A little taste of Home

A kid from South Jordan, Utah came to see me. Not over gay marriage (thank the Lord) but because he is a design student attending Utah State -- Go Aggies!-- and was looking at buildings today and just so happened to be touring the state house. (he heard a fellow Utahn was in the building I guess) What a day to see it in action! He was nice and it reminded me of the Utah accent that is subtle but distinctive. Not as distinctive as say a Bostonian accent, but still there. Plus, he had the lovely Mormon-isms of Heck and Dang and so on.

Just to be safe, I mentioned my impending marriage and we avoided talking about the gay marriage issue, since I would bet he is all for banning it, and he probably suspected I was a gasp Democrat. True to form, he had no clue where my alma mater was (Brown) or where Rhode Island was either (I said nearby to help him out). But he was nicely equipped with Western clothing like North Face and one of those rock climber bags that doubles as a school bag. Not that people out East don't wear this stuff, it just isn't the in style there like pea coats are in New England.

Salazar=Matheson

Hotline says, "According to a Democratic source, at a 5 pm presser in CO, AG Ken Salazar will get into the CO SEN race, and candidate Rutt Bridges will be at the presser to endorse Salazar. Update: Mark Udall is set to also be there to endorse Salazar."

Looks like CO Democrats managed to clear the field for the best candidate, Ken Salazar, whose brother John is running for a congressional seat at the same time (3rd district). This makes this successful Hispanic family much like their Utah neighbors the white Matheson family.

Both the Mathesons and Salazars will have brothers' names on ballots for a statewide race and a key swing House seats at the same time in November. [Jim is running for re-election in Utah's 2nd and Scott Jr is running for Governor against a huge field of big GOP names] It sounds like both will be unopposed in their respective primaries. I used to think the Mathesons were more like the Udalls (dad creating their political fortunes Mo for the Udalls and Scott Sr for the Mathesons) but now the Salazars may be the heroes of the Democratic party.

What a great pick up this could be! There is no better way to show to America that the Democratic Party cares about Blacks and Hispanics by placing them on the two biggest pickup chances in the US senate (Obama looks to be winning in IL)? It also helps that these guys are terrific candidates, no Al Sharptons here.

Make America Work For You

Ex-Clinton Chief of Staff Harold Ickes (and son of Truman's Secretary of the Interior) has his first ad up from the no-so-secret $100 million soft money pit known as "The Media Fund" which was expressly designed to counter Bush ads when the nominee would have no money left and Bush would have tons.

They combo Howard Dean's "Take our Country Back" Motto with a Kerry style attack on Bush's favoring of special interest over people. In reality though, it just a generic democratic ad attacking Bush where he is weakest: JObs. There is a bit of unionism in there and protectionism, but it also does nothing but bash Bush. No call Senator Kerry or how to vote or where to give money. It does give this lovely website address while it plays in all the same 17 battleground ("purple") states that will be overloaded with campaign comericals again (just make up your mind guys).

Tack on another million spent by Log Cabin Republicans, AKA Gay Republicans, are putting up this ad using VP Cheney's words on gay marriage in 2000 (during the VP debate) against him., and we got two outside groups slinging stuff at the Prez.

"Where's the Jobs?"



Paul Krugman created this lovely chart and drove home the point in his column today. My favorite 'graph:

"Economic forecasting isn't an exact science, but wishful thinking on this scale is unprecedented. Nor can the administration use its all-purpose excuse: all of these forecasts date from after 9/11. What you see in this chart is the signature of a corrupted policy process, in which political propaganda takes the place of professional analysis. "

Basically, this issue alone is going to sink Bush. Even if you hate gays getting married, worry about your guns getting taken away, still support the war in Iraq, and voted for Bush last time, they might not this time. Why? He has no clue about the economy and he has lost nearly 3 million jobs on his watch. Only 1,000 were created in December, 21,000 in February not nearly enough to avoid being the first president since Herbert Hoover to lose jobs on his watch.

If this fall, people are still afraid of losing their jobs, afraid of losing their health care, and the economy is still idling, then it won't matter how far to the right Bush goes and how much he tried to scare us about John "flip-flop" Kerry, he will be booted out. If this was 2000, maybe he would be in better shape vs. Kerry than Gore, But the fact is, 2004 will be about his horrific record as president. Re-elections are always a referendum on the president, not the opposition. Any look at reality vs. their lies will tell you how to vote.

Ready, set...SPLAT

Of all the proxy wars between Kerry and Bush that will be waged over the next 8 months, the most lopsided so far was on CNN's Paula Zahn's Now last night. On the program to discuss foreign policy was former UN Ambassador and wannabe Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke (the guy who authored most of the Dayton Peace accords) and former Assistant Defense Secretary Richard Pearle.

Boy, it wasn't even a fair fight, just read the transcripts. Pearle has, with the help of Rumsfeld and Cheney, alienated nearly the entire world from the US with the way they pursued the war against Iraq and made up the case for going to war. Further, Pearle also boasts some shady ties to the military-industrial complex (and Saudi Oil) and had to resign in disgrace recently because of all the potential ethics violations regardless of actions regarding Iraq.

Pearle was jumping on Kerry's statement that he has been told my many "foreign leaders" that they don't trust the US anymore and would welcome him being president, or something like that. Pearle was snarkley trying all night (and finally did) say it was France! Ha Ha you are a wimpy French-looking French loving man.

Holbrooke pointed out that it is incredibly obvious that the world hates Bush and that it is hurting our foreign policy goals. He pointed to Turkey, a place Pearle had personally try to bully into supporting the war, and failed miserably. Turkey, Holbrook said, used to love us under Clinton (65% or something) now they hate us (15% or so like us under Bush); don't we need allies like this to win the war on terror and to have won the war against Iraq better?

Pearle was ready for this one with a snarky "Bush isn't running for Prime Minister of Turkey" and "We don't need the approval of other nations to do what's right for America; Bush is going to look out for America's interests."

But he missed the point. Many (in fact most) times, as Holbrooke and Clark have pointed out, it is in America's best interests to work with allies. Certainly, if our security is at stake and our friends aren't willing to help, then we must go it alone. But everyone was on the US's side after 9/11 and Bush said "no thanks and while you are at it, f*ck off too" and then is administration promptly insulted and bullied the world into a winnable war, but have lost the peace thus far. Provisional Constitution or not, we could have eliminated Saddam in a much more multilateral way. Sure France had ulterior motives in Iraq (the UN Oil for Program was a slush fund and the French still want money for all their loans and bids with Saddam), but we still could have at least made them and the Russians look bad. Instead, the world sided with France and Russia; how embarrassing is that?

Bush's record on foreign policy, like his record on the economy and jobs, is objectively horrible. All you have to do is look at what the world thinks of us, all the instability in Haiti, Iraq, and Afghanistan to see what is wrong. You don't even need to look at the investigation of WMD's or Valerie Plame or the sorry state of homeland security to know that this President has made us less safe, and more scared.

On a lighter note...

My Fiancee, after bowing to pressure, has a blog of her own: SpongeBlog StinaPants. Her first major post is the kind of writing that made me fall in love with her 6 years ago. Lest I get too sappy, MONSTER TRUCKS, GIRLS IN BIKINIS, FOOTBALL! Ok, glad I got that out of my system. Oh, syndicate me via Atom (sorry, I like RSS too but I can't afford Blogger Pro).

T-minus 4 days

In Iraq, they finally signed that constitution, gold pens and all, after a show of strength by Sistani. This Shiite Muslim leader, without a doubt, will be the head of the Iraqi government soon after the Americans leave. Keep in mind too, this is an interim constitution and an interim government. The Shiite clearly hope that they can make Iraq into an Iranian style theocracy. Just goes to show that foreign policy will be topic A or B this year, right up there with the Economy/Jobs. Once again, the President's record on all this is horrific.

Meanwhile in Massachusetts, Angus "Beef" McQuilken is not going to request a recount after losing by about 1% or 343 votes. It really has no effect for the gay marriage vote since they weren't going to swear in the winner until next week anyway. I guess Angus thinks he can challenge then-Sen. Scott Brown in November and will win then. Good luck. Oh well, now Republicans have 7 out of 40 seats in the state senate. Big Deal.

Or is it? Romney's strategy of actually challenging incumbents is working and the democratic-controlled legislature is scared, begging their congressmen for money. In other bad news, the Boston Catholic church is so poor now thanks to all their sex scandals that they are closing parishes and schools, needless to say, like military base closing, this one won't go on without a fight. And those same churches have just started calling us up with their parishioners on same-sex marriage. They have the exact same talking points and message. Is this the will of the people or willed people?

Before ruling on Lawrence V. Texas, the landmark anti-sodomy case, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gave the keynote address to an anti-gay group that was involved in the case, says the LA Times. Not that anyone didn't know how he and Thomas would rule, but please. And this is Bush's ideal of a model judge, one who looks at the "facts" and not his own biases, one who doesn't "interpret the constitution." Scalia is just plain old conservative, one who uses one set of arguments for one case and then abandons these reasoning's when in convenient. Like with Lawrence, he said foreign courts rulings don't matter (when they were citied by Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion), but in another case, Olympic Airways v Husain, he ruled just the opposite way with Kennedy's reasoning [thanks Geekable and Atrios].

Mornin' Roundup (not the weedkiller)

The Jobs Report is out this morning, and estimates were off by over 104K...in the wrong direction; and, last month's numbers were revised downwards as well. I guess counting burger flippers as "manufacturing jobs" didn't work out quite like the Bushies planned. According to the BLS, the U.S. Economy created 21,000 jobs last month. As Atrios points out, "to keep up with the growth in the working age population we need about 140K new jobs per month, and also keep in that they [the Bush administration] claimed that after the last round of tax cuts they'd create 306,000 jobs per month, something they haven't achieved once."

US Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) has "stirred up" Dems and the blogosphere by saying a vote against the re-election of Pres. Bush is "like supporting Adolph Hitler during World War Two." I guess he never did too well on those "compare and contrast" essays in English class. Cole is also quoted in the Yukon Review as saying: "If George Bush loses the election, Osama bin Laden wins the election." Does he have the inside scoop are Kerry's running mate? So far, there has been "no comment" from OK Dem Party leaders to see if they think Cole is comparing John Kerry to Hitler or bin Laden (KTOK-AM, 3/3). "It's OK by me!" Oklahoma Democrats. Well at least they voted for Clark.

This is why I thought Kerry or Dean would be a bad pick for president: Freshman US Rep. Rodney Alexander (D-LA) is "seriously considering" leaving the Dem Party "because he says" Kerry "is too liberal, and that he might be able to better represent his constituents" as a GOPer (New Orleans Times-Picayune).

A Research 2000 IL SEN poll of LVs found Dems Barack Obama with 22% support; Dan Hynes 20%; Blair Hull 15% and Maria Pappas 14%. On the GOP side, Jack Ryan had 38%; Jim Oberweis 15% and Andrew McKenna 10% (release). I guess it was the wife beating thing that did it to Hull and Obama's $10,000 check from Michael Jordan himself that got him into the lead.

Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), on the rumors that he is gay: "They are not correct in any shape, form or fashion. ... These are irresponsible. They're salacious. They're hurtful to my family." Perry also said "he has been targeted by 'an obvious, orchestrated effort' launched by political foes" (Austin American-Statesman).

Oh and the phony Iraqi constitution signing has been delayed again. I guess multiple, coordinated suicide bombings killing the U.S. equivalent of 3,000 people (we have 10x more people and about 300 people died) might do that.
"A formally dressed, six-piece classic music group played under the watch of a U.S. soldier in combat gear as officials trickled in the for 4 p.m. (8 a.m. ET) ceremony at the former conference hall of ousted dictator Saddam Hussein.

"The document is to be signed on a desk used by King Faisal I. Faisal led Iraq when the country received its independence in 1932 after years under a League of Nations mandate administered by Britain. " Who's paying for all this? Well it should be Bush-Cheney 2004, but it is all us taxpayers.

Meanwhile, BushCo, this time is ex-NYC Mayor Rudy "I want to be President in 2008 or VP now" Giuliani, is still defending angry 9-11 families, firefighters, and Democrats who are upset that his ads exploit the tragedy for his reelection campaign.

Good work Democrats, if you can't afford ads, at least it can afford outrage and distraction of the Bush machine.

Into the great wide open

Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) decided not to run for reelection yesterday for "health reasons," and by health reasons he means kickback scandal.

The Denver Post reported that "The allegation centers on [Chief of Staff] Ginnie Kontnik's admitted action in 2002 of inflating an aide's salary and asking him to give her $2,000 in return. The claim was first documented in the aide's resignation letter in 2003.

"Kontnik, who resigned her $142,000-a- year position Friday citing personal reasons, denies the arrangement was a kickback. But after a day of questioning by The Denver Post concerning Kontnik's departure, Campbell said he would refer the matter to the Ethics Committee."


What does this mean? A wide open race. Here are some potential people who might run:

1. ex-Sen. Gary Hart (D). [offically out according to state party chair]
   
2. Governor Bill Owens (R)
   
3. Multimillionaire Think Tank head Rutt Bridges (D)
   
   
4. Teacher Mike Miles (D)
   
   
5. Retiring Congressman and Anti-Immigrant Nut Tom Tancredo (R)
   
   
   
6. Son of one time presidential candidate/fmr. Interior Secretary, Congressman Mark Udall (D)

This all means that the race is going to be as wide open as a church's doors on Sunday. I think this not only puts the senate more in play for the Democrats, it could put the whole state in play for Kerry if Republicans can't get the governor in and get some one like Tancredo or worse, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, the author of the Federal Marriage Amendment

In other news...

Bush has three silly ads up now. One exploits 9/11, another has him playing fake president with Laura by his side, telling us "I know exactly where I want to lead this country." Where, into the depths of Hell? I have seen zero leadserhip from Bush outside 9/11, although anyone who was president would have done what he did. All of Bush's actions are based on the rubric of "Will this help me get re-elected?" not "What is best for the country?" Ok and the third blames everything from the economy to 9/11 on Bill Clinton indirectly. If he didn't have over $150 million and actually was president right now, I would be laughing. Instead, I shudder.

Name that Cabinet!

Now that the nomination is over sooner than ever before since Edwards dropped out last night, John Kerry will eclipsed by other more trivial items of news and Bush's bully pulpit. Bush's millions will start to blanket him tomorrow. In fact, I was interrupted from typing just now by a RNC pop-up asking me to "support the president's agenda" the funniest part was "lower interest rates" something which is making progressively higher with his tax-cut and spend budgets.

But back to the point; how is Kerry to keep a positive image of him going until the July Convention in Boston? Sure MoveOn's ad campaign this week will help, but Bush is going to be spending way more money. My suggestion? Slowly name your cabinet. Make it like the family feud and leak names to the press of people in the running for various spots.

Have each one of the 9 other democrats who lost to you have a fundraising race on your behalf to get in your cabinet and on your agenda. Ditto for VP wannbes like FL Sen. Bob Graham, NM Gov. Bill Richardson, IN Sen. Evan Bayh, and all the rest of them. Hell, hold a couple fundraisers with Hill and Bill. That if nothing else will fuel the fire of attention (I can see the NY Post header now: "Kerry-Clinton 2004?") like the Clintons. Even talk about who you might replace Terry McAuliffe with in 2005. '

Here's whom I might pick out slowly, if I were Kerry (realistically, with backups):

• VP: Bayh (see why here) or Edwards


• State: Clark (already has good relationships with Europe) or Richard Holbrook


• Defense: John McCain (nobody else will have credibility to cut out wasteful Pentagon spending during a war like this Maverick; plus, Gov. Napalitano (D) gets to name a new Senator with a full two year term) or Bob Kerrey.


• Treasury: Bob Rubin (no one has more [Wall] Street Cred than Ruby) or Larry Summers


• AG: John Edwards (he'll crack down on the FBI and its crappy performance that will remind folks of Bobby Kennedy) or Elliot Spitzer


• CIA director: Graham (former Intelligence Chairman knows his stuff and won't lie to President Kerry) or Gary Hart.


• Homeland Security: Gary Hart (his commission in 1999 was eerily right about 9/11) or Graham


• Commerce: George Sorros (hey if you give several million to elect Kerry, I think you deserve a plum like this) some other rich dude who helps Kerry raise dough


• Labor: Gephardt (if he can pass the Senate) Bob Reich


• HHS: Dr. Judith Steinberg (aka Judy Dean) or Howard Dean (I'd prefer him to be DNC chair)


• OMB: Dem. Senate Staffer on the Budget Committee


• Agriculture: Tom Vislack or Rob Atkinson (PPI VP)


• Interior: Deb Callahan (LCV head) or Jan Mazurek (DLC environment person)


• Chief of Staff: Mary Beth Cahill or Jim Jordan (both did good jobs on the campaign)


• Veteran's: Cleland (triple amputee will make sure Vet's are left out in the cold) or one of Kerry's "Band of Brothers"


• Energy: Grey Davis (this cost him the election, among other things) or John Dingle (get him out of the House)


• Education: Ted Kennedy or George Miller (heads of Dem committees in Senate and House)


• Transportation: James Oberstar (heads of Dem committee in House) and Doug Duncan (Montgomery Co., MD Executive)

Please comment on your picks, or critique mine below.

Where's the fat lady? Plus: Dean finally wins one

Jack Shafer, Slate's Editor At Large, is posting the mid-way exit polls from the Eastern block of Super Tuesday states.

As expected, Kerry is kicking butt.

Connecticut
Kerry 63
Edwards 26
Dean 5

Georgia
Kerry 50
Edwards 39
Sharpton 7

Maryland
Kerry 59
Edwards 28
Sharpton 4

Massachusetts
Kerry 75
Edwards 16
Dean 3
Kucinich 3

New York
Kerry 61
Edwards 21
Sharpton 10

Ohio
Kerry 58
Edwards 30
Kucinich 10

Rhode Island
Kerry 70
Edwards 21
Dean 5

Vermont
Dean 63
Kerry 33
Kucinich 3
(Edwards was not on the ballot)

Also, California is not out yet due to time zones. But I would guess the results are the same. Now Edwards has to leave gracefully so that Democrats will want him to be VP or President in 2008. Tough luck JRE.

Hat's off to Dean for winning his own state without even trying. Too bad his former campaign and former campaign manager Joe Trippi are squabbling over their supporters, no matter what spin they put on it.

Ex-Dean speechwriter Joe Drymala writes at ex-Dean manager Joe Trippi's Change for America blog: on 3/1 that Howard Dean "posted on Blog for America and on these forums, making it clear that Dean for America and Change for America are two different organizations. We agree with him completely."

More Drymala: "Change for America will be doing something very different from Dean for America -- rather than duplicating each other's efforts, we will be complementary. The last thing we want is for the media to have the opportunity to fabricate a "turf war" between CFA and DFA where none exists. It's not fair to the grassroots and it hurts the movement for change. And we don't want to put anyone in the position of feeling as though being a part of one effort is somehow disloyal to the other. CFA and DFA will have entirely different purposes... [W]e'll be making a survey available online shortly to help shape the platform of Change for America" (changeforamerica.com, 3/1).

Powell's "correction" to Aristide's claims

Sec/State Colin Powell: "He went onto the airplane willingly. And that's the truth." Powell "also admonished two" Hill members "for suggesting U.S. troops strong-armed the Haitian into exile." Powell: "It would have been better for members of Congress who have heard these stories to ask us about the stories before going public with them so that we don't make a difficult situation that much more difficult."

The Times went on to say that while U.S. officials "insist that they did not force" Aristide to leave, "they acknowledge that they made it clear to him that they could not protect him if he clung to power, and that they offered to give him safe passage out of the country if he would leave by dawn on Sunday." What a great choice! Either live in exile, or risk being killed my an armed mob of distgruntled ex-army men.

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), talked to CNN's Wolf Blitzer about the Aristide kidnapping allegations and summed it up nicely. "I have certainly heard the accusations and I've heard the rebuttal by the administration. But it sort of misses the point. The fact of the matter is, we said to President Aristide, look, you can stay and be killed or you can leave. You make the choice. That's hardly a voluntary departure. ... We've now set up a new standard. You don't have to be a failed government, just a failed leader in our minds and we won't do anything to support and defend you."

Web designers don't lie

Wonkette makes a very good case that Indiana Senator Evan Bayh will be John Kerry's running mate.

After all, just look at the layout of each website side to side: Evan and John. Also note that they use their names as their campaign homepages, not with the -forsenate.com or -2004.com ending, so they can use them over and over again for each campaign. So what you say, they might have hired the same firm. Its one thing to use the same company or same feel, but the same damn template means they are working together.

Why Bayh? Wonkette explains:"Upside: He's a red stater, he's personable, he's handsome, and he's not John Edwards. Downside: Also not the son of a mill worker." True, Bayh is daddy's boy and from what I have heard working at the DLC married to real B*tch who loves throwing her "Senator's Wife" title around.

Evan has been running for VP for about 2 years now, starting with the all-important "serious book" written by the Senator. Several DLCers told me that they tried their best to read the book, but it was just crap, so they just included an excerpt in Blueprint where I used to work. OK, so he is light on substance, who cares if all he is going to be is VP and the DLC needs a new chairman. I mean, they have been begging for this for a long time. The political department knows a putz when they see one. But not as much of one as Kerry is, according to Slate.

Anyway, Democrats wouldn't lose a seat, Governor Joe Kernan (D) would just appoint Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson (D) if Kerry-Bayh won and if he won the governor's race ( I would suspect Kernan would appoint himself if he were to lose to Mitch "Bush's B*tch" Daniels.) And hey, if Bayh could take Indiana with him, Bush is toast, even if he keeps Florida and Ohio in his tent. Just try it out: if Kerry-Bayh gets all the Gore states, plus the Hoosier state, they're at 271 right there. That's without NH, FL, OH, WV, AZ, CO, MO or any of the other states that might swing the Democrats' way in November.

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.

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!

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.

$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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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."

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!

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?

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.

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."

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.