There are some things that are just inexcusable. This is one of them.
I've been to Trinity. I never felt out of place or unwelcome. Didn't hear a controversial sermon and never heard a cuss word. But I have heard for at least five years now how crazy that church is; how crazy the preachers are and how crazy the congregation can get. Growing up pentecostal, I suppose Trinity was tame to me.
Sure John McCain has his preacher troubles with Hagee and Parsley. But McCain has denounced both endorsements and as far as I know doesn't attend either church. This is a serious problem for Obama. One that could have been avoided years ago. All the silly gaffes of McCain misspeaking is nothing compared to this.
In all honesty, I don't know how a church can continue having political sermons and also continue to keep its tax exempt status. Though Hagee and Parsley both preach politics weekly as well, Obama's church is under a much greater microscope at the moment.
There's just no excuse Barack Obama. None whatsoever.
5.30.2008
Inexcusable
5.29.2008
The Hits Just Keep On Coming (Update)
"Disgruntled," "total crap," "upset," "traitor," "turncoat," "Hamas apologist" are just some of the words the right wing is flinging at Scott McClellan. Yesterday morning before the day even started, I thought about writing a quick post about some of the things the right wing would do to try and discredit McClellan. Unleashing Fox News and Rush Limbaugh is the most obvious. Calling him a traitor and terrorist sympathizer is like predicting the Pope to be a Catholic. The right wing bra
nd of attacking any one, even a Bush loyalist, because they don't walk the party line at all times is one of the easiest political scenarios to ever predict. I could have in a just a couple minutes time written out every tactic the right would use to attack Scottie. It would have been the easiest thing I've done in two years. But like Seth Leibsohn says, it would have been me stating the obvious. And when something's obvious why write it down?
This is how the right wing behaves. For 8 years this all we have ever seen from Bush and his cronies. Any deviation from the party line is seen as treason, as enemy action. Anyone who dares speak out against their government, or albeit, against our Grand Anointed Leader is a terrorist sympathizing traitor.
This is also how the right wing governs. There is no more cohesive a time for the GOP as when they are attacking someone for speaking out against their incompetency. It's all blatantly obvious that Bush is the least popular president in modern history. There is no denying that. The right wing is more interested in personal attacks than any sort of governing policy for this country. With 8 months left to a two term presidency, we have still yet to have an established foreign policy, any sort of energy policy whatsoever, and not one single domestic policy for this country. They are not interested in governing. What they do best, and really all they do, is run hate filled attack machines against anyone who may question why in the world we are still waiting on the president to do his job.
Throughout this entire election cycle we've seen the GOP fight amongst itself for a nominee. John McCain is hardly the person they settled on but more the person they were given. Limbaugh has called McCain the worst thing to happen to the GOP. Malkin is refusing to support him. Ron Paul still pulls 10% of the vote. And right wingers everywhere are dissatisfied with McCain. But when someone speaks out against Leader Bush and his incompetency the machine comes together quicker than Larry Craig running to the bathroom. This is when the right wing is at their best. It's like a fusion bond that pulls the right wing together. This is how it's been for 8 years. And there's no reason to believe that it will simply change by electing McCain.
*Update:
Here's what a 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign director has to say about Scottie:
"Feeling for Scott McLellan. Nice getting savaged for saying what everyone knows to be true anyway."
Seriously, that sums up entirely all the right wing has to say. It's not that what Scottie says in his book isn't true, it's just the fact that he said it. In the GOP you aren't allowed to speak your mind. You aren't allowed to dissent against our Grand Leader. Their imposition that everyone in the world just blindly follow everything they say is expected at all times. And for almost 8 years the entire world has been subject to the brown shirts in the GOP. Finally, finally, their right wing tactics aren't working anymore. What still amazes me, though, is the right wing's support of a president with the lowest approval ratings in modern history.
h/t Matt Stoller
5.15.2008
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?
5.14.2008
Revolution Yet?
Shamefully there has been a total lack of attention by the media on what is going on around the country. In addition to yesterdays WV primary, Mississippi also held a special election for the 1st District U.S. House seat. This is one of the most heavily supported Republican districts in the country. Bush won the district in 2004 with over 60% of the vote. What's more amazing is the former Republican incumbent didn't leave in scandal. He was simply appointed to the U.S. Senate leaving a vacancy in his House district. There was no Republican scandal to taint the district or anything to give voters a bad taste about electing another Republican to represent them. Only the national stain of George Bush and Republican incompetence. Nothing local to help tilt the district.
MS-1 by all indicators should have been by far one of the safest GOP House seats around. And guess what? The GOP spent over $1.3 million to defend safe territory and lost it to Democrat Travis Childers!
Even if this was all there was to talk about it is huge for the Dems. But this isn't even close to what's been happening this year. This is the third deep dark red district the GOP has lost this year. Previously this year the GOP lost one of the reddest districts to have ever been drawn in Illinois when it lost former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert's seat. The same thing in Louisiana in Dick Baker's old seat. That makes three pick ups already this year for the Dems.
These aren't swing districts the GOP is losing. These are solid red, historically safe districts for the GOP. In 2006 the Dems picked up 39 House seats, 6 Senate seats and 6 governorships. That equals 42 House seats in less than two years. This dwarfs anything the Republicans accomplished in 1994. But, oh yes, that was a Revolution! and judging from the media's coverage of what the Dems are doing this is no big deal and not worth front page mentions.
Here's a screen shot of CNN this morning. You have to scroll almost to the bottom of the page to find any mention of the Dem pickup.
And not so amazingly here is a screen shot of Fox News this morning which has no mention of anything at all on it's front page.
5.13.2008
Just Do It Already
Looking into the Democratic prism, I'm going to say something I've been arguing against for almost two years. In 2004 after Kerry lost I had a bunch of Republican friends ask me who I thought would run in '08. My first choice was Gore. My argument was that history was on his side. My second choice was a very popular newly elected US Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama. A majority of my friends said it would not happen. He was too new and too unknown. Being that I'm from Illinois and being that I was at the time working for Obama, I was pretty firm in my thinking. Turns out my Gore hopes were ruined but I was right about Obama.
Since that time I've been arguing against a Hillary presidency as well. I figured that she would run and thought if she did it would be very hard to beat her. The Clinton's are very popular in the Democratic Party and in Middle America. Just take a look at Hillary's current bid and Bill's presidential approval numbers. You'd never know it by watching Fox News, but Bill and Hillary are liked by a majority of Americans. One thing, however, I have been against has been the so-called "Dream Ticket" of Hillary and Obama, or Obama and Hillary. It's more likely to be Obama/Hillary than anything else, but even in '04-'05 I thought the whole thing was a bad idea. Now I'm saying for the love of God, just ask her to take the VP slot and let's move on.
I know, I know. I can't believe I'm saying it either. All along I've figured it to be a bad idea. It would make the ticket too liberal looking. Not "southern" enough. Too non-white male. Yeah all the stereotypes flung throughout my head. But now, after seeing both candidates motivate a generation of Americans, an entire movement all its own, I can see how combining the two together could actually work. There's no guarantee that it will work. I just don't think Obama can take the chance of not having Hillary on the ticket. She will obviously work hard. Bill will obviously be out campaigning and just think of the money they could raise. On top of all that, though, it would be a classic Democratic move that would probably end in colossal failure. Leave it to the Dems to go out and put two Northern left of center candidates on the same ticket, neither of which is a white male, and ruin one of the best chances to retake the White House since 1932. So just do it already and let me sulk in my misery.
5.12.2008
GOP In Disarray?
Not quite, but if this Fox News article were about the Dems it wouldn't be so upfront. Here's the lead paragraph:
Ron Paul has no chance of winning the Republican presidential nomination this year, but he continues to head toward the party’s National Convention with an ardent group of supporters and a second-phase strategy aimed at raising the profile of his libertarian-leaning issues.Guess w
hat? The same is true for Hillary. She has no chance of winning the nomination. Her only hope is to go to the convention and raise the profile of her issues, and hope like crazy she could walk away with the nomination. Hillary could win every primary contest left and still not catch Obama in the delegate count. Though Ron Paul is but a distant memory. A memory that has every intention, just like Hillary, to play this out till the convention.To be fair, it's not just Fox News. It's the media establishment. Do we ever click on an article or turn our televisions on and hear that Hillary has no chance at the nomination? No. We hear about the bloody, dirty, rotten battle between the Democrats. However, Ron Paul's chances of winning the GOP nomination aren't that much slimmer to Hillary's Democratic chances. But that doesn't sell. It's no fun to watch two old white men. Could you imagine what that would do to the ratings.
Tags: Ron Paul
5.08.2008
Following Up on the Drug Dealer Effect
Apparently, not that I listen to drug dealers, but apparently Rush Limbaugh couldn't get enough of himself yesterday when discussing his Operation Gay-os and its effect on the Indiana Democratic primary.
"The train would not have come off the tracks of the Obama campaign, were it not for Operation Chaos. The Jeremiah Wright stuff and all that, yes, that would have happened, but nothing could have done anything about it because Mrs. Clinton would have been effectively out of the race, not able to mount a campaign. So we'd be in a far different spot today than we were so the purpose of this is to keep this going -- exactly what's happened.”As I've mentioned a few times, there is no evidence-- none-- that suggests the drug dealer had any effect on the outcome whatsoever. That's not saying there isn't anecdotal evidence that wackos did take Limbaugh's oxy-contin induced advice and vote for Hillary because some surely did. Just not enough to prove any sort of tampering or "effect." Just like Bill O'Reilly, Limbaugh is irrelevant when it comes to political discourse. I understand why Obama wants to make it appear as if Hillary has now committed the ultimate Democratic sin by making peace with O'Reilly and Limbaugh, but aside from the spin Obama's wanting to give off, there's nothing in the exit poll data to suggest Limbaugh helped Hillary in Indiana.
From the WaPo:
The Clinton campaign credited its narrow win to the organization of Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.) and the more than 100 campaign stops made by Clinton and her husband and daughter. Robby Mook, Clinton's Indiana director, said she did better than expected in Indianapolis and in northwestern Indiana, where Obama was expected to benefit from his exposure on Chicago television.
But he [Obama] fared better than the final polls predicted by cutting into Clinton's huge margin among several key groups in Ohio and Pennsylvania, such as white women and white voters without college degrees. He racked up big totals in college towns and with African American voters in Gary and Indianapolis, as expected. But he also won by 22 points in Hamilton County, an affluent Republican-leaning suburb north of Indianapolis; by 12 points in the county that includes Fort Wayne, after losing similar Rust Belt cities elsewhere; and lost by only four points in Evansville, on the southern border.
For every talking point that Limbaugh and his fellow chickenhawks can use to say they tilted the outcome, there's just as much to show that Operation Gay-os had no effect on very large sectors of Republican support. What's more amazing is that a conservative state such as Indiana can have over 1.6 million people show up to vote in a Democratic primary. Of course that story takes a backseat to right wing talking points that a drug dealer claims to tamper with election results.
Not to mention that Obama actually closed a very large gap in Indiana despite the few who did show up on behalf of Limbaugh. Obama was never going to win Indiana anyway. But dang near did.
5.07.2008
Shambles
Democratic turnout once again demolishes all other records in Indiana. And North Carolina Dems cast over 1.5 million ballots. You could add up almost every Republican primary of the entire season and not equal just these two states for the Dems. But, yes, it's the Democrats who are imploding and in shambles. I couldn't imagine what Republicans would be saying about their situation if they were pulling numbers anywhere near what the Dems are doing. They would call it a revolution or some sort of sign by God Almighty that they are the chosen party. Maybe there's still a chance that Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, a savior will show up and rescue the day.
The Drug Dealer Effect
I know why Obama's camp is doing doing this, I'm just not sure I agree with it.
In an e-mail entitled “The Limbaugh Effect in Indiana = 7 percent,” Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton wrote: “According to the latest exit polling data, 17 percent of voters in the Indiana primary today said they would vote for John McCain in a Clinton/McCain match-up. Forty-one percent of that number is constituted by people who voted Clinton in the primary but also indicated they will vote for McCain in the general election. That comes out to just under 7 percent of the primary electorate the number that may be attributed to a Limbaugh Effect.”I think it gives way too much credit, if credit is even the right word, to the drug-addicted Rush Limbaugh. I see the Obama camp spin that they are wanting to show: that Hillary is so desperate to win the nomination that she would even make friends with the likes of Rush Limbaugh and use his hate speech tactics to garner primary victories. From a strategy perspective I see the point. From a Democratic perspective it's pointless and irresponsible. At least if you are going to relate Hillary to Limbaugh, which is entirely ethical to do, do it in a way as not to legitimize a convicted drug dealer, chickenhawk draft dodging, fat ass who has never done anything good for America.
Even the Fox News article I link to calls into question the validity of such an assertion that druggie had any effect on the race whatsoever.
The impact of “Operation Chaos” is difficult to measure. Indiana holds an open primary, and according to FOX News exit polls, 11 percent of voters in the Democratic contest were Republicans. Fifty-three percent of them said they chose Clinton, while 47 percent voted for Obama.The only accurate way to draw such a conclusion would be if the polling asked if the voter was persuaded by Rush Limbaugh's advice to vote for Hillary. Since such a question was not asked, there is no way of definitively stating that druggie had any effect at all. Like I said, I see what Obama's trying to do, I just don't think it's necessary.
4.30.2008
More On the Obama Woes
I think any Obama supporter would be less than honest if they didn't agree that the Wright controversy(ies) were a sharp dagger into the main artery to what has been one of the most remarkable social movements since the 1960s. When I say social movement I don't mean one of people flocking to charismatic leaders, I mean a social movement where people realize they have a little bit of power and can change things.
The best modern example of a social movement based on People Power is the Civil Rights movement. Many immediately assume the liberal hippie movement of the 60s to be a social movement but I've always considered that to be more of a swing away from power than an actual movement to retake power. No doubt hippies were wanting to change things but not in a sense to change the power structure but rather than to do away with power all together.
It's only fitting, then, that in the 21st century a new leader who happens to be black would bring together not just people of his own ethnicity but people of all types. Instead of a focus on bringing power or recognition to a certain subset of people, Obama has focused mainly on returning power to the voters of this country. This new social movement has been seen throughout this primary season with the record breaking turnouts in every state. People are ready for change and ready for a new way. Reverend Wright and additionally Obama's relationship with him, are anything but the same old sad way of politics as usual. It's not enough that Obama distance himself from Wright and condemn his words for it will take much more than that to explain away the last two decades of a casually warm friendship between the two.
The last thing a black man with the name Barack Hussein Obama needed was to have a family pastor who at times appears to read Conspiracy Theorist more than he does the Bible. If Obama's new People Power social movement is to continue it cannot proceed to alienate those who firmly believe these last 8 years have been badly mismanaged yet still have enough sense to realize that America, with all thy faults, is still the greatest gift of democracy the world has ever known. Not liking George Bush doesn't always equate to votes and does more to alienate those starving for change than anything else.
4.29.2008
More Obama Trouble
As I've said time and time again, Barack's biggest problem will not be issues it will be his church and his middle name. It's proving truer by the day. I'm not sure exactly what Rev. Wright said this time since I was out of the country, but apparently it was enough to make Obama do his strongest denouncement yet.
I've met Rev. Wright. I was only around him for a very short period of time. He gave a little sermon at a church about 40 miles from my house. He didn't say anything offensive or alarming that time, but he continues to make himself and Barack Obama look foolish at best and crazy at worst. Wright's comments, whatever they may be, are certainly political fuel for any Republican or GOP supporter. I think Obama would agree with such a comment by me as well. This is the race Obama wanted to avoid, the very politics he wants to change. But it's very hard to change discourse when you live in a glass house.
4.17.2008
What's Important to Republicans (Update)
This one is just too easy to pass up.
I'm not sure why but I don't watch debates. I really haven't watched one since 2000. It's probably a combination of already knowing who I'm going to vote for and not having the attention span to watch. I'm terrible at TV and movies. I'm just now getting back into movie watching mode. I went years without going to the movies.
Anyway, David Brooks writes last night after watching the Hillary/Obama debate about what is really important.
We may not like it, but issues like Jeremiah Wright, flag lapels and the Tuzla airport will be important in the fall. Remember how George H.W. Bush toured flag factories to expose Michael Dukakis. It’s legitimate to see how the candidates will respond to these sorts of symbolic issues.Yes, after five years in Iraq with no end in sight; the person responsible for 9/11 still running free; the largest deficit in our nation's history; the weakest dollar in our nation's history; $4 gasoline; a president with the lowest approval ratings in three generations; a housing crisis about to explode and an economic recession, it's questions about flag lapels and preachers that are important. In the Republican Fantasy World these are the important issues. Whatever it is the GOP can use to distract people away from the issues really affecting our country is their modus operandi. There's no need to talk about all of Bush's and the Republican's failures, let's talk about who are true patriots and who's not. Let's talk about who has the craziest preacher, unless Mitt Romney is the VP then church membership once again becomes a personal issue respected by the separation of church and state. Anything that may bring up the fact that Bush has a 28% approval rating and that 81% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track is a diversion from the important questions of Jeremiah Wright, flag lapels and Tuzla airport.
Even though Brooks says it's a "journalist’s job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities," he means of course in the realm of who wears a pin on their jacket and not who has the answers to the mess the GOP has put us in. To do that would be un-patriotic. Remember, what's important for Republicans is that we forget the last 8 years.
*Update:
Senator Obama's response to what many perceived to be one of the worst "debates" of the season is below. The reaction from Republican circles is that the debate was "excellent." Mainly because there where very little questions about actual policy substance and mostly questions asking the candidates to refute right wing talking points. Those supporting Obama don't flock to him because of what the right wing says about him, they flock to him in numbers not seen since Kennedy because of his ability to want to take our national political discussion away from talking points and into substance. Obama believes that people are hungry for change and not that people are inherently stupid and unable to make decisions for themselves like the right wing insists. If anything this clip shows that Obama is not an old geezer singing hymns about bombing Iran like his competition is. He's actually got a little coolness about him.
4.16.2008
Turning To the Graphs
I love graphs. I don't know why, but I've always loved graphs and maps. I'm like Stalin when it comes to maps. I can look at a map all day long and never get tired of it. It's the same with graphs. That's probably why I'm always posting charts and graphs on this blog. I especially like the graphs at Pollster.com. I've spent endless hours at that site.
With the PA primary a week away and with the recent hoopla over Obama's bitter comments I thought I would set another graph into play here showing the latest polling data.
As you can tell, there really isn't a post-bitter change. All that could decidedly change today once Fox News learns that their constant barrage of anti-Obama coverage isn't working and they decide to declare Deafcon III on the presumed Dem nominee. It's doubtful, to me, even that will have any affect on the primary, however.
In the meantime our Grand Leader George Bush is basking in the latest polling data. After having plateaued somewhat in the very low thirties, Bush seems to be tanking into unclaimed territory.
Republicans love to remind people that this election isn't about George Bush. That he isn't on the ballot and bringing him up only demonstrates Democratic inability to set aside our hatred of him rather than speaking about the policies and issues effecting our future. It's a genuine try by the neocon-controlled Republicans. I don't blame them at all. I certainly wouldn't want the least popular and most incompetent presidency since 1928 to be my party's legacy either. But the fact of the matter is a two term president that is solely responsible for the current state of this country is a talking point in this election. And those who voted for him, those who have looked past his incompetency and who have allowed him to run this country into the ground, are the very same ones who are now trying to exclude him from the discussion. Like I've always said, responsibility sucks.
4.09.2008
Here's A Novel Idea...
...why not have Iraq pay for its own reconstruction?
Democrats flaunt legislation that would force Iraqis to pay for their own reconstruction. If y'all remember correctly, we were told by by the administration that Iraq would pay for itself. Why isn't that happening? It's time we take Bush & Co. up on their offer. We can't just chalk this up to another pre-war lie like we've grown accustomed to. Making Iraqis pay for this war will make Iraqis work harder to speed up the political reconciliation that desperately needs to happen to end this thing. After all, the most conservative approach to any political subject is that people should not be dependent upon other people to foot the bill. It would be hard for any serious chickenhawk war supporter that calls themselves a conservative to not support legislation requiring Iraqis to use their oil surplus to pay for our taxpayer financed nation building social welfare services.
Who The Opposition Is
I'm not quite sure what to make of this and had I not seen Lisa's post about Democrats supposedly pulling cheap shots by calling McCain a warmonger, which Obama issued a statement denouncing Shultz-- although I do agree with Shultz-- I probably would have left it alone. Here we have David Bellavia who is a GOP congressional candidate from New York, introducing John McCain by saying you can have your Tiger Woods, we've got John McCain.
What does that even mean? At face value it appears he is referring to Obama's ethnic diversity by referencing the most famous athlete in the world who is also from a very ethnically diverse background. What else could he be talking about? I'm not sure it's a racist statement but it surely is a cheap shot. Then we have McCain embracing him with a hug.
There is no doubt John McCain wants to continue the war in Iraq forever. He's stated numerous times he sees nothing wrong with staying for hundreds of years or thousands of years. That sounds like a warmonger to me. But is there any defense of mentioning Tiger Woods in a context that is confusingly disingenuous at best and racist at worst.
No, cheap shots aren't just something the Dems are practicing.
4.08.2008
Simple Math
Charlie Cook is always three steps ahead of the media:
The media make it sound as if this is the first time a nomination process has ever went past March. Accordingly, the GOP is trying to hide the fact that its soon to be nominee tried to switch parties twice in the last 7 years and did not win the conservative vote in one single contested primary. Add the mix together and we get a hyperbole fascination of a nomination process that is anything but losable to Barack Obama.The hand-wringing today is over a nomination process that some say has gone on too long, but just four years ago, it was over a process that seemed to begin and end in Iowa. Once Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., pulled off his upset win in Iowa, with his neighboring state of New Hampshire next on the calendar, the Democratic nomination process was effectively over. One state voted; the nomination was basically settled.
In 2000, the process went on for all of two states. Once Vice President Al Gore beat former Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J., in New Hampshire (Bradley had not seriously contested the Iowa caucus), the nomination fight was over. Two states voted; the nomination was settled.
Someone recently gave Clinton a 12-percent chance of winning the Democratic nomination.
My guess is that her odds are less than half of that; it would take three or four consecutive weeks of problems the magnitude of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright hitting Obama, plus Clinton getting every other break in the world. And she would still need to win the remaining contests by 60 percent or more to close the gap sufficiently so that the remaining uncommitted superdelegates might break a tie (defined as an Obama margin of, say, 60 delegates or less) in her favor.
[...]Hillary would need to win every primary or caucus left by very wide margins to come close to snatching the nomination from Obama. But do we hear that in the media? No. We hear that Hillary is still in the fight and the Democrats are imploding all over themselves. Hillary's comeback would be equal to Mike Huckabee, who has won more contests than Hillary, wrestling the nomination away from McCain. The only way Huck could do that is by winning every primary left by very wide margins and then go to the convention and strong-arm it from the Party. The scenario isn't that much different from what Hillary would have to do yet the media makes it sound very differently.
Unless Clinton wins Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, North Carolina and a few other places by landslide margins, which is very unlikely, her donors will stop giving and her campaign will grind to a halt.
I suppose Hillary can stay in as long as she wants; if I were her I would too. It's the media's responsibility to accurately report her odds of winning and her real standing at capturing the nomination. Once the media did that Hillary's donors would back out quicker than George Bush heading to Crawford for vacation effectively ending this charade.
3.31.2008
Where's The Outrage?
For the last couple hours I've been scrambling the internet trying to find any sort of outrage, or even a simple sigh, from Republicans/right-wingers/neocons about George W. Bush's overhaul of the financial industry. I've found a couple mentions of the story itself but no analysis. Granted I haven't done an exhaustive search or hit every site on the internet, just a simple browsing if you will. Either the story is too new and people haven't had a chance to digest it yet; or maybe the lack of a Republican reaction to it is the final proof of Bush's irrelevancy- he's so irrelevant his own party doesn't even acknowledge his policy proposals. Or maybe it's a combination of both, further insinuating a lame duck presidency.
Even if any of the three suggestions above are remotely accurate, none of that changes the fact that Republicans would go crazy if a Democrat proposed any changes to a financial system that included expanding the size and power of the federal government. A quick glance at the GOP homepage and you see a never ending running ticker of all the supposed Obama tax increases, spending increases and socialist program expansions they claim will bankrupt America and turn us into a failed socialist European state. Listen to Rush Limbaugh for two seconds or watch Fox News and next to Rev. Wright that's all you'll hear about. For a near perfect example of how quickly Republicans come apart, without making much sense, about Democratic spending plans see my continuing saga of The Economist and its outright "huddling the masses" portrayal of Democratic front runner Barack Obama.
If this was a Democratic plan, Republicans and their lot would be the first to call Bush's major financial system overhaul what it is, another big socialist government expansion from a tax and spend president who has no clue about fiscal matters. What they fail to mention, all of them, is the fact that ending Bush's and McCain's 100 year war in Iraq would pay for every new Democratic program out there ten times over. But when their Ordained Leader runs up the largest deficit in history and increases the size of the federal government more than any one president has done since the Great Depression all the while leading us into a ill-planned military invasion of a sovereign country that had nothing to do with 9/11, not even a whimper is heard from the GOP.
This latest move by Bush's GOP only overshadows a move two weeks ago where the federal government bailed out the fifth largest banking lender in the nation, Bear Stearns. Again, not one single Republican mention of how socialist a move this was. No mention that the government should have no more responsibility bailing out businesses than it does bailing out its own citizens. I personally see much more of a responsibility for government to protect the individual (i.e., the Bill of Rights) than to protect Big Business. But the moment I say the prime function of
a government of the people, by the people and for the people is that it owes to its citizenry the protections necessary for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness the GOP and its bandwagon circle jerkers immediately become small government capitalistic conservatives again.
There's no denying nor is it even fathomable to even begin to defend Bush's economic record. It is what it is. But what possibly can Republicans begin to say about their Beloved Leader when it comes to small compassionate conservative government? The Chosen One has increased the size and power of the federal government more so since FDR. Now with his newest proposal to give broader powers to an overhauled financial institution, I would even argue that Bush's determination and success at increasing the size and scope of the federal government is equal to if not greater than FDR's.
The
latest proposal will without a doubt be revamped by Congress but what can the Republican Party say in defense of its president who has done the very opposite of everything they have argued and prided themselves with the last four decades? In an election year when the bedrock Republican platform issues of small government, low taxes and personal responsibility...or "government is the problem" will again be heard over and over there is no denying that the GOP doesn't stand for any of it and those wishing for a true conservative led government should look towards the Libertarian Party. Bush has left the GOP with nothing more than hypocritical elitists with a neoconservative outlook for America and the world.
Tags: Bush, Republicans, Socialism, Financial Institution Overhaul
3.28.2008
3.27.2008
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.
3.26.2008
Obama Releases Tax Info
Since Hillary really stands no chance at winning the nomination I don't care if she releases her tax documents or not. She says she will three days before the the Pennsylvania primary, but if she doesn't it's not that big of a deal. However, since Obama released his, the GOP nominee should also do the same.
As far as the Hillary matter is concerned, I don't see any way she can win the nomination. Unless she stays in the race all the way until the convention and then at the convention forces a riot and strong arms the Party into granting her the nomination, I don't see how it can be done. She can't catch Obama with delegates no matter what. The only way she'll be the nominee is by some sort of coup. I'm not trying to make her sound like an extremist I'm just saying it will take extreme measures for her to be the nominee. I think in the end she'll bow out without exerting to extremity.
