dean; all the good parts in my opinion. But unfortunately, he wasn't polished and although he got better towards the end, the mistakes in the fall cost him dearly. Clark could really differentiate himself from Dean, but when the race flipped on its head, he had no contrast for Kerry, no way of winning back. The same could be said of Edwards, Lieberman and so on. That inability to turn on a dime sunk him. Clark's best time was December, his worst obviously, was February 10th.
If JFK's ghost writer Ted Sorenson had was still penning that famous book, he might just have to add a chapter on the Massachusetts State Legislators, finally.
In fact, In an indication of the anger and emotion at the State House, State Rep. Charles Murphy (D), who has been critical of House leadership, called on MA House Speaker Thomas Finneran (D) to resign. Murphy blamed Finneran for failing over the years to allow floor votes on civil union and domestic partnership bills pushed by gay rights advocates. Murphy said the court case that led to the SJC decision might have never occurred had the House worked with the Senate on gay rights legislation.
"Tom Finneran has gotten us into another constitutional crisis," Murphy
said. "He's been sitting on this. He's an embarrassment. And I think, quite frankly, Tom Finneran should resign. I am not happy with his leadership. We need new leadership in this House. I'm pissed. I'm tired of it." Finneran, who is known for his ruthless wielding of power, was not immediately available to comment.
While it is true that the legislature has punted serveral times on the issue while Goodridge was being decided, they agreed to face the music today.
The vote will be close. No one knows how it will come out, although it might be likely that a ban on gay marriages is directly tied to approving civil unions in the constitution. Although the leadership wants this, the far right and far left and working overtime to kil it.
“This hurts us,” said Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay
and Lesbian Political Caucus. She worried the amendment would undercut
support for same-sex marriage by offering lawmakers an alternative that
appears to be equitable to gays and lesbians. MA Senate President Travaglini (D) said it is equivalent in the rights it confers. Isaacson told the State House News that civil unions offer 1,000 fewer benefits – for example hospital visitation rights in other states. MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) and other opponents of gay marriage have said they oppose enshrining civil unions in the state Constitution.
After hundreds of calls and letters, my boss decided to stick to her conscience and not bow to the whims of those who had called and written to threaten her political life. The more calls I get from people detesting "fudge packers," the more I am inclined to agree with my boss and not let the people vote on this issue in 2006. Clearly, gay and lesbians are in the minority. And while Massachusetts has a liberal reputation, the Catholic church is working overtime to defeat this bill.
Speaking of votes, political lives and so on, my dream candidate, General Wesley Kanne Clark (Retired), is appearantly bowing out of the race today after finishing distant third in Virgina and a more narrow third in Tennesse. Kerry, of course, won both states handily
It all leaves me extremely sad and wondering what went so wrong? I think Clark has the answer: "I wish I had, too. Everything might have been different" -- Clark, in response to a supporter who said he should have competed in IA. It was all about momentum. No one knows much about Kerry, except he served in Vietnam and vowed to be tough. His special interests Bob Shrum speech isn't doing it. It is the fact that he won IA from behind, and then didn't lose until OK and SC, but then won all the rest. He is seen as a winner because he has won primaries and caucus, not because he is actually electable. It would have worked about the same way for Edwards and maybe even Dean (although I think the South won't have been as kind to him).
Another trouble with Clark is that he was a mix of Kerry, Edwards, and Dean; all the good parts in my opinion. But unfortunately, he wasn't polished and although he got better towards the end, the mistakes in the fall cost him dearly. Clark could really differentiate himself from Dean, but when the race flipped on its head, he had no contrast for Kerry, no way of winning back. The same could be said of Edwards, Lieberman and so on. That inability to turn on a dime sunk him. Clark's best time was December, his worst obviously, was February 10th.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
12 PM Exits: Kerry crusin'
According to Daily Kos, here are the results from TN and VA:
Tennessee
Kerry 46
Edwards 28
Clark 15
Dean 7
Virginia
Kerry 48
Edwards 25
Clark 11
Dean 8
Doesn't look good for Clark. Will he drop out before Wisconsin? Seemed like he said he wouldn't. Dean also decided not to drop out if he loses Wisconsin (where he is currently in 4th place and 38% of primary voters say he is the nominee they DON'T want). But at least Clark won a state and has picked up 80+ delagates since NH. Dean will look like a sore loser if he stays in too long. He is not going win any states on Super Tuesday.
So will it be Edwards vs. Kerry soon? It really seems more and more that Edwards is content to be VP. There are sightings of Edwards folks watching Kerry on TV and cheering and vice versa.
According to Daily Kos, here are the results from TN and VA:
Tennessee
Kerry 46
Edwards 28
Clark 15
Dean 7
Virginia
Kerry 48
Edwards 25
Clark 11
Dean 8
Doesn't look good for Clark. Will he drop out before Wisconsin? Seemed like he said he wouldn't. Dean also decided not to drop out if he loses Wisconsin (where he is currently in 4th place and 38% of primary voters say he is the nominee they DON'T want). But at least Clark won a state and has picked up 80+ delagates since NH. Dean will look like a sore loser if he stays in too long. He is not going win any states on Super Tuesday.
So will it be Edwards vs. Kerry soon? It really seems more and more that Edwards is content to be VP. There are sightings of Edwards folks watching Kerry on TV and cheering and vice versa.
Gay Marriage issue brings out the best in folks
Quote of the Day: "This civil rights thing isn't for them [gay and lesbian people], it's for race people." --Barbara Monroe of Framingham, Mass.
By "Race People" I assume she means African-Americans, although who knows. Mrs. Monroe continues, "I mean, even the animals have more sense than some people! A male dog doesn't just jump another male dog." Again, I am not sure if dogs have homosexuality, but chimpanzees do, as do giraffes and other animals. So it is not like it is completely unique to humans and some tormented person.
Quote of the Day: "This civil rights thing isn't for them [gay and lesbian people], it's for race people." --Barbara Monroe of Framingham, Mass.
By "Race People" I assume she means African-Americans, although who knows. Mrs. Monroe continues, "I mean, even the animals have more sense than some people! A male dog doesn't just jump another male dog." Again, I am not sure if dogs have homosexuality, but chimpanzees do, as do giraffes and other animals. So it is not like it is completely unique to humans and some tormented person.
The Return of Al Gore and why he turned Dean
This weekend, Al Gore addressed his fellow Tennessee Democrats at an J-J Dinner (Jefferson-Jackson) which brought the crowd to their feet several times, and as Slate's Chris Suellentrop remarks, had the spirit of '76-- 1976.
"We have seen an administration which in my view more closely resembles the Nixon-Agnew administration than any other previous administration," he said. "There's a reason I say that. I don't offer that as simply a casual slur." The crowd laughed. "I'm not above a casual slur," Gore added, in what Suellentrop calls a "mind you tone," to more chuckles. "But I'm biased, I didn't vote for the guy." A man calls out, "Neither did America!" To which Gore responds, "Well, there is that."
Gore continued: "But here's the reason I say that President George W. Bush reminds me more of former President Richard Nixon than any of his other predecessors. Nixon was no more committed to principle than the man in the moon. He, as a conservative Republican, imposed wage and price controls. Hard to believe in this day and time. But he did. And he cared as little about what it meant to be really conservative as George W. Bush has cared in imposing $550 billion budget deficits and trillions in additions to the national debt. That has nothing to do with conservatism and everything to do with his effort to get re-elected!"
Gore talked about how he had said that Bush was "Commander in Chief" in September 2001, and how he had hoped Dubya would lead us after 9-11. "And the reason I'm recalling those feelings now is because those are the feelings that were betrayed by this president! He betrayed this country! He played on our fears! He took America, he took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure that was preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place!" Gore closed with his father's line from 1970, when Senior lost his senate seat: "And so I say to you in closing my friends, in the year of 2004, the truth shall rise again!"
Even Conservatives like Andrew Sullivan are mad as hell about Bush's lies and misdeeds, in particular on the budget and his weak Meet the Press appearance on Sunday: "it is undeniable that this president is not on top of the most damaging part of his legacy--the catastrophe he is inflicting on our future fiscal health."
His conclusion? "I'm not one of those who believes that a good president has to have the debating skills of a Tony Blair or the rhetorical facility of Bill Clinton. I cannot help liking the president as a person. I still believe he did a great and important thing in liberating Iraq (although we have much, much more to do). But, if this is the level of coherence, grasp of reality, and honesty that is really at work in his understanding of domestic fiscal policy, then we are in even worse trouble than we thought. We have a captain on the fiscal Titanic who thinks he's in the Caribbean."
Personally, I hope this captain goes down with his ship.
This weekend, Al Gore addressed his fellow Tennessee Democrats at an J-J Dinner (Jefferson-Jackson) which brought the crowd to their feet several times, and as Slate's Chris Suellentrop remarks, had the spirit of '76-- 1976.
"We have seen an administration which in my view more closely resembles the Nixon-Agnew administration than any other previous administration," he said. "There's a reason I say that. I don't offer that as simply a casual slur." The crowd laughed. "I'm not above a casual slur," Gore added, in what Suellentrop calls a "mind you tone," to more chuckles. "But I'm biased, I didn't vote for the guy." A man calls out, "Neither did America!" To which Gore responds, "Well, there is that."
Gore continued: "But here's the reason I say that President George W. Bush reminds me more of former President Richard Nixon than any of his other predecessors. Nixon was no more committed to principle than the man in the moon. He, as a conservative Republican, imposed wage and price controls. Hard to believe in this day and time. But he did. And he cared as little about what it meant to be really conservative as George W. Bush has cared in imposing $550 billion budget deficits and trillions in additions to the national debt. That has nothing to do with conservatism and everything to do with his effort to get re-elected!"
Gore talked about how he had said that Bush was "Commander in Chief" in September 2001, and how he had hoped Dubya would lead us after 9-11. "And the reason I'm recalling those feelings now is because those are the feelings that were betrayed by this president! He betrayed this country! He played on our fears! He took America, he took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure that was preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place!" Gore closed with his father's line from 1970, when Senior lost his senate seat: "And so I say to you in closing my friends, in the year of 2004, the truth shall rise again!"
Even Conservatives like Andrew Sullivan are mad as hell about Bush's lies and misdeeds, in particular on the budget and his weak Meet the Press appearance on Sunday: "it is undeniable that this president is not on top of the most damaging part of his legacy--the catastrophe he is inflicting on our future fiscal health."
His conclusion? "I'm not one of those who believes that a good president has to have the debating skills of a Tony Blair or the rhetorical facility of Bill Clinton. I cannot help liking the president as a person. I still believe he did a great and important thing in liberating Iraq (although we have much, much more to do). But, if this is the level of coherence, grasp of reality, and honesty that is really at work in his understanding of domestic fiscal policy, then we are in even worse trouble than we thought. We have a captain on the fiscal Titanic who thinks he's in the Caribbean."
Personally, I hope this captain goes down with his ship.
Monday, February 09, 2004
John Kerry, hypocrite
Remember how Kerry is running against special interests and the little guy? When federal lawmakers "could be paid for speaking to outside groups," Kerry collected more than $120K in fees "from interests as diverse as big oil, tobacco, the liquor lobby and unions." Between '85 and '90, Kerry "pocketed annual amounts slightly under the limits for speaking fees set by Congress," and "unlike many colleagues, he donated a speaking fee to charity only once." This coming from a man who is worth millions.
Metalbanc paid Kerry $1K for speaking in '87 and was later indicted on charges "it helped the Cali drug cartel in Colombia launder money" in the U.S. When he spoke, Kerry was chair of the Senate subcmte that investigated drug trafficking and money laundering. On the trail, he "sharply criticizes special interest money and big oil companies," but he "earned handsomely from some of Washington's most famous lobbies as well as corporate America." NAM spokesperson Laura Brown Narvaiz: "It certainly didn't seem to influence his voting record. I don't think he voted in favor of our positions very many times" (Solomon/Khumar, AP, 2/9).
His opponents, according to Howard Fineman "will undoubtedly focus on family financial transactions. One such deal involves the conversion and sale in 2002 of up to a million dollars of stock in Ingersoll-Rand." The sale, "netting" from $100K to $200K, of a company whose "balance sheet was boosted by its decision to move its headquarters offshore to Bermuda." One of Kerry's "best applause lines is his pledge to end tax breaks for what he calls 'Benedict Arnold' firms that move offshore." Kerry spokesperson Michael Meehan said the sale was made by professional mgrs of Teresa Heinz Kerry's trust and Kerry "wasn't even aware of it" (Fineman/Isikoff, Newsweek, 2/16 issue).
Remember how Kerry is running against special interests and the little guy? When federal lawmakers "could be paid for speaking to outside groups," Kerry collected more than $120K in fees "from interests as diverse as big oil, tobacco, the liquor lobby and unions." Between '85 and '90, Kerry "pocketed annual amounts slightly under the limits for speaking fees set by Congress," and "unlike many colleagues, he donated a speaking fee to charity only once." This coming from a man who is worth millions.
Metalbanc paid Kerry $1K for speaking in '87 and was later indicted on charges "it helped the Cali drug cartel in Colombia launder money" in the U.S. When he spoke, Kerry was chair of the Senate subcmte that investigated drug trafficking and money laundering. On the trail, he "sharply criticizes special interest money and big oil companies," but he "earned handsomely from some of Washington's most famous lobbies as well as corporate America." NAM spokesperson Laura Brown Narvaiz: "It certainly didn't seem to influence his voting record. I don't think he voted in favor of our positions very many times" (Solomon/Khumar, AP, 2/9).
His opponents, according to Howard Fineman "will undoubtedly focus on family financial transactions. One such deal involves the conversion and sale in 2002 of up to a million dollars of stock in Ingersoll-Rand." The sale, "netting" from $100K to $200K, of a company whose "balance sheet was boosted by its decision to move its headquarters offshore to Bermuda." One of Kerry's "best applause lines is his pledge to end tax breaks for what he calls 'Benedict Arnold' firms that move offshore." Kerry spokesperson Michael Meehan said the sale was made by professional mgrs of Teresa Heinz Kerry's trust and Kerry "wasn't even aware of it" (Fineman/Isikoff, Newsweek, 2/16 issue).
The Calm before the Storm
Wesley Clark and John Edwards' last stand is tomorrow. Unless one or both of them win big, they are both going to have to drop out in all probability on Wednesday.
With Kerry's continuing streak of big wins over the weekend in Michigan, Washington and Maine isn't looking damn near impossible for Clark or Edwards to win either TN or VA, let alone WI or other states down the road.
The MSNBC/Zogby poll doesn't look good for anyone but John Kerry: in VA, he has 47%; John Edwards 24%; Wesley Clark 11%; and Howard Dean 10%. The TN poll shows Kerry with 45% support; Edwards 21%; Clark 19%; Dean 5%.
So now onto something more interesting: Gay Marriage
The vote of a political lifetime for MA State legislators is going to happen in two days. According to an unofficial tally by an AP reporter, who had only gotten half way through the calling by Friday, the score is 40 some for banning gay marriage, 50 some against the amendment to ban gay marriage and 10 undecided. The amendment needs 101 votes out of the 199 current members and senators (one Vacancy in the senate) meeting on Wednesday to pass but 2/3rds majority to get on the calendar to be voted on. Look for them to try to keep it off the calendar, and if that fails, then who knows what will happen.
I think the courts have already decided this. Because even if they vote this amendment in, then next year they need to do the same thing, and then in 2006 the voters need to pass it. So we could have gay people marry in May, and be forcibly divorced 2 years later. Sounds anti-family to me. The winning way to spin this is to say "I am pro-family and pro-marriage. I am glad that these people want to take the responsibilities of commitment. I want all kinds of families and marriages to work, I think we should not be tearing families apart because of sexual orientation. What is really hurting marriage are these reality TV shows, drive thru weddings, and Hollywood foibles." Some think we should abolish marriage all together to solve the problem.
Wesley Clark and John Edwards' last stand is tomorrow. Unless one or both of them win big, they are both going to have to drop out in all probability on Wednesday.
With Kerry's continuing streak of big wins over the weekend in Michigan, Washington and Maine isn't looking damn near impossible for Clark or Edwards to win either TN or VA, let alone WI or other states down the road.
The MSNBC/Zogby poll doesn't look good for anyone but John Kerry: in VA, he has 47%; John Edwards 24%; Wesley Clark 11%; and Howard Dean 10%. The TN poll shows Kerry with 45% support; Edwards 21%; Clark 19%; Dean 5%.
So now onto something more interesting: Gay Marriage
The vote of a political lifetime for MA State legislators is going to happen in two days. According to an unofficial tally by an AP reporter, who had only gotten half way through the calling by Friday, the score is 40 some for banning gay marriage, 50 some against the amendment to ban gay marriage and 10 undecided. The amendment needs 101 votes out of the 199 current members and senators (one Vacancy in the senate) meeting on Wednesday to pass but 2/3rds majority to get on the calendar to be voted on. Look for them to try to keep it off the calendar, and if that fails, then who knows what will happen.
I think the courts have already decided this. Because even if they vote this amendment in, then next year they need to do the same thing, and then in 2006 the voters need to pass it. So we could have gay people marry in May, and be forcibly divorced 2 years later. Sounds anti-family to me. The winning way to spin this is to say "I am pro-family and pro-marriage. I am glad that these people want to take the responsibilities of commitment. I want all kinds of families and marriages to work, I think we should not be tearing families apart because of sexual orientation. What is really hurting marriage are these reality TV shows, drive thru weddings, and Hollywood foibles." Some think we should abolish marriage all together to solve the problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
