January 31, 2008
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama raised $32 million in the single month of January, a whopping figure that has permitted the campaign to boost staff and extend advertising to states beyond the sweeping Feb. 5 contests, aides said Thursday.The amount was the most raised in one month by a presidential candidate who still faced a primary challenge.
Obama is now advertising in 20 of the 22 states in play for next week's Super Tuesday and plans to begin advertising in seven more states that hold primaries or caucuses later in February. Rival Hillary Rodham Clinton is advertising in 12 Super Tuesday states, including her home state of New York.
With John Edwards out of the race, Clinton and Obama are in a fierce race for delegates to secure the nomination. Feb. 5 offers the biggest single opportunity for delegates, but it is impossible for either one to seal the nomination on that day.
Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said the campaign attracted 170,000 new donors for a total of 650,000 donors overall. The $32 million raised in one month matches the campaign's best three-month fundraising period in 2007, when the campaign raised $30 million in primary money and $2 million for the general. The money raised in January was all for the primaries.
But donations don't equal electoral success. If it did, Ron Paul would be the GOP nominee presumptive instead of a crank with a handful obnoxious supporters and a strong challenger for his congressional seat. And the polls keep showing Hillary Clinton ahead, with Edwards supporters breaking her way. Obama might be energizing new people, much as Howard Dean did, but that doesn't automatically translate into wooing the long-time party faithful.
Posted by: Greg at
10:50 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 317 words, total size 2 kb.
I am therefore ready to do whatÂ’s best for the GOP and the USA.
A defiant Mike Huckabee said Thursday that there is “no way” he would drop out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination, and he blasted the media for characterizing the race as a contest between Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.“If people think that I’m quitting, they need to get the message loud and clear. Somebody’s going to have to beat me,” said the former Arkansas governor. “There’s no way I’ll walk away.”
Do I have any volunteers to carry the stretcher after IÂ’m done with HuckaBubba?
[NOTE TO SECRET SERVICE: This is a satire.]
Posted by: Greg at
11:48 AM
| Comments (38)
| Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 1 kb.
), That said, I have to agree with the sentiments of Victor David Hanson, as expressed in the conclusion to his article about the difficulties raised by the Clintons creating an opportunity for GOP victory – and the possibility that my fellow conservatives will throw that victory away because of McCain’s tendency to stray off the ranch on some issues near and dear to conservatives.
The Democratic cat-fighters are doing their best to give away a once-sure general election, but the Republicans seem to be doing even more to ensure that they forfeit the unexpected gift they’ve been given.If Hillary Clinton does end up winning her party’s nomination, November’s vote may hinge on whether moderates and liberals are nauseated enough by the Clintons’ brawling and character assassination to cross over and vote for a decorated Republican war hero — that is, if his own flag-waving party doesn’t destroy him first.
Does this mean that I am in the tank for McCain? Hardly – I am still firmly behind Mitt Romney, and wish that I could have ever had a realistic hope of seeing Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter get the nomination. But McCain may very well be my party’s candidate in a few months – and both party loyalty and love of country lead me to conclude that I may have to break my resolution to never vote for John McCain. After all, I may be faced with a choice between a moderately conservative candidate who takes some positions I find disturbing and unacceptable and atruly liberal one who is even less acceptable – how can I just stand by or act affirmatively in a manner that makes the less acceptable one our next president?
Posted by: Greg at
11:46 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 355 words, total size 2 kb.
Mitt Romney plans to buy TV ads in California and other Super Tuesday states, contradicting earlier reports that he was avoiding a costly campaign on Feb. 5, when 21 states hold Republican primaries and caucuses.
As Romney seeks to topple John McCainÂ’s momentum coming out of his win in the Florida primary and a host of big-name endorsements, top aides said RomneyÂ’s ad buys will be high-dollar.The campaign will determine shortly which states it will target beyond California.
Romney’s advisers had given him several options, ranging from spending $1 million for ads to $7 million. It was not immediately clear how much money Romney was willing to spend — or whether the multimillionaire would dip into his own bank account again. He already has poured at least $40 million into his presidential campaign.Romney will likely be the first GOP candidate on air in the Super Tuesday states, the broadest battleground of the primary season.
And that is, of course, the big question. Where does he advertise and how much does he spend. Should he focus on proportional states, winner-take-all states, and which ones does he view as competitive. Is it a small state strategy or a large state one? Lots of variables here – and we’ll know the results when nearly half the country votes in less than a week.
Posted by: Greg at
09:55 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.
January 30, 2008
In a major boost for John McCain, Republican presidential rival Mitt Romney signaled Wednesday he's not ready to finance a costly campaign in the states holding primaries and caucuses next week.
* * * Several officials said that on the heels of a defeat in Tuesday's Florida primary, Romney's campaign was not attempting to purchase television advertising time in any of the 21 states on the calendar for Feb. 5.Instead, the former Massachusetts governor's current plans call for campaigning in California and other primary states, said the officials, who had knowledge of the internal discussions. There would be organizational efforts primarily for caucus states.
I'd expected Romney to run hard to a possible brokered convention. But if this is the strategy, it appears he is preparing to concede the race after Super Tuesday -- a rather surprising development. Does the polling data show that the primary voters are going to break that sharply for McCain that the extra effort many of us (especially those of us supporting Mitt from the beginning) had expected would be superfluous? Will Tsunami Tuesday be the last hurrrah for the GOP nomination process?
Posted by: Greg at
11:07 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 1 kb.
And they might have a hard time of it in states they need to win, like Arkansas and Tennessee.
Not that the GOP candidates have much positive to recommend them in the eyes of the swing voters.
Beyond Super Tuesday, there may be trouble for the Democrats. Swing voters perceive both front-runners as too liberal, though Mrs. Clinton has support in Arkansas because her husband remains popular. But here in Maury County, which has voted Democratic and Republican in the last three decades, none expressed enthusiasm for Mrs. Clinton.Similar unease was voiced in Yell County, Ark., another place that has swung back and forth, where some were quick to say that Mr. ObamaÂ’s race was not prohibitive for them personally but could well be for others.
Only John Edwards, a fellow Southerner but now considered an also-ran, met with broad approval from independents who were interviewed in the Tennessee county; in Arkansas, Mrs. Clinton’s most ardent supporters in the undulating “Free State of Yell” — so called because of a history of electoral eccentricity — conceded that they knew plenty who were just as sharply opposed to her candidacy.
Former Bush voters disillusioned with the president said flatly they would not vote for Mr. Obama, while others expressed disappointment with the available choices. Meanwhile, Republicans, even those critical of Mr. Bush, said that the too-liberal Democratic choices left them more solidly than ever with their party, though none voiced great enthusiasm for the field.
Frankly, I hear stuff like that a lot this year from folks in Texas. There isn't great enthusiasm for any of the GOP candidates, but there is discomfort with and opposition to the remaining Democrats. That party has moved to the Left of the voters (something I hear from Republicans and Democrats), but the GOP candidates are all flawed and rather uninspiring.
Frankly, I think that this year we could see "None of the Above" win if that option were on the ballot -- because voters would like a different choice.
Posted by: Greg at
10:59 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 2 kb.
First, there was this pair of zingers from Barack Obama, tagging both Clintons.
"I know it is tempting — after another presidency by a man named George Bush — to simply turn back the clock, and to build a bridge back to the 20th century," the Illinois senator said in Denver."... It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One — you have to be right from Day One," he added in unmistakable criticisms of Clinton, who often claims she's better prepared to govern, and her husband, who pledged during his own presidency to build a bridge to the 21st century.
Not that liberals are particularly known for providing much in the way of progress, despite trying to hide behind the title of "progressive" instead of liberal.
But Hillary Clinton also got her jab in.
"That certainly sounds audacious, but not hopeful," said Clinton, in a play on the title of Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope." "It's not hopeful and it's not what we should be talking about in this campaign," said Clinton, suggesting Obama was abandoning the core of his campaign.
Not nearly as good, in my opinion -- how many people are really aware of the title of the book?
But most amusing was this comment made by the New York Senator.
n the AP interview, Clinton vowed to take the high road and warned that voters in the mega-primaries next week expect that."I'm going to continue to talk to people about what we need to do in our country to try to lift people up, to keep focused on the future to be very specific about what I want to do as president because I want to be held accountable," said Clinton.
Taking the high road? Being accountable? A Clinton? Since when?
Posted by: Greg at
10:46 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 321 words, total size 2 kb.
John Edwards, the progressive Democratic candidate who made a populist, antipoverty message the centerpiece of his campaign, announced his exit from the presidential primary race on Wednesday, saying he was stepping aside “so that history can blaze its path.”Mr. Edwards announced his decision at the same place where he began his candidacy in January 2006 — the Ninth Ward neighborhood in New Orleans — using a row of homes that had been badly damaged from Hurricane Katrina as his backdrop. He did not endorse either of his two chief rivals, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, but he said he had spoken to them by phone and asked them both to continue drawing attention to the primary themes of his campaign.
The no endorsement strategy is interesting – it will likely boost Obama, while allowing Edwards to negotiate with Clinton for a possible position in the cabinet. Rumor has it that Obama has previously offered him the Attorney General slot in a future administration.
On the other hand, as we knew last night, Rudy is out of the race as well.
Rudolph W. Giuliani, the combative New York City mayor who rose to national prominence during the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, formally ended his presidential campaign on Wednesday and declared that he would throw his support to the candidacy of Senator John McCain.“John McCain is the most qualified candidate to be the next commander in chief of the United States,” Mr. Giuliani said. “He is an American hero.”
Mr. Giuliani made his announcement at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., just hours before the candidates took the stage there for a debate. His decision, on a day that also saw the Democratic contender John Edwards bow out of the race, followed a devastating defeat for Mr. Giuliani in TuesdayÂ’s Republican primary in Florida. After a series of early primary losses, Mr. Giuliani had made a great effort to win over Florida voters, but finished in a distant third to Mr. McCain in the polling.
Standing next to Mr. McCain at a podium in the library, Mr. Giuliani said that “it is appropriate to make this announcement hear at the Reagan library because President Reagan’s leadership remains and inspiration both for John McCain and myself.”
I have to wonder what prompted the endorsement -- is Giuliani the presumptive VP candidate or Attorney General (or Secretary of Homeland Security, for that matter)? His place in the Republican coalition makes it imperative that McCain find someplace for him in that administration. Then again, I can't imagine any GOP administration following this election that did not include Giuliani -- something I cannot say for John Edwards on the Democrat side.
Posted by: Greg at
12:24 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 466 words, total size 3 kb.
January 29, 2008
And most importantly, I expected the final margin to be no more than two points.
Which is why I am shocked by the results of yesterday's voting -- McCain by 5 points.
Senator John McCain defeated Mitt Romney on Tuesday to win the delegate-rich Florida primary, solidifying his transformation to the Republican front-runner and dealing a devastating blow to the presidential hopes of Rudolph W. Giuliani.Republican officials said after Mr. GiulianiÂ’s distant third-place finish that he was likely to endorse Mr. McCain, possibly as early as Wednesday in California. They said the two candidatesÂ’ staffs were discussing the logistics of an endorsement.
The results were a decisive turning point in the Republican race, effectively winnowing the field to Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney, two candidates with very different backgrounds who have little affection for one another but share a similar challenge in winning over elements of the party suspicious of their ideological credentials.
This was a pretty decisive victory, and I have to agree that it does narrow the field to only two significant candidates. As noted above, reports indicate that Rudy Giuliani will be withdrawing today, while Huckabee's fourth-place finish likely shows him to have been a flash-in-the-pan, despite his plan to soldier on through Tsunami Tuesday next week.
What does this mean for the GOP race? A couple of things, as I see it.
First, John McCain is the obvious front-runner, and Mitt Romney needs to do spectacularly well in a week to regain his momentum and avoid becoming this year's Ted Kennedy to McCain's Jimmy Carter, carrying a hopeless fight to the convention floor.
Second, the endorsements that McCain has been lining up seem to be creating a pool of potential VPs and Cabinet choices. Either Thompson or Giuliani would be a good choice for VP (perhaps Thompson to appeal tot he conservatives), while the other would be a fantastic Attorney General -- assuming he didn't tap Ted Olson for that spot.. Duncan Hunter would make a fine Secretary of Defense.
However, all is not lost for Romney. He is running a credible campaign this year, and is not out of it yet. A strong showing on Tsunami Tuesday could revers the momentum shift of Florida -- and propel him to the Presidency. And he has been a strong enough candidate this year to be a force in 2012 if he does not win the nomination in 2008, which might well be a better place for Romney if he has presidential ambitions that extend beyond this November. Maybe he is this year's Reagan to McCain's Gerald Ford.
Posted by: Greg at
11:27 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 491 words, total size 4 kb.
January 28, 2008
State Sen. Kyle Janek (R-Houston) has called a press conference tomorrow (Jan. 29) in Austin at which time, sources say, he will announce that the he is resigning his seat in the Texas Senate.JanekÂ’s sprawling District 17 takes in much of eastern Fort Bend County, including most of Sugar Land and Missouri City, as well as parts of Harris, Brazoria, Wharton, Galveston, Chambers and Jefferson counties.
When contacted Monday afternoon, Janek would not comment other than to say that the press conference would involve his future plans. Two state capitol sources, however, confirmed to FortBendNow.com that Janek has told some fellow senators of his plans and that he will give up his seat in the upper chamber effective March 10.
“He’s notified some of his (senate) colleagues and the state GOP leadership of his intention to resign,” one source who asked not to be named said. “He’s going to make it official tomorrow at the press conference.
The same source said that speculation is rampant about what Janek will do in the future.
This is a reasonably conservative district. It should stay Republican -- but the question comes down to when there will be an election to fill the vacancy. And since the district is more conservative than Janek, we should see a conservative win the seat.
And, of course, what Janek's plans are now that he is leaving office. This one is quite curious.
UPDATE: The Houston Chronicle has more.
Sen. Kyle Janek, R-Houston, who moved his family to Austin several months ago, will announce on Tuesday that he is resigning from the state Senate on March 10.His resignation will require Gov. Rick Perry to call a special election to fill the remainder of the term, which runs through January 2011.
The governor's office declined to comment, but the next uniform election date would be May 10, and a number of candidates could file for the seat in the heavily Republican district, which includes parts of Harris County and five neighboring counties.
Former Harris County Republican Chairman Gary Polland, who unsuccessfully challenged Janek in 2006, and state Rep. Charlie Howard, R-Sugar Land, said Monday they are considering the Senate race.
Howard said his first goal is winning the March 4 primary for his own House seat over two GOP challengers. Win or lose, he would be free to run for the Senate in a special election two months later.
But still no word on why, or his future plans.
And interestingly enough, not one Democrat mentioned as a possible challenger for the seat.
Posted by: Greg at
11:35 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 438 words, total size 3 kb.
Senator John McCain and Mitt Romney traded blistering attacks in Florida on Monday morning, a day before the stateÂ’s Republican primary.Mr. Romney questioned Mr. McCainÂ’s commitment to conservatism, citing a series of bipartisan bills Mr. McCain sponsored with Senate Democrats, while Mr. McCain accused the former Massachusetts governor of flip-flopping on major issues.
Mr. McCain, speaking at a shipyard in Jacksonville, swatted aside Mr. Romney’s charge that he is a “liberal Democrat” by saying: “He is consistent. He has consistently taken both sides of every major issue. He has consistently flip-flopped on every major issue.”
He cited Mr. Romney’s support as governor for a regional greenhouse gas emissions control program, for a lenient policy toward illegal immigrants and for campaign finance revisions, all positions he has reversed as a presidential candidate. “People, just look at his record as governor,” Mr. McCain said. “He has been entirely consistent. He has consistently taken two sides of every major issue, sometimes more than two. So congratulations.”
Now this sort of stuff has got to be dialed back and toned down if we are to have any sort of chance at unifying the party. Charges and counter-charges can't be papered over today like they were in decades past -- anyone with a modem can find them all on the internet, and I'm sure that the Democrats are archiving a great many stories full of juicy quotes. We need to let the Democrats continue their self-destructive race between Hillary and Obama while unifying around a consensus candidate -- and possibly a ticket with both of these men on it.
Posted by: Greg at
11:17 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy implored Americans on Monday to “reject the counsels of doubt and calculation,” as he extended his endorsement and placed the aura of his family’s name around the presidential candidacy of Senator Barack Obama.“It is time again for a new generation of leadership,” Mr. Kennedy said, speaking over a crowd of cheering supporters here at American University. “It is time now for Barack Obama.”
Let me do some math. I turn 45 in a few weeks. During my lifetime, there has never been so much as one second that Teddy Kennedy has not been a serving member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he assumed office a full sixteen weeks before my birth. He is part of a family that has turned dynasticism and nepotistic privilege into an art form.
I'll take his "new generation of leadership" comments seriously when he demands that all members of the Kennedy Klan, starting with himself, resign from public office and retire from public life.
Posted by: Greg at
10:43 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.
Andrew McCarthy points out that John McCain is permitted to go on television and make all the false attacks he wants against Mitt Romney free from legal penalty, but that it would be a crime for American citizens to buy a television ad to refute McCain.
I'm starting to think Sen. McCain should not be allowed to mention the other candidates' names within 30 days before a primary. I mean, he levels an allegation about Romney that's just flat not true, and if some organization wanted to run an ad calling him on it, they would be in violation of his "reform" of campaign finance regulations. What a racket!
Yeah, it is a scam – protecting politicians from the consequences of their own words and actions during the time period when citizens deserve the maximum possible information about them.
Posted by: Greg at
01:13 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.
January 27, 2008
More than half the states holding presidential contests next month on Super Tuesday allow unaffiliated voters to participate, giving millions of independents a chance to shape what is usually an insider affair among Democratic and Republican loyalists.Two of those states -- California and New Jersey -- together have nearly 6 million unaffiliated voters who will be allowed to cast ballots. Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts and Alabama are among other prized catches with millions of independents eligible for the Feb. 5 contests.
The open voting is widely considered to benefit Democratic Sen. Barack Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain, who have fared well among independents in recent polls and primaries. It also is reflected in Obama's words, from his outreach to Republican voters to his recent credit to Ronald Reagan in the context of elections that represent shifts in political direction.
"Obama's trying to do two things at once. On the one hand, energize the liberal base, but also attract independents who are looking for a bipartisan problem-solver," said Jack Pitney, a former deputy research director for the Republican National Committee and a government professor at Claremont McKenna College in California. "That's a very difficult balance, and (Hillary) Clinton is trying to highlight the contradiction there."
Pitney and others said turnout will probably be high among independents because of the wide-open contests in each party. But it's tricky to predict the impact, they said.
I don't believe in open primaries. Call me old-fashioned, or just wedded to logical thinking, but it has always seemed to me that the nominee of the Republican Party should be picked by Republicans and that the Democrat nominee should be picked by Democrats. You know, just like the Libertarian nominee is selected by Libertarians, the Green nominee is selected by Greens, and the Communist nominee is selected by Communists (though today not the ones in Moscow). Independents, who are not committed to a party or its principles, don't belong involved in selecting a party's nominees. Members of one party should not be able to cross over with the intent of sabotaging the nominating process of an opposing party.
Why are closed primaries to be preferred? because party labels used to mean something much more significant that they do today. All too often, American voters complain that there is not a dime's worth of difference between the candidates put forward -- and that is largely because of the involvement of undiffused independents in the process. Rather than campaigns based upon wedge issue, a system of closed primaries would offer mores stark, substantive differences (and therefore choices) on policy matters. And that, in turn, would help end the current system in which matters of style matter more to voters than matters of substance.
Besides -- it is we partisans who are the backbone of any campaign. We should be making the decision for our parties, not those without a commitment to it.
Posted by: Greg at
10:45 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 499 words, total size 3 kb.
Ted Kennedy embraces Obama
And despite their attempts to deny it, it appears the Clintons fought hard for this endorsement.
Rejecting a personal entreaty from President Bill Clinton, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) plans to endorse Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for president in a joint appearance on Monday, Democratic sources said.The embrace provides a dramatic rocket for Obama to ride into the frantic, nationwide campaigning ahead of the spate of Super Tuesday primaries on Feb. 5, the biggest day for nominating contests in U.S. history. Caroline Kennedy, the senator's niece and the daughter of President John F. Kennedy, will also appear at the rally, the sources said.
Democrats said the endorsement will help Obama with traditional Democratic groups where Clinton has been strong — union households, Hispanics and downscale workers.
And to think of all that Bubba and Jabba the Drunk have in common failed to sway him to support Hillary!
This may not make the Clinton campaign crumble, but it may make matters more interesting for a while.
Posted by: Greg at
10:27 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.
John McCain accused Mitt Romney of wanting to set a timetable to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, drawing immediate protest from his Republican presidential rival who said: "That's simply wrong and it's dishonest, and he should apologize."
* * * First, he slapped at Romney without naming him during a question-and-answer session with Floridians, saying: "Now, one of my opponents wanted to set a date for withdrawal that would have meant disaster."
Minutes later to reporters, the Arizona senator was more direct: "If we surrender and wave a white flag, like Senator Clinton wants to do, and withdraw, as Governor Romney wanted to do, then there will be chaos, genocide, and the cost of American blood and treasure would be dramatically higher."
Asked about the comment in Land O' Lakes, Fla., Romney bristled.
"That's dishonest, to say that I have a specific date. That's simply wrong," he said. "That is not the case. I've never said that."
The former Massachusetts governor added: "I know he's trying desperately to change the topic from the economy and trying to get back to Iraq, but to say something that's not accurate is simply wrong — and he knows better."
Later in Sun City, Fla., McCain stuck to his assessment and said: "The apology is owed to the young men and women serving this nation in uniform."
Utterly despicable, Senator, as not even your own campaign can produce a single statement by Gov. Romney calling for a timetable for withdrawal. Such claims on your part are disgraceful, and a sign that you are so desperate to destroy your only significant opposition for the GOP nomination that you are willing to stoop to Clintonian tactics to win. Even your lackeys in the media recognize that you are being disingenuous.
What Mitt Romney has said, clearly, consistently, and in concert with every patriotic American (which apparently excludes both you and the majority of Democrats). Indeed, the closest that one gets to urging a set date for withdrawal is a comment by Romney that the US and Iraq need to set milestones and timetables -- but that these are not for public consumption. And as a former military officer like McCain knows full well, planning for any military operation includes such milestones and timetables -- but that such plans are subject to revision based upon the facts on the ground as one engages the enemy, not set in stone via public declarations by politicians in search of votes. As such, Mitt Romney was advocating appropriate military and diplomatic strategy, not calling for retreat and surrender.
Even McCain supporters/defenders are calling on him to apologize for his lie.
And Ed Morrissey points out who has implicitly called for withdrawal if benchmarks and timetables aren't met -- John McCain.
[He] said Thursday that he hadn't yet decided on precise benchmarks. "They'd have to be specific, and they (Iraqi government officials) would have to meet them," he said.Asked what penalty would be imposed if Iraq failed to meet his benchmarks, he said: "I think everybody knows the consequences. Haven't met the benchmarks? Obviously, then, we're not able to complete the mission. Then you have to examine your options."
And when he made that statement a year ago, Democrats trumpeted it as a sign that Republicans were coming around to their position on troop withdrawals. So who owes an apology to the troops, Senator -- as well as to his opponent?
UPDATE: Romney supporter Hugh Hewitt notes that even the McCain-endorsing New York Times is calling this charge "misleading".
The charge appears to be misleading. The McCain campaign pointed to remarks Mr. Romney made last year in which he said he believed that President Bush and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq should have “a series of timetables and milestones” that they discussed among themselves but did not announce publicly.But Mr. Romney has not called for setting a date for withdrawal. Mr. Romney has said he supports the president’s current strategy, although he has said he anticipates more and more American troops moving into a support role in Iraq in the next year — similar to what Gen. David H. Petraeus outlined in his testimony before Congress last year.
It's rough when even your friends are calling you on your lies.
Everyone except for McCain and his surrogates are saying this charge is false. Interestingly enough, John McCain says he was there when Mitt Romney made a call for a timetable for withdrawal. So we are either looking at a question of honesty or one of mental fitness. Neither option is particularly pretty. (Daffyd at Big Lizards notes a third option -- that McCain wishes to maintain the current troop level,160,000 servicemen and women, permanently.)
UPDATE II: Looks like HuckaBubba has gotten into the act, too -- but without even a recourse to a quote to back him up.
Mike Huckabee sided with John McCain Sunday, saying GOP presidential rival Mitt Romney did back a set calendar for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq.Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who is battling Huckabee and McCain for the Republican presidential nomination, called McCain dishonest for saying he once supported a troop withdrawal timetable.
Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, said on "Fox News Sunday" that while he disagrees with McCain, the senator from Arizona, on issues from time to time, he has never seen him utter something "just blatantly untrue."
"The reason that I'm aware of Mitt Romney's statement about the secret timetable is because that was originally proposed by a senator from my state, Sen. Mark Pryor," Huckabee said. "And there are published reports that I've witnessed and seen, more than one, in which Mitt Romney did, in fact, talk about support for not a public timetable, but a secret timetable that would be held by administration officials, members of Congress."
Re. Huckabee, would you care to square this statement with Exodus 20:16 and Deteronomy 5:20? Or do you perhaps need to reacquaint yourself with these two verses? Clearly we need to apply Deuteronomy 19:19 to both you and Senator McCain -- in the interest of squaring matters with God's law, of course.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, A Blog For All, 123beta, Stuck On Stupid, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, Pursuing Holiness, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, A Newt One, A Newt One- blog talkradio show tonight, Right Voices, Stageleft, and OTB Sports, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
02:55 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1136 words, total size 10 kb.
In other words, he'd still go for amnesty given the opportunity.
So much for his conversion to the "secure the borders first" cause.
UPDATE: Or maybe not.
I guess I'm confused. If he recognizes the bill he sponsored was wrong, why would he sign it -- especially if the American people. as he repeatedly states, want the border secured first? I don't see how you can reconcile the two positions.
Posted by: Greg at
12:11 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.
So now Colette Mills' breast cancer has advanced to the point that a cure is not an option.
A WOMAN suffering from breast cancer has run out of time to benefit from a potentially life-extending drug which the National Health Service (NHS) denied her, even though she was prepared to pay for it.Colette Mills has been told by doctors that in the four months since she asked for the drug the disease has taken such a hold in her body that the cancer will no longer respond to the treatment.
* * * Asked about her future prospects, Mills said: “They are not hopeful of halting it. They will give you no promises. I didn’t ask and he [the doctor] didn’t say. It is not something I want to know just yet.”
In other words, Colette Mills is going to die because the principle of guaranteeing only a minimum of medical treatment for all is more important than actually saving the lives of the critically ill.
And now there are those who want to bring that system to America.
Which means that, if they succeed, effective treatments will be denied to people because they are too expensive, even if they wish to pay for that treatment themselves. Or if the patients are old. Or fat. Or smokers. Or otherwise deemed unworthy by the government.
Would someone tell me why anyone would support such a fundamental change in our system, when the cost will be measured in human lives?
Posted by: Greg at
02:10 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 335 words, total size 2 kb.
January 26, 2008
The size and scope of the win seems quite overwhelming.
Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) scored an overwhelming victory over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) in South Carolina's Democratic presidential primary with strong support from black voters, according to network projections. The win sets up a full-scale clash between the two candidates on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5.Obama, the first black candidate regarded as a legitimate contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, appeared to win African American voters by a four to one margin -- numbers that nearly replicated his performance among blacks in Iowa and Nevada. But unlike in those states, where blacks make up a small percentage of the overall electorate, more than 50 percent of Democratic voters in today's South Carolina primary are black, according to preliminary exit polls.
Clinton finished second and former senator John Edwards of North Carolina placed third, according to NBC and CNN. Among white voters, the candidates ran far closer, with Clinton and Edwards running neck and neck while Obama lagged slightly behind. But among black voters, Clinton's showing was modest and Edwards's showing was negligible.
Interestingly enough, Hillary Clinton appears not to have won a single county in the state, though John Edwards at this point has two in his column. That could change as results come in, but it does signal that the support for the junior Senator from Illinois is not concentrated in any one spot in the state, but is spread widely. And it is also interesting to note that Obama leads in virtually every demographic group by race, gender, and age.
And interestingly enough, we get solid evidence of the fact that Hillary's campaign is being treated as a surrogate for another term for Bill Clinton -- from the former President's own mouth.
8:15 p.m. | Bill Time Bill Clinton is speaking in Independence, Mo.Again, interesting tag-team strategy from the Clintons — Mr. Clinton goes on television so Mrs. Clinton doesn’t have to.
Mr. Clinton says that Mr. Obama “won fair and square,” but added: “Now we go to Feb. 5th and millions of Americans will finally get in the act.” That drew a big applause. Now Mr. Clinton seems to be addressing the TV pundits who are all questioning his value on the campaign trail. “I think I know something about what it takes to put together a successful presidency” and he refers to his “post-politics” career. Yes, that’s all about him, but he says he was just setting up his point: Even if he hadn’t been married to Mrs. Clinton, he would still support her!
I find it interesting that the Clinton campaign has issued a statement in Hillary Clinton's name, but that the candidate herself has yet to have the class to step up to the microphones and cameras and concede defeat. It is pretty tacky to send Bill out first -- in another state -- to do that on her behalf. Doesn't look very presidential to me. [UPDATE: She did speak -- roughly 90 minutes later, after waiting for John Edwards to concede first.]
Ed Morrissey notes this little swipe at Billary by Obama.
"The choice in this election is not about regions or religions or genders," Obama said at a boisterous victory rally. "It's not about rich versus poor, young versus old and it's not about black versus white. It's about the past versus the future.">
* * * "We are up against conventional thinking that says your ability to lead as president comes from longevity in Washington or proximity to the White House. But we know that real leadership is about candor, and judgment, and the ability to rally Americans from all walks of life around a common purpose — a higher purpose," Obama said.
I don't agree with the platform Barack Obama is running on. That said, I'd have to argue that he is a much more inspiring, positive political voice than Hillary Clinton could ever be, even on her best day. Heck, I'd even say that he out performs her husband -- and I didn't need exit polling data to reach that conclusion.
UPDATE: Gateway Pundit points out how thoroughly Obama drubbed the Clintons in South Carolina.
** Obama won a majority of blacks (80%) and one quarter of white vote.
** Obama won one half of white voters under the age of 30.
** Obama won 66% of the youth vote compared to 25% for Clinton.
** Obama also won 58% of democrats!
** And, Obama also won a majority (51%) of higher income voters to Clinton's 26%!
** Hillary Clinton did well with less educated and elderly democrats.
If I played games like the Democrats do, I could make the argument that only the only segment of voters that the Clintons appeal to are the old and the stupid -- but I won't go there.
More At Michelle Malkin
Posted by: Greg at
01:39 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 836 words, total size 6 kb.
You may not want to throw that “Kinky for Governor” poster away just yet; former independent gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman is weighing another run for governor, this time as a Democrat.In an exclusive interview with Fort Bend Now, Friedman said that is seriously considering throwing his trademark black Stetson into the ring again for the 2010 governor’s race.
“The signs are very positive,” Friedman said. “We’ve got to get the wooden horse inside the city somehow.”
As for running as a Democrat, Friedman said that he has been a Democrat all his life, and if he would have run as a Democrat the last time, the odds are good he would be in the governorÂ’s mansion right now.
“I would have done better than Chris Bell and could have run stronger against grandma (Carole Keeton Strayhorn),” Friedman said.
In the 2006 election, Friedman polled 546,689, or 12.43 percent of the popular vote, for a fourth-place finish behind Gov. Rick Perry, Bell and Strayhorn. He said that he believes he can benefit from what he called the “Dolph Briscoe” effect.
Yeah, Kinky would have been a heck of a lot better candidate in 2006 than Chris Bell was. For that matter, he would have been a heck of a lot better candidate than Rick Perry, who immediately reneged on campaign commitments and tried to usurp the role of the legislature so he could play doctor with the little girls of Texas.
Heck, we could do worse than Kinky -- and may have.
Posted by: Greg at
12:28 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.
January 25, 2008
Amendment 22 - Presidential Term LimitsArticle 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Article 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.
In 1947, the United States Congress engaged in an act that rivaled the deposition of Pope Formosus in its wrongness. Figuratively digging up the corpse of FDR, it passed what would become the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution, in order to guarantee that no President could ever ignore the precedent by George Washington. It was, in my eyes, an unwise move, and one contrary to the spirit of our founding document. Indeed, the limitation has been repeatedly criticized by later presidents, historians and political scientists as undemocratic and creating the problem of a lame duck presidency from the first day of the second term.
Which leads us to 2008.
At this time, one of the major candidates for president is the wife of a former president. Hillary Clinton has unleashed her husband, former president Bill Clinton, as a surrogate for her on the campaign trail due to his effectiveness as a campaigner and continued popularity nearly eight years after he left office. Indeed, we are once again hearing the “two for one” rhetoric of the 1992 campaign, with this being seen as one of Hillary Clinton’s qualifications for office.
But this begs the real question – do Americans wish to see Hillary Clinton elected President, or are they really pining after Bill Clinton? And if so, why should the American people be forced to settle for Hillary – an abrasive figure who lacks he husbands charisma and actual experience in office?
Personally, I believe “We, the People” should not be required to settle for a substitute when the real thing is available. If the American people believe that Bill Clinton is the most qualified individual to lead our country in these times, the American people should have the right to have him take the reigns for a third term – and a fourth or fifth if that is the popular will.
Of course, I find the notion of allowing either Clinton in the White House to be nauseating. I would actively campaign against him were he running, as I fully intend to do with his wife. But if my fellow citizens would prefer him in office to any other American, I will gladly bend to their will – and would feel safer with him running the country than I would with his wife. So let’s act, after the election, if not now, to eliminate the Republican’s revenge on the deceased Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The Twenty-Second Amendment should be repealed.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, A Newt One- The Truth Surge, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Nuke Gingrich, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
11:23 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 663 words, total size 6 kb.
January 24, 2008
Democrat Dennis Kucinich is abandoning his second, long-shot bid for the White House as he faces a tough fight to hold onto his other job — U.S. congressman.In an interview with Cleveland's Plain Dealer, the six-term House member said he was quitting the race and would make a formal announcement on Friday.
"I will be announcing that I'm transitioning out of the presidential campaign," Kucinich said. "I'm making that announcement tomorrow about a new direction."
Kucinich has received little support in his presidential bid; he got 1 percent of the vote in the New Hampshire primary and was shut out in the Iowa caucuses. He did have a devoted following.
So the UFO-spotting crazy guy with a hot, much younger wife is gone -- and with it the only chance of seeing Tom Cruise on a national ticket. Maybe Kucinich can get a gig pushing Scientology along with Cruise after he loses his House seat. After all, they are both equally in touch with reality.
Andrew Sullivan notes this observation from Wendy McEwan at Shakespeare's Sister.
Probably the only people who do care at this point are Chris Matthews and the rest of the morons in the Boys' Club, who will no longer be able to leer over his wife like the disrespectful, perv-brained douchehounds they are.
Personally, I've never leered over her -- just wondered what an attractive woman like her is doing with a little troll like Dennis.
Posted by: Greg at
11:30 PM
| Comments (223)
| Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.
Republican Mitt Romney and Democrat Barack Obama are leading in their respective parties' upcoming primaries, according to two new state surveys.But a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that their rivals — John McCain and Hillary Clinton — are ahead nationally, with Clinton leading Obama by 15 points and with McCain moving from fourth to first in one month.
Still, it appears that what this race is going to come down to is a battle for delegates. Romney will increase his lead in the delegate count if he picks up the large bloc of votes in that state -- further stretching his lead in a race where Mitt already has nearly twice the delegates of his closest rival, John McCain. And as Romney is seen as succeeding, his national support will likely increase. After all, McCain got a big boost after his win in South Carolina (with the media ignoring Romney's impressive win in Nevada).
And what about Obama? Will he be able to overcome Hillary's sizable lead?
Posted by: Greg at
11:23 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.
First the Democrat -- not so much because of Hillary Clinton's qualifications but rather because they don't think Obama is "ready"
The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we canÂ’t foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.
But then they go on to talk about how Hillary Clinton, part of a power couple that breeds and thrives on negativity, needs to change to project a more positive tone -- the very thing that Obama has done all along. I guess they expect the leopardess to change her spots. Not that such a thing will happen, given that the Clintons are the two most divisive political figures of my lifetime, and the architects of the divisive politics that have dominated the last decade and a half. In the mean time, Barack Obama, the real uniter, is expected to step to the back of the bus.
And then there is the nominee for the GOP -- the conservative party is encouraged to nominate the least conservative candidate, and the one most likely to take positions amenable to the Democrats. But I especially love this opening.
We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even now to break with the legacy of President Bush. We disagree with them strongly on what makes a good Supreme Court justice.
In other words, we are against everything it means to be a Republican, but we still feel that Republicans should give a damn what we think. It is followed by this.
Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field.We have shuddered at Mr. McCainÂ’s occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle. He was an early advocate for battling global warming and risked his presidential bid to uphold fundamental American values in the immigration debate. A genuine war hero among Republicans who proclaim their zeal to be commander in chief, Mr. McCain argues passionately that a countryÂ’s treatment of prisoners in the worst of times says a great deal about its character.
In other words, the Republicans should nominate John McCain because of all the positions he holds that are out of step with the GOP and in step with the eventual Democrat platform. Conservatives should embrace the candidate that the New York Times sees as most likely to implement the policies that are anathema to conservatism.
In other words, the New York Times would see us choose between a bad choice and an echo.
More At Captain's Quarters, Michelle Malkin, Cao's Blog, Soccer Dad, Pat Dollard
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, A Newt One- The Truth Surge, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Nuke Gingrich, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
11:11 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 676 words, total size 6 kb.
For the 10 years he was governor of Arkansas, Mr. Huckabee was at war with much of his party.Now that Mr. Huckabee is seeking the presidential nomination, many Arkansas Republicans warn that he could wage a bruising battle with the national party, too.
"One can hardly argue that the Republican Party has thrived," said former Rep. Jim Hendren, who was House minority leader and ran for state party chairman in a bitter 2001 race won by a Huckabee surrogate. "We thrived as we were an opposition party and standing on principles as the Republican Party. But unfortunately, when we got some power, particularly at the state level, we began to fight among ourselves."
The former Southern Baptist pastor-turned-politician took control of the governor's mansion in 1996 with expectations that he would lead the kind of Republican ascension in other states of the Deep South. But he left office last year by turning over the governorship to a Democrat and with Republicans bitterly divided over his legacy for his party.
"He destroyed it," said Randy Minton, a former state representative whom Mr. Huckabee worked to help get elected but who later clashed repeatedly with the governor. "We had one U.S. senator, we had two congressmen, at the tops we had 37 out of 135 legislators in the House and Senate. Now I think there's 32 in the legislature, we have no U.S. senators and we have one congressman."
We are a divided, weakened party in 2008. We need to rediscover our principles and focus around them to redevelop the strength to lead effectively. It appears that Mike Huckabee lacks the skill set to do that – and may actually be adept at destroying that unity and sapping the strength we have. In other words, he may or may not be a great guy, but he is certainly the wrong guy for the GOP.
Posted by: Greg at
11:14 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) says he's "absolutely astonished" that Sen. Hillary Clinton wants to surrender to the enemy in Iraq.In an indication of how the campaign may evolve once the Democrat and Republican presidential candidates go head to head, McCain told Fox & Friends Thursday morning, "After all the sacrifice we've made in this surge, which everybody knows is succeeding, she wants to surrender and bring the troops home and set a date for withdrawal."
McCain said he hopes national security will be a big point of discussion at tonight's Republican debate in Boca Raton, Fla.
"If we do what she wants to do...al Qaeda will tell the world that they've defeated the United States of America. I have never, never in American history heard of a leading candidate for president of the United States that wants to surrender to the enemy."
McCain said snatching defeat "from the jaws of victory" would undermine the sacrifice of brave young Americans.
After the last few years of Democrats trying to undercut American efforts to stabilize Iraq, I can’t understand why anything any Democrat says about undermining the troops or unilaterally retreating in the face of victory would cause so much as a blink. That McCain is “astonished” does lead me to ask if he has been paying attention to these people – or if he has the mental acuity to adequately serve as commander in chief.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, The Pet Haven Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, Pet's Garden Blog, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, A Newt One, Dumb Ox Daily News, CORSARI D'ITALIA, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
11:00 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 4 kb.
January 23, 2008
Ron Paul, the Texas congressman frequently dismissed as a long shot candidate with no real chance at winning the Republican presidential nomination, has won nearly twice as many total votes to date as Rudy Giuliani, a candidate still widely viewed as a strong contender.With his second place finish in SaturdayÂ’s Nevada caucus, where Paul defeated Giuliani in every county in the state, the Texas congressman has now received 106,414 votes to 60,220 for Giuliani. Both candidates have collected zero actual delegates.
Now mind you, Giuliani hasn't really mounted a campaign in ANY of the early states, including the couple where "pressing the flesh" is key to the outcome. And as important as I think Nevada was, the reality is that you would also have to conclude that John McCain (who won in South Carolina the same day) is also equally in trouble if you were to use Nevada as the yardstick for measuring viability.
But consider this -- Ron Paul has campaigned vigorously in all of the states so far, in contrast to Giuliani's "wait until Florida" strategy. And Ron Paul still has won no delegates, even in states where he claims to have some strength.
Now I've been very clear that I think Ron Paul needs to be defeated for the presidency AND congress this year because of certain bizarre positions and outrageous statements over the years. But at the same time, I believe that there are some philosophical points worth taking away from his campaign. However, Ron Paul is definitely NOT it -- and I suspect that the relative performances in Florida and on Super Tuesday will demonstrate that he is not candidate with broader and deeper support than Rudy Giuliani.
Posted by: Greg at
11:06 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.
January 22, 2008
Maureen Dowd makes a good point here, one made by many others recently.
If Bill Clinton has to trash his legacy to protect his legacy, so be it. If he has to put a dagger through the heart of hope to give Hillary hope, so be it.If he has to preside in this state as the former first black president stopping the would-be first black president, so be it.
The Clintons — or “the 2-headed monster,” as the The New York Post dubbed the tag team that clawed out wins in New Hampshire and Nevada — always go where they need to go, no matter the collateral damage. Even if the damage is to themselves and their party.
Bill’s transition from elder statesman, leader of his party and bipartisan ambassador to ward heeler and hatchet man has been seamless — and seamy.
Now given that Clinton's legacy can best be summed up with the phrases "blue dress", "semen stain", "impeachment" and "perjury", I don't know how much lower seamier and damaged his legacy can get -- but he certainly is trying. And in doing so, I believe he harms his wife's candidacy for office.
Indeed, that phrase I used above is precisely the source of the harm. -- "his wife".
Hillary Clinton wants to be President of the United States. She is running for the office. She needs to be out front, and HER spouse needs to be in the background, even if he is the immediate past president. If elected, this will be her administration, not his, and she will have to be making the tough calls and being the public face. Unfortunately, Bill has taken center stage much of the time, serving as hatchet man. And it is an unbecoming role. More importantly, it makes Hillary look weak, as if she has to hide behind her husband when the going gets tough. that may not actually be the case, but it is the perception.
I think Peggy Noonan made an interesting related point over the weekend on Meet the Press.
MS. NOONAN: Can I say, on the campaign trail, one of the things I find jarring the past few weeks is that Hillary Clinton is the first major party woman running for president of the United States. She is a woman. She's running for president. She's running for head of the United States, chief executive officer. And she has to send her husband out to yell at the neighbors? It's like she's, she's saying, "You go out there, you fight for me. My husband's going to tell you off!" There's something strange, jarring, unbecoming and even unfeminist about it.MS. GOODWIN: I doubt that she's sending him out. I think he's going out on his own.
MS. NOONAN: You think he's just on his own. Oh, my goodness, it's her campaign. If she didn't want him out there wagging his finger, turning red and arguing with reporters and bringing a level of temper and heat to the proceedings, if she did not want that, I'm sure she would stop it. And if she cannot, we should all just stop and take a breath.
If Hillary is hiding behind Bill, she is showing a level of weakness that is unbecoming in a president. But if, as some are saying (and Maureen Dowd is implying) Bill is in control here, then Hillary is equally unfit for the Oval Office, having shown an inability to control her own campaign and set her own message. Until and unless she can make her finger-wagging, purple-raging spouse fade into the background, she is showing why she is really not the best choice for the White House.
For Hillary Clinton to succeed, she must eclipse Bill Clinton, because his status as former president has the ability to do great damage to her administration on a policy level if she is not front and center and the clear voice of that administration. She needs to demonstrate that as a candidate if she is to prove herself worthy of victory in the primaries and the general election.
Posted by: Greg at
11:11 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 729 words, total size 4 kb.
January 21, 2008
It started with a phone call from a newspaper reporter in October seeking to verify the academic credentials of Gov. Joe Manchin IIIÂ’s daughter Heather Bresch. But in less than three months, the inquiry has mushroomed into a controversy that risks casting a shadow of cronyism over this stateÂ’s flagship university.Officials at the college, West Virginia University, have been accused of rewriting records last fall to document that Ms. Bresch had earned an executive master of business administration degree in 1998. An investigation by The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette concluded that she had completed only 22 of the required 48 credit hours.
The university has begun an investigation of its own into the matter.
Ms. Bresch, 38, works for Mylan Inc., the world’s third-largest generic drug company, which employs 2,000 people in Morgantown. The company’s chairman, Milan Puskar, is a major campaign contributor to Governor Manchin, a Democrat, and is the university’s largest donor, having given it $20 million in 2003. Ms. Bresch has insisted that she earned her degree, and university officials have blamed a failure to transfer records for nearly half of her course work to the appropriate office for the situation, as documents were moved to electronic format from paper. But so far, the university and Ms. Bresch have not produced copies of her transcripts, receipts or other proof of her having paid for course work, or documents from the courses where grades seemed to have been entered years after “incompletes” were given.
If, as claimed, there are paper records that were not transferred to the electronic system, it should be easy enough to prove. Just produce the records. Surely there are records to justify the changing of grades YEARS after the fact.
Or are there?
Or is there just Daddy's political pull and the aid of one of the state's largest employers, which gives millions to the University?
Posted by: Greg at
11:25 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 340 words, total size 2 kb.
In the most intense and personal exchange of the presidential campaign, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama assailed each other’s integrity and voting records during a televised debate on Monday in South Carolina, the site of a critical primary in five days.If the debate was full of memorable moments — Mrs. Clinton accusing Mr. Obama of associating with a “slum landlord,” Mr. Obama saying he felt as if he were running against both Hillary and Bill Clinton, the two candidates talking over each other — the totality of the attacks also laid bare the ill will and competitive ferocity that has been simmering between them for weeks.
“You know, Senator Obama, it is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you, because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern,” Mrs. Clinton said, drawing a chorus of jeers from a crowd at the Palace Theater in Myrtle Beach, S.C.
Mr. Obama shot back that Mrs. Clinton was conducting a brand of negative politics that, he suggested throughout the night, she and her husband had perfected: “comb my 4,000 votes in Illinois, choose one, try to present it in the worst possible light.” He added that he had sought to maintain “a certain credibility” in the race.
Interestingly, Barack Obama is saying the same thing that Republicans have been saying for the last 16 years about the Clinton machine. Now that Hillary is facing the possibility of being denied her anointing as queen the Democratic nominee, she is willing to use every arrow in the Clinton quiver to destroy a fellow Democrat.
Contrast that with the relatively amicable relations between the GOP candidates. The debates have been much less personal. Could this signal that the GOP will emerge from the process much more united than the Democrats, with the same sort of divisions we saw after the Carter/Kennedy struggle in 1980 again afflicting the Democrats? And will the Democrats, as in 1988, supply the Republicans with all the ammo they need to take down the eventual Democrat nominee?
Posted by: Greg at
11:06 PM
| Comments (52)
| Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 2 kb.
January 20, 2008
Especially when you look at this graphic from the folks at CD22 Watcher.
If anything, Dean appears to have been getting himself in better shape, as he doesn't seem to be all that much thinner in the picture at issue than he does in the candid shot -- certainly not enough for people to get their bowels in an uproar over.
Let's talk issues in CD22, not this sort of trivia. And let's see some legitimate coverage of the race from the Houston Chronicle, not this sort of silliness.
Posted by: Greg at
02:03 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 123 words, total size 1 kb.
January 19, 2008
The Harris County District Attorney's office this morning dismissed the indictments returned Thursday against Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina and his wife in connection with the fire that destroyed their home in Spring last summer.A grand jury handed up the indictments despite objections from Rosenthal's office. Today, the district attorney's office said it would continue to investigate the fire in relationship to the Medinas but not in a prosecutorial mode.
* * * Rosenthal insisted there is not sufficient evidence to charge the Medinas with involvement in what arson investigators determined was a deliberately set fire. The blaze caused almost $1 million worth of damage to three homes in the Olde Oaks neighborhood in Spring.
Medina, the first Supreme Court justice indicted since Donald Yarbrough was charged with perjury and forgery in 1977, was indicted on a charge of fabricating evidence, specifically a letter he gave investigators about the incident. His wife, Francisca, is accused of setting the fire that destroyed their 5,000-square-foot home and damaged two nearby houses.
Bail was set at $20,000 for Francisca Medina and $5,000 for her husband. Both offenses are felonies. The arson charge carries a punishment of probation to 20 years in prison. Evidence tampering or fabrication would be punishable by probation to 10 years.
Now the charges here are serious. I don't know how strong the evidence is. But the OTHER current situation involving DA Chuck Rosenthal and his stated unwillingness to see this case through to prosecution leads me to believe that there is a need for some sort of special prosecutor to handle the case.
This is especially true in light of the (possibly illegal) statements of the grand jury foreman and assistant foreman.
According to the jurors, it was just one more blow to justice when Rosenthal indicated Thursday that he would seek to dismiss the indictments.''This is ludicrous," said foreman Bob Ryan, a real estate broker, who at 63, said he has served as foreman of at least four grand juries. "Mr. Rosenthal never put his head in the door and heard one word of testimony."
* * * The jury, whose term was slated to end in November, continued working for three months to hear more evidence. But about a month ago, Ryan said the prosecutor handling the case, Vic Wisner, told him that neither he nor Rosenthal thought there were grounds for indictment.
Wisner didn't return my call to his home late Thursday, and Rosenthal wasn't returning the Houston Chronicle's calls Thursday.
A couple of weeks ago, when Ryan and Dorrell were trying to set up a date for the grand jury to meet again, the two jurors said Wisner tried to talk them out of it.
"He seemed very upset," Dorrell told me. "He said, 'Why are you guys meeting? This isn't a viable case.' "
Then Thursday, when Ryan told Wisner what indictments he wanted prepared, Ryan said the prosecutor refused: "He said, 'I will not do it.' And I said, 'Well, get your boss in here.' And he said, 'He knows all about it.' And he slammed the door and left. He came back later and said, 'All right, I'll prepare the indictments.' "
If the indictments are dismissed, Ryan said, grand jurors may try to re-indict. It's unfortunate when a panel must go to such lengths to carry out justice.
Now these stories, if true are troubling. But before I accept the argument that the move to stop or dismiss these indictments is based upon politics, I have to ask how much of the decision to present the case to the jury was based upon politics in the first place. I also have to wonder to what degree the DA's office was required to present the case to the grand jury under statute, given that certain types of potential offenses are required to go before a grand jury. Of equal concern, though, is the possibility that we have a runaway grand jury overstepping its bounds, based upon the threat to reindict the Medinas.
Consider this – a suspicious house fire takes place at the home of a top judge who is a member of the dominant political party in the state and county. A decision not to take the case to the grand jury, no matter how weak the evidence, would clearly be seen as political. A DA (or ADA) might legitimately present the evidence in hand with a recommendation that the case be no-billed due to the lack of evidence. And remember, the accused is not permitted to present or rebut any evidence – only the prosecutor's office has a voice in that room, so the prosecutor's case is the only one seen by the grand jury. Prosecutorial discretion can, and does, at times lead to a request for dismissal of an indictment in the interest of justice. After all, the DA should not be prosecuting a person that he believes to be innocent merely because there is an indictment in hand – whether that person is a powerful politician or the poorest citizen in the county. And the standard of evidence to get an indictment (probable cause) is NOT the same as that required to get a conviction in a criminal court (proof beyond a reasonable doubt), meaning that it is quite possible that Rosenthal and his office are correct in stating that there may not be sufficient evidence to pursue the case to a conviction.
But in this case, we have a DA whose actions in office have been manifestly unacceptable, as shown by the scandal that has cost him his place on the ballot and subjected him to a state investigation. In light of that, Chuck Rosenthal's judgment that there is not enough evidence to successfully prosecute a case is suspect. We just cannot trust Rosenthal and his office on that one, because he has already called the integrity of the office into question by his prior actions. If anyone needed evidence of the necessity of Chuck Rosenthal's immediate resignation, this would be it. Some sort of independent prosecutor needs to examine the case, so that a fresh set of eyes examines the facts and conducts the trial.
Let's also not one other thing – we don't know what the evidence is against David Medina and his wife because the indictments contain very little specificity. If it is as is presented in the Chronicle, I have to wonder how strong a case there is. Financial difficulties and a fire in the garage do not necessarily add up to arson – and I know that most garages have plenty of accelerants to fuel a fire were one to break out. We will likely have to wait for the trial to find out – if there is one.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, 123beta, Right Truth, Stix Blog, Shadowscope, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog's Weblog, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, InvestorBlogger dot com, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and OTB Sports, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
05:05 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1244 words, total size 10 kb.
Barack Obama may have won the most delegates in Saturday's Nevada Caucus, even though Hillary Clinton bested his statewide turnout by about six points.A source with knowledge of the Nevada Democratic Party's projections told The Nation that under the arcane weighting system, Obama would win 13 national convention delegates and Clinton would win 12 delegates. The state party has not released an official count yet.
Barack Obama released an official statement celebrating a delegate victory. "We came from over twenty-five points behind to win more national convention delegates than Hillary Clinton because we performed well all across the state, including rural areas where Democrats have traditionally struggled," he said.
That means more people backed Clinton, but more delegates went to Obama. Sounds sort of like Florida in 2000, doesn't it? I'm waiting to start hearing claims of disenfranchisement and stolen elections from partisans on the Left -- despite the fact that these are their rules and they all agreed to play by them. After all, that's what they did in 2000.
Posted by: Greg at
02:38 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.
The Supreme Court on Friday allowed Texas to print presidential primary ballots without Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich's name.The court refused to step into a dispute between Kucinich and the Texas Democratic Party over a loyalty oath all candidates must sign to make the ballot.
Kucinich and singer-supporter Willie Nelson objected to the party oath that a presidential candidate must "fully support" the party's eventual nominee. Kucinich crossed out the oath when he filed for a spot on the primary ballot.
A federal judge in Austin ruled against Kucinich last week. U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel ruled the state party has the right to require the oath. Kucinich and Nelson argued it violated Kucinich's First Amendment right to free speech.
Texas said its deadline is Saturday to print absentee ballots so that they can reach overseas voters in time for the March 4 primary.
What is at stake here is a party requirement that Democrats on the ballot really be Democrats. I don't find that to be outlandish, as it keeps off kooks and nuts like Lyndon LaRouche. That it also keeps off kooks and nuts like Dennis Kucinich is simply an added bonus.
I know -- maybe he can sic the Department of Homeland Security on the Texas Democrat Party!
Posted by: Greg at
07:07 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.
John Edwards has said he’s in the Democratic primary to win it.He’s also said he’s planning on staying in “through the convention.”
And while those two statements may sound more or less the same, theyÂ’re not.
Because while Edwards would like to be on the stage accepting his partyÂ’s nomination, there may be another role for him at the convention: Kingmaker.
The prospect of a vigorous, three-way contest across some 22 states on Feb. 5, suggested by polling and by the swerving momentum of the two early votes, is raising the distinct possibility that the primary process could return to its roots as a nuts-and-bolts battle for delegates to the August Democratic National Convention in Denver.
Now let's review that 1952 GOP race.
Going into the convention, there were three major candidates -- General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Senator Robert Taft, and Governor Earl Warren. Eisenhower and Taft were the two clear favorites, and entered the convention with the most delegates but without a majority. After some horse-trading that got Earl Warren promised the first open seat on the US Supreme Court (which turned out to be the Chief Justice spot), Warren released his delegates to Eisenhower -- and the broker of the deal, Senator Richard Nixon became the Vice Presidential nominee. Those three men turned out to be among the most important forces in American politics for the next quarter century, as two of them were the GOP nominees in five of the next six elections (winning four of them) and the third presided the reshaping of American jurisprudence in a manner that remains controversial but enshrined in our laws and culture.
So what bout 2008? Who gets the Edwards delegates if the Democrats enter their convention without a winner? What does he get in return? How does that reshape the political landscape for the rest of my lifetime if the nominee he taps wins the presidency in November? Those are the questions that have to be asked as we look at the dynamics at work. Does John Edwards want to be Vice President? Supreme Court Justice? Attorney General? Who will give him what he wants -- and who does he most want to see in the White House (other than himself)?
And what is even more fun is that the same thing could happen with the GOP, too!
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT InvestorBlogger dot com, third world county, 123beta, Stix Blog, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, and OTB Sports, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
07:01 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 465 words, total size 4 kb.
January 17, 2008
A union with ties to Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton failed in court Thursday to block the state party's plans to hold caucuses at special precincts inside casinos on the Las Vegas Strip.The ruling by U.S. District Judge James Mahan was presumed to be a boost for rival Barack Obama in Saturdays Democratic presidential caucuses because he has been endorsed by the union representing many of the shift workers who will be able to use the precincts.
''State Democrats have a First Amendment right to association, to assemble and to set their own rules,'' Mahan said.
Nevada's Democratic Party approved creation of the precincts to make it easier for housekeepers, waitresses and bellhops to caucus during the day near work rather than have to do so in their neighborhoods.
The state teachers union, which has ties to Clinton, brought the lawsuit against the special precincts after local 226 of the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama for the Democratic nomination. The union is the largest in Nevada, with 60,000 members. The Clinton campaign said it was not involved in the suit.
The Clinton camp had no problem with the rules until the largest union of casino worker endorsed Barack Obama. Then they quickly went to work to try to shut out that union's members. So much for letting every vote count.
Fortunatley a judge put an end to that strategy.
Posted by: Greg at
11:15 PM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.
Even though Barack Obama may become the first African-American ever to represent a major party as the nominee for president, many black lawmakers on Capitol Hill are not supporting him. And thatÂ’s creating tensions within the Congressional Black Caucus.More than a third of the black members of Congress are backing Hillary Rodham Clinton or John Edwards in the presidential primary, a stance that puts them at odds with many of their African-American constituents, who, recent polls show, are beginning to shift to ObamaÂ’s camp.
The Clinton supporters — among them, civil rights pioneer Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) — have said their endorsements didn’t hinge on race. Instead, they cited long-standing relationships with the Clintons, a respect for Hillary Clinton’s experience in national politics and, for some, geographical alliances with her in New York.
But now that Obama has won the Iowa caucuses and appears poised to do well in other early-primary states, some African-American lawmakers are pointing to the Clinton backers and calling them political opportunists who did not believe in the electability of a black candidate.
Why do I see this sort of split as positive? Not because of its potential to help Republicans. Instead, I think it is a positive thing that we are not seeing "black leaders" and (by extension) "the black community" thinking and speaking and acting in unison. African-Americans are rational thinkers with diverse points of views -- they can, should, and ought to differ among themselves on who they support for the presidency. There is no reason that they ought to vote in lock-step for Barack Obama, or for any other candidate for office. I'm hopeful that this may herald the end of skin-tone based politics and lead to a flowering of true political debate and diversity of political behavior among African-Americans -- because I believe that will result in policies better for African-Americans and all Americans rather than seeing the black vote be the monolithic property of one wing of one party.
Posted by: Greg at
11:11 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 2 kb.
The brochure that U.S. House candidate and former Sugar Land mayor Dean Hrbacek mailed to voters this week says, "Dean's record speaks for itself."But his physique does not. In a photo next to the words of praise, Hrbacek's body is spoken for by the torso of an appreciably slimmer man.
The picture, presented as a true image of the candidate, is actually a computerized composite of Hrbacek's face and someone else's figure, in suit and tie, from neck to knee caps. The give-away is a flawed fit of head and collar.
Hrbacek, a tax lawyer and accountant, did not return calls about the campaign literature Thursday. He is among 10 Republicans seeking the nomination to run against U.S. Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Stafford.
But campaign manager Scott Broschart admitted the image is a fake.
Hrbacek has been so busy meeting voters in the 22nd Congressional District that he had no time for a photo session that would have produced a full-length, genuine photo for the political mailing, Broschart said.
I've met Dean Hrbacek. He's a nice guy, and he'd likely be my candidate for Congress in CD22 if Shelley Sekula Gibbs were not in the contest. He has been working hard to get the nomination, meeting with individuals and groups in an effort to win the nomination. Indeed, this can be said about most of the candidates in the races for CD22.
So what does the Chronicle focus on? A photo in which the Hrbacek campaign used a body double. As a voter in CD22, I think we deserve better.
Come on, Houston Chronicle!
UPDATE: Click here for a later post on this subject.
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, 123beta, Right Truth, Stix Blog, Shadowscope, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog's Weblog, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, InvestorBlogger dot com, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and OTB Sports, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
10:52 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 368 words, total size 4 kb.
Now we see that he is out to silence political opponents, too, for engaging in a classic form of left-wing political theater.
Congressman and presidential candidate Dennis Kucinch asked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to investigate one of his Democratic congressional opponents, Cleveland Councilman Joe Cimperman.Kucinich, who frequently speaks out against government intrusion, initiated the investigation after Cimperman, a Cleveland councilman, delivered a "missing" poster to his Lakewood congressional office on Jan. 3, according to Cimperman.
Cimperman, who was mocking Kucinich for being on the road campaigning for president, spent less than 30 seconds in the office while a campaign worker filmed him dropping off the poster. A federal agent told Cimperman Tuesday during an in-person interview that the use of the video camera inside the government office was at issue. Cimperman said the agent spent about 10 minutes with him.
Yep -- that is what Dennis Kucinich considers to be a threat to Homeland Security.
Let's assume, just for a moment, that Cimperman was in technical violation of some law or regulation. It would be clear that measure in question would be designed to deal with a terrorist threat, not political by a public official or candidate. And I'm sure that there would have been no report to the Department of Homeland Security had one of the local news channels shown up. So there is clearly an intent to silence another candidate who was highlighting the failure of an incumbent to do his job and represent his district.
Fringe-Left Democrats told me if I voted for George W. Bush that Homeland Security goons would be investigating those who criticize government officials as potential terrorists. Indeed, one critic even said the following:
"History tells us that unchecked police powers with little or no oversight will be abused and the citizens will be harmed," he said. "I am for police function that protects citizens of this great nation, not a police function that is used to terrorize them."
Thank you, Dennis Kucinich, for making your own prophecy come true.
H/T Michelle Malkin
OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Big Dog's Weblog, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Posted by: Greg at
01:58 PM
| Comments (181)
| Add Comment
Post contains 464 words, total size 5 kb.
January 16, 2008
That's why the US Supreme Court ruled as it did.
If it's possible for Supreme Court justices to uphold a law while holding their noses, that's what happened yesterday when the court delivered a unanimous victory for party bosses and "smoke-filled rooms" in New York.The state's convoluted process for electing trial court judges may discourage outsiders, empower party bosses and even be bad policy, the court said, but it is constitutional.
"None of our cases establishes an individual's constitutional right to have a 'fair shot' at winning the party's nomination," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court.
Challengers to the system have asserted that it is almost impossible for a candidate to be elected as a New York Supreme Court judge -- the name the state gives its trial courts -- without being a party nominee. Since 1921, the state has allowed the parties to employ a complicated system of petitions, delegates and conventions to choose their nominees for the general election, a process that gives great sway to party leaders.
Overall, it sounds like a bad system. It does not, however, constitute a violation of the Constitution. Even the New York Times reluctantly concedes as much, noting that some of the justices quoted Thurgood Marshall's observation that “The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.”
A stupid — and undemocratic — law is precisely what New York has. Now that the cudgel of a court order has been removed, we hope the Legislature will summon the wisdom and integrity to fix the system voluntarily.The odds of that happening are long, since the powers that be in the Legislature are the same ones that profit from the current corrupt system. It is, however, a cause that everyone who cares about a qualified and independent judiciary needs to keep fighting.
The new York Legislature needs to fix the system. here's hoping the people put the pressure on the legislature to do so in a way that allows them more meaningful participation in selecting the state's judges.
Posted by: Greg at
11:15 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 399 words, total size 3 kb.
78 queries taking 0.3281 seconds, 777 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
