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!
Friday, February 27, 2004
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
