"Who does number 2 work for?"
Admist the rumors and fighting between Pakastani forces and Al-Qaeda-like ones, DEBKAfile, is good for another dish: "Pakistani forces resume onslaught on al Qaeda and Taliban elements holed up in Waziristan after Taliban defense minister Mullah Akhund denies presence of bin Laden"s No. 2 Zuwahiri in area. He believes both are safe in Afghanistan and moving around all the time."
DEBKA was a great source of Israeli-intell during the war in Iraq. And we all know that the Israelis a life and death stake in their info being spot on. After all, even though they are attacked all the time (last this week with 10 dead for instance), they do stop a bunch of attacks and catch a lot of bad guys. Unfortunately, their leader antagonizes more terrorists to crop up. "Mr. Sharon, tear down this wall!" When will an American president have the cajones to say that?
Meanwhile, in the Madrid Masacre case: "Madrid judge orders five suspects held for further investigation – 3 Moroccans charged with belonging to armed group responsible for at least 190 murders, 2 Indians with collaborating with armed group. Suspects can be held two years without formal charges. Train bombing deaths reach 202 and 1,600 injured.
"London counter-terror officers report: Moroccan al Qaeda bombers who carried out Madrid train attacks received logistical assistance from al Qaeda cells in Britain" Oh, and I wanted to note that the terrorists didn't win, Bush lost. This was another clear rebuke of Bush's foreign policy. Every foreign leader who has run on supporting Bush has lost, every one that has run away from him has won (Bush is 0-3). Even the new Spanish PM said he would keep troops in if the UN was in charge.
But NeoCons won't let that happen; because who needs allies right? It's not like the Pakistanis are the only ones fighting Al-Qaeda right now. We just need a "coalition of the willing." The trouble with this idea is that every time you mess up a foreign operation, like the Bush administration did, you have less countries willing to stick around and help pay the bill. There is a reason why for 50+ years the US had lots of long standing allies who were with us via treaty and thick and thin; it's because it worked. And clearly, Spain (and Japan and South Korea) shows that a Cheney-style "coalition" does not.
Friday, March 19, 2004
Thursday, March 18, 2004
Why isn't Kerry Talking About National Security?
I thought Democrats nominated Kerry to not only dispell the "weak on Defense" argument of Democrats but that he could actually take on Bush on the issues of National Security and Iraq that other couldn't (this was also the theory behind Clark by the way).
Yet, when Kerry and his surrogates on the left (Moveon.org and the Media Fund) responded to Bush's negative ads against the junior Senator from Massachusetts, they talked about Jobs, Healthcare, the Economy. These "kitchen table" arguments are ones that are tried and true for a reason: Democrats always beat Republicans on this issue. Where they haven't won on since Vietnam on is Defense.
So why isn't Kerry making the case for a Democratic view of international relations and national security? Why does Dick Holbrooke and Jamie Rueben have to do it for you? The case is quite compelling really: George W. Bush promised in 2000 (to the military) "help is on the way;" Democrats need to use that line right back on him. Candidate Bush said the military was overburdened, overstretched and low on morale without adaqute supplies or pay. Flash forward to 2004, the US military is now so overdeployed that National Guardsmen are in Iraq and Afghanistan for well over 6 months at a time. Confidential interviews with soldiers in military magazines like Stars and Stripes paint a picture of troops with extremely low morale. Despite the massive run up in defense spending the last 3 years, there still isn't enough flak jackets or armored humvees for our troops patrolling Bagdad, who are getting sniped and bombed daily. (Appearantly there still is plenty of money for failed missle defense systems and new boats built in Missippi). Whose soft on defense.
Howard Dean said the right thing at the wrong time (and he was probabbly the wrong messenger too): We aren't any safer with Saddam Hussien gone. Sure, I've wanted to get rid of him since 1991, and would have wanted to get rid of him in 1987 when he bombed the Kurds with Mustard Gas had I been aware of it at the time. I also wanted to get rid of Marcos in the Phillapines, or the Chinese out of Tibet, or the Tailban out of Afghanistan in 1998 when they started bombing budda statues and letting hijackers land planes there. But the point of that tangent is you can't get rid of everyone. You have to set priorities. Or you go after all of them.
But to claim that Iraq was an iminate threat, or even an emerging threat, was a stretch to say the least. Any one who was paying attention noticed that Iraq had been blanketed by bombs and UN quaruntines and was significantly weaker than it was in 1991. I wish Kerry had voted against the war this time and against it last time, but I understand why he thought he had to. Hopefully, he can get his story straight in time to explain it to the voters.
Believe it or not, Bush is vulerable to attacks on his record as commander-in-chief. We have two wars that haven't be 100% "won," we have allies that are alienated, we have Al-Qaeda's reimergence on the world scene, swiss cheese protection provided by the Homeland Security and so on. Bush is the one who is "wrong on defense."
Democrats need an ad late in the year that catalogues all the big lies the aministration has told before the American people. Those two methods of attack, plus actually laying out a counter proposal on what to do with Iraq and national security should be enough to be winning the defense issue.
I thought Democrats nominated Kerry to not only dispell the "weak on Defense" argument of Democrats but that he could actually take on Bush on the issues of National Security and Iraq that other couldn't (this was also the theory behind Clark by the way).
Yet, when Kerry and his surrogates on the left (Moveon.org and the Media Fund) responded to Bush's negative ads against the junior Senator from Massachusetts, they talked about Jobs, Healthcare, the Economy. These "kitchen table" arguments are ones that are tried and true for a reason: Democrats always beat Republicans on this issue. Where they haven't won on since Vietnam on is Defense.
So why isn't Kerry making the case for a Democratic view of international relations and national security? Why does Dick Holbrooke and Jamie Rueben have to do it for you? The case is quite compelling really: George W. Bush promised in 2000 (to the military) "help is on the way;" Democrats need to use that line right back on him. Candidate Bush said the military was overburdened, overstretched and low on morale without adaqute supplies or pay. Flash forward to 2004, the US military is now so overdeployed that National Guardsmen are in Iraq and Afghanistan for well over 6 months at a time. Confidential interviews with soldiers in military magazines like Stars and Stripes paint a picture of troops with extremely low morale. Despite the massive run up in defense spending the last 3 years, there still isn't enough flak jackets or armored humvees for our troops patrolling Bagdad, who are getting sniped and bombed daily. (Appearantly there still is plenty of money for failed missle defense systems and new boats built in Missippi). Whose soft on defense.
Howard Dean said the right thing at the wrong time (and he was probabbly the wrong messenger too): We aren't any safer with Saddam Hussien gone. Sure, I've wanted to get rid of him since 1991, and would have wanted to get rid of him in 1987 when he bombed the Kurds with Mustard Gas had I been aware of it at the time. I also wanted to get rid of Marcos in the Phillapines, or the Chinese out of Tibet, or the Tailban out of Afghanistan in 1998 when they started bombing budda statues and letting hijackers land planes there. But the point of that tangent is you can't get rid of everyone. You have to set priorities. Or you go after all of them.
But to claim that Iraq was an iminate threat, or even an emerging threat, was a stretch to say the least. Any one who was paying attention noticed that Iraq had been blanketed by bombs and UN quaruntines and was significantly weaker than it was in 1991. I wish Kerry had voted against the war this time and against it last time, but I understand why he thought he had to. Hopefully, he can get his story straight in time to explain it to the voters.
Believe it or not, Bush is vulerable to attacks on his record as commander-in-chief. We have two wars that haven't be 100% "won," we have allies that are alienated, we have Al-Qaeda's reimergence on the world scene, swiss cheese protection provided by the Homeland Security and so on. Bush is the one who is "wrong on defense."
Democrats need an ad late in the year that catalogues all the big lies the aministration has told before the American people. Those two methods of attack, plus actually laying out a counter proposal on what to do with Iraq and national security should be enough to be winning the defense issue.
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
a pitstop in the Gore-ing of John Kerry
Amid all the late night talk show jokes and calls by the Bush aministration to name names,The Boston Globe's Patrick Healy, who quoted Kerry on "foreign leaders," who wanted him to defeat Bush, said 3/15 that "upon review of his tape, he realized that Kerry had in fact" said "more leaders." His reference to "more leaders," said Kerry spokesperson Stephanie Cutter, "could mean anybody." Even Drudge has the full e-mail by Healy on his website.
Question #1 leaps to mind: Why didn't Kerry's people say, no my boss never said that? Why did they let the foriegn leaders quote go on for days and days with GOPers making snide, "I'll bet it was Kim Ill Jung and Chirac" remarks? Number two, boy does Healy has balls or what? He talked to the LA Times about sending out this e-mail and admitting to a mistake by the press and ending a storyline that the press core loved. The press I have decided, are not, in general overly liberal or conservative. They are overwhelmingly lazy. If on the first time they think they hear "foreign leaders" they will stick to it for months. If they get a press release, they will quote it extensively.
Remember the Bush ad that had 9/11 images and the families of survivors who were aghast at George exploiting the attack for his political gains? Turns out, those people were part of a group, September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, who's endorsed Dennis J. Kucinich, as pointed out by the Weekly Standard's Continetti. Yet none of the media bothered to mention the group's affilation when airing segments or writing articles. Why? Because they were too busy to look up the numbers of other victims; some liberal group had handed them the numbers and quotes and they ran with it.
Occationally, reporters do amazing jobs of investigative reporting, offering different views that the CW and inside views, but the last year has been partiuclarly void. While their were puffing up Dean, Edwards, and to some extent Clark, they were beating down Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, and the unmentionables. Then once they had Dean, Edwards and Clark riding high, they took them apart again. It seems to me that the Bloggosphere does have valuable things to offer, as it offers different spins and stories on what is going on and is not the echo chamber of the press rooms. I am glad that people are tracking particular reporters and keeping them honest, like the Wilgoren Watch, or the Adam Nagaourney watch .
Of course, many of us are dependent on the media for our information and there is the issue of Journalistic Ethics that bloggers tend to dissregard when it doesn't suit their fancy, but on a whole, bloggers offer a needed supplement to the lagging elite, lazy media.
PS Today is the IL primary. And with it comes the quote of the day: "Election Day is an unusual time for the homeless"-- Chicago Sun-Times' Brown, on IL SEN's Blair Hull (D) hiring homeless Election Day workers.
Amid all the late night talk show jokes and calls by the Bush aministration to name names,The Boston Globe's Patrick Healy, who quoted Kerry on "foreign leaders," who wanted him to defeat Bush, said 3/15 that "upon review of his tape, he realized that Kerry had in fact" said "more leaders." His reference to "more leaders," said Kerry spokesperson Stephanie Cutter, "could mean anybody." Even Drudge has the full e-mail by Healy on his website.
Question #1 leaps to mind: Why didn't Kerry's people say, no my boss never said that? Why did they let the foriegn leaders quote go on for days and days with GOPers making snide, "I'll bet it was Kim Ill Jung and Chirac" remarks? Number two, boy does Healy has balls or what? He talked to the LA Times about sending out this e-mail and admitting to a mistake by the press and ending a storyline that the press core loved. The press I have decided, are not, in general overly liberal or conservative. They are overwhelmingly lazy. If on the first time they think they hear "foreign leaders" they will stick to it for months. If they get a press release, they will quote it extensively.
Remember the Bush ad that had 9/11 images and the families of survivors who were aghast at George exploiting the attack for his political gains? Turns out, those people were part of a group, September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, who's endorsed Dennis J. Kucinich, as pointed out by the Weekly Standard's Continetti. Yet none of the media bothered to mention the group's affilation when airing segments or writing articles. Why? Because they were too busy to look up the numbers of other victims; some liberal group had handed them the numbers and quotes and they ran with it.
Occationally, reporters do amazing jobs of investigative reporting, offering different views that the CW and inside views, but the last year has been partiuclarly void. While their were puffing up Dean, Edwards, and to some extent Clark, they were beating down Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, and the unmentionables. Then once they had Dean, Edwards and Clark riding high, they took them apart again. It seems to me that the Bloggosphere does have valuable things to offer, as it offers different spins and stories on what is going on and is not the echo chamber of the press rooms. I am glad that people are tracking particular reporters and keeping them honest, like the Wilgoren Watch, or the Adam Nagaourney watch .
Of course, many of us are dependent on the media for our information and there is the issue of Journalistic Ethics that bloggers tend to dissregard when it doesn't suit their fancy, but on a whole, bloggers offer a needed supplement to the lagging elite, lazy media.
PS Today is the IL primary. And with it comes the quote of the day: "Election Day is an unusual time for the homeless"-- Chicago Sun-Times' Brown, on IL SEN's Blair Hull (D) hiring homeless Election Day workers.
Monday, March 15, 2004
Spain’s Whirlwind Weekend
Just imagine this: 5:30 EST October 30th, 2004: a NJ transit train from New York explodes in multiple locations, killing hundreds and wounding thousands.
The Bush administration says it was Syrian nationalist, and on Halloween, the US military begins bombing them into the stone age. Then a video surfaces; it was actually Al-Quaeda, and Ossama bin Laden himself is laughing at us from a cave in Afghanistan/Pakistan. On the tape he says how he got all those terrorists from Baghdad into the US via ship containers.
Then on November 2nd, 2004, something amazing happens, instead of people rallying around the president like they did over 3 years ago, Americans vote in John Kerry by overwhelming margins, and Democrats take back both houses of congress. Exit polls show that the public didn’t like how quick Bush was to blame an easy target and how Iraq and the administration’s inability to protect the public again made them very angry.
Sound far fetched? That is essentially what happened in Spain from Thursday to Sunday, only the Spanish public was never behind the war on Iraq in the first place. The "Madrid Massacre,"as some like to call it is a horrific act of violence with no real reason other than violence itself.
I haven’t commented on these events at length so far because I wanted to have time to think about who was behind it and why. We can be fairly certain that it was an Al-Quaeda group, or at least a like minded group, given the evidence found in an unexploded bomb and the arrests made by the Spanish government.
Many have commented that liberals haven’t reacted strongly or properly to events such as these. Polls show that Americans still view Republicans and Bush as better on National Defense/Security and Iraq, despite Kerry’s current narrow lead. Why is this? Is it because, as neocons claim, liberals see this as a police action and not what it is, an act of war? (Ex-Senator Bob Kerrey hates the term "war on terrorism" because he says we are at war with Al-Quaeda, not a method. If we were at war with terrorism, we would have troops in Israel, Columbia, Sri Lanka, Kashmir, Chechnya, and many other places.)
At the same time, the war cannot be won "the old fashioned way" by knocking over client states like Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria. America is fighting a non-state actor who can live in countries that support them, like Afghanistan or Pakistan, but also ones that don’t like Germany, or the US. If the US really wanted to knock out all these states, it would have troops knocking in doors in Saudi Arabian Madrassas and charity groups.
Bush is right that it is a long battle with little apparent progress due to the covert nature of the work. But that fact that it hasn't happened again doesn't mean we are succeeding. In fact, it means the US has been damn lucky. Lucky that the shoe bomber's wick wouldn’t light. Lucky that they have decided on focusing their attacks on Iraq, Turkey and Spain and not the US.
To win this war, the US needs to search all points of entry, develop alternative sources of energy/reduce its dependence on foreign oil, stop supporting the governments of Saudi Arabia and other authoritarian regimes in the Islamic world for the sake of "stability" and start supporting democratic uprisings, create a visa tracking system based on technology and crack down of violators, create a national id system that would ensure that identity theft is as small as possible and only authorized individuals receive them (and not track the movements of US citizens or permanent aliens). The US and its allies need to strike a new covenant with the very people that are strapping bombs to their bodies: we will support economic development, hope and opportunity. In exchange, you will realistically engage Israel and come to terms that the Jews will have their own country and aren't going to leave (but again the Israeli government will have to pull out of settlements).
200 people in Spain shouldn't have to die for the world to wake up to the problem, 3,000 people in the US shouldn’t have to die for America to wake up to the problem either. While Democrats and Republicans can play with fire and say the other can't be trusted to keep America safe, they both need to realize there is much more yet to do.
Just imagine this: 5:30 EST October 30th, 2004: a NJ transit train from New York explodes in multiple locations, killing hundreds and wounding thousands.
The Bush administration says it was Syrian nationalist, and on Halloween, the US military begins bombing them into the stone age. Then a video surfaces; it was actually Al-Quaeda, and Ossama bin Laden himself is laughing at us from a cave in Afghanistan/Pakistan. On the tape he says how he got all those terrorists from Baghdad into the US via ship containers.
Then on November 2nd, 2004, something amazing happens, instead of people rallying around the president like they did over 3 years ago, Americans vote in John Kerry by overwhelming margins, and Democrats take back both houses of congress. Exit polls show that the public didn’t like how quick Bush was to blame an easy target and how Iraq and the administration’s inability to protect the public again made them very angry.
Sound far fetched? That is essentially what happened in Spain from Thursday to Sunday, only the Spanish public was never behind the war on Iraq in the first place. The "Madrid Massacre,"as some like to call it is a horrific act of violence with no real reason other than violence itself.
I haven’t commented on these events at length so far because I wanted to have time to think about who was behind it and why. We can be fairly certain that it was an Al-Quaeda group, or at least a like minded group, given the evidence found in an unexploded bomb and the arrests made by the Spanish government.
Many have commented that liberals haven’t reacted strongly or properly to events such as these. Polls show that Americans still view Republicans and Bush as better on National Defense/Security and Iraq, despite Kerry’s current narrow lead. Why is this? Is it because, as neocons claim, liberals see this as a police action and not what it is, an act of war? (Ex-Senator Bob Kerrey hates the term "war on terrorism" because he says we are at war with Al-Quaeda, not a method. If we were at war with terrorism, we would have troops in Israel, Columbia, Sri Lanka, Kashmir, Chechnya, and many other places.)
At the same time, the war cannot be won "the old fashioned way" by knocking over client states like Afghanistan or Iraq or Syria. America is fighting a non-state actor who can live in countries that support them, like Afghanistan or Pakistan, but also ones that don’t like Germany, or the US. If the US really wanted to knock out all these states, it would have troops knocking in doors in Saudi Arabian Madrassas and charity groups.
Bush is right that it is a long battle with little apparent progress due to the covert nature of the work. But that fact that it hasn't happened again doesn't mean we are succeeding. In fact, it means the US has been damn lucky. Lucky that the shoe bomber's wick wouldn’t light. Lucky that they have decided on focusing their attacks on Iraq, Turkey and Spain and not the US.
To win this war, the US needs to search all points of entry, develop alternative sources of energy/reduce its dependence on foreign oil, stop supporting the governments of Saudi Arabia and other authoritarian regimes in the Islamic world for the sake of "stability" and start supporting democratic uprisings, create a visa tracking system based on technology and crack down of violators, create a national id system that would ensure that identity theft is as small as possible and only authorized individuals receive them (and not track the movements of US citizens or permanent aliens). The US and its allies need to strike a new covenant with the very people that are strapping bombs to their bodies: we will support economic development, hope and opportunity. In exchange, you will realistically engage Israel and come to terms that the Jews will have their own country and aren't going to leave (but again the Israeli government will have to pull out of settlements).
200 people in Spain shouldn't have to die for the world to wake up to the problem, 3,000 people in the US shouldn’t have to die for America to wake up to the problem either. While Democrats and Republicans can play with fire and say the other can't be trusted to keep America safe, they both need to realize there is much more yet to do.
Friday, March 12, 2004
Smorgasboard
- Factiod: The typical Massachusetts legislator is a 50-year-old, white, male, Roman Catholic, Massachusetts-born, married Democrat with two children and a graduate degree (about half are law degrees) who ran unopposed in the last election, according to Boston Globe research and analysis.
- The typical Utah legislator is over 60, white, male, LDS (Mormon), Utah-born, married Republican with 6+ children and 20+ grandchildren who work in business who ran unopposed or virtually unopposed in the last election, according to my memory/Salt Lake Tribune.
- The last two CO GOP Sens first elected as GOPers -- Sen. Wayne Allard and ex-Sen. Hank Brown -- served as Reps. for the state's fourth CD. So did ex-Rep Bob Schaffer, who is in the running still on the GOP side.
- ex-AL Supreme Court Judge Roy Moore increasingly sounds like a right-wing protest candidate for the Constitution Party. Slate's Tim Noah interviewed him on NPR and he sure hedges a lot. "I would say that there's not much difference these days between those who run under one party or another because they're all after seeking power. Power's not what the Constitution was about. The Constitution was about a limitation on power. It was about the fact that the judiciary should stick to interpreting the law, not making it." Go, Roy, go!
- "Citing intense public interest in the gay marriage debate and the potential news value" of Romney's "views, most of Boston's television news outlets agreed" 3/11 "to provide live coverage in the event the governor delivered a short statement after" the vote. What would he say? Eric Fehrnstrom, spokesperson for Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), said Romney "is considering a plan to ask" the SJC "to stop the state from issuing" gay marriage licenses "if lawmakers approve" a marriage amendment. Fehrnstrom refused to "specify what" Romney had in mind, but "acknowledged that the legal options included a petition to the SJC to suspend" its ruling "until the voters had a chance to act" on a marriage amendment. Fehrnstrom: "On an issue as important as the definition of marriage the governor is not going to run and hide" Why hide when you can be on TV for free?
Back to normal, more of the same Bush crap
So now as my site traffic falls back down to earth (see this lovely chart thanks to sitemeter), I should change the subject back to all the other stuff happening in the world:
Nearly 200 people are dead in Madrid, Spain from a series of sequenced bombing attacks that smells like Al-Queada is being denied by ETA, a Basque-separatist group like the IRA in the 1980s. More sure to follow out of this. Keep in mind Spain was part of Rummy's "new Europe" AKA those that went to bat for the Bush Administration on Iraq.
Bush has out a negative attack ad on John Kerry which claims Kerry would raise taxes by $900 billion (cue Dr. Evil), weaken the PATRIOT Act that catches terrorists (like Jose Padilla?) and it uses a "generic terrorist" to do so. This looks like your average South Asian (Indian/Pakistani) with a sinister look on his face and shifty eyes (like that dog on the Simpsons).
"It undercuts the very thing the president committed himself to after 9/11," said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute. "It tries to create an identity between terrorists and that face. It can only be called a negative stereotype, it can only be called regrettable." Oh by the way, Zogby's the brother of that famous pollster too. "If they wanted to put Osama bin Laden up there that's fine, but using just a face stereotypes," he added, asking Bush to take down the "Muhammad Horton ad"
Bush folks don't get it, telling the Globe that the man was "generic" and not meant to stereotype. The right wing blogophere agrees with the tactic of using an Arab man saying they are "calling a spade a spade" DailyKos, of course, is more on Zogby's side. All of these links are thanks to TNR's Ryan Lizza.
But wait there's more! Bush as a companion dirty radio ad, along with this more "positive" attack ad with a nice fantasy touch, saying Bush will continue to "reduce health care costs" and "create jobs" as well as "reform education" while John Kerry will destroy all this by rolling back the tax cuts for the richest 1%.
First of all, Bush has lost just shy of 3 Million Jobs and created 21,000 jobs last month nearly all of which were government jobs so much for a smaller government George.
Secondly, there is nothing Bush has done to reduce health care costs, the prescription drug bill they force through congress by lying to their fellow Republicans (by threatening HHS officials with their jobs if they told the Congress the real cost estimates would be higher than $400 billion-- they ended up being $551 billion)...Oh and the bill specifically had no cost containment procedures; in fact, the law prohibited the government from trying to save money.
On Education Reform. OK well that is true, you reformed education. But change is not improvement, just ask any school district or state legislature in the country what they think of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). I think you would get an earful about "unfunded mandates."
John Kerry's camp now has a a respons ad to the Bush attack ad up, "expected, the Globe says, "to be aired in the same competitive markets where the Bush ads are running."
Meanwhile, the Colorado Senate race beckons. It is looking more and more like Democrats are poised for a pick up! According to GOP sources of the National Journal, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) will announce this p.m. that he will not run. Nor will Rep. Scott McInnis (R-CO), according to the Pueblo Chieftain who says the retiring McInnis "reportedly will announce today that he also will forego the race." Also out are CO Gov. Bill Owens (R) and Rep. Bob Beauprez (R) who is choosing instead to defend his razor thin 100+ vote seat in Colorado's 7th. So who's left to challenge CO AG Ken Salazar (D)? Ex-RNC chair Jim Nicholson "indicated he may announce as early as today whether he'll join the race" according to the Rocky Mountain News.
That's the best you can get? Well I shouldn't laugh, just look at now MS Gov. Halley Barbour, also an ex-RNC chair. With that title comes lots of people you know who can give lots of money.
And in the Land of Lincoln, a Research 2000 IL poll of Dem likely voters found Barack Obama with 36% support; Dan Hynes 21%; Maria Pappas 15% and Blair Hull 14%. A poll of GOP likely voters found Jack Ryan with 36% support; Jim Oberweis 16%; Andrew McKenna 11% and Steve Rauschenberger 10%. The state primary is in on Tuesday. Obama vs. Ryan looks to be the results. Can't wait.
So now as my site traffic falls back down to earth (see this lovely chart thanks to sitemeter), I should change the subject back to all the other stuff happening in the world:
Nearly 200 people are dead in Madrid, Spain from a series of sequenced bombing attacks that smells like Al-Queada is being denied by ETA, a Basque-separatist group like the IRA in the 1980s. More sure to follow out of this. Keep in mind Spain was part of Rummy's "new Europe" AKA those that went to bat for the Bush Administration on Iraq.
Bush has out a negative attack ad on John Kerry which claims Kerry would raise taxes by $900 billion (cue Dr. Evil), weaken the PATRIOT Act that catches terrorists (like Jose Padilla?) and it uses a "generic terrorist" to do so. This looks like your average South Asian (Indian/Pakistani) with a sinister look on his face and shifty eyes (like that dog on the Simpsons).
"It undercuts the very thing the president committed himself to after 9/11," said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute. "It tries to create an identity between terrorists and that face. It can only be called a negative stereotype, it can only be called regrettable." Oh by the way, Zogby's the brother of that famous pollster too. "If they wanted to put Osama bin Laden up there that's fine, but using just a face stereotypes," he added, asking Bush to take down the "Muhammad Horton ad"
Bush folks don't get it, telling the Globe that the man was "generic" and not meant to stereotype. The right wing blogophere agrees with the tactic of using an Arab man saying they are "calling a spade a spade" DailyKos, of course, is more on Zogby's side. All of these links are thanks to TNR's Ryan Lizza.
But wait there's more! Bush as a companion dirty radio ad, along with this more "positive" attack ad with a nice fantasy touch, saying Bush will continue to "reduce health care costs" and "create jobs" as well as "reform education" while John Kerry will destroy all this by rolling back the tax cuts for the richest 1%.
First of all, Bush has lost just shy of 3 Million Jobs and created 21,000 jobs last month nearly all of which were government jobs so much for a smaller government George.
Secondly, there is nothing Bush has done to reduce health care costs, the prescription drug bill they force through congress by lying to their fellow Republicans (by threatening HHS officials with their jobs if they told the Congress the real cost estimates would be higher than $400 billion-- they ended up being $551 billion)...Oh and the bill specifically had no cost containment procedures; in fact, the law prohibited the government from trying to save money.
On Education Reform. OK well that is true, you reformed education. But change is not improvement, just ask any school district or state legislature in the country what they think of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). I think you would get an earful about "unfunded mandates."
John Kerry's camp now has a a respons ad to the Bush attack ad up, "expected, the Globe says, "to be aired in the same competitive markets where the Bush ads are running."
Meanwhile, the Colorado Senate race beckons. It is looking more and more like Democrats are poised for a pick up! According to GOP sources of the National Journal, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) will announce this p.m. that he will not run. Nor will Rep. Scott McInnis (R-CO), according to the Pueblo Chieftain who says the retiring McInnis "reportedly will announce today that he also will forego the race." Also out are CO Gov. Bill Owens (R) and Rep. Bob Beauprez (R) who is choosing instead to defend his razor thin 100+ vote seat in Colorado's 7th. So who's left to challenge CO AG Ken Salazar (D)? Ex-RNC chair Jim Nicholson "indicated he may announce as early as today whether he'll join the race" according to the Rocky Mountain News.
That's the best you can get? Well I shouldn't laugh, just look at now MS Gov. Halley Barbour, also an ex-RNC chair. With that title comes lots of people you know who can give lots of money.
And in the Land of Lincoln, a Research 2000 IL poll of Dem likely voters found Barack Obama with 36% support; Dan Hynes 21%; Maria Pappas 15% and Blair Hull 14%. A poll of GOP likely voters found Jack Ryan with 36% support; Jim Oberweis 16%; Andrew McKenna 11% and Steve Rauschenberger 10%. The state primary is in on Tuesday. Obama vs. Ryan looks to be the results. Can't wait.
Thursday, March 11, 2004
A little taste of Home
A kid from South Jordan, Utah came to see me. Not over gay marriage (thank the Lord) but because he is a design student attending Utah State -- Go Aggies!-- and was looking at buildings today and just so happened to be touring the state house. (he heard a fellow Utahn was in the building I guess) What a day to see it in action! He was nice and it reminded me of the Utah accent that is subtle but distinctive. Not as distinctive as say a Bostonian accent, but still there. Plus, he had the lovely Mormon-isms of Heck and Dang and so on.
Just to be safe, I mentioned my impending marriage and we avoided talking about the gay marriage issue, since I would bet he is all for banning it, and he probably suspected I was a gasp Democrat. True to form, he had no clue where my alma mater was (Brown) or where Rhode Island was either (I said nearby to help him out). But he was nicely equipped with Western clothing like North Face and one of those rock climber bags that doubles as a school bag. Not that people out East don't wear this stuff, it just isn't the in style there like pea coats are in New England.
A kid from South Jordan, Utah came to see me. Not over gay marriage (thank the Lord) but because he is a design student attending Utah State -- Go Aggies!-- and was looking at buildings today and just so happened to be touring the state house. (he heard a fellow Utahn was in the building I guess) What a day to see it in action! He was nice and it reminded me of the Utah accent that is subtle but distinctive. Not as distinctive as say a Bostonian accent, but still there. Plus, he had the lovely Mormon-isms of Heck and Dang and so on.
Just to be safe, I mentioned my impending marriage and we avoided talking about the gay marriage issue, since I would bet he is all for banning it, and he probably suspected I was a gasp Democrat. True to form, he had no clue where my alma mater was (Brown) or where Rhode Island was either (I said nearby to help him out). But he was nicely equipped with Western clothing like North Face and one of those rock climber bags that doubles as a school bag. Not that people out East don't wear this stuff, it just isn't the in style there like pea coats are in New England.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Salazar=Matheson
Hotline says, "According to a Democratic source, at a 5 pm presser in CO, AG Ken Salazar will get into the CO SEN race, and candidate Rutt Bridges will be at the presser to endorse Salazar. Update: Mark Udall is set to also be there to endorse Salazar."
Looks like CO Democrats managed to clear the field for the best candidate, Ken Salazar, whose brother John is running for a congressional seat at the same time (3rd district). This makes this successful Hispanic family much like their Utah neighbors the white Matheson family.
Both the Mathesons and Salazars will have brothers' names on ballots for a statewide race and a key swing House seats at the same time in November. [Jim is running for re-election in Utah's 2nd and Scott Jr is running for Governor against a huge field of big GOP names] It sounds like both will be unopposed in their respective primaries. I used to think the Mathesons were more like the Udalls (dad creating their political fortunes Mo for the Udalls and Scott Sr for the Mathesons) but now the Salazars may be the heroes of the Democratic party.
What a great pick up this could be! There is no better way to show to America that the Democratic Party cares about Blacks and Hispanics by placing them on the two biggest pickup chances in the US senate (Obama looks to be winning in IL)? It also helps that these guys are terrific candidates, no Al Sharptons here.
Hotline says, "According to a Democratic source, at a 5 pm presser in CO, AG Ken Salazar will get into the CO SEN race, and candidate Rutt Bridges will be at the presser to endorse Salazar. Update: Mark Udall is set to also be there to endorse Salazar."
Looks like CO Democrats managed to clear the field for the best candidate, Ken Salazar, whose brother John is running for a congressional seat at the same time (3rd district). This makes this successful Hispanic family much like their Utah neighbors the white Matheson family.
Both the Mathesons and Salazars will have brothers' names on ballots for a statewide race and a key swing House seats at the same time in November. [Jim is running for re-election in Utah's 2nd and Scott Jr is running for Governor against a huge field of big GOP names] It sounds like both will be unopposed in their respective primaries. I used to think the Mathesons were more like the Udalls (dad creating their political fortunes Mo for the Udalls and Scott Sr for the Mathesons) but now the Salazars may be the heroes of the Democratic party.
What a great pick up this could be! There is no better way to show to America that the Democratic Party cares about Blacks and Hispanics by placing them on the two biggest pickup chances in the US senate (Obama looks to be winning in IL)? It also helps that these guys are terrific candidates, no Al Sharptons here.
Make America Work For You
Ex-Clinton Chief of Staff Harold Ickes (and son of Truman's Secretary of the Interior) has his first ad up from the no-so-secret $100 million soft money pit known as "The Media Fund" which was expressly designed to counter Bush ads when the nominee would have no money left and Bush would have tons.
They combo Howard Dean's "Take our Country Back" Motto with a Kerry style attack on Bush's favoring of special interest over people. In reality though, it just a generic democratic ad attacking Bush where he is weakest: JObs. There is a bit of unionism in there and protectionism, but it also does nothing but bash Bush. No call Senator Kerry or how to vote or where to give money. It does give this lovely website address while it plays in all the same 17 battleground ("purple") states that will be overloaded with campaign comericals again (just make up your mind guys).
Tack on another million spent by Log Cabin Republicans, AKA Gay Republicans, are putting up this ad using VP Cheney's words on gay marriage in 2000 (during the VP debate) against him., and we got two outside groups slinging stuff at the Prez.
Ex-Clinton Chief of Staff Harold Ickes (and son of Truman's Secretary of the Interior) has his first ad up from the no-so-secret $100 million soft money pit known as "The Media Fund" which was expressly designed to counter Bush ads when the nominee would have no money left and Bush would have tons.
They combo Howard Dean's "Take our Country Back" Motto with a Kerry style attack on Bush's favoring of special interest over people. In reality though, it just a generic democratic ad attacking Bush where he is weakest: JObs. There is a bit of unionism in there and protectionism, but it also does nothing but bash Bush. No call Senator Kerry or how to vote or where to give money. It does give this lovely website address while it plays in all the same 17 battleground ("purple") states that will be overloaded with campaign comericals again (just make up your mind guys).
Tack on another million spent by Log Cabin Republicans, AKA Gay Republicans, are putting up this ad using VP Cheney's words on gay marriage in 2000 (during the VP debate) against him., and we got two outside groups slinging stuff at the Prez.
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
"Where's the Jobs?"
Paul Krugman created this lovely chart and drove home the point in his column today. My favorite 'graph:
"Economic forecasting isn't an exact science, but wishful thinking on this scale is unprecedented. Nor can the administration use its all-purpose excuse: all of these forecasts date from after 9/11. What you see in this chart is the signature of a corrupted policy process, in which political propaganda takes the place of professional analysis. "
Basically, this issue alone is going to sink Bush. Even if you hate gays getting married, worry about your guns getting taken away, still support the war in Iraq, and voted for Bush last time, they might not this time. Why? He has no clue about the economy and he has lost nearly 3 million jobs on his watch. Only 1,000 were created in December, 21,000 in February not nearly enough to avoid being the first president since Herbert Hoover to lose jobs on his watch.
If this fall, people are still afraid of losing their jobs, afraid of losing their health care, and the economy is still idling, then it won't matter how far to the right Bush goes and how much he tried to scare us about John "flip-flop" Kerry, he will be booted out. If this was 2000, maybe he would be in better shape vs. Kerry than Gore, But the fact is, 2004 will be about his horrific record as president. Re-elections are always a referendum on the president, not the opposition. Any look at reality vs. their lies will tell you how to vote.
Paul Krugman created this lovely chart and drove home the point in his column today. My favorite 'graph:
"Economic forecasting isn't an exact science, but wishful thinking on this scale is unprecedented. Nor can the administration use its all-purpose excuse: all of these forecasts date from after 9/11. What you see in this chart is the signature of a corrupted policy process, in which political propaganda takes the place of professional analysis. "
Basically, this issue alone is going to sink Bush. Even if you hate gays getting married, worry about your guns getting taken away, still support the war in Iraq, and voted for Bush last time, they might not this time. Why? He has no clue about the economy and he has lost nearly 3 million jobs on his watch. Only 1,000 were created in December, 21,000 in February not nearly enough to avoid being the first president since Herbert Hoover to lose jobs on his watch.
If this fall, people are still afraid of losing their jobs, afraid of losing their health care, and the economy is still idling, then it won't matter how far to the right Bush goes and how much he tried to scare us about John "flip-flop" Kerry, he will be booted out. If this was 2000, maybe he would be in better shape vs. Kerry than Gore, But the fact is, 2004 will be about his horrific record as president. Re-elections are always a referendum on the president, not the opposition. Any look at reality vs. their lies will tell you how to vote.
Ready, set...SPLAT
Of all the proxy wars between Kerry and Bush that will be waged over the next 8 months, the most lopsided so far was on CNN's Paula Zahn's Now last night. On the program to discuss foreign policy was former UN Ambassador and wannabe Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke (the guy who authored most of the Dayton Peace accords) and former Assistant Defense Secretary Richard Pearle.
Boy, it wasn't even a fair fight, just read the transcripts. Pearle has, with the help of Rumsfeld and Cheney, alienated nearly the entire world from the US with the way they pursued the war against Iraq and made up the case for going to war. Further, Pearle also boasts some shady ties to the military-industrial complex (and Saudi Oil) and had to resign in disgrace recently because of all the potential ethics violations regardless of actions regarding Iraq.
Pearle was jumping on Kerry's statement that he has been told my many "foreign leaders" that they don't trust the US anymore and would welcome him being president, or something like that. Pearle was snarkley trying all night (and finally did) say it was France! Ha Ha you are a wimpy French-looking French loving man.
Holbrooke pointed out that it is incredibly obvious that the world hates Bush and that it is hurting our foreign policy goals. He pointed to Turkey, a place Pearle had personally try to bully into supporting the war, and failed miserably. Turkey, Holbrook said, used to love us under Clinton (65% or something) now they hate us (15% or so like us under Bush); don't we need allies like this to win the war on terror and to have won the war against Iraq better?
Pearle was ready for this one with a snarky "Bush isn't running for Prime Minister of Turkey" and "We don't need the approval of other nations to do what's right for America; Bush is going to look out for America's interests."
But he missed the point. Many (in fact most) times, as Holbrooke and Clark have pointed out, it is in America's best interests to work with allies. Certainly, if our security is at stake and our friends aren't willing to help, then we must go it alone. But everyone was on the US's side after 9/11 and Bush said "no thanks and while you are at it, f*ck off too" and then is administration promptly insulted and bullied the world into a winnable war, but have lost the peace thus far. Provisional Constitution or not, we could have eliminated Saddam in a much more multilateral way. Sure France had ulterior motives in Iraq (the UN Oil for Program was a slush fund and the French still want money for all their loans and bids with Saddam), but we still could have at least made them and the Russians look bad. Instead, the world sided with France and Russia; how embarrassing is that?
Bush's record on foreign policy, like his record on the economy and jobs, is objectively horrible. All you have to do is look at what the world thinks of us, all the instability in Haiti, Iraq, and Afghanistan to see what is wrong. You don't even need to look at the investigation of WMD's or Valerie Plame or the sorry state of homeland security to know that this President has made us less safe, and more scared.
On a lighter note...
My Fiancee, after bowing to pressure, has a blog of her own: SpongeBlog StinaPants. Her first major post is the kind of writing that made me fall in love with her 6 years ago. Lest I get too sappy, MONSTER TRUCKS, GIRLS IN BIKINIS, FOOTBALL! Ok, glad I got that out of my system. Oh, syndicate me via Atom (sorry, I like RSS too but I can't afford Blogger Pro).
Of all the proxy wars between Kerry and Bush that will be waged over the next 8 months, the most lopsided so far was on CNN's Paula Zahn's Now last night. On the program to discuss foreign policy was former UN Ambassador and wannabe Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke (the guy who authored most of the Dayton Peace accords) and former Assistant Defense Secretary Richard Pearle.
Boy, it wasn't even a fair fight, just read the transcripts. Pearle has, with the help of Rumsfeld and Cheney, alienated nearly the entire world from the US with the way they pursued the war against Iraq and made up the case for going to war. Further, Pearle also boasts some shady ties to the military-industrial complex (and Saudi Oil) and had to resign in disgrace recently because of all the potential ethics violations regardless of actions regarding Iraq.
Pearle was jumping on Kerry's statement that he has been told my many "foreign leaders" that they don't trust the US anymore and would welcome him being president, or something like that. Pearle was snarkley trying all night (and finally did) say it was France! Ha Ha you are a wimpy French-looking French loving man.
Holbrooke pointed out that it is incredibly obvious that the world hates Bush and that it is hurting our foreign policy goals. He pointed to Turkey, a place Pearle had personally try to bully into supporting the war, and failed miserably. Turkey, Holbrook said, used to love us under Clinton (65% or something) now they hate us (15% or so like us under Bush); don't we need allies like this to win the war on terror and to have won the war against Iraq better?
Pearle was ready for this one with a snarky "Bush isn't running for Prime Minister of Turkey" and "We don't need the approval of other nations to do what's right for America; Bush is going to look out for America's interests."
But he missed the point. Many (in fact most) times, as Holbrooke and Clark have pointed out, it is in America's best interests to work with allies. Certainly, if our security is at stake and our friends aren't willing to help, then we must go it alone. But everyone was on the US's side after 9/11 and Bush said "no thanks and while you are at it, f*ck off too" and then is administration promptly insulted and bullied the world into a winnable war, but have lost the peace thus far. Provisional Constitution or not, we could have eliminated Saddam in a much more multilateral way. Sure France had ulterior motives in Iraq (the UN Oil for Program was a slush fund and the French still want money for all their loans and bids with Saddam), but we still could have at least made them and the Russians look bad. Instead, the world sided with France and Russia; how embarrassing is that?
Bush's record on foreign policy, like his record on the economy and jobs, is objectively horrible. All you have to do is look at what the world thinks of us, all the instability in Haiti, Iraq, and Afghanistan to see what is wrong. You don't even need to look at the investigation of WMD's or Valerie Plame or the sorry state of homeland security to know that this President has made us less safe, and more scared.
On a lighter note...
My Fiancee, after bowing to pressure, has a blog of her own: SpongeBlog StinaPants. Her first major post is the kind of writing that made me fall in love with her 6 years ago. Lest I get too sappy, MONSTER TRUCKS, GIRLS IN BIKINIS, FOOTBALL! Ok, glad I got that out of my system. Oh, syndicate me via Atom (sorry, I like RSS too but I can't afford Blogger Pro).
Monday, March 08, 2004
T-minus 4 days
In Iraq, they finally signed that constitution, gold pens and all, after a show of strength by Sistani. This Shiite Muslim leader, without a doubt, will be the head of the Iraqi government soon after the Americans leave. Keep in mind too, this is an interim constitution and an interim government. The Shiite clearly hope that they can make Iraq into an Iranian style theocracy. Just goes to show that foreign policy will be topic A or B this year, right up there with the Economy/Jobs. Once again, the President's record on all this is horrific.
Meanwhile in Massachusetts, Angus "Beef" McQuilken is not going to request a recount after losing by about 1% or 343 votes. It really has no effect for the gay marriage vote since they weren't going to swear in the winner until next week anyway. I guess Angus thinks he can challenge then-Sen. Scott Brown in November and will win then. Good luck. Oh well, now Republicans have 7 out of 40 seats in the state senate. Big Deal.
Or is it? Romney's strategy of actually challenging incumbents is working and the democratic-controlled legislature is scared, begging their congressmen for money. In other bad news, the Boston Catholic church is so poor now thanks to all their sex scandals that they are closing parishes and schools, needless to say, like military base closing, this one won't go on without a fight. And those same churches have just started calling us up with their parishioners on same-sex marriage. They have the exact same talking points and message. Is this the will of the people or willed people?
Before ruling on Lawrence V. Texas, the landmark anti-sodomy case, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gave the keynote address to an anti-gay group that was involved in the case, says the LA Times. Not that anyone didn't know how he and Thomas would rule, but please. And this is Bush's ideal of a model judge, one who looks at the "facts" and not his own biases, one who doesn't "interpret the constitution." Scalia is just plain old conservative, one who uses one set of arguments for one case and then abandons these reasoning's when in convenient. Like with Lawrence, he said foreign courts rulings don't matter (when they were citied by Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion), but in another case, Olympic Airways v Husain, he ruled just the opposite way with Kennedy's reasoning [thanks Geekable and Atrios].
In Iraq, they finally signed that constitution, gold pens and all, after a show of strength by Sistani. This Shiite Muslim leader, without a doubt, will be the head of the Iraqi government soon after the Americans leave. Keep in mind too, this is an interim constitution and an interim government. The Shiite clearly hope that they can make Iraq into an Iranian style theocracy. Just goes to show that foreign policy will be topic A or B this year, right up there with the Economy/Jobs. Once again, the President's record on all this is horrific.
Meanwhile in Massachusetts, Angus "Beef" McQuilken is not going to request a recount after losing by about 1% or 343 votes. It really has no effect for the gay marriage vote since they weren't going to swear in the winner until next week anyway. I guess Angus thinks he can challenge then-Sen. Scott Brown in November and will win then. Good luck. Oh well, now Republicans have 7 out of 40 seats in the state senate. Big Deal.
Or is it? Romney's strategy of actually challenging incumbents is working and the democratic-controlled legislature is scared, begging their congressmen for money. In other bad news, the Boston Catholic church is so poor now thanks to all their sex scandals that they are closing parishes and schools, needless to say, like military base closing, this one won't go on without a fight. And those same churches have just started calling us up with their parishioners on same-sex marriage. They have the exact same talking points and message. Is this the will of the people or willed people?
Before ruling on Lawrence V. Texas, the landmark anti-sodomy case, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gave the keynote address to an anti-gay group that was involved in the case, says the LA Times. Not that anyone didn't know how he and Thomas would rule, but please. And this is Bush's ideal of a model judge, one who looks at the "facts" and not his own biases, one who doesn't "interpret the constitution." Scalia is just plain old conservative, one who uses one set of arguments for one case and then abandons these reasoning's when in convenient. Like with Lawrence, he said foreign courts rulings don't matter (when they were citied by Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion), but in another case, Olympic Airways v Husain, he ruled just the opposite way with Kennedy's reasoning [thanks Geekable and Atrios].
Friday, March 05, 2004
Mornin' Roundup (not the weedkiller)
The Jobs Report is out this morning, and estimates were off by over 104K...in the wrong direction; and, last month's numbers were revised downwards as well. I guess counting burger flippers as "manufacturing jobs" didn't work out quite like the Bushies planned. According to the BLS, the U.S. Economy created 21,000 jobs last month. As Atrios points out, "to keep up with the growth in the working age population we need about 140K new jobs per month, and also keep in that they [the Bush administration] claimed that after the last round of tax cuts they'd create 306,000 jobs per month, something they haven't achieved once."
US Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) has "stirred up" Dems and the blogosphere by saying a vote against the re-election of Pres. Bush is "like supporting Adolph Hitler during World War Two." I guess he never did too well on those "compare and contrast" essays in English class. Cole is also quoted in the Yukon Review as saying: "If George Bush loses the election, Osama bin Laden wins the election." Does he have the inside scoop are Kerry's running mate? So far, there has been "no comment" from OK Dem Party leaders to see if they think Cole is comparing John Kerry to Hitler or bin Laden (KTOK-AM, 3/3). "It's OK by me!" Oklahoma Democrats. Well at least they voted for Clark.
This is why I thought Kerry or Dean would be a bad pick for president: Freshman US Rep. Rodney Alexander (D-LA) is "seriously considering" leaving the Dem Party "because he says" Kerry "is too liberal, and that he might be able to better represent his constituents" as a GOPer (New Orleans Times-Picayune).
A Research 2000 IL SEN poll of LVs found Dems Barack Obama with 22% support; Dan Hynes 20%; Blair Hull 15% and Maria Pappas 14%. On the GOP side, Jack Ryan had 38%; Jim Oberweis 15% and Andrew McKenna 10% (release). I guess it was the wife beating thing that did it to Hull and Obama's $10,000 check from Michael Jordan himself that got him into the lead.
Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), on the rumors that he is gay: "They are not correct in any shape, form or fashion. ... These are irresponsible. They're salacious. They're hurtful to my family." Perry also said "he has been targeted by 'an obvious, orchestrated effort' launched by political foes" (Austin American-Statesman).
Oh and the phony Iraqi constitution signing has been delayed again. I guess multiple, coordinated suicide bombings killing the U.S. equivalent of 3,000 people (we have 10x more people and about 300 people died) might do that.
"A formally dressed, six-piece classic music group played under the watch of a U.S. soldier in combat gear as officials trickled in the for 4 p.m. (8 a.m. ET) ceremony at the former conference hall of ousted dictator Saddam Hussein.
"The document is to be signed on a desk used by King Faisal I. Faisal led Iraq when the country received its independence in 1932 after years under a League of Nations mandate administered by Britain. " Who's paying for all this? Well it should be Bush-Cheney 2004, but it is all us taxpayers.
Meanwhile, BushCo, this time is ex-NYC Mayor Rudy "I want to be President in 2008 or VP now" Giuliani, is still defending angry 9-11 families, firefighters, and Democrats who are upset that his ads exploit the tragedy for his reelection campaign.
Good work Democrats, if you can't afford ads, at least it can afford outrage and distraction of the Bush machine.
The Jobs Report is out this morning, and estimates were off by over 104K...in the wrong direction; and, last month's numbers were revised downwards as well. I guess counting burger flippers as "manufacturing jobs" didn't work out quite like the Bushies planned. According to the BLS, the U.S. Economy created 21,000 jobs last month. As Atrios points out, "to keep up with the growth in the working age population we need about 140K new jobs per month, and also keep in that they [the Bush administration] claimed that after the last round of tax cuts they'd create 306,000 jobs per month, something they haven't achieved once."
US Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) has "stirred up" Dems and the blogosphere by saying a vote against the re-election of Pres. Bush is "like supporting Adolph Hitler during World War Two." I guess he never did too well on those "compare and contrast" essays in English class. Cole is also quoted in the Yukon Review as saying: "If George Bush loses the election, Osama bin Laden wins the election." Does he have the inside scoop are Kerry's running mate? So far, there has been "no comment" from OK Dem Party leaders to see if they think Cole is comparing John Kerry to Hitler or bin Laden (KTOK-AM, 3/3). "It's OK by me!" Oklahoma Democrats. Well at least they voted for Clark.
This is why I thought Kerry or Dean would be a bad pick for president: Freshman US Rep. Rodney Alexander (D-LA) is "seriously considering" leaving the Dem Party "because he says" Kerry "is too liberal, and that he might be able to better represent his constituents" as a GOPer (New Orleans Times-Picayune).
A Research 2000 IL SEN poll of LVs found Dems Barack Obama with 22% support; Dan Hynes 20%; Blair Hull 15% and Maria Pappas 14%. On the GOP side, Jack Ryan had 38%; Jim Oberweis 15% and Andrew McKenna 10% (release). I guess it was the wife beating thing that did it to Hull and Obama's $10,000 check from Michael Jordan himself that got him into the lead.
Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), on the rumors that he is gay: "They are not correct in any shape, form or fashion. ... These are irresponsible. They're salacious. They're hurtful to my family." Perry also said "he has been targeted by 'an obvious, orchestrated effort' launched by political foes" (Austin American-Statesman).
Oh and the phony Iraqi constitution signing has been delayed again. I guess multiple, coordinated suicide bombings killing the U.S. equivalent of 3,000 people (we have 10x more people and about 300 people died) might do that.
"A formally dressed, six-piece classic music group played under the watch of a U.S. soldier in combat gear as officials trickled in the for 4 p.m. (8 a.m. ET) ceremony at the former conference hall of ousted dictator Saddam Hussein.
"The document is to be signed on a desk used by King Faisal I. Faisal led Iraq when the country received its independence in 1932 after years under a League of Nations mandate administered by Britain. " Who's paying for all this? Well it should be Bush-Cheney 2004, but it is all us taxpayers.
Meanwhile, BushCo, this time is ex-NYC Mayor Rudy "I want to be President in 2008 or VP now" Giuliani, is still defending angry 9-11 families, firefighters, and Democrats who are upset that his ads exploit the tragedy for his reelection campaign.
Good work Democrats, if you can't afford ads, at least it can afford outrage and distraction of the Bush machine.
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Into the great wide open
Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) decided not to run for reelection yesterday for "health reasons," and by health reasons he means kickback scandal.
The Denver Post reported that "The allegation centers on [Chief of Staff] Ginnie Kontnik's admitted action in 2002 of inflating an aide's salary and asking him to give her $2,000 in return. The claim was first documented in the aide's resignation letter in 2003.
"Kontnik, who resigned her $142,000-a- year position Friday citing personal reasons, denies the arrangement was a kickback. But after a day of questioning by The Denver Post concerning Kontnik's departure, Campbell said he would refer the matter to the Ethics Committee."
What does this mean? A wide open race. Here are some potential people who might run:
This all means that the race is going to be as wide open as a church's doors on Sunday. I think this not only puts the senate more in play for the Democrats, it could put the whole state in play for Kerry if Republicans can't get the governor in and get some one like Tancredo or worse, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, the author of the Federal Marriage Amendment
In other news...
Bush has three silly ads up now. One exploits 9/11, another has him playing fake president with Laura by his side, telling us "I know exactly where I want to lead this country." Where, into the depths of Hell? I have seen zero leadserhip from Bush outside 9/11, although anyone who was president would have done what he did. All of Bush's actions are based on the rubric of "Will this help me get re-elected?" not "What is best for the country?" Ok and the third blames everything from the economy to 9/11 on Bill Clinton indirectly. If he didn't have over $150 million and actually was president right now, I would be laughing. Instead, I shudder.
Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) decided not to run for reelection yesterday for "health reasons," and by health reasons he means kickback scandal.
The Denver Post reported that "The allegation centers on [Chief of Staff] Ginnie Kontnik's admitted action in 2002 of inflating an aide's salary and asking him to give her $2,000 in return. The claim was first documented in the aide's resignation letter in 2003.
"Kontnik, who resigned her $142,000-a- year position Friday citing personal reasons, denies the arrangement was a kickback. But after a day of questioning by The Denver Post concerning Kontnik's departure, Campbell said he would refer the matter to the Ethics Committee."
What does this mean? A wide open race. Here are some potential people who might run:
- ex-Sen. Gary Hart (D). [offically out according to state party chair]
- Governor Bill Owens (R)
- Multimillionaire Think Tank head Rutt Bridges (D)
- Teacher Mike Miles (D)
- Retiring Congressman and Anti-Immigrant Nut Tom Tancredo (R)
- Son of one time presidential candidate/fmr. Interior Secretary, Congressman Mark Udall (D)
This all means that the race is going to be as wide open as a church's doors on Sunday. I think this not only puts the senate more in play for the Democrats, it could put the whole state in play for Kerry if Republicans can't get the governor in and get some one like Tancredo or worse, Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, the author of the Federal Marriage Amendment
In other news...
Bush has three silly ads up now. One exploits 9/11, another has him playing fake president with Laura by his side, telling us "I know exactly where I want to lead this country." Where, into the depths of Hell? I have seen zero leadserhip from Bush outside 9/11, although anyone who was president would have done what he did. All of Bush's actions are based on the rubric of "Will this help me get re-elected?" not "What is best for the country?" Ok and the third blames everything from the economy to 9/11 on Bill Clinton indirectly. If he didn't have over $150 million and actually was president right now, I would be laughing. Instead, I shudder.
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Name that Cabinet!
Now that the nomination is over sooner than ever before since Edwards dropped out last night, John Kerry will eclipsed by other more trivial items of news and Bush's bully pulpit. Bush's millions will start to blanket him tomorrow. In fact, I was interrupted from typing just now by a RNC pop-up asking me to "support the president's agenda" the funniest part was "lower interest rates" something which is making progressively higher with his tax-cut and spend budgets.
But back to the point; how is Kerry to keep a positive image of him going until the July Convention in Boston? Sure MoveOn's ad campaign this week will help, but Bush is going to be spending way more money. My suggestion? Slowly name your cabinet. Make it like the family feud and leak names to the press of people in the running for various spots.
Have each one of the 9 other democrats who lost to you have a fundraising race on your behalf to get in your cabinet and on your agenda. Ditto for VP wannbes like FL Sen. Bob Graham, NM Gov. Bill Richardson, IN Sen. Evan Bayh, and all the rest of them. Hell, hold a couple fundraisers with Hill and Bill. That if nothing else will fuel the fire of attention (I can see the NY Post header now: "Kerry-Clinton 2004?") like the Clintons. Even talk about who you might replace Terry McAuliffe with in 2005. '
Here's whom I might pick out slowly, if I were Kerry (realistically, with backups):
Please comment on your picks, or critique mine below.
Now that the nomination is over sooner than ever before since Edwards dropped out last night, John Kerry will eclipsed by other more trivial items of news and Bush's bully pulpit. Bush's millions will start to blanket him tomorrow. In fact, I was interrupted from typing just now by a RNC pop-up asking me to "support the president's agenda" the funniest part was "lower interest rates" something which is making progressively higher with his tax-cut and spend budgets.
But back to the point; how is Kerry to keep a positive image of him going until the July Convention in Boston? Sure MoveOn's ad campaign this week will help, but Bush is going to be spending way more money. My suggestion? Slowly name your cabinet. Make it like the family feud and leak names to the press of people in the running for various spots.
Have each one of the 9 other democrats who lost to you have a fundraising race on your behalf to get in your cabinet and on your agenda. Ditto for VP wannbes like FL Sen. Bob Graham, NM Gov. Bill Richardson, IN Sen. Evan Bayh, and all the rest of them. Hell, hold a couple fundraisers with Hill and Bill. That if nothing else will fuel the fire of attention (I can see the NY Post header now: "Kerry-Clinton 2004?") like the Clintons. Even talk about who you might replace Terry McAuliffe with in 2005. '
Here's whom I might pick out slowly, if I were Kerry (realistically, with backups):
- VP: Bayh (see why here) or Edwards
- State: Clark (already has good relationships with Europe) or Richard Holbrook
- Defense: John McCain (nobody else will have credibility to cut out wasteful Pentagon spending during a war like this Maverick; plus, Gov. Napalitano (D) gets to name a new Senator with a full two year term) or Bob Kerrey.
- Treasury: Bob Rubin (no one has more [Wall] Street Cred than Ruby) or Larry Summers
- AG: John Edwards (he'll crack down on the FBI and its crappy performance that will remind folks of Bobby Kennedy) or Elliot Spitzer
- CIA director: Graham (former Intelligence Chairman knows his stuff and won't lie to President Kerry) or Gary Hart.
- Homeland Security: Gary Hart (his commission in 1999 was eerily right about 9/11) or Graham
- Commerce: George Sorros (hey if you give several million to elect Kerry, I think you deserve a plum like this) some other rich dude who helps Kerry raise dough
- Labor: Gephardt (if he can pass the Senate) Bob Reich
- HHS: Dr. Judith Steinberg (aka Judy Dean) or Howard Dean (I'd prefer him to be DNC chair)
- OMB: Dem. Senate Staffer on the Budget Committee
- Agriculture: Tom Vislack or Rob Atkinson (PPI VP)
- Interior: Deb Callahan (LCV head) or Jan Mazurek (DLC environment person)
- Chief of Staff: Mary Beth Cahill or Jim Jordan (both did good jobs on the campaign)
- Veteran's: Cleland (triple amputee will make sure Vet's are left out in the cold) or one of Kerry's "Band of Brothers"
- Energy: Grey Davis (this cost him the election, among other things) or John Dingle (get him out of the House)
- Education: Ted Kennedy or George Miller (heads of Dem committees in Senate and House)
- Transportation: James Oberstar (heads of Dem committee in House) and Doug Duncan (Montgomery Co., MD Executive)
Please comment on your picks, or critique mine below.
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
Where's the fat lady? Plus: Dean finally wins one
Jack Shafer, Slate's Editor At Large, is posting the mid-way exit polls from the Eastern block of Super Tuesday states.
As expected, Kerry is kicking butt.
Connecticut
Kerry 63
Edwards 26
Dean 5
Georgia
Kerry 50
Edwards 39
Sharpton 7
Maryland
Kerry 59
Edwards 28
Sharpton 4
Massachusetts
Kerry 75
Edwards 16
Dean 3
Kucinich 3
New York
Kerry 61
Edwards 21
Sharpton 10
Ohio
Kerry 58
Edwards 30
Kucinich 10
Rhode Island
Kerry 70
Edwards 21
Dean 5
Vermont
Dean 63
Kerry 33
Kucinich 3
(Edwards was not on the ballot)
Also, California is not out yet due to time zones. But I would guess the results are the same. Now Edwards has to leave gracefully so that Democrats will want him to be VP or President in 2008. Tough luck JRE.
Hat's off to Dean for winning his own state without even trying. Too bad his former campaign and former campaign manager Joe Trippi are squabbling over their supporters, no matter what spin they put on it.
Ex-Dean speechwriter Joe Drymala writes at ex-Dean manager Joe Trippi's Change for America blog: on 3/1 that Howard Dean "posted on Blog for America and on these forums, making it clear that Dean for America and Change for America are two different organizations. We agree with him completely."
More Drymala: "Change for America will be doing something very different from Dean for America -- rather than duplicating each other's efforts, we will be complementary. The last thing we want is for the media to have the opportunity to fabricate a "turf war" between CFA and DFA where none exists. It's not fair to the grassroots and it hurts the movement for change. And we don't want to put anyone in the position of feeling as though being a part of one effort is somehow disloyal to the other. CFA and DFA will have entirely different purposes... [W]e'll be making a survey available online shortly to help shape the platform of Change for America" (changeforamerica.com, 3/1).
Jack Shafer, Slate's Editor At Large, is posting the mid-way exit polls from the Eastern block of Super Tuesday states.
As expected, Kerry is kicking butt.
Connecticut
Kerry 63
Edwards 26
Dean 5
Georgia
Kerry 50
Edwards 39
Sharpton 7
Maryland
Kerry 59
Edwards 28
Sharpton 4
Massachusetts
Kerry 75
Edwards 16
Dean 3
Kucinich 3
New York
Kerry 61
Edwards 21
Sharpton 10
Ohio
Kerry 58
Edwards 30
Kucinich 10
Rhode Island
Kerry 70
Edwards 21
Dean 5
Vermont
Dean 63
Kerry 33
Kucinich 3
(Edwards was not on the ballot)
Also, California is not out yet due to time zones. But I would guess the results are the same. Now Edwards has to leave gracefully so that Democrats will want him to be VP or President in 2008. Tough luck JRE.
Hat's off to Dean for winning his own state without even trying. Too bad his former campaign and former campaign manager Joe Trippi are squabbling over their supporters, no matter what spin they put on it.
Ex-Dean speechwriter Joe Drymala writes at ex-Dean manager Joe Trippi's Change for America blog: on 3/1 that Howard Dean "posted on Blog for America and on these forums, making it clear that Dean for America and Change for America are two different organizations. We agree with him completely."
More Drymala: "Change for America will be doing something very different from Dean for America -- rather than duplicating each other's efforts, we will be complementary. The last thing we want is for the media to have the opportunity to fabricate a "turf war" between CFA and DFA where none exists. It's not fair to the grassroots and it hurts the movement for change. And we don't want to put anyone in the position of feeling as though being a part of one effort is somehow disloyal to the other. CFA and DFA will have entirely different purposes... [W]e'll be making a survey available online shortly to help shape the platform of Change for America" (changeforamerica.com, 3/1).
Powell's "correction" to Aristide's claims
Sec/State Colin Powell: "He went onto the airplane willingly. And that's the truth." Powell "also admonished two" Hill members "for suggesting U.S. troops strong-armed the Haitian into exile." Powell: "It would have been better for members of Congress who have heard these stories to ask us about the stories before going public with them so that we don't make a difficult situation that much more difficult."
The Times went on to say that while U.S. officials "insist that they did not force" Aristide to leave, "they acknowledge that they made it clear to him that they could not protect him if he clung to power, and that they offered to give him safe passage out of the country if he would leave by dawn on Sunday." What a great choice! Either live in exile, or risk being killed my an armed mob of distgruntled ex-army men.
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), talked to CNN's Wolf Blitzer about the Aristide kidnapping allegations and summed it up nicely. "I have certainly heard the accusations and I've heard the rebuttal by the administration. But it sort of misses the point. The fact of the matter is, we said to President Aristide, look, you can stay and be killed or you can leave. You make the choice. That's hardly a voluntary departure. ... We've now set up a new standard. You don't have to be a failed government, just a failed leader in our minds and we won't do anything to support and defend you."
Sec/State Colin Powell: "He went onto the airplane willingly. And that's the truth." Powell "also admonished two" Hill members "for suggesting U.S. troops strong-armed the Haitian into exile." Powell: "It would have been better for members of Congress who have heard these stories to ask us about the stories before going public with them so that we don't make a difficult situation that much more difficult."
The Times went on to say that while U.S. officials "insist that they did not force" Aristide to leave, "they acknowledge that they made it clear to him that they could not protect him if he clung to power, and that they offered to give him safe passage out of the country if he would leave by dawn on Sunday." What a great choice! Either live in exile, or risk being killed my an armed mob of distgruntled ex-army men.
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), talked to CNN's Wolf Blitzer about the Aristide kidnapping allegations and summed it up nicely. "I have certainly heard the accusations and I've heard the rebuttal by the administration. But it sort of misses the point. The fact of the matter is, we said to President Aristide, look, you can stay and be killed or you can leave. You make the choice. That's hardly a voluntary departure. ... We've now set up a new standard. You don't have to be a failed government, just a failed leader in our minds and we won't do anything to support and defend you."
Web designers don't lie
Wonkette makes a very good case that Indiana Senator Evan Bayh will be John Kerry's running mate.
After all, just look at the layout of each website side to side: Evan and John. Also note that they use their names as their campaign homepages, not with the -forsenate.com or -2004.com ending, so they can use them over and over again for each campaign. So what you say, they might have hired the same firm. Its one thing to use the same company or same feel, but the same damn template means they are working together.
Why Bayh? Wonkette explains:"Upside: He's a red stater, he's personable, he's handsome, and he's not John Edwards. Downside: Also not the son of a mill worker." True, Bayh is daddy's boy and from what I have heard working at the DLC married to real B*tch who loves throwing her "Senator's Wife" title around.
Evan has been running for VP for about 2 years now, starting with the all-important "serious book" written by the Senator. Several DLCers told me that they tried their best to read the book, but it was just crap, so they just included an excerpt in Blueprint where I used to work. OK, so he is light on substance, who cares if all he is going to be is VP and the DLC needs a new chairman. I mean, they have been begging for this for a long time. The political department knows a putz when they see one. But not as much of one as Kerry is, according to Slate.
Anyway, Democrats wouldn't lose a seat, Governor Joe Kernan (D) would just appoint Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson (D) if Kerry-Bayh won and if he won the governor's race ( I would suspect Kernan would appoint himself if he were to lose to Mitch "Bush's B*tch" Daniels.) And hey, if Bayh could take Indiana with him, Bush is toast, even if he keeps Florida and Ohio in his tent. Just try it out: if Kerry-Bayh gets all the Gore states, plus the Hoosier state, they're at 271 right there. That's without NH, FL, OH, WV, AZ, CO, MO or any of the other states that might swing the Democrats' way in November.
Wonkette makes a very good case that Indiana Senator Evan Bayh will be John Kerry's running mate.
After all, just look at the layout of each website side to side: Evan and John. Also note that they use their names as their campaign homepages, not with the -forsenate.com or -2004.com ending, so they can use them over and over again for each campaign. So what you say, they might have hired the same firm. Its one thing to use the same company or same feel, but the same damn template means they are working together.
Why Bayh? Wonkette explains:"Upside: He's a red stater, he's personable, he's handsome, and he's not John Edwards. Downside: Also not the son of a mill worker." True, Bayh is daddy's boy and from what I have heard working at the DLC married to real B*tch who loves throwing her "Senator's Wife" title around.
Evan has been running for VP for about 2 years now, starting with the all-important "serious book" written by the Senator. Several DLCers told me that they tried their best to read the book, but it was just crap, so they just included an excerpt in Blueprint where I used to work. OK, so he is light on substance, who cares if all he is going to be is VP and the DLC needs a new chairman. I mean, they have been begging for this for a long time. The political department knows a putz when they see one. But not as much of one as Kerry is, according to Slate.
Anyway, Democrats wouldn't lose a seat, Governor Joe Kernan (D) would just appoint Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson (D) if Kerry-Bayh won and if he won the governor's race ( I would suspect Kernan would appoint himself if he were to lose to Mitch "Bush's B*tch" Daniels.) And hey, if Bayh could take Indiana with him, Bush is toast, even if he keeps Florida and Ohio in his tent. Just try it out: if Kerry-Bayh gets all the Gore states, plus the Hoosier state, they're at 271 right there. That's without NH, FL, OH, WV, AZ, CO, MO or any of the other states that might swing the Democrats' way in November.
The Battle for the Senate (and House)
...just got more interesting. It seems that in Oklahoma, the Republican "nominee-in-waiting" a Oklahoma City mayor named Kirk Humphreys, has been such a flop that ex-Congressman Tom Colburn was "drafted" into running to replace retiring Republican Senator Don Nickels. Congressman Brad Carson, the Democratic nominee-in-waiting, has been polling much better than Humphreys. This is a seat that Democrats actually could pick up, given that Carson is popular and the Governor is a Democrat. All they need is ex-Sooner's coach Barry Switzer to endorse Brad, and he is golden (worked for the Governor).
Alaska looks to be a great race too, with former Governor Tony Knowles running against Lisa Murkowski, the appointed daughter of ex-Senator now Governor Frank M. More than just nepotism, Alaskans are taking it out on Lisa because her dad has been a terrible governor thus far. He even, gasp, raised taxes. Polls show Tony with a narrow (5 points) lead over Lisa. I am sure it will come down to a few hundred votes.
Illinois will be a pick up for the Democrats, but the major question is who will it be? Multimillionaire Blair Hull was cruising to a win with all of his money that he spent (he even paid people to put up lawn signs) until reports came out that he verbally threatened to kill his ex-wife (she was his wife at the time). He even called her a f*cking c*nt. Nice, huh? So now the race may swing to Comptroller Dan Hynes or State Senator Barrack Obama. Hynes is running old-school statewide race, which Obama is running Chicago out. Barrack is a progressive Black man with a cool name (too bad it sounds like Osama) and Hynes is more moderate, although they are both loved by the DLC (the DLC loves winners).
Georgia looks like a Republican pick up, as we can't find a good dog catcher to run.
Louisiana looks like a toss up, as does Florida (both Democratic Seats). South Carolina is looking better than it should considering how conservative the state is. But Inez Tannenbaum is running hard and well (sorry I only cover candidates with cool names). North Carolina is going to be tough but I think we have a good shot with ex-Clinton CoS Erskine Bowles.
Colorado looks to be suddenly a good race. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, the original party switcher (D->R) is in hot water because his staff seems to have taken kickbacks for legislation. Assuming its true, its bad news for the only Native American in Congress: either he knows about it and his criminally liable, or he is a old aloof man that shouldn't be sitting there (plus he's got health issues). A rich, DLC-aligned Think Tank owner, Rutt Bridges, is running for the Democratic nod and a Dean-grassroots type Mike Miles is opposing him in the primaries. I would like either one against Campbell.
On the House side, there is the not-so-secret secret that 2006 looks better. The four year plan is to hedge losses and hope that Dubya is so bad that they win back a lot of seats. The best shot will come in 2012, when redistricting happens again. Of course, there will be no more partisan redistricting if I have my way. But that is a story for a different day.
...just got more interesting. It seems that in Oklahoma, the Republican "nominee-in-waiting" a Oklahoma City mayor named Kirk Humphreys, has been such a flop that ex-Congressman Tom Colburn was "drafted" into running to replace retiring Republican Senator Don Nickels. Congressman Brad Carson, the Democratic nominee-in-waiting, has been polling much better than Humphreys. This is a seat that Democrats actually could pick up, given that Carson is popular and the Governor is a Democrat. All they need is ex-Sooner's coach Barry Switzer to endorse Brad, and he is golden (worked for the Governor).
Alaska looks to be a great race too, with former Governor Tony Knowles running against Lisa Murkowski, the appointed daughter of ex-Senator now Governor Frank M. More than just nepotism, Alaskans are taking it out on Lisa because her dad has been a terrible governor thus far. He even, gasp, raised taxes. Polls show Tony with a narrow (5 points) lead over Lisa. I am sure it will come down to a few hundred votes.
Illinois will be a pick up for the Democrats, but the major question is who will it be? Multimillionaire Blair Hull was cruising to a win with all of his money that he spent (he even paid people to put up lawn signs) until reports came out that he verbally threatened to kill his ex-wife (she was his wife at the time). He even called her a f*cking c*nt. Nice, huh? So now the race may swing to Comptroller Dan Hynes or State Senator Barrack Obama. Hynes is running old-school statewide race, which Obama is running Chicago out. Barrack is a progressive Black man with a cool name (too bad it sounds like Osama) and Hynes is more moderate, although they are both loved by the DLC (the DLC loves winners).
Georgia looks like a Republican pick up, as we can't find a good dog catcher to run.
Louisiana looks like a toss up, as does Florida (both Democratic Seats). South Carolina is looking better than it should considering how conservative the state is. But Inez Tannenbaum is running hard and well (sorry I only cover candidates with cool names). North Carolina is going to be tough but I think we have a good shot with ex-Clinton CoS Erskine Bowles.
Colorado looks to be suddenly a good race. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, the original party switcher (D->R) is in hot water because his staff seems to have taken kickbacks for legislation. Assuming its true, its bad news for the only Native American in Congress: either he knows about it and his criminally liable, or he is a old aloof man that shouldn't be sitting there (plus he's got health issues). A rich, DLC-aligned Think Tank owner, Rutt Bridges, is running for the Democratic nod and a Dean-grassroots type Mike Miles is opposing him in the primaries. I would like either one against Campbell.
On the House side, there is the not-so-secret secret that 2006 looks better. The four year plan is to hedge losses and hope that Dubya is so bad that they win back a lot of seats. The best shot will come in 2012, when redistricting happens again. Of course, there will be no more partisan redistricting if I have my way. But that is a story for a different day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
