| |
Friday, February 29, 2008
This Soldier Was Already a WinnerEven before he won the lottery: After completing two tours in Iraq, Sgt. Wayne Leyde won $1 million from a scratch-and-win lotto ticket on Tuesday.
Now that he's won, Leyde, a 26-year-old member of the Washington National Guard, says he's still going to volunteer to go back to Iraq for a third tour and won't spend any of the money in the meantime. Feel-good story of the day.
Dionne Tries the Reagan ComparisonBadly, of course. Yes, Obama gets his crowds swooning. So did Reagan. It's laughable to hear conservatives talk darkly about a "cult of personality" around Obama. The Reaganites, after all, have lobbied to name every airport, school, library, road, bridge, government building and lamppost after the Gipper. When it comes to personality cults, the right wing knows what it's talking about. What's the difference, class? That's right, the conservatives did their swooning after the fact. After we'd seen what he was like as a president.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
But Who Will Pick Up Fatina Abdrabboh's Keys?Heheh, Harvard is instituting "women's-only" gym hours for Muslims and other gals who feel "uncomfortable" exercising around men: Harvard University has moved to make Muslim women more comfortable in the gym by instituting women-only access times six hours a week to accommodate religious customs that make it difficult for some students to work out in the presence of men. Fatina Abdrabboh somehow managed to work out with men around, including a rather famous one. Suddenly a man, out of breath, but still smiling and friendly, tapped me on my shoulder and said, "Ma'am, here are your keys." It was Al Gore, former vice president of the United States. Mr. Gore had gotten off his machine behind me, picked up my keys, handed them to me and then resumed his workout.
Rezko Deal Heating Up As Obama's Poll Numbers Climb The Democrats could be looking at a serious case of buyer's remorse in another month or so, the way things are going. The Times of London does a quick rundown of the "other end" of Barack Obama's deal to purchase his house. A British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions of dollars to Barack Obama's fundraiser just weeks before an imprudent land deal that has returned to haunt the presidential contender, an investigation by The Times discloses.
The money transfer raises the question of whether funds from Nadhmi Auchi, one of Britain’s wealthiest men, helped Mr Obama buy his mock Georgian mansion in Chicago.
A company related to Mr Auchi, who has a conviction for corruption in France, registered the loan to Mr Obama's bagman Antoin "Tony" Rezko on May 23 2005. Mr Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million. Auchi (presumably pronounced "Ouchie") has a shady past: Mr Auchi was convicted of corruption, given a suspended sentence and fined £1.4 million in France in 2003 for his part in the Elf affair, described as the biggest political and corporate scandal in post-war Europe. He, in a statement from his media lawyers, claims he is appealing against the sentence. One bit that I had not heard previously: Mr Obama says he never used Mrs Rezko's still-empty lot, which could only be accessed through his property. What? It's land-locked? That is an extremely significant detail, because it makes the land essentially worthless to anybody other than Obama. As always, when looking into the Rezko deal, check with the Marathon Man, who's been covering this story like a blanket. The land-locked issue lends credibility to this theory advanced by John: ...it remains my belief that the Obamas and the Rezkos had an agreement to slowly buy the lot--reuniting the properties. In other words, a loan that allowed the Obamas to afford their dream home. Rick Moran ties it to the culture of corruption in Chicago politics, and does a little background research on Auchi: First of all, his business dealings make Rezko’s kickback schemes for political contributions look like the minor leagues of sleaze. Auchi had a hand in the biggest political and corporate scandal in post war Europe, the so-called “Elf Affair” where $2 billion francs up and disappeared from the French state oil company Elf. Labels: Barack Obama, Tony Rezko
Monday, February 25, 2008
Desperately Seeking AbramoffHere's a little bit of sleight of hand from Sam Stein at the Huffpo: In the 2006 Senate report concerning Abramoff's activities, which McCain spearheaded, the Arizona Republican conspicuously left out information detailing how Alabama Gov. Bob Riley was targeted by Abramoff's influence peddling scheme. Riley, a Republican, won election in November 2002, and was reelected in 2006.
In a December 2002 email obtained by the Huffington Post -- which McCain and his staff had access to prior to the issuance of his report -- Abramoff explains to an aide what he would like to see Riley do in return for the "help" he received from Abramoff's tribal clients.
An official with the Mississippi Choctaws "definitely wants Riley to shut down the Poarch Creek operation," Abramoff wrote, "including his announcing that anyone caught gambling there can't qualify for a state contract or something like that."
The note showed not only the reach of Abramoff, but raised questions about Riley's victory in what was the closest gubernatorial election in Alabama history.
(Snip)
Siegelman soldiered on after the 2002 loss, running again for governor against Riley in 2006. By then, the extent of Riley's connection to Abramoff was still unknown. Moreover, Siegelman was still under investigation for allegations of bribery. The inquiry, detailed in an extensive 60 Minutes report last night, raised many ethical red flags, mainly over political interference from the Bush administration, specifically Karl Rove. On June 22, McCain issued his Senate report without mentioning Riley's name. And one week later, Siegelman was convicted without the Abramoff email ever being made public. Okay, so the chronology is screwed up here, apparently intentionally as we shall see, to make the tale look stronger than it is. Let's really look at the facts: November 2002: Riley is elected Governor of Alabama in the narrowest election for that office ever (Riley won by 0.2 percentage points). December 2002: Abramoff writes email to "aide". Note that Stein does not say whose aide. 2006: Seigelman "soldiered on". Until he was defeated in the Democratic primaries by Lucy Baxley, 60%-35%. Siegelman is convicted of corruption charges and is currently serving seven years on those charges. The claim that Stein appears to be making is that Riley opposed gambling in Alabama (true) and that Abramoff's client opposed one particular tribe in that state from offering gambling (true) and that therefore the email (which we later find out was to an Abramoff aide and not to a Riley aide) showed that Abramoff had influence with Riley, even though this was a position that Riley had taken years earlier: Riley had previously opposed gambling in the state. In the late 1990s, he signed a fundraising letter lobbying against the building of a casino within Alabama. "We need your help today," the letter, which reflected another Abramoff objective, read, "to prevent the Poarch Creek Indians from building casinos in Alabama." The post also makes a nutty claim about the amount donated by the Mississippi Choctaws: There was a brief footnote in the report that quoted William Worfel, former vice chairman of the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, saying that Abramoff told the chief of a Mississippi tribe to spend $13 million "to get the governor of Alabama elected to keep gaming out of Alabama so it wouldn't hurt ... his market in Mississippi." Um, $13 million? That's a joke. The Mississippi Choctaws donated a total of about $1.3 million to political candidates and PACs from 1992-2006, and about a third of that was to the Democrats. He's way off base, there. Let me remind those who wonder whether I know about the Jack Abramoff story, that I forced (with great assistance from Donald Luskin) the retraction of a Paul Krugman column in the New York Times and a related article in the American Prospect on the subject of the Abramoff story. Labels: Jack Abramoff, Sam Stein
Kinsley on the New York TimesThis is really well done: Many readers of last week's New York Times article about McCain, including me, read that article as suggesting that McCain may have had an affair with a lobbyist eight years ago. The Times, however, has made clear that its story was not about an affair with a lobbyist. Its story was about the possibility that eight years ago, aides to McCain had held meetings with McCain to warn him about the appearance that he might be having an affair with the lobbyist. This is obviously a much more important question. To be absolutely clear: The Times itself was not suggesting that there had been an affair or even that there had been the appearance of an affair. The Times was reporting that there was a time eight years ago when some people felt there might be the appearance of an affair, although others, apparently including McCain himself, apparently felt that there was no such appearance. Labels: John McCain, Michael Kinsley, New York Times
What the New York Times Should Have SaidHere's a pretty good rundown: Sunday, the paper’s “public editor,” Clark Hoyt, weighed in on the controversy. I say “weighed” but his tread was positively catlike. Another missed opportunity, I suppose. But let me help. Here’s what the paper’s public editor didn’t say, but should have: “Get a grip! The function of the Times is not to print ‘news.’ It’s to provide like-minded readers with a comforting view of the world.” Howard Kurtz: Leave aside the uninformed charges that the story was politically timed. Forget for a moment that the key sources were granted anonymity. What, in the end, did the paper have? "Disillusioned" former McCain aides who say they were worried that their boss appeared too close to a lobbyist and tried to shoo her away. Details about letters to federal regulators that were mostly old news. And, of course, the suggestion of sex, the rocket fuel that boosted the story into the media stratosphere. In online comments Friday, Times Executive Editor Bill Keller seemed taken aback by "the volume of the reaction" and "by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision, with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot. And, frankly, I was a little surprised by how few readers saw what was, to us, the larger point of the story." As Kurtz notes, the sex was the sizzle; if they didn't want readers to focus on it, it should not have been included.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Maybe There's Another Possibility?I have to laugh at this article on the Politico by Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei speculating on why the Right supported John McCain in the recent dustup with the New York Times: The right-wing response to the New York Times article was in some ways as stunning, and as revealing, as the salacious story itself.
Some of the loudest voices of the modern conservative movement — Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Gary Bauer, CBN.org — flogged the Times while hardly pausing to consider the underlying facts of the story. Immediately, almost reflexively, these commentators assumed the worst motives and behavior by The Times and accepted McCain’s bland yet broad denials. Maybe because there was almost nothing to the story? Nah, Allen and VandeHei can't buy that explanation: The Times’ reporters and editors involved in this story are top-notch. Such stories usually only go into the paper when reporters and their editors feel certain they are true — because they know a vicious response will likely follow. "Usually?" "Feel certain?" And what was "true"? That the Times didn't have any real backup for the "salacious" parts of their story?
What Is The Fascination with Assassination?I don't get why there is so much talk about it with regard to Obama. Here's a hilarious, hand-wringing post at the Moderate Voice on a Mexican editorial about how Barack should make Hillary his veep nominee, because at least that way, when Obama's killed we won't be stuck with another four years of the Republicans. Seriously: What if he were murdered? If Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination and was gunned down before November, what effect would this have on the presidential race? And the editorial is even more nutty: The reason I fear for Obama is that despite his being an extraordinary Democratic leader and a notable promoter of change in the United States - a nation that apparently no longer wishes to greet the dawn with news of another bombing attack on a new country at the behest of George Bush - in spite of all this, and even if he manages to win his party’s nomination, goes on to beat McCain in November and becomes the next president of the United States, he could be brutally assassinated, as happened in their time to Martin Luther King and Malcolm X . There’s no reason to kill a McCain - not for his skin color, nor for his political career, nor for his personal name, and it’s impossible to associate him with the Muslims that arouse sop much prejudice in post-Sept. 11 America... And it's not like this is the first time we've seen this type of speculation. I confess, I don't get it. I suppose the idea is that he arouses the same types of feelings as Kennedy does, and therefore he's doomed to be killed as Kennedy was.
Friday, February 22, 2008
McCain Blogger Conference Call ReportThe senator started by stating his feelings on the Kosovo situation and the storming of the embassy in Belgrade. He indicated that it was his understanding that it was a case of drunken hooligans and slow response from the local police. On the Cuba situation, Senator McCain indicated that he disagreed strongly with Barack Obama's statement last night that he'd meet with Raul Castro with no conditions. I got the chance to ask Senator McCain a question about the electoral college map given reports that a McCain/Obama matchup might shake things up, and asked him to tell us the states he felt he could break through in, and for one state that he felt would be difficult to defend. He replied that he didn't want to get too far ahead of himself in respect for Governor Huckabee (no mention of fruitcake Ron Paul), but that he felt he does have to run a 50-state campaign. He did feel that he could be competitive in California (I agree), New Jersey (ditto) and New York (probably a stretch). He cited New Mexico as a state which will have to be vigorously defended. There were no significant questions on the New York Times story; one blogger did express the thoughts of (I believe) most of us, that the story was nothing more than a smear job. Fausta asked a question about a Hawaiian native bill that is apparently kicking around in Congress; Senator McCain expressed concern that this might be an attempt to give the natives a status similar to that of Native Americans (i.e., Indians), which had been settled at the time of Hawaii's admission to the union. James Joyner of Outside the Beltway asked about Cuba, pointing out that the current US policy towards that island nation has not changed in his lifetime. Senator McCain noted that our policy towards Cuba has prevented them from exporting Castroism elsewhere, and that Raoul Castro is every bit the thug that his brother has been. I agree here, and note that Obama's comments will make it very difficult for him to be competitive in Florida, where the Cuban exile community is based. Labels: 2008 Election, John McCain
Liberal Bloggers Try to Tie NY Slimes Piece to Stolen HonorOh my, just when you thought that the fantasies couldn't get any more fantastic: For the moment, though, I'm more interested in the 2004 election--the one McCain didn't run in. You see, I find it a mighty curious coincidence that two of the companies for which Iseman was lobbying John McCain in 1999 and 2000--the time of their potentially inappropriate relationship--also happen to be the two television companies that championed the Kerry smear, "Stolen Honor," in 2004.
Stolen Honor
Stolen Honor, you'll recall, was a 45-long propaganda piece, repeating the allegations the Swift Boaters made against John Kerry. It came out in September 2004 (as Republicans have promised a smear against Hillary or Obama will come out at precisely the same time this cycle). Shortly thereafter, Sinclair Broadcasting ordered its stations to pre-empt normal broadcasting to play the "documentary." Sinclair also fired one employee who complained about the order. Bzzzzt! Wrong! Stolen Honor was not about the Swift Boat Veterans' allegations at all. There was no discussion of Kerry's Purple Hearts or Christmas in Cambodia. Instead the focus was on POWs held in North Vietnam, and how Kerry's staged "Winter Soldier" hearings in the early 1970s created this false image of our soldiers in Vietnam as acting in a fashion reminiscent of Jenjhis Khan. It was about how the North Vietnamese used Kerry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when interrogating the POWs, to say, look, here's a naval officer who admits he committed war crimes. Why don't you admit your war crimes as well? The only real connection between Stolen Honor and the Swiftees is that the POWs and the Swift Boat Vets combined forces. But there really was no overlap in the charges made against Kerry by the two groups. But the post does us one big favor; it reminds us of John McCain's reaction to Sinclair's later decision not to air Stolen Honor: Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., blasted Sinclair's decision: "There is no valid reason for Sinclair to shirk its responsibility in what I assume is a very misguided attempt to prevent your viewers from completely appreciating the extraordinary sacrifices made on their behalf by Americans serving in Iraq." Something for us conservatives to remember when considering John McCain's initial negative reaction to the Swiftees is that he supported Stolen Honor. McCain opposed the focus on the medals, but felt the focus on Kerry's antiwar activities was legitimate. Labels: John McCain, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Vietnam POWs
Thursday, February 21, 2008
The Times Serves Up a Nothing BurgerAs Clara Peller would say:  The New York Times serves up a giant (3000 words) bun on supposed improprieties between Senator John McCain and a female lobbyist, but even they must have sensed how weak the story was, because they entitled it "For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk". Not even the liberal bloggers are biting on this one. Greg Sargent: Let's try a little experiment. Let's take the meat of the big New York Times story and substitute the words "Dem Presidential Hopeful" for "John McCain"...
If these words had appeared on the front page of The New York Times, wouldn't we all be yelling and stamping our feet about "panty sniffing" and condemning the use of anonymous sources who suggest a possible affair that may or may not have happened and wasn't directly alleged by anyone?
That's a sincere question. Wouldn't we? Matt Yglesius: NB, thinking more clearly past my loathing of John McCain, the Times's effort to substitute innuendo for making a straightforward true or false assertion is seems like a pretty shameful attempt to set up a Kaus-like presumption of guilt. If they have reporting they're willing to stand behind of a McCain-Iseman affair, they should publish it. And if, as seems to be the case, they don't have the reporting, then they shouldn't write the story. And from the starboard: Captain Ed: The New York Times launches its long-awaited smear of John McCain today, and the most impressive aspect of the smear is just how baseless it is. They basically emulate Page Six at the Post, but add in a rehash of a well-known scandal from twenty years ago to pad it out and make it look more impressive. In the end, they present absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing -- only innuendo denied by all of the principals.... Power Line: What is most striking, though, if you actually read the story, is how thin it is. It's mostly about the Keating Five scandal, which dates to the late 1980s. The "news" that gives the story a hook has to do with McCain's friendship with a pretty blonde lobbyist that apparently ended in 2000. As for the purported affair, the Times offers zero evidence. Labels: John McCain, New York Times
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Dumbest Terrorist Ever?Thank god this buffoon was caught: A 21-year-old Clearwater man was arrested at Tampa International Airport this weekend after security personnel found a box cutter in a hollowed-out book, authorities said. But it's okay, because he cut out the book to hid pot in. And yes, he had some other reading material along for the flight: Officers found books in the backpack titled "Muhammad in the Bible," "The Prophet's Prayer" and "The Noble Qur'an." He also had a copy of the Quran and the Bible.
Klein And Others Get It Wrong Joe Klein gets huffy in defense of Barack Obama: A curious passage from John McCain's victory speech last night:
Or will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested invading our ally, Pakistan, and sitting down without pre-conditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists and are intent on destabilizing the world by acquiring nuclear weapons?
In time, I'm sure, Barack Obama will explain that any meetings with Iranian leaders will be fully prepped by staff in advance, including advance meetings at the ministerial level...but what about the first part of the quote? Utter nonsense. Here's what Obama actually said:
I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an Al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
And, in fact, Obama was merely saying that he supported current U.S. policy. A month ago, for example, a bomb launched from a CIA predator drone killed the Al Qaeda leader Abu Laith al-Libi in Pakistan. Was McCain opposed to that?
The point is, McCain's loose, inaccurate talk continues a sad pattern.... But of course, Klein gets it wrong. In fact, Obama's speech was characterized at the time as supporting an invasion by US troops into Pakistan. ABC News: In a strikingly bold speech about terrorism Wednesday, Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama called not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan — with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf. The (UK) Telegraph: Obama 'would send US troops into Pakistan' The Washington Post: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists. So who's guilty of "loose, inaccurate talk" here? Labels: Barack Obama, Joe Klein, John McCain
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Obammie Commie?Cliff Kincaid says so: In his books, Obama admits attending "socialist conferences" and coming into contact with Marxist literature. But he ridicules the charge of being a "hard-core academic Marxist," which was made by his colorful and outspoken 2004 U.S. Senate opponent, Republican Alan Keyes.
However, through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his "poetry" and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just "Frank."
Cindy McCain: Very Proud of Her CountryUnlike Michelle Obama.
Defending Michelle Obama, BadlyOver at the Moderate Voice, Angela Winters attempts to defuse the time bomb: They are questioning her patriotism and saying that her statement means she has never been proud or very proud of anything about America before. Well, pardon me for taking her at her word, which was as follows: ....for the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country. Their accusations are without merit for many reasons. One reasons is because anyone who is even mildly objective knows that she was speaking in the moment to a crowd. Not sure what "speaking in the moment" means; from the context I'd guess it's a euphemism for "bs"-ing? Then comes the inevitable hyperbole: Michelle remembers all the good things about the 50s, but she also knows that black men were being lynched every weekend as a picnic theme among other things. I doubt very much that Michelle remembers anything about the 1950s, considering she was born in 1963. Other Reactions: Mary Katherine Ham notes this episode and that Hillary has appointed the Mayor of Toledo (last heard telling the Marines to get out of town) to her Ohio victory team, and comments: I know we're not allowed to question their patriotism, but really, guys? John Cole at Balloon Juice sees it as a big nothingbar: The way these guys on the right manage to gin up controversies over NOTHING and then have it widely repeated and circulated is simply amazing. As you can probably tell, John's on the Obama Kool-Aid bandwagon. Taylor Marsh, who's a huge Hillary fan sees it a little more sensibly: My uncle Dick certainly didn't serve his country and get battle fatigue in WWII so people could pick and choose pride in this nation based on personal association to some politician, forgetting the greater glory we all serve through our country's ideals.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Obama's Wife Finally Proud of the USASounds like she wasn't singing along with Lee Greenwood:
Obama's Real PlagiarismIs not that he lifted a few lines from Deval Patrick on "just words" as reported in the New York Times. As Captain Ed points out, it's not like he was talking about the generations of his family that grew up in the coal mines of Wales, like Joe Biden when he plagiarized Neil Kinnock. It's that his whole campaign, and particularly the "change" and "hope" mantras are lifted directly from Hillary's husband, circa 1992. Of course Obama at least gave the proper attribution for the original remarks: "You can have the right kind of experience and the wrong kind of experience. Mine is rooted in the real lives of real people, and it will bring real results if we just have the courage to change. I believe deeply in those words, but I have to admit those words are not originally mine. They were actually Bill Clinton's in 1991 and 1992. ..." Labels: Barack Obama
Say What?Armstrong Williams, in an otherwise mundane discussion of the Clinton's dastardliness, drops this bombshell: The word on the street is that the Obama campaign and New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg have already met and devised an incredible plan if Clinton wins the nominee. Mayor Bloomberg would give nearly $1 billion to Obama's campaign after which Obama would bolt from the Democratic Party and run as an Independent candidate with king-maker Bloomberg as his running mate. The Obama campaign realizes that Obama is too new at this game and doesn't have the political weight of the Clintons to bring in the true heavy-hitters of the party's hierarchy. So, according to sources it was Bloomberg himself who suggested this cunning strategy. It's mind boggling that the Clintons are willing to destroy the entire Democratic Party, and potentially in the process lose the White House and seats in Congress, for their own selfish thirst for power and glory. I'm not the biggest fan of the Clintons by any means, but who is willing to destroy the party here? And the whole story doesn't hold together very well; why would Bloomberg dig deep into his pockets to finance Barack? Is it even legal? We all know of the millionaire's exception, but does it apply to running mates? Labels: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton
Sunday, February 17, 2008
If You Slice the Votes This Way....Hillary Clinton is in the lead. But, since this is actually the Democratic primary, perhaps we should look at how Democrats have actually voted. Based on the available exit polling data, we find that Hillary Clinton has a commanding lead over Barack Obama in the number of votes – As of February 16, 2008, 391,992 more Democrats voted for Clinton than Obama.
That number does not include results from the District of Columbia, because of a lack of exit polling data. If we include DC, and assume that 100% of the voters were Democrats, Clinton still has a lead among Democrats of 333,981 votes.
But that number also doesn’t include Florida. Add in Florida’s Democrats, and Clinton’s lead advantage increases to 565,684. Nor does it include Michigan; and even if we assign all the Democrats who voted “uncommitted” to Obama, Clinton’s lead among Democratic voters grows to 678,276. Interesting to find liberals saying that we shouldn't count all the votes. I've blogged on Lukasiak, the writer of this post, back in 2005.
Moron the Delegates IssueI must confess I am enjoying watching the angst play out on the Democratic side about the delegates from Florida and Michigan and what to do about them. Sean Wilentz and Julian Zilizer check in with a hand-wringing OpEd at the WaPo: The magnified importance of the early showdowns also opens the door to abuse. This year, Democrats in Michigan and Florida moved up their contests, thereby drawing the ire of the national party, which vowed not to seat the delegates. Unless something changes, voters in these states will be unfairly removed from the decision-making process, and neither candidate will benefit from their support. "Neither" candidate will benefit? But if we included them, which candidate will benefit? As Karl at Protein Wisdom points out, they're both supporting Hillary for President, which explains this: For one thing, caucuses can be highly undemocratic. They eliminate the secret ballot, forcing voters to declare their loyalties publicly, and are thus vulnerable to intimidation and manipulation. They also shut out many citizens who have to work during caucus times. If you can't show up at a specific hour, you can't vote -- a particular problem for people with fixed shifts, including many of the working poor. (The supposedly democratic caucuses can also discriminate, as happened to Sabbath-observant Jews who couldn't get to Nevada's Saturday caucuses.) And there are usually no absentee ballots, of course. The caucuses, of course, have been a notable strong point for Obama and a weakness for Hillary. As I have pointed out in the past, they are raising arguments of convenience (caucuses favor Obama and hurt Hillary) to arguments of principle (caucuses are undemocratic). Indeed, if you look at the various "principles" being espoused, it's pretty easy to tell which candidate they support. Kos suggested the other day splitting the delegates from Michigan and Florida down the middle; somehow this would give them "representation". Kos supports Obama. Others suggest that they be allocated per the primary; those people support Hillary. Only Newt Gingrich, who appears not to have a horse in the derby proposes the sensible thing, which is to have a do-over. Look also at the convenient arguments referenced in this, better OpEd piece by John Broder. “A reformer in office becomes an establishment figure by definition and then by definition resists the next round of reforms — it’s human nature,” Mr. Hart, a supporter of Mr. Obama, said. “They have an interest in protecting the status quo. That’s what superdelegates are, people against rocking the boat and taking a generational leap.” Opposed to the superdelegates? We didn't need to wonder whom he supported.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Will Barack Live Up to His Pledge?The New York Times tries to help Obama out by making it sound like an "if I did, would you" type deal. “It was very clear to me that Senator Obama had agreed to having public financing of the general election campaign if I did the same thing,” he said after a town hall meeting here. “I made the commitment to the American people that if I was the nominee of my party, I would go the route of public financing. I expect Senator Obama to keep his word to the American people as well.”
Asked if he would use public financing even if Mr. Obama did not, he said: “If Senator Obama goes back on his commitment to the American people, then obviously we have to rethink our position. Our whole agreement was we would take public financing if he made that commitment as well. And he signed a piece of paper, I’m told, that made that commitment.” Oliver Willis suddenly feels that money in politics is a good thing: For the first time ever, the Democratic party is outraising the Republican party. The party and its candidate will have the resources to compete on a huge playing field, not just shoring up its blue state base and courting voters in swing states, but there will also be the ability to truly compete in those red states the GOP is holding on to by a thread. But of course this opens up Obama to charges that he is not something new, that he's the same old, same old. It tarnishes the aura, so to speak. And as James Joyner points out, perhaps it works to Obama's advantage to accept public financing given the enthusiasm gap. Then again, if Obama is the nominee, he would enter the general election race as the favorite. It may well be that limiting the amount of money that can be spent — any major party nominee could raise more than $85 million if need be — would be to his advantage. The more the contest depends on free media like debates and the less it depends on television attack ads, the better for Obama, I’d think. Labels: Barack Obama, John McCain
Friday, February 15, 2008
Obama's Weather Underground BuddySheesh, are the Democrats serious about nominating Obama with all the skeletons rattling around in his closet? Besides Rezko and Giannoulias, Obama could face questions about his relationship with William Ayers, a former member of the radical group the Weather Underground who is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago. Ayers donated $200 in 2001 to Obama's Illinois state Senate campaign and served with him from 1999 to 2002 on the nine-member board of the Woods Fund, an anti-poverty group.
A Series of Bombings
The Weather Underground carried out a series of bombings in the early 1970s -- including the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon. While Ayers was never prosecuted for those attacks, he told the New York Times in an interview published Sept. 11, 2001, that ``I don't regret setting bombs.'' Yes, that was a particularly exquisite bit of timing. Here's Ayers' Wikipedia page. Typical of terrorists, he was not from an impoverished background: Ayers was a 1960s-era political activist and Weather Underground member. He grew up in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago in a highly privileged family (his father, Thomas Ayers, was Chairman and CEO of Commonwealth Edison) and attended Lake Forest Academy. According to Ayers' memoir Fugitive Days, he became radicalized at the University of Michigan. During his years there, he became involved in the New Left and the SDS.
Fed Up With Ron Paul?Patrick Ruffini is, and he's suggesting that we show support for Chris Peden, who is challenging Dr No in the Texan's 14th Congressional District. Ron Paul is apparently taking this seriously, as he's diverting some of the funds from his presidential campaign to the congressional race. But Paul has a vast stockpile of campaign cash at his disposal, thanks to his fundraising success in this year’s presidential bid. He raised about $19 million in the last quarter, and, if he chooses to, he can transfer that money into his congressional treasury.
Paul campaign spokesman Mark Elam indicated that Paul was planning on spending money from his presidential campaign on his House reelection bid. He went up on the airwaves Tuesday with his first advertisement, a radio spot touting his biography and legislative accomplishments. I should note here that this is probably something of a long-shot campaign, but Paul's opposition to the war and his nutty campaign for president have angered many in his district. Labels: Ron Paul
Thursday, February 14, 2008
If This Continues, Expect Knife Fights at the DNCHillary is determined to win the nomination one way or another. It is amusing to see the scales falling from the eyes of so many liberals. Ezra Klein: Put another way: If Hillary Clinton does not win delegates out of a majority of contested primaries and caucuses, her aides are willing to rip the party apart to secure the nomination, to cheat in a way that will rend the Democratic coalition and probably destroy Clinton's chances in the general election. Imagine the fury in the African-American community if Barack Obama leads in delegates but is denied the nomination because the Clinton campaign is able to change the rules to seat delegates from Michigan, where no other candidates were even on the ballot, and from Florida, where no one campaigned. Imagine the anger among the young voters Obama brought into the process, and was making into Democratic voters. Imagine the feeling of betrayal among his supporters more generally, and the disgust among independents watching the battle take place on the convention floor. Imagine how statesmanlike John McCain will look in comparison, how orderly and focused the Republican convention will appear. Meanwhile, the Hillary supporters are griping that the rules are not being enforced evenly: Iowa held their caucuses on January 3rd. That's more than 22 days before the first Tuesday in February. New Hampshire held their primary on January 8th. That's more than 17 days before the first Tuesday in February. And South Carolina held their primary on January 26th. That's more than 7 days before the first Tuesday in February. Moo-On is complaining that the Super Delegates are not democratic, and that they should obey the will of the people: "The superdelegates are under lots of pressure right now to come out for one candidate or the other," reads the petition from MoveOn, which has endorsed Obama. "We urgently need to encourage them to let the voters decide between Clinton and Obama -- and then to support the will of the people." Somebody needs to tell these jokers that ignoring the will of the people is the reason for having super delegates; that these grandees of the party are there to make sure that the rabble don't nominate somebody who can't get elected. I don't know if that applies to Obama; he seems awfully green. Labels: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton
Cindy Supporting Terrorists? Apparently discovering that she had no effect on US policy, she's decided to speak out against Egyptian policy: Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan joined a protest Wednesday seeking the support of Egypt's first lady in ending a military trial of members of the country's largest Islamic organization.
Under the watchful eyes of dozens of black-clad and helmeted anti-riot police, some 50 heavily veiled wives and children of 40 senior members of the Muslim Brotherhood detained for the past year, gathered in front of the headquarters of first lady Suzanne Mubarak's National Council Women carrying banners calling for their release.
"I am here to protest the trial of civilians in front of a military tribunal as this is a violation to international law," said Sheehan, who gained fame in the U.S. for her sit-in outside President Bush's Texas ranch following the death of her son in Iraq. Labels: Cindy Sheehan, Muslim Brotherhood
Hillary and Obama's EarmarksCome under scrutiny from the WaPo: Working with her New York colleagues in nearly every case, Clinton supported almost four times as much spending on earmarked projects as her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), whose $91 million total placed him in the bottom quarter of senators who seek earmarks, the study showed. And of course: Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the likely GOP presidential nominee, was one of five senators to reject earmarks entirely, part of his long-standing view that such measures prompt needless spending.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
There Is No Bomb But MohammedThe cartoon jihad continues: 
Live From BerzerkleyOur buddy ThirdWaveDave has the best summary of yesterday's activities outside the Marine recruiting station, over at Radio Patriot. Great photo collections at ZombieTime, like this one from the "Terrans":  And Protest Shooter. Labels: Berkeley Marine, Recruiting
Senator McCain Blogger Call ReportThe senator expressed satisfaction with last night's election results, noting that he won easily in Maryland and by nine points in Virginia. There were several questions about the VP selection and the process of picking a VP. While the senator did not that agreement on philosophy would be key, he was naturally reluctant to respond to particular suggestions as to candidates such as Governor Mark Sandford or Senator Tom Coburn, stating that it was premature to talk specifics with Governor Huckabee still in the race. There were two specific questions regarding earmarks. First, Robert Bluey noted that Congressman Henry Waxman had recently sworn off earmarks. Senator McCain expressed delight. Another caller said that some Republicans claimed that earmarks helped them get reelected. The senator's reply was that it would be much better for the party of small government to have them eliminated. The best question (I thought) was about the upcoming trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other co-conspirators in the 9-11 attacks. The question was whether the senator would feel that military tribunals ensured a fair trial. The senator was adamant that KSM and his cronies did not deserve the protections afforded US citizens under the constitution. I did not get the chance to ask my question, which would have been about the differences in a general election campaign versus Hillary or versus Obama.
"Progressives" Celebrate a Big Win Over, Yes, a DemocratHeheh, we get so wrapped up in the politics of the presidency at times that we forget the nutroots are working against the Democrats all the time: Update--Huge night for progressive movement: With every precinct coming in with at least a 10% improvement for Edwards over 2006, let me reiterate this point: the new primary voters who are coming out for Barack Obama are also going to result in the first progressive displacement of a centrist, corporate, congressional Democrat via a primary in years. This it it. This is what we have been working for and building for. This is our emerging majority. We finally have the organization, and the voters, and the whole ball of wax. The movement has thoroughly come of age. Hmmm, didn't they "displace" Joe Lieberman via a primary in 2006 as well? Oh, sorry I forgot, he came back to win the general election as an independent. That one didn't quite take, and of course it came back to bite the "progressives" in the butt this year. I know I'm looking forward to hearing Joe speak at the RNC.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
In Defense of RushThis is wrong: But, guess what? Even if, as the country veers left, living conservatives gnash their teeth and dead ones spin in their graves, a small class of conservatives will benefit. And who might they be? They might be those whose influence and coffers swell on discontent, and who find attacking a president easier and more sensational than the dreary business of defending one. They rose during the Clinton years. Perhaps they are nostalgic. It isn't worth it, however, for the rest of us. I've been pretty critical of the yakkers over the last couple of months, but I'm willing to take them at their word, that they think McCain will lead the conservative movement over the cliff. They're wrong, of course, but that does not mean they aren't sincere in their beliefs. As I have discussed on several occasions, the problem for the talkers is that all they have is a hammer, and so as a result, everything looks like a nail. Rush speaks (supposedly) for the base of the conservative movement. He believes that only the base matters. It's lunacy, of course, but easier to recognize on the other side of the aisle. Does anybody believe that a candidate who excites the crowd at DailyKos is going to win in the general election? It clearly didn't happen this year even in the primaries; the preferred candidate of the nutbar left was John Edwards. Even the Democrats know better than to listen to their left wing. They know that they've got to nominate a moderate candidate to win. The difference of course is that the Republicans have gotten used to winning and they treat it as a given. Ignore the polls that show John McCain winning; didn't polls show Michael Dukakis way out in front of Poppy Bush in 1988? Yes, they did, so therefore polls this early are meaningless. Well, my friends, that's a load of bull. Polls this far out are NOT meaningless. They are certainly not infallible, but they are at least evidence of something. In 1988 they were evidence of Reagan fatigue. But Bush campaigned a little more to the center, Dukakis proved to be a stiff as a debater, and the GOP won easily. Rush is wrong. But I don't think he's staging his little McCain mutiny to boost his ratings, and indeed, I would be very surprised if they haven't suffered a bit and will decline further unless he gets a clue. Labels: John McCain, Rush Limbaugh
Will The Contest Be Dramatically Different If Obama's the Nominee Rather Than Hillary? That's a question I plan to ask Senator McCain at the next blogger conference call. It comes to mind because of an AP poll result that seems very interesting: In a finding that underscores both McCain's cross-party appeal and the bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination, about one-third of Obama's supporters picked McCain when asked their preference in a Clinton-McCain general election matchup. Nearly three in 10 Clinton backers said they would vote for McCain over Obama. Sounds very much like the race will be dramatically different depending on the opponent, possibly putting different states into the "battleground" category. As has often been observed, Obama polls poorly among Hispanics, a category in which McCain should do quite well. McCain also polls well among older white women, another area in which Obama has had trouble. Jerome Armstrong notes that the Obama campaign has not been specific about its plans for electoral college victory, as compared to the Hillary machine: I'm not talking about the national polls either, but how does Barack Obama put together a winning electoral advantage over John McCain? I have heard Clinton's many times, and its been played out in the Democratic nomination battle. She'll take an unprecedented high level of women and Latino majorities into winning all (or nearly all) the states that John Kerry (and/or Al Gore) won, and add in: Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and Florida. Maybe there are some other states, but if we just add those 42 electoral votes to the Democratic column, Clinton would win. I doubt Arizona is really available for Clinton given McCain's favorite son status. But at least Hillary has a plan; Obama has "hope". Labels: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain
Monday, February 11, 2008
Rush the Ralph Nader of the Right?Not sure how apt the comparison is, but he certainly seems as determined to pull his party to a place from which it cannot be elected. Moreover, Limbaugh’s anti-endorsement could give the Tina Feys enough cover to quietly pull that McCain lever. A CNN poll in 2006 gave Limbaugh an approval/disapproval rating of 26/58. Every evangelical voter who stays home could be more than matched by a secular voter flipping to McCain. Consider Ohio - 25 percent evangelicals in 2004. They put President Bush over the top, but the 75 percent of non-evangelicals went for John Kerry by a margin of 13 points. Forty-seven percent of Ohio voters described themselves as moderates in 2004, and they voted Kerry by 18 points. Only 11 percent of Democrats voted for Bush. McCain could substantially improve on Bush’s numbers in the left and center. The Limbaugh listeners probably aren't all that "evangelical", it's more the social conservatives who aren't terribly religious who are rebelling. Still, terrific writing with an enjoyable flair, so read it all. Labels: John McCain, Rush Limbaugh
The Pitiful PartyBill Quick and a few others have started a website called the American Conservative Party. Apparently the platform is "No John McCains allowed!" My favorite post is this one: Which would produce better conservative governance:
Hillary or Barack with a Republican Congress or a McCain with a Democratic Congress?
If you think about it logically, you'll know why no conservative should vote for McCain. Brilliant! Exactly how the election is going to produce President Hillbama with a Republican Congress is a minor detail left unexplained. In fact, the real options are Hillary or Barack with a Democratic Congress, or McCain with a Democratic Congress or a very narrowly Republican Congress.
Conservative Sclerosis?Ross Douthat has a must-read editorial about how we got to this point, with the only two contenders left in the Republican field being the ones that Rush Limbaugh and others deemed unacceptable. The conservative critics of Mr. McCain and Mr. Huckabee weren’t wrong on every issue. But in their zeal to read both candidates out of the conservative movement, often on the flimsiest of pretexts, the movement’s leaders raised a standard of ideological purity that not even Ronald Reagan could have lived up to. Indeed, Ronald "Amnesty" Reagan would be considered a liberal by some in the conservative movement. But there are a number of other issues going on here as well: 1. Success breeds failure in two-party politics. This seems paradoxical, but it's true. As one party succeeds disproportionately, as the Republicans have for the last 28 plus years, many of its programs become implemented. Either they work, in which case they cease to be issues, or they don't, in which case the other party sweeps into power to repeal those programs. Consider high marginal taxes on upper income individuals. In the 1930s and 1940s punitive tax rates were imposed on individuals. But in the 1960 election John F. Kennedy ran on a program of cutting back taxes on the upper bracket from 90% to 70%. Effectively, upper-income individuals were able to keep three times as much of their income (from 10% to 30%). This freed a great deal of capital to be put to work in the economy as investments. When Reagan later lowered the top marginal rate from 70% to 50%, the effect was to allow upper-income individuals to keep 66% more of their income (from 30% to 50%. When the 1986 tax cuts reduced the top marginal tax rates from 50% to 28%, the effect was to allow upper-income earners to keep about 44% more of their money (from 50% to 72%). But even the Laffer curve has a limit. Even with the Clinton tax increase upping the top marginal rate to 38%, in order to give another 40% boost, the tax rates would have to be reduced from 38% to 13.2% (so that people would keep 86.8% of their income rather than 62%). More important, no Democrat is running on a pledge to increase taxes significantly on upper-income individuals. So Republicans not only can't promise taxpayers another big tax cut, but they can't even scare those people with the prospect of a big increase if the Democrats are elected. So what has happened? Upper-income individuals are voting on other issues than taxes, which inevitably hurts the Republicans at the margins 2. The failure of the Republicans to win on core social issues may be disenchanting social conservatives. Abortion has now been legal everywhere in the USA for 35 years. The culture has grown markedly more coarse during the Republican era (not blaming the GOP, just noting that it has been unable to stop the erosion).
Are the Republicans Headed for the Cliff Even With McCain?One of the arguments that we McCainiacs have used on our friends in the GOP is that Senator McCain is the most electable Republican. But looking at the turnout on the Democratic side of the primaries this year, is it not arguable that no matter which Republican we nominated we'd be heading for disaster? Not necessarily. Karl at Protein Wisdom looks at the polls both nationally and in a few key states to show that there does not appear to be a landslide imminent. Meanwhile, Willisms looks at past turnouts to show that big participation in the primaries has not always translated into victory in the fall. I find the Willisms' post interesting, but less convincing. For example, he points to 1980, when the Democrats had 18.7 million voters turn out for their primaries, while the GOP had 12.7 million primary ballots turned in, even as the Democrats were headed towards a historic defeat. This overlooks a key dynamic in that race. Initially Carter did not face any intra-party challenge in 1980, but as it became obvious that he was headed towards defeat in the fall, Ted Kennedy threw his hat in the ring and drove interest in the race to new levels, even as Reagan was wrapping up his easy win in the GOP field. Here's another way to look at those numbers. The "higher turnout in the primaries results in a win in the general" theory was wrong in 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1996 and 2004. But it was right in 1976, 1992 and 2000. And what do those years have in common? They were all years in which the party out of power won the White House. Of course this still doesn't tell us whether this is one of the former years, or one of the latter. And the complicating factor is the absolutely unique quality of this race, which we have remarked on quite often. This is the first time in at least my lifetime that there has been no heir apparent on either side. In every other election since 1952, either a sitting president or a sitting vice president was running on one side or the other. It's not terribly surprising that in 1972 or 1984 or 1996 or 2004, that turnout was higher for the party out of power (since they actually had a contest, not a coronation), and yet these did not presage victory in the general because incumbent presidents tend to win. Now that the Republican contest seems largely settled, the Democrats will no doubt increase their turnout advantage. Indeed, some friends of mine in Virginia called me the other day to say that they were going to vote in the Democratic primary rather than the Republican because the race is settled on our side and they want to monkey-wrench the Democrats by helping Hillary. Labels: 2008 Election
Electoral College MusingJohn Fund looks at various possibilities. Could the Republicans lose Ohio and still win? Let's assume that Ohio goes to either Mr. Obama or Ms. Clinton. It's at least as likely that Mr. McCain could carry New Hampshire. The Granite State went only narrowly to Mr. Kerry, a senator from a neighboring state, and Mr. McCain has unique advantages there. New Hampshire elections are determined by how that state's fiercely independent voters go, and Mr. McCain has won over many of them in both the 2000 and 2008 GOP primaries. He spent 47 days in New Hampshire before this year's primary and is well-known in the state. If Mr. McCain lost Ohio but carried New Hampshire and all the other states Mr. Bush took in 2004, he would win, 270-268. Interesting stuff. I think Fund's a little optimistic about certain states but there is no denying that the Republicans have the best candidate to win independents and soft Democrats.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
The Billionaire's CandidateIs, unsurprisingly, a billionaire himself. Mark Cuban calls for NY Mayor Bloomberg to enter the campaign. But note this part: I actually started to get a little bit excited about McCain. Then he went on the warpath to "mend his riff" with the Republican Party. I can only speak for myself, but the fact that he had a "riff" with the Republicans is exactly why i started to get excited about him. No, he hadn't presented any more details on his plans than any other candidate, but there was a glimmer of hope that he was a candidate that thought for himself. The word he's looking for is "rift". So the blog maverick is not supporting the political maverick, because McCain's gone too far right. This illustrates the risk to the senator of continuing to court the supposed base of the party. The idea that John McCain still owes something to the people who did not support his candidacy is mistaken. Suppose he does make the effort and everybody swoons with delight. What will happen the minute he tacks back to the center, as he must to win the election? The peasants will be back at the castle gates with torches and pitchforks. There are not enough votes to win this election on the right. That is becoming appallingly obvious when looking at the number of people coming out to the polls in the primary states. Look at South Carolina, for example. The Palmetto State is considered safe Republican; Bush won their by 17 percentage points over Kerry. Yet in this year's primary, 20% more people voted for the Democrats than voted for the GOP's candidates. And that although the GOP had an advantage in that their primary was open, and came a week before the Dems vote. Or Missouri. Missouri is a battleground state, one of the key states in determining the presidential outcome. Bush won there by seven points in 2004, so Republicans figure to have a small edge there. But in this year's primary, 40% more people voted for Democratic candidates. Forty percent! And bear in mind that there was a very hotly contested three-way race on the Republican side (and a hotly contested two-way race among the Democrats). Now that the GOP race is over (and don't kid yourself, it's over), expect that turnout differential to increase sharply. There are not enough votes in the base to win this election, not even close. McCain needs to move aggressivly towards the center now if he is to chip away at that lead. Labels: 2008 Election, John McCain
Saturday, February 09, 2008
What's Up with the Democrats?I always have to caution myself when analyzing events on the other side of the aisle. We all know how hopelessly badly the liberals tend to understand Republicans; I am humble enough to recognize that in all probability I'm as lousy at handicapping their entries. Chris Bowers at Open Left says he will leave the Democrats if something happens or doesn't happen, involving the Super Delegates. See if you can figure it out: This is not a negotiable position. If the Democratic Party does not nominate the candidate for POTUS that the majority (or plurality) of its participants in primaries and caucuses want it to nominate, then I will quit the Democratic Party. If you think this is somehow rejecting the rules and bylaws of the Democratic Party, you are wrong. The fact is that there is nothing in the bylaws of the Democratic Party that dictate how super delegates should vote at the Democratic national convention. In the absence of any legal dictation of how they should vote, I will hold them to the principles that make me a Democrat: as the democratic institution through which internal disputes of the American center-left are resolved. If the Democratic Party fails to respect those principles, and their "super" delegates nominate someone for POTUS other than the person who received the most support during Democratic primaries and caucuses, then I fail to see any reason to continue participating in the Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party is not a democratic institution, then to hell with the Democratic Party. A champion of Democracy? Errr, no. Obviously this leaves an unsettled question as to quite what Bowers means by "most support during the Democratic primaries and caucuses", as a commenter points out. Chris responds: A 1% lead or more in pledged delegates from all 50 states and every territory. If it falls in between the plus or minus 1% range, I'll cut some lack. Otherwise, none. Well, let's go over to the RCP delegates page to see who that means currently. Hillary leads in total delegates, 1079 to 1017. However, that includes the Super Delegates. If those are excluded, Obama leads barely, by 880-868. It is well-established that in the next few states, Obama will probably do well, so he will widen that lead, but may or may not catch Hillary in the real total. In the real world, I don't know what the total vote count is so far, but I strongly suspect that Hillary has won more popular votes than Obama, with his big wins in the South and Illinois matched by her victories in the Mid-Atlantic states and California. This site indicates that Hillary has outpolled Obama so far by 8.9 million to 8.4 million. Where's Bowers' pledge to leave the party if it does not abide by the popular vote? Labels: Barack Obama, Chris Bowers, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, OpenLeft
Fred Thompson Is a RINOWell, that's what a lot of people would have said if he'd made this announcement a week ago. "This is no longer about past preferences or differences. It is about what is best for our country and for me that means that Republican should close ranks behind John McCain," Thompson said in a statement reported by the Associated Press. Michelle Malkin still believes she's in a position to make demands: Sorry, I’m not ready yet to submit just yet.
Endorsements are all well and good, but personnel is policy. And McCain has done nothing to disassociate himself from anti-conservative, pro-border obliterationists. Less talk. More action. Great writer, great thinker, but extortion only works when you have something to threaten the blackmailee with. Either the conservative right will come around or it won't (I'm betting on the former), but they're in no position to negotiate. We need their help, but most of them are already on record as saying there's nothing Senator McCain can do or say to change their mind about him. So why capitulate? Why not take them at their word and search in the center for votes? Labels: Fred Thompson, John McCain
Friday, February 08, 2008
Man Charged in Robert McCartney's Death to Go On Trial This SpringIt's been quite awhile since I covered this story, but I am pleased to see that justice may be delayed, but (one hopes) it will be served. Fifty-one-year old Terence Davison will go on trial in Belfast on either April 7 or May 12 - depending on openings on the Court List, said a spokesman for the Northern Ireland Court Service.
Two other men will stand trial with him charged with affray.
Details were confirmed as the McCartney family marked the third anniversary of his death.
But How Would the French Vote?It is indeed the silly season, considering this story: Germans would choose Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama over Republican John McCain if they were eligible to vote in the U.S. presidential election, a poll for ARD television found.
Sixty-nine percent of Germans would vote for Clinton while only 10 percent would back McCain, according to the survey carried out Feb. 6. In a contest between Obama and McCain, 65 percent would support the Democrat with 11 percent backing the Republican, ARD said today in an e-mailed statement. Labels: 2008 Candidates
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Text of Senator McCain's SpeechIs here. Those are my beliefs, and you need not examine only my past votes and speeches to assure yourselves that they are my genuine convictions. You can take added confidence from the positions I have defended during this campaign. I campaigned in Iowa in opposition to agriculture subsidies. I campaigned in New Hampshire against big government mandated health care and for a free market solution to the problem of unavailable and unaffordable health care. I campaigned in Michigan for the tax incentives and trade policies that will create new and better jobs in that economically troubled state. I campaigned in Florida against the national catastrophic insurance fund bill that passed the House of Representatives and defended my opposition to the prescription drug benefit bill that saddled Americans with yet another hugely expensive entitlement program. I have argued to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, to reduce the corporate tax rate and abolish the AMT. I have defended my position on protecting our Second Amendment rights, including my votes against waiting periods, bans on the so-called "assault weapons," and illegitimate lawsuits targeting gun manufacturers. I have proudly defended my twenty-four year pro-life record. Throughout this campaign, I have defended the President's brave decision to increase troop levels in Iraq to execute a long overdue counterinsurgency that has spared us the terrible calamity of losing that war. I held these positions because I believed they were in the best interests of my party and country." I know that some have said there is nothing Senator McCain can do or say to change your minds and support him, but I do encourage you to read the speech with an open mind. I have never been one to stand on the sidelines; I want to be in the game. Labels: 2008 Candidates, John McCain
Huge Props to Mitt! Major reports going out that Governor Romney will drop out of the race today at CPAC and (one hopes) throw his support behind Senator McCain. Plans to say during CPAC speech: “If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win….” I have been critical of the gov in the past, but he's always struck me as a sensible, highly intelligent man. I don't know whether the bitterness of the campaign will rule this out, but I would strongly urge the McCain campaign to consider him seriously as a Veep nominee. It would go a long way towards bridging the divisions in the party. We've all had a terrible time the last few months, even those of us who've backed the (now almost certain) winner. I'll freely admit that I've strained relations with many wonderful people in the blogging community with my sometimes intemperate defense of Senator McCain, and for that I apologize. It's not in my nature to back down from an argument, but certainly I have taken things too personally. This certainly gives McCain a huge opening to praise Romney to the skies in his own CPAC address. It also means that any TV coverage today will focus on Romney's speech and not McCain's which is probably a very good thing. Other reactions: Allahpundit: I’ve got to believe that his speech will be a stemwinder about conservative values and fighting the good fight, all very much with an eye to creating a memory he can leverage four years from now. Shrewd, if so. Michelle Malkin live-blogged the speech: Frankly in this time of a war, I cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.
This isn’t an easy decision. I hate to lose
not just about me…i entered this race because i love america. i feel i have to now stand aside.
We cannot allow the next president of the United States to retreat in the face of evil extremism. Just One Minute explores the theme of whether anti-Mormon prejudice in the Southern Baptists might explain Mitt's inability to connect in the South: I'm sure Huckabee would be delighted to be the nominee or even the VP but I suspect that throwing sand in Romney's gears was a big part of his mission. That's reading a bit too much into it in my opinion. Huckabee's always seemed like a guy who was running to win the nomination, and he's a credible candidate, winning several states. He has not been able to connect in the North. More than anything, I think Huckabee's antagonism (and McCain's) towards Romney has to do with the negative advertising they were subjected to. Patrick Ruffini, a Romney supporter noted this the other day: Specifically, it seems to me that the conservative establishment’s decision to go nuclear first on Huckabee (who never had a shot but speaks for voters we need in November) before McCain (who always had a shot but speaks mostly for himself) will rank as a pretty serious strategic blunder. Labels: Mitt Romney
DNC Skullduggery The DNC has stripped Joe Lieberman of his SuperDelegate status, apparently not due to his leaving the party (he has been an independent since the netkooks drove him out in support of Neddy Lamont), but due to his endorsement of Senator John McCain. I can't blame them, much as we appreciate Joe's support, and I gotta wonder if he even wanted to go to the DNC; he hasn't been popular with the nutty activist base of the party since 2004 or so. Meanwhile, Howard Dean (remember him?) is pledging to step in and broker a deal the Hillary delegates and the Obama delegates. "The idea that we can afford to have a big fight at the convention and then win the race in the next eight weeks, I think, is not a good scenario,” he said.
If there is no nominee selected by his predicted mid-spring date, or by Puerto Rico's June vote – the last presidential primary on the Democratic calendar – Dean said the party would likely bring both sides together to work out a deal. Hoo-boy, I would not want to be in that room unless they cleared it of ashtrays. This virtually guarantees that the losers will end up hurt and angry; not a good thing for the party of emotion. The problem arises because the Democrats' desire for "fairness" has put them in a bind that was terribly obvious years ago. By awarding delegates proportionally, as compared to winner-take-all, the Democrats have set up a situation where two strong candidates will almost certainly end up unable to reach the magic number, particularly if a third candidate manages to win some delegates along the way. Suppose the Democrats had winner-take-all in the states the Republicans did on Super Tuesday. Then Hillary would be cruising to her coronation. She won New York, New Jersey, and Arizona, just as John McCain did. Instead of winning all the delegates, she lost 93 in New York, 59 in New Jersey, and 25 in Arizona; that's a total of 177 delegates that should be in her column (and not for Obama). Take away the 22 she won in Connecticut, 6 in Delaware and 36 in Missouri, which Obama won, and she'd still be at a plus 113 compared to where she is now, or at a total of 1169, while Obama would be at 866. Other voices: Blue Crab Boulevard: Obama has been running extremely well, much better than I initially expected, frankly. For him to give up all his aspirations to be President is pretty well unthinkable. For Clinton, she believes that job is hers, almost as a birthright. I can't see her giving that up, either. So [we] have a virtually unsolvable problem there. Protein Wisdom: Rove, you magnificent bastard! Hot Air: But if it keeps going and stays tight, maybe Hillary finds some money in an old Hsu or something, Howard Dean might scream in to save the day. Eeeeeeyyyyyaaaaaaahhhhh! Labels: Barack Obama, DNC, Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Happy Belated Fifth BloggiversaryTo me. My first post here was on February 5, 2003. Defending Ann Coulter. Gag. Labels: Bloggiversary
Who Was Right and Who Was Wrong?Nope, not going to engage in any self-congratulation here; I'm talking about the pollsters. I have seen some very suspicious results, which almost seem intended to kickstart the conversation, so I thought I'd take a look back at the recent polls and see who was kidding us. California. The big kahuna of states. On the Republican side, John McCain won by eight percentage points, 42% to 34% for Mitt Romney. In the RCP latest polls, only Suffolk predicted a solid win for McCain. Rasmussen had the state tied, Survey USA had McCain up by a point, and Reuters/CSpan/Zogby did horribly, predicting a seven point Romney win. For the Democrats, Hillary Clinton scored a 52% to 42% win over Barack Obama. Survey USA nailed that one on the money. Rasmussen and Suffolk showed Obama winning by one point. And Reuters/CSpan/Zogby were once again predicting a landslide for the person who lost, predicting Obama by 13. New York. McCain won the Empire State handily, with 51% to Romney's 28%, a 23-point margin. All the pollsters showed McCain winning, with Rasmussen actually coming closest, predicting a 19-point win for the senator. WNBC/Marist and Reuters/CSpan/Zogby did the poorest, predicting 37 and 36-point wins for McCain respectively On the portside, Hillary won her "home" state by 17 points, 57% to 40%. All of the pollsters did pretty good here, with predicted margins for Mrs. Clinton ranging from 14 points to 21 points. New Jersey. McCain took the Garden State, by 27 points, 55% to 28%. Most of the pollsters were reasonably in line with this, with the exception of Mason-Dixon, which saw McCain winning by only 15 points. Among the Democrats, Hillary won by 10, 54% to 44%. All of the pollsters were reasonably in line with this prediction, with Survey USA the closest at 52% to 41%. Illinois. McCain won handily here with a 47% to 29% bulge over Romney, or 18 points. Rasmussen did poorly here, seeing the race as only 8 points apart, while Survey USA did pretty well, predicting a 46% to 25% blowout. Obama picked up a big win in his home state, with a 65% to 33% pasting of Hillary, a 32-point margin. All of the pollsters did pretty good on the margin of victory, but Survey USA was closest on the actual percentages for each candidate. Missouri. John McCain squeaked out a 33%-32% win over Mike Huckabee, with Mitt Romney at 29%. Survey USA called that almost exactly (33-31-28), while Mason Dixon was the most wrong at 37-27-24. Obama also won narrowly, 49% to Hillary's 48%. Reuters/CSpan/Zogby was the only pollster in the last few days to call Barack's win. Survey USA and Rasmussen did poorly, predicting a Clinton win by 11 and 9 points respectively. Georgia. Mike Huckabee won narrowly, 34% to 32% for McCain, and 30% for Romney. None of the pollsters picked Huckabee to win, but Mason-Dixon finished worst, with a 6-point predicted win. Obama swamped Hillary in the Peach State, with a 67% to 31% mauling, a 36-point margin. None of the pollsters were in the same area code, predicting a win of between 15 and 22 points. Best picks: Suffolk (1), Survey USA (5), Rasmussen (1), Reuters/CSpan/Zogby (1) Worst picks: Reuters/CSpan/Zogby (3), WNBC/Marist (1), Mason-Dixon (3), Rasmussen (2), Survey USA (1) Based on this limited sample, Survey USA seems to be doing a very good job, while Mason-Dixon did pretty poorly. Zogby did have one solid poll, but they had clearly the worst performance in California. Labels: 2008 Election, Polls
Signs of Sanity?Hugh Hewitt, who was perhaps the biggest supporter of Mitt Romney, sees the writing on the wall: Senator McCain has a clear path to the nomination, Romney a very uphill battle, and Huck is fighting for 2012 at this point and for a win in a major vote outside of the south. Certainly they should all stay in through the primaries ahead because it isn't over and because our side needs the excitement of a campaign in such key falls states as Wisconsin, Ohio and Pennsylvania to keep the MSM from turning 100% of its attention on to growing the Obama phenomenon. They ought to be scheduling three man debates in every state, making their points and taking every opportunity to look ahead to the fall. I'll confess, I was expecting a "let's go for a brokered convention" post. Good to see he's coming around.
The New Ron Paul Sign Don't know who created it, but that's terrific! Found here. Labels: Ron Paul
|
|
