Newt the Stupid

Newt Gingrich, yes the same Newt Gingrich the right wing loves, says it would have been politically beneficial for the Bush administration to have allowed another terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

"This is ... one of the great tragedies of the Bush administration," Gingrich continued. "The more successful they've been at intercepting and stopping bad guys, the less proof there is that we're in danger. And therefore, the better they've done at making sure there isn't an attack, the easier it is to say, 'Well, there never was going to be an attack anyway.' And it's almost like they should every once in a while have allowed an attack to get through just to remind us."

Yes that's right. Allowing another terrorist attack would have reminded us just how dangerous the islamofacsistliberal terrorists are.

Newt advocates more terrorist attacks because of how politically effective they can be and barely a mention in our media establishment. Should I remind everyone that Newt isn't just a former wacko congressman, he's a former Speaker of the House. He's also the same guy who was pushing for a Clinton impeachment while he was off having his own affair. And now here he is advocating more terrorist attacks just to prove a point. I can't believe any media would give this guy air time. Not only is he given air time to spout his hate, he's presented as a super serious America loving patriot. He's the guy that brought us "The Revolution." Yes, the same revolution that has us in the terrible mess we are in today. In the GOP Fantasy World, 1994 was a REVOLUTION and everything today is perfectly fine if the liberal press would just leave everything alone.

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

Watch Out for Scottie (update)

I'm not sure I've felt sorrier for anyone in the Bush administration more than what I did for Scott McClellan. During the McClellan days I was a frequenter in DC. So I found myself watching almost daily the president's press briefings. Those are some of my fondest memories of politics. It was a time when everyone knew there was total chaos in the Bush administration but you couldn't get anyone to admit it. It was excruciating to watch McClellan stumble through those gaggles. It was almost as if he didn't know anything about anything whatsoever. And this went on for almost three years.

I'm sure by now everyone has read or at least heard about McClellan's new book “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception." If you haven't here's a link. All you have to do is read the title to know that it's not going to be very flattering to Bush & Co. McClellan covers everything from the invasion of Iraq to Hurricane Katrina to the Plame leak to being lied to by the administration to the use of propaganda to sell a war to the American public.

As expected the Bush administration isn't going to comment just yet. But Karl Rove already has and just as expected he wants to divide the political culture a little bit more by saying the book reads like a left wing blog instead of by a former colleague. As with everything Bush, if you aren't with us, you're against us. You're either staying the course or a left wing blogger. This sort of Karl Rove mentality to politics is so old. It's really proven nothing but disaster for the GOP and especially for Bush.

The right wing isn't going to like this book and they'll say McClellan is motivated by money and that he's now become part of the "liberal press." Or that he's just wanting some attention and has a vendetta since he was canned by Bush. Sorry excuses for a very sorry group of people.

*Update:

Like clockwork the right wing is predictably jumping all over Scott McClellan today. Fox News, with the help of it's Republican lineup, is leaving on its front web page Rove's response to McClellan's new book where he calls McClellan a liberal blogger. Also, I just heard über patriot Sean Hannity, who is also a Fox News host, on his radio show say that McClellan is no doubt taking the "liberal" line with his book. And the super serious The Corner is having a heyday with McClellan even questioning his "conservativeness" because he supposedly enjoyed a college course taught by Sara Weddington. Geez, my favorite college course was taught by a neocon. Does that make me any less of a Democrat?

The biggest thing I'm seeing from the right wing is their questioning of McClellan's duty to the country if what he says in the book is true. If McClellan had objections to Bush's policy why didn't he raise them when he was their spokesman, so the right's argument goes. Here's Seth Leibsohn, also from The Corner doing his best to discredit McClellan based on his "duty":

And I'll just leave you with this — having not read the book and having no plans to do so: don't you think that when someone has an objection to what is being done, they owe it to the public and as a mark of duty to do something about it or say something about it at the time, rather than wait two years and save it for a book? Does that in and of itself not cut down some of the credibility.

Seth's whole post is rather odd indeed. In it he asks a very fundamental question that seems to be rather rhetorical and painfully obvious.

The first thing to ask about these kinds of books is "does it help history, does it shed light, does it add to the sum total of knowledge about a topic history or contemporary analysis can use to shed light on an administration?" OR, rather, "is this a self-aggrandizing after-the-fact justification to bolster one's own reputation and credibility?" especially after having done such a poor job in the first place.

I think we'll probably find this book is mostly of the latter category.

Interesting. So a book from Bush's former press secretary that states the Bush administration used propaganda to sell a needless war to the American people, was entirely involved in the Plame leak cover up, and poorly mismanaged if not entirely neglected its duty during the worst natural disaster to ever hit this country, doesn't shed any new light on the history of the Bush presidency? Seth mostly concludes it doesn't shed any new light because we all already knew it. In other words, we don't need a book telling us what we already know. But for writing the first behind the scenes book from the Bush inner-circle, Scottie is following a liberal line, disavowing his duty to his country and only doing it for vengeance and money. Don't state the obvious appears to be what the right is saying. This makes the phrase reality has a liberal bias all the more understandable.

Editor's Note: in the original title Scottie was spelled as Scotty. I realized it was an error and corrected it.

**Update:

Just for the record, Scott McClellan is a tool. Always has been a tool and always will be. His book that he somehow wants us to believe is all in hindsight is just a part of his tooldom.

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

Crumbling

Finally, a good story in the NY Times this morning about the desperate situation facing the GOP. And finally, judging from various stories (here, here and here) it appears as if the GOP is realizing their fantasy world is crumbling.

One thing I'm noticing, though, is that Republicans still aren't getting the picture as to what is ailing them. I think they are beginning to figure out that Bush is unpopular. Not only unpopular, but so unpopular and so disliked that he is something to run away from.

Representative Tom Davis, Republican of Virginia and former leader of his party’s Congressional campaign committee, issued a dire warning that the Republican Party had been severely damaged, in no small part because of its identification with President Bush. Mr. Davis said that, unless Republican candidates changed course, they could lose 20 seats in the House and 6 in the Senate.

Republicans also seem to be understanding that they need a change in strategy as evidenced by the new right wing website The Next Right that I mentioned the other day. And also by Hanson's list of how to move the Party forward. But like my buddy Kent mentioned yesterday and like I've been reading all morning, Republicans still think that the biggest reason why they are losing is because Democrats are stealing their issues. It's just not true.

Here's Kent yesterday:

"Funny how Dem candidates campaign like Republicans. Pro-gun, pro-life. Nary a difference between the Dem and the Repub.

Same thing in Louisiana."

Here's NRCC Chairman Tom Cole:

"Following the meeting, Cole maintained a cool demeanor, telling reporters, “People are concerned.” Cole attributed the loss to the challenge of running against Democrats who are running as Republicans, adding that while Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) is an important asset, he alone cannot save the party."

And here's the Chairman of the NRC:

“We can’t let the Democrats take our issues. We can’t let them pretend to be conservatives and co-opt the middle and win these elections. We have to get the attention of our incumbents and candidates and make sure they understand this.”

There just isn't any validity to any of this and something I call wishful thinking on the part of Republicans. They are insisting that their stance on the issues are so correct that the Dems are winning with them. But they aren't. The Dems are winning on their own merit. And until the GOP realizes this and decides to move the Party into the 21st century, they will continue to lose. Now, I'm no GOP strategist by any means. And I hope they continue to think that the Dems are stealing their issues. My point is that the press runs with the story that the Dems have become Republicans to win elections, and that's what I want to avoid.

Like I've always said, Republicans do not have a monopoly on conservatism. In fact they have done a lousy job of governing as conservatives. There is nothing to suggest that the recent Republican controlled congress, which was just thrown from power in 2006, did anything to resemble a conservative government. Likewise for President Bush. If their governance is to be judged on a conservative scale it would be laughable to give them high marks.

The only item Republicans could possibly highlight to use as conservative credentials would be Bush's tax cuts, which could easily be rebutted to prove fiscal irresponsibility during a time of war.

The Democrats who won in 2006 did so with an overwhelming progressive agenda. Sure some were pro life and some were pro gun. But those are not Republican-owned issues. They never have been. In addition, the three Dems who won in three very Republican districts this year have been overwhelmingly progressive. All three are in favor of the CHIP expansion. All three are in favor of getting out of Iraq sooner rather than later. All three are very pro union. All three are against Bush's and the GOP's efforts to privatize Social Security. And all three are in support of stem cell research. None of that suggests the Dems are winning by running as Republicans.

If the Dems want to continue picking up seats and continue beating Republicans in what used to be considered very safe districts, the DNC and its supporters must get out onto the talk shows and airwaves, and time and time again repeat that these Dems are winning with their own issues and winning by running against the most unpopular president in modern history. That's the only way to guarantee the GOP Fantasy World will continue to crumble around them.

*Update:

We can scratch gay marriage from the list of conservative issues. Super tough guy and the conservative Republican governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger issues statement today saying that he respects California's Supreme Court decision striking down a ban on gay marriage. Also adding that he does not support a state constitutional ban either. Effectively making himself in support of gay marriage at least in policy terms.

We have Republicans going around saying that Democrats are winning with Republican issues but what are those issues. It's pretty much down to guns and abortion. Essentially what Republicans want people to believe is the only way to win is to run as a conservative. Because in their Fantasy World there is no way you can have progressive stances and be considered mainstream. However, in the reality based community the public is much more progressive than Fox News and Limbaugh want people to believe.

If you say that being opposed to gay marriage, which a lot of Democrats are, is a conservative issue then how in the world can you have a conservative Republican governor of the largest state in the Union going against your platform?

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

No Bitterness Here

I'm not bitter. I'm happily part of the 70% of Americans who oppose George Bush.

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

The Jaz Standard Applied

"Something as transcendent as someone’s spiritual guidance and philosophy cannot simply be compartmentalized and then dismissed.” Or so said Jaz but has later somewhat recanted, nonetheless creating the Jaz Standard.

It being dismissive to attempt to distance issues and the philosophy that shapes issues, Mitt Romney should have a hard time explaining why federal agents have locked down a 1,900 acre Texas polygamist LDS compound housing followers of convicted felon Warren Jeffs and how that differs between him and Obama's relationship to his church.

Lets review similarities between the two situations.

Both Romney and Jeffs are members of the Mormon Church. Both are prophets of the Melchizedek Priesthood. Both are products of polygamy; Romney as much as Jeffs in every regard. The former Republican presidential candidate and current VP hopeful's "great-grandfather had five wives and at least one of his great-great grandfathers had 12."

Furthermore:

"Romney's great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, married his fifth wife in 1897. That was more than six years after Mormon leaders banned polygamy and more than three decades after a federal law barred the practice.

[...]

"the law of polygamy -Smith's revelation that God authorized polygamy -remains in Article 132 of the church's Doctrine and Covenants. In addition, Mormon widowers who remarry today believe they will live in eternity with their multiple wives."

Being priests and prophets in the Mormon Church, both Romney and Jeffs are bound by Mormon Doctrine which is the philosophy that shapes issues, remember. That Doctrine includes Article 132 mentioned above which Jeffs has been practicing and which Romney has sworn a covenant to. Obama being a member of a church whose pastor said America should be damned for its racist past in accordance to the Jaz Doctrine cannot be separated from his pastor's remarks for it is the philosophy that shapes Obama's issues. How true, then, this should be for Romney and his relationship to the exact same philosophy as Warren Jeffs.

Why isn't Fox News and Rush Limbaugh giving this equal treatment?

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

Pentagon Finally Releases Memo Authorizing Torture, while shredding the constitution

This is just a sad, sad episode of 21st Century American history. As a historian, I often wonder how future historians will look back on this time. Undoubtedly this memo stating that as Commander in Chief, George W. Bush isn't bound by any laws whatsoever, so long as we are at war will be amongst the archives. As in similar dark episodes in our history, one can only wonder when we will finally get past the belief that we can do no wrong.

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

Chris' List

I'm traveling this week, and as you can tell my posts are going to be sparse. The post below where I state that Hillary doesn't stand a chance generated two emails from Hillary supporters asking me how in the world I can support both candidates. Moreover, they were saying that if I support Obama, which I do, that I should be furious of how nasty the campaigns have become and thus not vote for the other candidate, which is what they plan on doing. In turn I'm going to list my preference of presidents in order of who I would like to see as president and maybe people will notice that I support my party before I support a candidate. Call it blind faith or other not so flattering things but I am loyal if nothing else. At this point, I think any of the people I list below could do a much better job than John McCain or George Bush.

1. Al Gore
2. Barack Obama
3. Russ Feingold
4. Chris Dodd
5. Chuck Hagel

Notice Hillary isn't in my top 5. She isn't in my top 10 or probably top 20. But if she does some how become the nominee by strong arming the Party, then yes I would vote for her.

At this point, though, I think it's best for Hillary to call it quits and let Barack proceed with his general election opponent.

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

The Fold

For those following mine and Jaz's discussion on Obama and Rev. Wright, and the scrutiny on all sides, we still are replying back and forth on Lisa's site. Jaz has also posted some sort of 'tell all' on his site about why Obama really attended Wright's church. I've read it a few times and still don't know what the "real reason" is. Anyway, I'm just trying to keep people in the flow of information.

I haven't said much on PN about the right wing hysteria over Obama's connection to Wright and his subsequent speech mainly because I don't really care. I see very little difference between what John Hagee and Rod Parsley have said and Rev. Wright. If Wright is a racist America hating pig, then so is someone who says America deserved Hurricane Katrina and that America provoked 9/11 or that America was created in large part to destroy Islam. Republicans really have no room to talk about crazy preachers. The one difference, though, is when a crazy Republican supporting preacher says something inflammatory they're considered patriotic while a Democratic supporting preacher is called racist and anti-American.

I also don't-- maybe ever-- link to Huffington Post. But I came across a post that sums up the double standard between right wing preachers and left wing preachers. Frank Schaeffer, whose father was a leading right wing/conservative/Republican leader, writes:

When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.

It's true. There's no bigger patriot in America than a right wing preacher who uses his pulpit to call America out for its evilness. Even the ones who say America has been damned by God for our sins, like Hagee does, is paraded around by the right wing. But those who say God should damn America for our racist past, largely a conservative sin, is as un-American as one can get.

There's nothing more patriotic than a white male preacher telling us all that God is going to kill us for not supporting Republican platforms (abortion, gay rights, invading countries at will, etc.) except for maybe a chickenhawk white male that tells us how George Bush's war in Iraq was the right thing to do and that everything has been a huge success (nee pretty much the entire 25% of Americans who still support Bush). Both are treated by our media establishment and our political establishment as heroes of the American cause. But dare say God should damn us for excluding-- in best cases exclusion meant disenfranchising and not killing-- blacks and other minorities and we have a right wing high speed come apart. To sin is to commit Democratic platform issues, to live as a God-fearing American patriot is to walk a conservative line led by the most patriotic of right wing white male preachers. Is this really an argument the right wants to bet their third term on?

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

My Letter to The Economist

I saw where Lisa quoted and linked to an op-ed in The Economist entitled "Obamanomics: Hope and Fear." Y'all this one has me baffled. The op-ed states a couple of things I find inaccurate or, to say the least, very vague. I'll admit, I'm not that bright and I really don't spend a lot of time trying to out-theorize or out-think anyone, especially The Economist cause I know it's way over my head. But this one article isn't adding up and their tiptoeing muckiness leaves me confused.

You can read my original thoughts on Organized Chaos since most of what I write on this blog comes from Lisa's comments page. The article starts off by suggesting the populist Obama is huddling the masses while predicting a doomsday economic scenario. Then, oddly, agrees that "some" middle-class Americans are indeed struggling. So the capitalistic conservatives at The Economist can agree, somewhat, that economically speaking there’s been some rough times with the probability of more on the way. Whether or not that places Obama communistically arguing for the masses is comical, both historically and ideologically speaking.

Here's their two opening paragraphs:
<

FOR a man who has placed “hope” at the centre of his campaign, Barack Obama can sound pretty darned depressing. As the battle for the Democratic nomination reaches a climax in Texas and Ohio, the front-runner's speeches have begun to paint a world in which laid-off parents compete with their children for minimum-wage jobs while corporate fat-cats mis-sell dodgy mortgages and ship jobs off to Mexico. The man who claims to be a “post-partisan” centrist seems to be channelling the spirit of William Jennings Bryan, the original American populist, who thunderously demanded to know “Upon which side shall the Democratic Party fight—upon the side of ‘the idle holders of idle capital’ or upon the side of ‘the struggling masses’?”

There is no denying that for some middle-class Americans, the past few years have indeed been a struggle. What is missing from Mr Obama's speeches is any hint that this is not the whole story: that globalisation brings down prices and increases consumer choice; that unemployment is low by historical standards; that American companies are still the world's most dynamic and creative; and that Americans still, on the whole, live lives of astonishing affluence.

After a brief discussion on Organized Chaos, I decided to write to The Economist myself to see if I could get a clarification of what exactly they are saying and insinuating with their op-ed.

Here's my letter:

To: letters@economist.com

Sir:

I write for the blog Political Notio and came across your rather interesting op-ed dated Feb. 28 2008. I was hoping you could clear up some confusion I have regarding that article and the insinuated political ideology contained therein.

In the article you state:

"FOR a man who has placed 'hope' at the centre of his campaign, Barack Obama can sound pretty darned depressing. As the battle for the Democratic nomination reaches a climax in Texas and Ohio, the front-runner's speeches have begun to paint a world in which laid-off parents compete with their children for minimum-wage jobs while corporate fat-cats mis-sell dodgy mortgages and ship jobs off to Mexico. The man who claims to be a "post-partisan" centrist seems to be channelling the spirit of William Jennings Bryan, the original American populist, who thunderously demanded to know "Upon which side shall the Democratic Party fight—upon the side of 'the idle holders of idle capital' or upon the side of 'the struggling masses'?"

There is no denying that for some middle-class Americans, the past few years have indeed been a struggle. What is missing from Mr Obama's speeches is any hint that this is not the whole story: that globalisation brings down prices and increases consumer choice; that unemployment is low by historical standards; that American companies are still the world's most dynamic and creative; and that Americans still, on the whole, live lives of astonishing affluence."

It seems The Economist wants to agree with the bad economic forecast it credits to Hillary and Obama, but instead decides to settle on agreeing that things, for some, have been a struggle. Accordingly, The Economist can agree somewhat, then, that economically speaking there's been some rough times with the probability of more on the way. Whether or not that places Obama communistically arguing for the masses is comical, both historically and ideologically speaking.

The article chides Hillary and especially Obama for an economic forecast, which they agree has been a struggle the last few Bush years, but then uses current measures to discard a future event it claims the Dem candidates are predicting. I don't think you'll find anywhere where Obama (or Hillary) has said that American companies aren't the most dynamic or that as a whole Americans don't live the most affluent lives. What the Dems are saying is that "for some," to Obama and Hillary that "some" is millions of people, things have been rough and will get worse if we continue the same economic policies Bush and the Republicans have laid out for this country. If that's fighting for the struggling masses then okay. But admitting that there are struggling masses sort of, kind of negates The Economist's whole article. And by admitting that there is no struggling, which the article doesn't, defies every economic indicator out there. So I guess this whole thing depends on what the definition of "some" is.

Is it the case The Economist is arguing there are no struggling masses and Obama and Hillary are really queuing populist notions, or is this op-ed arguing that there is no struggle, that only things have been rough, for some?

Also, the article makes mention "[b]oth John McCain and the Democratic nominee will then be chasing swing voters who are, typically, white working men—the type already prone to pessimism about their prospects." It's been my understanding that swing voters in America has been anything but white working men. Such as the terms soccer moms, security moms, or evangelicals in general, have been the common definition of swing voters as of recent (circa 1920). I would be curious to know when white working men have ever swung an election or been considered swing votes.

I look forward to your reply,

Most Capitalistically yours,
Chris

I sent this to their general letter to the editor email address. It was the only one I could find. So I'm not sure how well, if at all, this is going to get answered. I looked for a correspondence email, such as one directly to a person, but I couldn't find one. I sent it the only way I could figure it out. If someone comes across a better email please let me know. I'm curious to know why The Economist would agree with such a communist notion as class struggles and then berate Hillary and Obama for doing the same thing. Although I'm not so sure Hillary and Obama are doing the same thing. The doomsday scenario The Economist casts about massive layoffs and huge unemployment with jobs being shipped overseas, and the lack of Hillary or Obama to brag about American corporations or our standard of living is made up. No where have they done such. It's almost as if The Economist agrees there is a struggle but since the Dems aren't talking about our luscious standard of living or our corporate dynamism that makes them populists huddling the masses, i.e., communists.

Then the end where they make mention that swing voters in America are generally white working men is really what got me thinking that they might not have a clue what they are writing and are just laying stuff out there hoping people buy into it.

I'll keep everyone posted if there are any new developments. In the meantime feel free to explain to me what in the world The Economist is talking about.

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

Will It Be Over?

I meant to get a post up last night about today's elections, but I got stuck at the Mason's Lodge too long and by the time I got home it was time to go to sleep. Plus my buddy Ryan who is supposed to be helping with the site is totally MIA. I think he did two posts and vanished. Once I track him down, we're going to do some more changes to the site.

There really isn't much to talk about on the GOP side. Huck should drop out and McCain should really spend the next two months cozying up to conservatives. Though I consider McCain to be relatively moderate to conservative, a lot of people-- especially the right wing-- consider him to be a liberal. One day the right wing will relinquish it's hold on the Republican Party and we'll be able to have actual debates about policy rather than political labels. It's a messed up world when John McCain is considered a liberal.

On the Dem side this is a big day for Hillary. I think she has to win both TX and OH to be able to claim any legitimacy to stay in the race. She very well could win both states, it wouldn't surprise if she did. Judging from the latest pollster.com graph, TX is a dead heat and Hillary looks like she can pull off OH.With a split decision of Hillary in OH and Obama in TX, that will probably be enough for Hillary to say she's not going anywhere. And more power to her. But there will come a time when what's best for the party has to trump what's best for personal politics. Personally I would love to see this go all the way to the convention and let the delegates hatch out a deal for the nominee. As someone who studies politics, that's like a nerdy version of UFC. I don't have any qualms about voting for either Obama or Hillary come November. I also understand that the best thing for a Dem win in November is that we have a nominee sooner rather than later.

For the time being, though, I'm enjoying this year's race. A little Dem dual for the nomination is fine because even though the Repubs have a nominee they really don't have any better of a situation when that nominee hasn't captured the actual conservative vote but one time this year.

*Update:

It seems Matt Yglesias and I have a different outlook on the Hillary staying or going thing.

Basically, Clinton would be completely burning years worth of goodwill built up by her and her husband in the progressive community and ending her shot at playing a leadership role in the Senate in exchange for a very marginal increase in the odds of her becoming president in January 2009. A choice like that would be bad for the country, bad for the party, and bad for Hillary Clinton.

The first part I agree with. Both Bill and Hillary remain popular figures in Democratic circles. Also in national circles as well. Bill left office with a 66% approval rating (more than double that of George Bush) and Hillary maintains a 50+ likability measure. Bush and Republicans have wet dreams about numbers as high as the Clinton's. If Bush could somehow push back into the lower 30s before the end of his term, National Review and Fox News will have crowned him the greatest and most popular president to ever govern with a mandate in the history of human existence, especially when figuring in DNA and humanity, the right wing will undoubtedly crown Bush as the world's only living icon superior to all others.

Matt's second part that if Hillary only wins one of the two key states that she should drop out because it will be "bad for the country, bad for the party and bad for Hillary," I don't necessarily agree with. I fail to see how Hillary staying in is such a bad thing. Sure having the nominee known tomorrow would be great but I don't think stretching this out a little longer is going to damage Dem chances in November all that much. Like I said earlier, it's not like John McCain is the poster boy for the Republican base. As long as McCain is the nominee, which he will be, then having Obama and Hillary gutting it out for another month or two is not as bad as Yglesias makes it sound.

I think what worries those who agree with Yglesias is that while McCain is out soaking in the sun, the Dems are going to be barbing back and forth allowing the Republican nominee way too much wiggle room thus hurting our chances in November. I can understand the concern I just don't see it as a bad thing, for the party or the country. I think Hillary and Obama are both more than able to handle two opponents at the same time. Now if Hillary or Obama's extended primary becomes problematic for the Democratic base, which both seem to have absolutely no problems capturing when the other drops out, like is the case on the GOP side, then I'll agree that the person with the smallest mathematical delegate chance should drop out ASAP.

I guess my reasoning is that having a base problem is worse than having two very viable candidates who have no problems with the base. But maybe I'm thinking in primary terms and should shift gears to general election terms.

Editor's Note: The original update to this post listed Bill Clinton's approval rating as 62% when he left office. After further checking I discovered I was off by 4 percentage points. Clinton left office with a 66% approval rating (way more than double what Bush's is currently).

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

Wisconsin Exit Polling

I haven't had time until this morning to look at some of the exit polling from the Feb. 19 primaries. In the past I've tried to look at exit polling to get a gauge of public opinion as a whole. I know this isn't the most accurate way of doing such, but it does measure voter opinions on the very day they vote. In other words, monthly polling like most major consulting firms do doesn't always capture voter opinion on the one day they can exercise that opinion, voting. To me it's more accurate to state that you don't like snow when you're standing in four feet of it than if you've never seen snow. Again, not the most accurate thing ever but for me it makes sense. As has been the case all season, I'm very interested in some of the Republican numbers coming out of these exit polls. And it appears that for the first time McCain has won conservatives with the Wisconsin primary.

Conservatives
Huckabee 44%
McCain 48%

That's remarkable in itself for the Republican nominee to just now get his first victory with the Party's base. But, judging from this years polling, what exactly is the Republican base?

Ideology
Conservative 61%
Moderate/Liberal 39%

We're seeing a very moderate Party showing up to vote. Some will say that's no big deal, that it only proves the Republican Party is middle America, which I totally disagree with, but considering that anything remotely close to center is considered liberal or enemy territory for the right wing, I would say that having 40% of your Party in that realm is a scary thing to someone like Rush Limbaugh or Fox News.

Tags: Exit Polls, Primary, Republicans

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

Hal's Back!

I don't know how I missed this, but thanks to Jesus' General I found out that my favorite radio host Hal Turner is back! Next to watching the Cardinals win the World Series in 2006, this has to be one of my happiest days of the decade.

If you haven't heard of Hal Turner you must be Jewish. Honestly, he's a walking example of right wing patriotism and used to be a regular on the über patriot Sean Hannity's radio show. My favorite Hal Turner moment of all time is when he seceded the south from the Union, again (he's from Jersey so who knows exactly what he means by the south). To think of a world where slavery still exists is such a noble cause for Republicans, oh sorry Turner is no longer a Republican, he's a Libertarian, he conveniently switched in 2006 after the Repubs lost control of Congress. Today he's talking something about Obama needing to be murdered, or in his words, "it may be up to a sole person, acting alone, to make certain this guy is never allowed to hold the most powerful office in the world. Sorry it may have to be that way, but it may."

This is a festivus day for the right wing. Oh come let us adore him. All the right wing needs now is to get Limbaugh on board with McCain and we'll have ourselves a knee slapping time.

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

A Tale of Two Three Stories (Update)

There's been a lot going on in the last few days. We've had Obama win 10 in a row over Hillary. We've had Obama accused of plagiarism. We've had Michelle Obama ridiculed by the right wing for saying that she is finally proud of America. We've had John McCain trying to weasel his way out of his campaign financing pledge. We've had the Republican nominee accused of some sort of affair with a lobbyist by a story in the NY Times and followed up by nearly every media outlet in the world. We've had the routine indictment of Republican members of Congress. And then we have Fox News doing a gerrymandered poll about who bin Laden and the terrorists want to win the American presidential election.

I wan to focus real quick on the NY Times McCain story and the Fox News poll. Both are perfect examples of what's wrong with American media.

The Times runs a story all but alleging an affair in 2000 between John McCain and lobbyist Vicki Iseman. Even if there was no affair, the story makes no secret about some inappropriate behavior and too much closeness between then, and now, presidential candidate McCain and the lobbyist. There are strict ethics between lawmakers and lobbyists. So even without a sexual affair, political favors is just as bad. The Times just hangs all that out there and in my opinion does a very sloppy job of investigative journalism. For a story they worked months on, it's full of loose ends and vague reporting.

On the opposite end we have Fox News. The first people to come to McCain's aid was the neocons running FNC and talk radio. They cried foul, calling the story a political hit job and constantly referenced the NY Times as the most liberal paper in the entire world. Whatever one's views may be concerning FNC and the NY Times what takes place simultaneously as FNC defends McCain from the evil liberals is just as shotty and just as unethical and just as wrong as anything The Times did. FNC conducts a poll and then runs a story stating that the terrorists prefer a Democrat, preferably Obama, to win the American presidency. Then as expected, the right wing neoconservative Weekly Standard, where neocon William Kristol is editor and also writes for the extremely liberal and dangerous NY Times, picks up the FNC poll and runs with it. Now come on, how can Fox News even begin to claim any sort of high ground or objectivity whatsoever in any of its media outlets while calling the NY Times' McCain story a hit job? It wasn't that long ago Fox News ran a story claiming Obama attended a madrassa, which is not true at all. Never did Fox back away from that story and they are still trying their hardest to relate Democrats to terrorists.

One media outlet references a sort of affair and some unethical conduct with a lobbyist, the other media outlet relates the Democratic front runner, along with his entire party, to terrorists trying to destroy our country. If I had to choose which story I would rather be part of, I would pick The Times story because at least then I'm not portrayed as an anti-American, terrorist sympathizing, bin Laden brother Democrat. And that is exactly the effect Fox News wanted from their skewed poll. It's exactly the sort of story Bill Kristol's Weekly Standard wants to circulate and it proves Fox News has no room to call out any other media outlet for political hit jobs.

The Times' story was crappy. I'm not sure how many more times I can go on record saying that John McCain has every right to be mad. But what Fox News is doing is worse. You're either an adulterer or a terrorist. Which one is easier to forgive?

That sadly is the current mode of American media. Meanwhile we still have troops dying in Iraq. We still have $3 gasoline. We still have Bush as president. And we still have no accountability from anyone.

*Update:

The Associated Press picks up the widely circulated false email about Obama having a patriotism problem, hence an insurgent terrorist problem, and runs it as news. To top off how archaically unethical this whole thing is, the AP's source for their internet chain letter "news" is none other than Republican Roger Stone. "Stone you'll remember is the guy who got caught making threatening phone calls to New York Gov. Spitzer's (D-NY) elderly father and last month set up an anti-Hillary group with the acronym C-U-N-T." Surely their's no bias in that story, surely.

This is the state of American media and sadly American politics. Internet chain letters are used as sources for journalists and disgraced Republican psychopaths are used as credible serious sources to back up very credible and very serious email chain letters.

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

Obama's Nothingness (Updated)

If Barack Obama is to be the Democratic nominee for president, the theme from those who oppose him is that despite his oratory skills he really possess nothing to back up his message. They claim he has no record, no experience and is too much of a Washington outsider to actually accomplish anything he says to the thousands upon thousands in attendance at his speeches. It's feel good talk that's going to let a lot of people down after he's elected. I've heard Rush Limbaugh mention it about three hundred times in two minutes. The same for the neocons at Fox News. McCain last night tried to relate the bleakness theory to Obama too by calling the Democratic front runner "eloquent" but "empty." And today Robert Samuelson has an op/ed in the Washington Post summing up the main talking points on the right about Obama's feel good nothingness. Essentially, the right is arguing, Obama's charisma is a delusion keeping us from actually addressing our problems or the changes that need to be made.

If Charisma was the only thing Obama possessed it would still be more than what we have had in the last seven years from George W. Bush. For almost a decade the GOP and its supporters have talked themselves in circles trying to defend our Grand Leader from his many mistakes on the war in Iraq, the slumping economy, his religion, his culture of corruption and his total incompetence on every issue he's touched. Those who call Obama a delusion lacking leadership are the very people who gave us George Bush.

Their main argument is that even with all of Bush's failures and misgivings he's still better than anything on the Democratic side. These are the very same people who have said for almost eight years that change in America is electing the son of a president who has never known a day of struggle in his whole life. That real change is having an Executive that is above the Constitution; a vice-president that gets to exempt himself from Congressional oversight by issuing unprecedented orders that he isn't part of the Executive Branch, unless it's his legislative function that's being investigated; that can spy on Americans without the mundane hassle of a warrant. That change, real change, is $3 gasoline, a devalued dollar, the phase out of Social Security and war without end. To them the grandest version of change humanly imaginable is the largest deficit in American history without a single veto from our Leader. These are the very same people who have told us to turn the other way, to look past Bush's faults and find comfort in his leadership that has brought about all these changes that we now enjoy. Change to them is not change to the rest of us. They are securely part of the 29% of Americans who approve of George Bush.

If it is charisma that creates the nothingness that takes this country away from the path we're on, then nothingness is what I want. Change to them is a world without Social Security. A world where social programs are gone and defense spending is the only function of government. It is a world, without any delusion mind you, where we can stay in Iraq for a 100 hundred years or any other country that we so choose. Because Obama lacks any of the qualities they so sought and defend in George Bush, they are very correct when saying Obama can't bring about change. To them Obama isn't the change they are wanting, the change they have thrived and relished in as they talk of splendid wars and unrestrained spending. All that would be gone if Obama is president. Their chickenhawk ideas, their two incumbent congressmen sitting in prison, their tax cuts for the wealthy, their warrantless spying all would be gone.

To them change is the enemy. A liberal, terrorist, un-American enemy totally embroidered in the nothingness of Obama. These are the very same people who live in a fantasy world where Jews can be perfected and Iraq had something to do with 9/11. The same fantasy world where Saddam smuggled his WMD into Syria and finding bin Laden isn't important. The exact same fantasy world where George Bush is a popular president and where there's no such thing as a war effort that includes anyone or anything outside of the military and their families; and the very same fantasy world where cutting taxes in a time of war, a war that is so important it's the struggle of a generation-- no the grandest struggle in all the history of humanity-- makes any sense whatsoever. These are the people who can look at real change and know they want no part of it because it would only crumble to pieces their make believe world which keeps them from facing any sort of reality whatsoever.

*Update:

For those concerned about a legislative record, you know that thing Republicans are saying presidents are required to have, which George Bush didn't and doesn't, and that thing neocons with a lot of help from Republicans are saying Barack Obama lacks. Well since I actually used to write legislation for Obama, I started digging through his hundreds of nonexistent bills. Then I discovered someone else had already done it for me. Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings has a nice rundown of Obama's accomplishments in the state senate and the US senate. Guess what? Hilzoy made the list long before the Obama supporters meltdown with Chris Matthews. A little digging by Matthews or any journalist, or curious blogger that thinks demanding a legislative record for a president is a little odd since our Grand Leader doesn't have one. And he's the greatest president to ever serve, so something must be up with that. Besides, if Obama doesn't have a record then how in the world did National Journal rank him as the most liberal senator to ever live?

Tags: Obama, neocons, Washington Post

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

Once Upon A Time..

It’s not every day that you see three of your friends mentioned in the Los Angeles Times. I haven’t seen much of David Axelrod since sometime in 2007. He was too busy then to say much to. It was a simple handshake and the usual “good to see you again,” and as I turned to shake hands with someone else he gave me a quick slap on the shoulder with that crazy grin he always has. He can be stern most of the time but he certainly knows what it is he’s after and can frame a message like no other. The article makes a comparison to Karl Rove but Axelrod is no Rove. He’s not out to suppress votes or 527 an opponent to their knees. He knows issues better than anyone I’ve ever met, though I’ve never met Rove.

The first time I met him I was working for Senator Paul Simon. Senator Simon is my political patron and to this day one of my favorite people to have ever spent time with. As it mentions in the article, Axelrod managed Sen. Simon’s 1984 successful campaign for the US Senate. When Simon first introduced me to Axelrod he told me that if I ever wanted to go anywhere in politics to study this man’s every move. It’s safe to say I never made it as far as Axelrod, but he is 23 years older than me. Paul, you are sorely missed.

Then there’s Obama. Coincidently, it was also Sen. Simon who first introduced me to Barack Obama in 2002. It wasn’t until I read this article today that mentions all three people-- I don’t think any article has ever done that-- did it dawn on me that I’ve been really lucky in life. When I can pick up a newspaper and know firsthand the people who are making the news, and personally worked for two of them, giving the small town and school I came from, I’d say that’s pretty lucky and some very cherished times of my life. Barack may be president and he may not. I have no clue. But I’ll sure have some stories to tell my grandkids.

Not that I miss politics because the college I’m at now is right where I want to be. Plus it’s not like I don’t still get involved because I do. But there are days where an LA Times article does bring a smile to my face and leaves me feeling very fortunate.

Tags: Obama, Axelrod, Paul Simon

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

If You Can't Face a House Vote, How Can You Face Al-Qeada?

Republicans walk out of the House in demonstration to a contempt vote on White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and Supreme Court Justice former White House counsel Harriet Miers for their refusal to cooperate with Congressional subpoenas in the investigation of the U.S. Attorney purge. The vote passed despite the Republican walkout 232-32.

I find this very interesting since yesterday we just saw Roger Clemens doing the very same thing before a Congressional committee. Actually, Clemens' testimony yesterday had nothing to do with the government or tax payer's money, whereas Bolton and Miers both have everything to do with our tax dollars. Why is it Clemens has to show up and Bush's cronies don't? That's because the Bush administration has used the shield of executive privilege to block staff and former staff members from testifying before Congress, an unprecedented presidential move.

Contempt charges will now go to the District U.S. Attorney where Attorney General Mukasey has given orders to ignore.

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

Va Exit Polls

Some interesting Republican numbers out of Virginia.

Abortion
Legal 34%
Illegal 63%

It surprises me that 1/3 of Republicans consider themselves pro-choice. We've seen the same pattern throughout the primary season where Republicans are more and more liberal on abortion than what Rush Limbaugh or Fox News portrays. I mean in Republican circles, 34% is dang near a mandate.

Ideology
Liberal 8%
Moderate 27%
Conservative 65%

Again, 1/3 of the Republicans consider themselves moderate to liberal, coinciding almost perfectly with their stance on abortion. I've been arguing that it's the neoconservatives that are ruining the Republican Party and so far the exit polls from all the primaries do indeed show a shifting away from right wing politics.

This next one is a very familiar pattern that McCain has been hampered with ever since he almost switched parties back in 2001. Of the 65% of Republicans who consider themselves "Conservative," 51% voted for Huckabee. Meaning, again, McCain loses the conservative vote. I have no doubt that once Huck drops out and McCain is on his own, he'll regain that conservative vote. But what might happen is conservative Republicans just won't turn out to vote in November making it very hard to combat that tidal wave of Dem turnout the nation has been experiencing.

I can't help but think that if Republicans were experiencing the kind of turnout Democrats have been since 2006, Fox News and the drug addicted Limbaugh would have already wrote the Democratic obituary and been talking about how strong, united and patriotic the Republican Party is. Not even in their heyday of '94 and '02 did Republicans experience anything like what the Democrats have done electorally in the last two years.

Tags: Republicans, McCain, Huckabee, Abortion

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

Immunity It Is

As telecommunications companies line the pockets of our elected officials, the Democratic-controlled senate OKs the surveillance bill with telecom immunity intact. A huge victory for big government and Big Brother supporters, and a huge blow to civil liberties. Proponents argued the immunity was necessary in a time of war and "that withholding immunity would have discouraged such cooperation in the future." This is one of those days where I'm embarrassed to call myself a Democrat.

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

A Super Saturday for Obama, and Huck

Barack Obama pulls in a sweep of all three Saturday states, Nebraska, Louisiana and Washington. A huge day for the Obama camp that could provide the momentum necessary to win the nomination. Though writing that sentence is so much easier than actually winning the nod. It really doesn't do it justice. There's still a long road ahead.

On the GOP side, Mike Huckabee has demonstrated that the Republican base is not satisfied with their nominee being John McCain. Huck wins two out of three states currently refusing to concede Washington state to John McCain. I'm not sure and I could be wrong, but I don't know if the apparent nominee has ever been rebuked as badly as John McCain was yesterday. When has an apparent front runner not carried out a near clean sweep once all his competition has quit? The competition of course being Mitt Romney. But instead of folks breaking to McCain they scatter to Huck and Ron Paul and even *uncommitted gets double digits.

Huckabee 24%
McCain 26%
Paul 21%
Romney 16%
*Uncommitted 13%

For anyone who studies politics, this is truly amazing stuff. The Dems could possibly take the nomination all the way to the conference without having a nominee thus forcing the delegates to choose in an old fashioned selection show who the Dem candidate will be. The GOP has a guy who clearly has it wrapped up but in a caucus yesterday, almost 75% of the caucus goers voted against him. And in the other two primary and caucus's McCain loses handedly. Truly amazing!

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...

Most Liberal: National Journal Decides

After selecting presidential hopeful Barack Obama as the most liberal person to ever walk the face of the earth, the very serious and very non-partisan National Journal relished its rankings as the right wing talking heads salivated at "insurgent" Obama's first place finish. But what exactly qualifies a person as the most liberal to ever be born? Well, finally NJ has opened their secret votes and the rankings at which they selected them to be either liberal or conservative. And surprisingly they only released the information for Obama and Hillary. According to NJ, these issues are what make people liberals.

• Vote No. 24: on an amendment to "[r]epeal the federal minimum wage by giving states the authority to set minimum wages," according to the Journal. The magazine determined that the liberal position was to vote against the amendment, as Obama did.

• Vote No. 56: to "[t]able an amendment that would require the Homeland Security Department to screen 100 percent of cargo containers entering the country within five years," according to the Journal. Obama voted against tabling the amendment to the Improving America's Security Act of 2007, which the magazine considered to be the liberal position; the conservative position was to kill the amendment.

• Vote No. 73: on passage of the Improving America's Security Act of 2007 itself, which the Journal described as "a bill implementing the 9/11 commission's homeland-security recommendations, including a provision extending collective bargaining rights to federal security screeners." The liberal position, according to the magazine, was to vote for the bill, as Obama did.

• Vote No. 127: on passage of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007, which the Journal described as "[s]upport[ing] embryonic-stem-cell research." The liberal position, according to the magazine, was to vote for the bill, as Obama did.

• Vote No. 307: concerning "legislation reauthorizing and expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program," as the Journal noted. The liberal position, according to the magazine, was to vote for the bill, as Obama did.

The complete rankings for everyone else won't be released until March 8. Since National Journal is a very serious and completely non-partisan news media, this is okay and perfectly ethical. NJ's editor Charles Green has assured us that the early release of Obama and Hillary had nothing to do with trying to influence Super Tuesday results and it was purely "coincidental."

The changing of the rules allowing the Republican nominee John McCain to be exempt from this years rankings was also just a minor oversight that NJ was aware of in 2003 when the new rules would have also exempted John Kerry from being ranked as the most liberal person in the galaxy but NJ decided not to change the rules then only after "...we learned Kerry's ranking." It's so nice to see such upfront talk from very serious and manly tough politicos.

For those who haven't read my first reaction to the NJ rankings, here you go. Maybe before the general election in November, NJ can do another ranking on who is the most likely to show up for work, or would they have to change the rules again to actually include John McCain?

Tags: Obama, National Journal, Most Liberal, lost, women

Read the rest of this entry...

Summary only...