Filed under: Interesting, International, Iraq | Tags: Interesting, International, Iraq
Happy New Year, everyone! Due to the holiday, posting for the rest of today will be light.
When you’re celebrating tonight, take a moment to remember the 899 American soldiers who were killed in Iraq this past year. For each of them, there is a family whose New Year’s celebration will forever be one person short.
Filed under: Breaking, International, Terrorism | Tags: Assassination, Benazir Bhutto, International, Pakistan, Terrorism
Benazir Bhutto’s son will be the next leader of the Pakistani People’s Party (PPP). From CNN:
Bilawal Zardari, speaking in English at a news conference, said: “I am thankful for the CEC [Central Election Commission] for imposing their trust in me as chairman of the Pakistan People’s Party.”
“Like all chairmen of the PPP, I will stand as the symbol of the federation. The party’s long and historic struggle for democracy will continue with renewed vigor, and I stand committed to the stability of the federation.
“My mother always said democracy is the best revenge.”
Bhutto had named her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, to head the Pakistan People’s Party in her will, which was read on Sunday, but he handed over the position to the couple’s son
[...]
Ali Zardari also said the PPP is asking the United Nations to investigate the circumstances of Bhutto’s December 27 killing. He said he does not plan to call for an autopsy on his wife, who was buried in her hometown on Friday.
[...]
Pakistan’s government has given several explanations for the official cause of Bhutto’s death, most recently saying she died after striking her head on the sunroof of her car. The PPP has called the government’s changing position “a pack of lies.”
“I have lived in this country long enough to know how the autopsies are done,” Ali Zardari said Sunday, explaining why he did not give the home secretary of Punjab province permission for an autopsy.
“It was an insult to my wife, to the sister of the nation, to the mother of the nation, if I was to give her last remains to be post-mortemed and I know the forensics reports are useless.
“We know what the wound is, we know how it was done. We don’t need post-mortems to prove the death, therefore I refuse to give them the last remains, because they belong to God and the people of Pakistan.
It’s hard to tell how this will affect the PPP and Pakistan’s elections. Zardari is only nineteen, currently studying at England’s Oxford University–it’s questionable if he has the experience and the knowledge necessary to run one of Pakistan’s main opposition parties. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
In regards to Bhutto’s death, new video footage has emerged which appears to show her being shot, which somewhat contradicts the report from Pakistan’t interior ministry saying she died from head trauma incurred during the attack.
There are a number of unanswered questions here, and many of them may never be fully resolved. As it stands now, Pakistan’s future hangs in the balance, and the situation there is rapidly becoming more dangerous–Think Progress brings us this:
In the days since former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, “nationwide rioting” has “brought life in Pakistan to a standstill.” Yesterday, as “the death toll from the violence climbed above 40,” government officials began “to consider delaying next month’s elections.”
Elections are scheduled for January 8th. Whether or not they occur–and how they turn out–may change the course of Pakistan’s history.
UPDATE: Raw Story brings us this video from the BBC, which claims that Pakistan’s elections will be postponed by two months.
RS also reports on of the devastation in Pakistan’s largest city, Karachi:
The previous three days of clashes and looting left at least 40 people dead across Sindh Province, where Karachi is located, provincial Home Minister Akhtar Zemin told The Associated Press. Hundreds of bank branches were destroyed and 950 vehicles burned.
The normally bustling port city remained a virtual ghost town, shocked by Bhutto’s death. Nearly all shops were closed and streets normally packed with traffic were empty, save for boys playing cricket.
[...]
Police with assault rifles were stationed on street corners across Karachi, and military patrols in armored vehicles rode through the rougher parts of the city, such as the notorious Lyari slums that have seen the most unrest.
Hundreds of Bhutto supporters gathered for memorial prayers at a party office, chanting “Benazir is innocent!” before marching into the streets. They were trailed by a police truck with an officer on top wielding a tear gas grenade launcher.
The PPP and Bhutto’s supporters won’t be going anywhere anytime soon. Musharraf is going to have to keep his fracturing country together, a sizable task that he might not be able to accomplish. And now with reports coming out that the elections will be postponed, it’s likely that there will be more violence from Pakistan’s pro-democracy forces.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Breaking, Conservatives, Governors, International, Terrorism | Tags: 2008, Al-Qaeda, Campaigns, Candidates, Elections, Incompetence, Mike Huckabee, Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, Terrorism
CNN brings us more on what precisely killed Pakistan’s Benazir Bhutto:
Benazir Bhutto died from a fractured skull caused by hitting her head on part of her car’s sunroof as a bomb ripped through a crowd of her supporters, a spokesman for Pakistan’s Interior Ministry said Friday.
“When she was thrown by the force of the shockwave of the explosion, unfortunately one of the levers of the sunroof hit her,” said spokesman Brigadier Javed Iqbal Cheema.
The explanation is the latest from the Interior Ministry. It initially said Bhutto was killed by shots fired by the bomber, and then, via the state-run Associated Press of Pakistan, it said the cause of death was a shrapnel injury.
[...]
The Interior Ministry also revealed Friday that it had proof showing that al Qaeda was behind Bhutto’s assassination.
Cheema said the government had an intelligence intercept in which an al Qaeda militant “congratulated his people for carrying out this cowardly act.”
However, that claim has not appeared on radical Islamist Web sites that regularly post such messages from al Qaeda and other militant groups.
The Interior Ministry told Pakistan’s GEO-TV that the suicide bomber belonged to Lashkar-e-Jhangvi — an al Qaeda-linked Sunni Muslim militant group that the government has blamed for hundreds of killings.
U.S. officials believe that a Taliban leader from Afghanistan, Baitullah Mahsud, may be the person behind the assassination.
Unfortunately, these revelations have to be taken with a grain of salt–these are spokespeople from Pervez Musharraf’s government, and there is a chance that elements in the government may have played a role in this. Thus, they may have an interest in misrepresenting the cause of death or pinning the assassination on someone else. Of course, it should be noted that there is also no evidence showing anyone in the government had a hand in the assassination, though many are pointing to governmental negligence as a contributing factor.
Pervez Musharraf’s government has very little credibility left, and it will be difficult for people to believe in an investigation conducted by the government. There must be some sort of investigation into Bhutto’s assassination that has a degree of independence from Pakistan’s government, in the event that individuals or groups within the government were in some way to blame for it.
Along those lines, the Pakistani government has ordered an official judicial inquiry into Bhutto’s death, which will incorporate representatives from her political party. Talking Points Memo has more:
Caretaker Prime Minister Mohammedmian Soomro told journalists following an emergency cabinet meeting that a judge would be appointed to head a committee to probe the gun-suicide bomb attack on Bhutto Thursday afternoon as she left an election campaign rally in the city of Rawalpindi.
The committee chairperson would be appointed in consultation with officials from Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), and a report would be submitted within a time frame to be determined later, he said.
Soomro said the cabinet was considering postponing elections scheduled for January 8 because of Bhutto’s murder, but would not act until after consulting with the country’s main opposition parties.
“Right now the elections stand as they are,” he said. “I am ready to meet the opposition leaders on one minute’s notice, and we are even in contact with some of them.”
It’s hopeful that the investigation into the assassination will involve Pakistan’s opposition parties, and that the elections have not been postponed yet. If Musharraf’s government interferes with either the investigation or the scheduled election, it’s likely that Pakistan will dissolve into even more violence.
Pakistan is on the verge of a power vacuum; Musharraf is hemorrhaging support and there is no longer a significant opposition figure to step forward and take control of the flagging government. This instability, combined with Pakistan’s extremist groups and nuclear arsenal, makes this a particularly difficult situation.
More as it develops…
UPDATE: Wonkette brings us a series of photographs from before and after the assassination. Before viewing, keep in mind that these photos contain significant violence and gore.
On the domestic front, Mike Huckabee uses the Bhutto assassination to show off his woeful lack of knowledge on foreign policy:
“People who questioned my view of foreign policy probably need go back and read the speech that i delivered back in Washington in September. … We have seen what happens in the Musharraf government. He has told us he does not have enough control of those eastern borders near Afghanistan to be able go after the terrorists. But on the other hand, did he not want us going in so what do we do?”
Pakistan’s western border is with Afghanistan–their eastern border is with India.
UPDATE II: Confusions remains over the exact cause of Bhutto’s death:
Bhutto’s political party disputed official versions of the incident, accusing the government of lying. Video footage of Thursday’s attack on Bhutto contains a murky shot of a hand firing a pistol three times, but the Pakistani government said Bhutto — who was standing through her vehicle’s sunroof — was not hit.
The latest explanation Friday by Pakistan’s Interior Ministry said Bhutto, 54, died from a fractured skull after hitting her head on a piece of the vehicle.
[...]
On Thursday, an initial report from the Interior Ministry said Bhutto died of a gunshot wound to the neck.
[...]
Dr. Mussadiq Khan of Rawalpindi General Hospital, who treated Bhutto before she was declared dead, said she had “a big wound” on the side of her head “that usually occurs when something big, with a lot of speed, hits that area.”
[...]
Farzana Raja of Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party said the government’s explanation is “a pack of lies,” and she offered another explanation. “It was a sniper shooting,” she said, also accusing the government of a “total security lapse.”
CNN national security analyst Ken Robinson, who worked in U.S. intelligence in Pakistan during the Clinton administration, said he suspects Bhutto’s enemies are attempting to control her legacy by minimizing the attack’s role in her demise.
“They’re trying to deny her a martyr’s death, and in Islam, that’s pretty important,” Robinson said.
Bhutto’s supporters may benefit from the assassination, if she becomes a martyr for their causes. The latest government report on the assassination minimizes the effect of the attack, stating that she hit her head and subsequently expired. Whether the government is telling the truth or not is up in the air–maybe they played a role in the assassination, or maybe they’re using this opportunity to downplay her death, or maybe they’re actually telling the truth. At this point, nobody knows for sure.
It’s likely that the tension between the opposition party and the government will continue, which is why an independent investigation is necessary. Even if one is completed, though, there’s a likelihood that (depending on the findings) it might end up being disputed still.
In addition, The Huffington Post brings us photos of Bhutto’s vehicle, as well as her head X-rays from after the attack. As with the pictures above, these are also graphic.
Filed under: Breaking, Conservatives, International, Iraq, Terrorism | Tags: Assassination, Conservatives, Extremism, International, Iraq, Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, Terrorism, Updated
From CNN:
Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday after addressing a large gathering of her supporters.
The suicide bomb attack also killed at least 22 others, doctors said. It was not immediately clear if Bhutto died from shots fired before the blast, or from wounds caused by bomb shrapnel.
President Pervez Musharraf held an emergency meeting in the hours after the death, according to state media.
He said the killers were the same extremists that Pakistan is fighting a war against, and announced three days of national mourning.
Video of the scene just moments before the explosion showed Bhutto stepping into a heavily guarded vehicle to leave the rally.
Police sources told CNN the bomber, who was riding a motorcycle, blew himself up near Bhutto’s vehicle
[...]
The attack came just hours after four supporters of former Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif died when members of another political party opened fire on them at a rally near the Islamabad airport Thursday, Pakistan police said.
Several other members of Sharif’s party were wounded, police said.
First off, there should be no rush to judgment–we don’t know who planned this or why. It could have been supporters of President Pervez Musharraf hoping to keep him in office; it could have been supporters of Bhutto hoping to use her death to take down the Musharraf regime; it could have been any number of other groups pushing some kind of political agenda, or it could have just been one person with a political axe to grind. As it stands now, nobody knows who did this or why.
In addition, it should be noted that Bhutto has a number of enemies in Pakistan. Though the media portrayed her as the country’s pro-democracy savior, she was partially responsible for Musharraf’s rise in the first place–she was so dogged by charges of corruption and nepotism as Prime Minister that her government was dismissed twice, once in 1993 and again in 1996.
Alex Rossmiller at AMERICAblog has some thoughts on this:
In terms of policy implications, this is reflective of a massive US foreign policy blunder, in that the Bush administration, in a monumentally stupid move, shoved Bhutto down the throat of Musharraf (and the rest of Pakistan) as a savior, despite her lack of broad popular support and general reputation as corrupt. In making someone who didn’t necessarily have the ability to deliver the savior for democracy in Pakistan, we simultaneously set up our own policy to fail and offered Musharraf a return to (or continued) total power in the event that our little power-sharing arrangement didn’t work. We also — though not only us — painted a big fat target on her back. Really a debacle all the way around.
Along these lines, there have been calls for Musharraf to step down–either because he’s responsible for the attack or because he was negligent in going after extremists and providing Bhutto protection. Bill Richardson has released a statement along those lines, and longtime Bhutto advisor Husain Haqqani has also said as much:
“There is only one possibility: the security establishment and Musharraf are complicit, either by negligence or design. That is the most important thing. She’s not the first political leader killed, since Musharraf took power, by the security forces.”
I’m inclined to agree somewhat–Pakistan is home to a wide array of extremist groups, including the remnants of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda–Musharraf has done little to combat them, allowing those groups to flourish under his rule. As the July 2007 NIE [PDF] concluded:
Al-Qa’ida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the Homeland, as its central leadership continues to plan high-impact plots, while pushing others in extremist Sunni communities to mimic its efforts and to supplement its capabilities. We assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership.
Bhutto’s assassination is a tragedy, there’s no doubt. And it’s likely that–no matter who is responsible–Musharraf may use this to his political advantage.
Even if he and his people aren’t responsible, his poor leadership in going after extremism has allowed violence like this to happen. No matter what, Musharraf carries some of the blame for this, and he should bear some responsibility.
Should he step down? Certainly not now, when Pakistan is mired in domestic turmoil, but there should be some accounting for his multiple failures over the years.
More as this develops…
UPDATE: John Cole provides some perspective:
Pakistan is important to US security. It is a nuclear power. Its military fostered, then partially turned on the Taliban and al-Qaeda, which have bases in the lawless tribal areas of the northern part of the country. And Pakistan is key to the future of its neighbor, Afghanistan. Pakistan is also a key transit route for any energy pipelines built between Iran or Central Asia and India, and so central to the energy security of the United States.
[...]
The NYT reported that US Secretary of State Condi Rice tried to fix Musharraf’s subsequent dwindling legitimacy by arranging for Benazir to return to Pakistan to run for prime minister, with Musharraf agreeing to resign from the military and become a civilian president. When the supreme court seemed likely to interfere with his remaining president, he arrested the justices, dismissed them, and replaced them with more pliant jurists. This move threatened to scuttle the Rice Plan, since Benazir now faced the prospect of serving a dictator as his grand vizier, rather than being a proper prime minister.
With Benazir’s assassination, the Rice Plan is in tatters and Bush administration policy toward Pakistan and Afghanistan is tottering.
CNN has more:
But it was not immediately clear, however, what if any influence Washington might have or whether Bhutto’s death would drive the United States into a deeper embrace of Musharraf, whom some believe offers the best chance for Pakistani stability despite his democratic shortcomings.
“This latest tragedy is likely to reinforce beliefs that Pakistan is a dangerous, messy place and potentially very unstable and fragile and that they need to cling to Musharraf even more than they did in the past,” said Daniel Markey, who left the State Department this year and is now a senior fellow at the private Council on Foreign Relations.
“The weight of the administration is still convinced that Musharraf is a helpful rather than a harmful figure,” he said.
[...]
“The United States does not have a great deal of leverage where Pakistan is concerned,” said Wendy Sherman, who served as counselor to former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. “And at the end of the day, the decisions are going to be made by the Pakistani people and by the leadership of Pakistan and not by the United States.”
Other analysts warned that Bhutto’s assassination might further damage Musharraf, whose democratic credentials have been seriously tarnished by growing authoritarianism, and have lead to widespread unrest.
“Legitimacy for Musharraf will be deferred if not impossible,” said Christine Fair, a South Asia expert at the RAND Corporation. “The U.S. likely does not have a plan for this contingency as Musharraf remains a critical ally and because Bhutto’s participation was hoped to confer legitimacy to the upcoming January elections.”
Pakistan’s future is in turmoil. Musharraf has been hemorrhaging support in recent years, particularly in response to his consolidation of power. He could attempt to use the assassination (and the resulting turmoil) to solidify his power and quell political dissent, but it’s likely that any attempt to do so would simply inflame the opposition, leading to even more violence. And why wouldn’t they react with violence? With Bhutto–their best chance to crack Musharraf’s iron-fisted rule–gone, what do they have to lose now?
Even if Musharraf doesn’t take advantage of the situation, the opposition will. In fact, they’re already blaming him for the assassination. Whether they accuse him of having a hand in it or simply being negligent in fighting extremism, they’ll hold him responsible and call for him to resign. It’s likely that the assassination will erode Musharraf’s support even more, and it could even be the spark that takes down his regime. Of course, whether that is a good thing or a bad thing depends on who would take power afterwards.
It’s hard to tell where things will go from here, but it’s clear that things will get worse before they get better. The biggest loser here is the Pakistani people, who face increased violence and instability in their country. A close second is Bush administration, who pinned their plan to democratize Pakistan on Bhutto’s victory. She was our leverage against the Musharraf regime–without her threatening his power, the U.S. has lost a lot of leverage in pushing for democratic reforms.
UPDATE II: According to Adnkronos International, Al-Qaeda is claiming responsibility for the attack:
A spokesperson for the al-Qaeda terrorist network has claimed responsibility for the death on Thursday of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto.
“We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahadeen,” Al-Qaeda’s commander and main spokesperson Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid told Adnkronos International (AKI) in a phone call from an unknown location, speaking in faltering English. Al-Yazid is the main al-Qaeda commander in Afghanistan.
It is believed that the decision to kill Bhutto, who is the leader of the opposition Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), was made by al-Qaeda No. 2, the Egyptian doctor, Ayman al-Zawahiri in October.
Death squads were allegedly constituted for the mission and ultimately one cell comprising a defunct Lashkar-i-Jhangvi’s Punjabi volunteer succeeded in killing Bhutto.
UPDATE III: Turning to the domestic implications of the Bhutto assassination, Matt Yglesias has this to say:
Well, it seems to me that we desperately need to break away from the “trouble abroad, let’s turn to hawkier hawks!” mode of organizing our politics. After all, there was a strategic choice undertaken by the United States of America during the year 2002 to refocus our attention away from Central Asia and the Pakistan/Afghanistan area and toward the Persian Gulf. That was, of course, the “tough,” “strong,” “serious” thing to do.
Then throughout 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 it’s been the case that the “tough,” “strong,” “serious” thing to do is to maintain a massive strategic focus on Iraq in particular and the Persian Gulf in general. Vast quantities of troops, money, and attention lavished on the Gulf was Central Asia languishes.
[Emphasis Added]
Whenever there’s violence or political turmoil abroad, our polity–particularly the political press–embraces right-wing hawkey as a solution.
Why, though? Here in the U.S., right-wing hawks made both America and the world less safe–they invested huge amounts of time, effort and money into Iraq, which has devolved into an unstable, violent civil war. Iran has become more poweful due to the fact that they no longer have Iraq to keep them in check. North Korea behan building and testing nuclear weapons, which ended only when hawkishness was abandoned and negotiation was embraced. In addition, the hawks took America’s focus off of Al-Qaeda–which has been re-establishing itself in Pakistan and took credit for the Bhutto assassination–and instead put it all on Iraq.
Clearly, hawkishness has contributed to global instability and violence. In light of recent history, perhaps our political press should re-evaluate the way it perceives–and portrays–events such as this. Hopefully we can put the “trouble abroad, let’s turn to hawkier hawks!” electoral philosophy to rest once and for all.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Breaking, Conservatives, House, Race | Tags: 2008, Campaigns, Candidates, Election, Racism, Republicans, Ron Paul
From the Ron Paul Political Report, 1992:
Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action…. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.
If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.
[...]
Taken from the Ron Paul Political Report, 1120 NASA Blvd., Suite 104,
Houston, TX 77058 for $50 per year. Call 1-800-766-7285.
[Emphasis Added]
Congressman Ron Paul, ladies and gentlemen. Leading the ‘revolution’ with insane, half-baked ideas and outright racism.
Due to the holiday, I won’t be posting later today (unless there’s some important breaking news later). So step away from your computer a bit and go spend time with those you love.
If you want to read something political, you can take a look at my post on the “War on Christmas,” which was featured on Salon’s Blog Report.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Breaking, Conservatives, Corruption, Government, House, Rights, Scandal | Tags: 2008, Electioneering, Elections, FEC, George W. Bush, Hans A. von Spakovsky, Jack Abramoff, Politicking, Roadblock Republicans, Tom DeLay
George W. Bush and the Roadblock Republicans are intent on shutting down the Federal Election Commission before the 2008 elections. More from The Washington Post:
The federal agency in charge of policing the torrent of political spending during the upcoming presidential primaries will, for all practical purposes, shut its doors on New Year’s Eve.
The Federal Election Commission will effectively go dark on Jan. 1 because Congress remains locked in a standoff over the confirmation of President Bush’s nominees to the panel. As a consequence, the FEC will enter 2008 with just two of six members — short of the four votes needed for the commission to take any official action.
[Emphasis Added]
Here’s what that means for the upcoming elections:
Although the 375 auditors, lawyers and investigators at the FEC will continue to process work already before them, a variety of matters that fall to the commissioners will be placed on hold indefinitely. Chief among them are deciding whether to launch investigations into possible campaign finance violations and determining the penalties.
Seven presidential candidates have applied to receive public matching funds for their campaigns, but they may not be able to access the money until the FEC certifies their requests. That takes four votes.
The national political parties each anticipate an infusion of about $1 million from the U.S. Treasury to help pay for their national conventions. Releasing that money takes four votes.
And then there is a range of vexing campaign finance questions that hang in limbo: Can a firm that operates a blimp accept unlimited contributions to fly it over New Hampshire with Ron Paul’s name on the side? Can a senator use his campaign account as a legal defense fund? How will campaigns comply with the new law that requires them to identify the lobbyists who are collecting campaign checks on their behalf?
[Emphasis Added]
What’s holding the confirmation process up? The usual suspects, of course: George W. Bush and the Roadblock Republicans.
The conflict started when Bush nominated Hans A. von Spakovsky–who infamous for supporting right-wing voter suppression laws–to serve on the FEC. Spakovsky supported the GOP’s Texas gerrymandering scheme, which redrew Texas’ Congressional districts to the benefit of Republicans and unseated 4 duly-elected Democratic Representatives in the process. In addition, Spakovsky supported legislation in Georgia to require photo identification for voting–a strategy that Republicans use to keep the poor (who are overwhemingly Democratic) from voting.
Simply put, Spakovsky is nowhere near moderate or independent enough to serve on the FEC; Senate Democrats realized this and, rightly, refused his confirmation. In retaliation for having their extremist nominee blocked, the Roadblock Republicans resorted to playing politics, blocking two Democratic nominees to the election commission.
This is nothing new–the Republicans are notorious for undermining our democracy through manipulating election laws and the voting process. That’s why they’ve jumped at the chance to shut down the FEC–it’s good for the GOP if nobody’s looking over their shoulders and keeping them honest. The remains of the DeLay-Abramoff network of anonymous donors, shady organizations and money laundering still exist–without the FEC, nothing keeps Republicans from restarting their illegal election machine.
Once again, the Roadblock Republicans keep our government from doing its job, putting their partisan interest ahead of the American people. We deserve honest candidates and transparent campaigns, yet–once again–the Republican Party is more than willing to stand in the way of clean elections.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Governors, Race, Scandal | Tags: 2008, Campaigns, Candidates, Elections, Extremists, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Race, Republicans
Or something like that. From AMERICAblog:
Romney said his father had told him he had marched with King and that he had been using the word “saw” in a “figurative sense.”
“If you look at the literature, if you look at the dictionary, the term ’saw’ includes being aware of in the sense I’ve described,” Romney told reporters in Iowa. “It’s a figure of speech and very familiar, and it’s very common. And I saw my dad march with Martin Luther King. I did not see it with my own eyes, but I saw him in the sense of being aware of his participation in that great effort.”
But historical evidence, including news accounts at the time, shows that George Romney never marched with King, though he supported King’s agenda.
[...]
Romney has repeated the story of his father marching with King in some of his most prominent presidential campaign appearances, including the “Tonight” show with Jay Leno in May, his address on faith and politics Dec. 6 in Texas, and on NBC’s “Meet The Press” on Sunday, when he was questioned about the Mormon Church’s ban on full participation by black members. He said that he had cried in his car in 1978 when he heard the ban had ended, and added, “My father marched with Martin Luther King.”
Mitt Romney went a step further in a 1978 interview with the Boston Herald. Talking about the Mormon Church and racial discrimination, he said: “My father and I marched with Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit.”….
“Clearly, Mitt Romney will say absolutely anything to smooth talk his way to the Republican nomination, even if it means playing loose with the facts on his own father’s civil rights record,” said Damien LaVera, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee.
[Emphasis Added]
This is just embarrassing–Flip Romney digs himself deeper, playing fast and loose with the facts to to cover up the fact that he’ll say anything to get elected.
The choice Republicans have seems to be between Romney and Huckabee–neither of which are paritcularly appetizing candidates. It makes you wonder, what’s worse–someone who’s completely inauthentic yet moderate, or someone who’s authentic yet completely extremist?
Keep digging, Mitt…
Filed under: 2008 Election, Breaking, Conservatives, Faith, Governors, Scandal | Tags: 2008, Campaigns, Candidates, Conservatives, Elections, Extremism, George W. Bush, Liars, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Republicans, Ronald Reagan, Rudy Giuliani
In order to diffuse criticism that the Mormon church is racist (since it took them until 1978 to allow African-Americans to be ordained or participate in certain temple ceremonies) Mitt Romney started saying that his father–Michigan Governor George Romney–once marched with Martin Luther King Jr.Unfortunately for him, a few journalists started digging and they found that Romney’s story is completely made-up.More from Blue Mass Group:
Mitt Romney will stop at nothing to score political points. Even if it means lying outright about his father.
I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.
Uh huh.
He made a similar statement Sunday during an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” He said, “You can see what I believed and what my family believed by looking at our lives. My dad marched with Martin Luther King. My mom was a tireless crusader for civil rights.”
Right. Got it — dad marched with MLK. Even David Broder says so, and supplies some corroborative detail intended to give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative. (BMG bonus points for identifying the source of that phrase!)
As Mitt Romney recalled in his address, his father was able to remind people that he had marched with Martin Luther King Jr. (through upscale Grosse Pointe, Mich., in support of open-housing legislation).
Problem is, it’s not true. None of it. As the Phoenix’s David Bernstein reveals (see also update here) in some superb digging, George Romney never marched “with” — i.e., in the presence of, at the same place at the same time — Martin Luther King, Jr.
Here’s Bernstein, who in addition to calling out Romney, calls out Broder:
[W]hile the late George W. Romney, a four-term governor of Michigan, can lay claim to a strong record on civil rights, the Phoenix can find no evidence that the senior Romney actually marched with King, nor anything in the public record suggesting that he ever claimed to do so. Nor did Mitt Romney ever previously claim that this took place, until long after his father passed away in 1995 – not even when defending accusations of the Mormon church’s discriminatory past during his 1994 Senate campaign.Asked about the specifics of George Romney’s march with MLK, Mitt Romney’s campaign told the Phoenix that it took place in Grosse Pointe, Michigan. That jibes with the description proffered by David S. Broder in a Washington Post column written days after Mitt’s College Station speech.
Broder, in that column, references a 1967 book he co-authored on the Republican Party, which included a chapter on George Romney. It includes a one-line statement that the senior Romney “has marched with Martin Luther King through the exclusive Grosse Pointe suburb of Detroit.”
But that account is incorrect. King never marched in Grosse Pointe, according to the Grosse Pointe Historical Society, and had not appeared in the town at all at the time the Broder book was published. “I’m quite certain of that,” says Suzy Berschback, curator of the Grosse Pointe Historical Society. (B[ro]der was not immediately available for comment.)
Faced with the unfortunate reality that Mitt was making things up, his campaign has retreated into a hilarious Humpty-Dumptyism about what it means to “march with” someone. You see, it doesn’t mean that you were actually there. It means that, well, you participated in a march about a related topic on a different day, and maybe you thought about the guy while you were doing it.
Mitt, in other words, was “speaking figuratively, not literally.”
[Emphasis Added]
This is just ridiculous. Romney has been lying and flip-flopping since day 1 of his campaign, but this more than takes the cake. What sense does it make to diffuse criticism that the Mormon church is racist by making up a story about his father marching with Martin Luther King, even though such a claim is blatantly untrue and can be proven false relatively easily? And what kind of truth-bending hair-splitting parsing is it to say that his father marched “figuratively” with King? How does one figuratively march with someone?
Seriously, is this is the best the GOP can do? A flip-flopping serially-exaggerating Governor of Massachusetts, the scandal-prone law-bending cross-dressing Mayor of New York City, and the corrupt, incompetent, vindictive, radical fundamentalist Arkansas Governor with exceptionally poor judgment and Ron Paul? Seriously?
Conservatives don’t seem to understand that the Republican Party is at a historic crossroads. They have the chance to leave their Reagan-Bush era baggage behind and redefine what it means to be a conservative. They can ditch the burden of the Bush years by nominating a visionary candidate who will lead their party into the future, undoing the damage they caused and improving the lives of millions of Americans.
Instead, the GOP nominates a field full of faceless cookie-cutter Republicans; a field full of liars, exaggerators, incompetents, radicals, extremists and others who are completely unfit to be America’s next President. Romney’s latest fabrication shows just how poor the Republican field is, and just how desperate the GOP has become.
UPDATE: Daily Kos has this supposed clarification from the Romney campaign:
A spokesperson for Mitt Romney now tells the Phoenix that George W. Romney and Martin Luther King Jr. marched together in June, 1963 — although possibly not on the same day or in the same city.
[Emphasis Added]
Again, how can you and someone else march together if you’re not in the same city or even doing it on the same day? Doesn’t that contradict the meaning of “together?” Do we even need to discuss this?
Romney’s in serious trouble. He’s been losing momentum for weeks, and this latest incident shows just how much of a slick used car salesman he is–willing to say anything, anything at all, just to get you on his side. This man should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. Period.
UPDATE II: More from The Huffington Post’s Chris Kelly:
Although they never marched together, they did march separately. In that they were both in Michigan and ambulatory at the same time. And, by “the same time,” I mean “different times.”
Except, if you read the Phoenix story, George Romney didn’t actually “march” anywhere. But he was present at an event. Where King was not.
And Mitt never “saw” it, because he was doing missionary work in France.
WHAT MITT MEANT:
We can all agree that George Romney and Martin Luther King were both alive in June, 1963.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Breaking, Conservatives, Government, House, Progressives, Senate | Tags: 2008, Campaigns, Candidates, DCCC, DSCC, Elections, Fundraising, House, NRCC, NRSC, Obstructionism, Roadblock Republicans, Senate
In the 2008 fundrace, the Democratic committees are beating the Republican committees by a huge margin.
First, let’s look at the DCCC:
- For the first time in at least two decades, the DCCC has out-raised the NRCC, and by the sizeable margin of $56.6 million to $40.7 million.
- The freshmen Democrats, many of them elected from normally GOP constituencies in 2006 and thus potentially vulnerable, have been doing particularly well in fundraising.
- Out of 23 open seats for 2008–places where the incumbent member of Congress has decided to step down–nearly three-quarters (17) are held by Republicans… As of now, not a single retiring Democrat is leaving a seat easily subject to a takeover bid by a Republican, while at least seven GOP seats are clearly vulnerable and comprise our TOSS-UP category for the moment.
Ouch. Democrats have a solid freshman class and a $16 million advantage, while Republicans will have to defend a lot of vacancies with little money.
Now, let’s look at the DSCC:
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee continues to hold a strong cash advantage over their Republican counterparts, Roll Call reports, and it’s only getting bigger.
The DSCC raised $4.1 million and spent $2.1 million for the month of November, and has $25.5 million cash on hand. The National Republican Senatorial Committee, on the other hand, only brought in $2.3 million and spent $1.4 million, and has $10.4 million on hand.
So, Senate Democrats have a $15 million advantage over their Republican counterparts. In addition, out of the 35 seats up for re-election next year, 23 of them are Republican, including 6 retirements–this means that the NRSC will have to spread their meager cash extremely thin or risk losing a significant number of seats.
There’s some consolation here, though–Senate Republicans have broken one important record:
The Republican Senate minority today filibustered an omnibus budget bill, setting a modern-day record for blocking the most legislation during a congressional session. A new report released today by the Campaign for America’s Future details the 62 times conservatives have used the filibuster to block legislation (or force modification of bills) in the first session of the 110th Congress. In just the first year of this two-year Congress, their use of the filibuster in the Senate topped the previous record, reached during the entire 107th Congress.
[Emphasis Added]
In fact, the Roadblock Republicans are on track to use 134 filibusters in two years, more than doubling the previous record.
So congratulations, GOP. You have almost no money and plenty of seats to defend, your members in Congress are deserting you like rats from a sinking ship, and your legislative strategy consists of obstructing as much of the people’s business as possible. You’re both unpopular and ineffective–with less than a year left until the 2008 elections, you’re not even close to improving your destroyed image in the minds of the voters.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Breaking, Conservatives, Government, House, Immigration, Race | Tags: 2004, 2006, 2008, Campaigns, Candidates, Colorado, Elections, Hispanics, Immigration, Radicalism, Tom Tancredo
Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, whose forceful opposition to illegal immigration vaulted him to national prominence, plans to announce he is abandoning his long-shot bid for the presidency, a person close to Tancredo said Wednesday.
The five-term Colorado congressman planned to make the announcement at a news conference in Des Moines, Iowa, on Thursday, the person said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for Tancredo or his campaign.
Tancredo’s campaign would only say he planned a “major announcement” Thursday.
Tancredo has consistently polled at the back of the nine-person GOP field.
Tancredo was little more than a gimmick, an extremist single-issue candidate who failed to get more than 2% of the vote at any time. In fact, if you look at his numbers, you can see that his support flatlined somewhere in the 1-2% range.
In that regard, Jonathan Singer brings up some good points:
If the Republicans were so smart to center their campaigns on anti-illegal immigration screeds during the 2005 gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia, then why did they lose both contests? If the Republicans were so smart to focus on immigration during the 2006 midterms, how come they lost their majorities in both chambers of Congress and seats in races in which a hard right, anti-immigrant Republican went up against a Democrat moderate on the issue? If the Republicans were so smart to center their campaign to hold the Virginia legislature this past fall on immigration, why did they lose the lower chamber? And if Tom Tancredo was so smart to run a presidential campaign on the immigration issue, why is he dropping out in ignominy?
[...]
Tancredo may have had some successes in convincing his Republican brethren, both within the Congress and within the presidential field, to follow him off the cliff on this issue. Along these lines, Tancredo has been remarkably able at helping make his party unelectable in a lot of areas of the country (and perhaps across the country as a whole — we’ll have to wait til next fall to see if that is true). But aside from this, he has no success, whatsoever. Hard line immigration legislation isn’t likely going to pass any time soon, and the Tancredo brand of anti-immigration rhetoric has only yielded more deadlock on Capitol Hill — deadlock that has allowed the flow of unlawful entry into the United States. So congrats Mr. Tancredo. Your political career has been really fruitful.
The GOP seems to be banking on using immigration to propel themselves back into the majority, but they’re just spinning their wheels. Anti-immigrant sentiment has played a significant role in a number of Republican defeats in recent years. And now, a GOP presidential candidate who has based his entire candidacy on opposition to illegal immigration stagnated at the bottom of the pack, raising pathetic amounts of money and basically just showing up to the debates.
Considering that Hispanics are the fastest-growing group in the United States, the GOP is shooting themselves in the foot every time they pull their nativist rhetoric out of the closet. Between 2004 and 2006, the Democratic Party’s share of the Hispanic vote increased by a whopping 16%, playing a huge role in our midterm victory. A few election cycles from now, the Hispanic population of the United States will be so large–and (hopefully) so attached to the Democratic party–that a lot of red states could turn into swing states or even blue states.
If anything, Tancredo has proven that–while immigration is on America’s political radar–his particular take on it isn’t. While he may try to parlay his failed Presidential run into a future campaign, his radical anti-immigrant stance will only continue to hurt his party. Will the GOP wizen up and ditch radicals like him, or will they contribute to their own marginalization by welcoming Tancredo with open arms?
Only time will tell…
Filed under: 2008 Election, Breaking, Conservatives, Corruption, Government, House, International, Iraq, Progressives, Race, Scandal, Senate | Tags: 2008, Budget, Campaigns, Candidates, Democrats, Election, George W. Bush, Harry Reid, Iraq, John McCain, Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney, Moqtada Al-Sadr, Recess Appointments, Republicans, Ron Paul, Spending
Here are some bite-sized bits of news from around the web:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that he will prevent President Bush from making controversial recess appointments over the winter holiday. Good for him–Bush brought this on himself by nominating outside-the-mainstream right-wing radicals to crucial government posts. The fact that Bush has to shoehorn these guys into office through recess appointments because they’d never get confirmed is disqualifying in and of itself. Give ‘em hell, Harry!
From the Department of Tell Me Something I Don’t Know: Mitch McConnell doesn’t have any faith that he’ll become Majority leader come January, 2009:
“There’s no question that if you just look at the numbers, we have a daunting task,” McConnell said at a Wednesday news conference on the eve of the year-end congressional adjournment. “I think the chances of you all calling me the majority leader a year from now are rather slim because of the number situation.”
When the Republican leader in the Senate says the GOP is in trouble, then the GOP is in trouble–remember, these guys can never admit when they make mistakes. Now, you would think knowing that a bunch of Republican Senators are going to get fired soon would lead the GOP to abandon their hyperpartisanship and obstructionism, but I guess not. Maybe they’ll learn after their defeat…
Meanwhile, Republican Presidential longshot Ron Paul is keeping a campaign contribution from a white supremacist leader, claiming
“Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he’s wasted his money,” Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. “Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom.”
Hey, guys? Usually campaigns donate tainted money to charity–Megan Carpenter suggests the NAACP, the Anti-Defamation League or the Southern Poverty Law Center. They don’t usually pocket the money–a lot of people dislike a Presidential campaign being run on dirty money. Just saying…
Moving on, both Mitt Romney and John McCain are complaining about Time’s choice of Vladimir Putin as Person of the Year. From the horses’ mouths:
[Romney:] “He has squelched public dissent and free press. And to suggest that someone like that is the Man of the Year is really disgusting. I’m just appalled.”
[...]
[McCain:] “I noticed that Time Magazine made President Putin the Time Magazine ‘Man of the Year…I understand that probably, but my man of the year is one Gen. David Petraeus, our general who has brought success in Iraq.”
Keep in mind, Time’s Person of the Year is not an honor or an award–it’s supposed to acknowledge a person, group of people or thing that has had significant impact in the prior year. Putin certainly fits that criteria–consider his recent consolidation of power, forging of diplomatic ties with China and Iran, and his party’s resounding victory in Russia’s parliamentary elections.
Instead, they wanted David Petraeus. Yes, the White House political appointee who has presided over our mission in Iraq–which is currently wracked with violence, rampant sectarianism, a destroyed infrastructure and an ineffective , deeply-divided government. If you want the Person of the Year to go to the individual responsible for the recent reduction of violence in Iraq, then you should be lobbying for Moqtada Al-Sadr, not Dave Petraeus.
On that note, Congress just passed a bill dumping an additional $70 billion into Iraq, no strings attached. From CNN:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada, said Democrats would continue trying to bring an end to the conflict, and he warned that Bush was driving his GOP allies “over the cliff” by continuing the war.
“I hope this last year of his eight-year reign will be one where he will understand — and more importantly, the Republican senators will understand — that they’ve got to break away from this,” Reid said.
Rep. David Obey, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said Democrats “have tried every way known to man to bring this war to a conclusion.”
“I think it is clear that if the nation wants a change in direction with respect to this war, it has only two options,” said Obey, D-Wisconsin. “One is to elect more progressive voices in the United States Senate, and second is to elect a president who has a different set of priorities domestically and a different vision for America’s involvement in the Middle East — and especially in Iraq.”
Most Republicans repeatedly refused to break with the president. They pointed to reports of declining U.S. military and Iraqi civilian casualties since August as a sign that Bush’s commitment of nearly 30,000 additional troops to Baghdad and its surrounding province was bearing fruit.
“It’s an undeniable fact — or, should I say, an inconvenient truth — that things are getting better in Iraq, and I think the American people are noticing,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said Wednesday.
[Emphasis Added]
Shameful. I’m disappointed in the Democrats in Congress–you just gave over $400 billion to the Pentagon that had a provision allowing them to use that money to pay for the war. The White House threatened you and you collapsed. I know we need more Democrats, but I wish the Democrats we had would do more–all future funding needs to be tied to troop withdrawal, no excuses. It’s not too much to ask, and the American people are on your side
Also, note that Republicans are pointing to a reduction in violence since August. You know what else happened in August? Moqtada Al-Sadr announced a 6-month ceasefire for his Mahdi militia so that they could reorganize and strengthen themselves. Al-Sadr is intent on becoming a power player in Iraq, even if he has to carve out a place for himself by force. That ceasefire is up at the end of February–I wonder what the GOP would say if he decides to resume violence against U.S. troops again. If that were to happen, I think even David Petraeus wouldn’t be able to fix it…
And that’s the news for this evening.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Breaking, Government, Progressives, Senate | Tags: 2008, Campaigns, Candidates, Chris Dodd, Democrats, Elections, Filibuster, Harry Reid, Republicans, Roadblock Republicans, Senate
Rumor is that Dodd is considering challenging Reid. From Sam Stein at The Huffington Post:
As the political season reaches its Iowa caucus climax, momentum is building for Sen. Chris Dodd to parlay his presidential campaign into a bid to challenge Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV, for Majority Leader.
Almost all of the support for this effort now comes from the netroots, much of which favors such a move. But talk of Dodd making a run at the post has slowly crept into the corners of Capitol Hill as well. And in light of the Connecticut Democrat’s successful filibuster threat this week over granting immunity to telecommunications firms that conducted warrantless surveillance, some in the progressive community see the framework for a potential shakeup.
[...]
Still, a major obstacle for a Majority Leader Dodd remains: Senate Democrats are, by and large, happy with the work of Reid. Many note the difficulties in working with a one-vote majority and say he has done the best with the hand he was dealt. In the wake of an April 2007 Washington Post column that was highly critical of Reid’s leadership on Iraq, every single member of the Senate Democratic Caucus signed a letter to the paper, challenging its assertions.
“If it were to happen, the pressure would have to come from the outside,” said an aide to a prominent senator, not from Dodd’s office. “I haven’t heard of anyone being upset with Reid. There has been, in fact, an awful lot of support.”
“Dodd has tried for leadership positions before and he has lost races,” Jennifer Duffy, Senior Editor at the Cook Political Report, told the Huffington Post. “He is not going to just jump into this. I don’t think he will announce anything like that without counting noses first. And when he does, he might find that the votes aren’t there.”
Of course, if Dodd were to try once more for the Democrat’s top Senate job it would mean that his aspirations for the White House had met an unsuccessful end. Currently, his poll position in Iowa and New Hampshire leaves substantial room for improvement. But his name has been floated around as possible cabinet member. And his campaign insists that, even in the wake of the FISA victory, they have only the oval office on their minds.
In all likelihood, Dodd will not leave the primaries as the Democratic nominee. Still, he has decades of experience that nicely compliment his progressive spirit.
Personally, I don’t dislike Harry Reid. He has a difficult job–keeping his caucus together, placating both red state Democrats and blue state Democrats, all while trying to defeat the Roadblock Republican’s 60-vote standard. Reid has to tread carefully, pushing progressive change against the Republican perma-filibuster while trying not to lose moderate Democrats in the process. He has to pick his battles wisely since he’s swimming against the Senatorial tide, which leaves him with very few options. Considering the poor situation he’s found himself in, I think he’s done an admirable job.
Still, there are times I think Reid could do more. I understand the difficulties he faces, but I would like to see him stand up and slug it out with McConnell more often. Yes, there are red state Democrats he has to worry about protecting, but the GOP also has blue state Republicans that we should be bringing over to our side now and again. Sometimes Reid prefers to negotiate rather than fight, which is problematic since the GOP doesn’t negotiate–they demand, and too often Reid is willing to give them what they want. The American people want leadership, and I don’t think it would hurt to be more progressive–to show the people that we’re willing to stand up and fight for them, even when the going gets rough.
The biggest hurdle Dodd would face is the fact that Reid is highly-regarded by his colleagues–Reid would have to do a remarkably poor job for the caucus to boot him. Dodd’s situation is also complicated by the fact that he isn’t a member of the leadership, and that some Senators who are–such as Schumer and Durbin–also want to move up. Simply put, if Dodd wants the position he’ll have to do a lot of work in the next several months to prove himself.
No matter what, things should improve markedly come January, 2009. Though I doubt we’ll enter the 111th Congress with a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate, I’m confident we’ll grow our caucus by a few seats. Perhaps then the GOP will be more likely to negotiate, and perhaps then it will be easier to sway more vulnerable Republicans to our side. No matter what, we’ll need strong, visionary leadership, and I hope we have someone in charge who will provide it.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Breaking, Conservatives, House, Immigration, Race | Tags: 2008, Campaigns, Candidates, Election, Extremists, Fred Thompson, Immigration, Ken Salazar, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo
The rumor on the ground is that Rep. Tom Tancredo will be dropping out of the GOP Presidential race tomorrow. Marc Ambinder has more:
The scuttle is:
Rep. Tom Tancredo will drop out of the presidential race tomorrow and endorse either Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson…. neither of those candidates know who, just yet.
But the scuttle is probably wrong. Tancredo has been critical of all his opponents, and, given his issue’s saliency, he does not need to endorse. His party sounds like him, now, on immigration.
Tancredo is a one-note right-wing extremist–the only reason he’s running is to push the GOP to the far right on immigration. I’m not sure if he’ll drop out–it makes sense for him to stay in for as long as possible so he can continue pressuring the other candidates. Anyway, it’s so close to the primaries that it makes little sense to drop out now.
Then again, Tancredo could duck out to avoid a humiliating defeat in the primaries that would hurt his political future. He could parlay his Presidential run into a future candidacy–former GOP presidential candidate Jim Gilmore, for instance, is running for Senate in Virginia. This would make sense, considering that it’s rumored Tancredo is hoping to challenge Sen. Ken Salazar in 2010. Quitting now would give him a relatively high profile, a decent enough fundraising base and devoted (though not large) following, all of which could be of use to him in the future.
We’ll have to see what happens. His exit won’t really affect the dynamics of the GOP primary, but if the rumor’s true then I doubt this will be the last we’ll see of Tom Tancredo.
Filed under: Conservatives, Economics, Government, Iraq, Senate | Tags: Budget, Congress, Hypocrisy, Iraq, Republicans, Senate, Thad Cochran
Republican Senator Thad Cochran says:
What I do know is that Congress should never yield its right or its power to make annual spending decisions and include those decisions in the appropriations bill. Congress should not just leave it up to the executive branch…if Congress has to undergo vetoes of appropriations bills and make modifications of bills as a result, so be it.
Of course, none of that applies to Iraq. As far as Republicans are concerned, Congress has a right and a power to make budgetary decisions…except when the President demands funding for an open-ended war. Then Congress should just shut up and give the White House everything it wants unconditionally.
Hypocrisy abounds. Is there any doubt left that these guys have to go?
Filed under: 2008 Election, Breaking, Conservatives, House, Polls | Tags: 2008, Campaigns, Candidates, Elections, Fundraising, Republicans, Ron Paul
It’s starting to look like Ron Paul’s massive fundraising isn’t translating into grassroots support– according to Gallup, Paul’s national support among Republicans is 3%, which ties him with off-the-wall newcomer Alan Keys. More from Greg Mitchell:
While I agree that the media has been slow to cover Rep. Ron Paul’s fundraising success -– and I sympathize with his antiwar stance – the notion that the press is missing a true grassroots surge for Paul in the race for president is questionable. A new Gallup Poll out today shows that his support among Republicans nationally has actually dropped in the past month, from a paltry 5% to a pathetic 3%. This is after he did get more press and appeared in most of the TV debates. By the way, that 3% total now ties him with new entrant….the loony Alan Keyes.
And do any of the thousands who have donated money to Paul wonder when he will actually start spending a lot of it? He was getting 3% nationally in Gallup back in July, and hasn’t gained an inch since. Anyone else suspect he wants to bank some of it for unspecified future activities — such as an indy run?
[Emphasis Added]
The Ron Paul “Revolution” that his supporters trumpet is turning into an expensive flop. His massive fundraising events are simply stunts where his handful of hardcore followers dump huge amounts of money into his campaign. Do they know their money is going to waste? Are they aware that they’re not part of a pro-Paul grassroots groundswell? Do they understand that their candidate has little chance of being the GOP’s nominee?
Who knows. But this revelation raises a more important question–what will Ron Paul do when he loses the Republican primary? Will he go back to the House? Will he run as an independent? Will he back someone else? And what about his devoted–albeit small–core of followers? Will they disperse? Support someone else? Or will they goad Paul into mounting an inevitably-doomed independent bid?
Only time will tell. Paul’s campaign is an anomaly, but it’s not a popular anomaly. Though there is little certainty in politics, it’s nearly assured that Paul will not be carrying the GOP’s banner in 2008.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Breaking, Conservatives, Environment, Faith, Government, Governors, Media, Scandal | Tags: 2008, Bad Luck Huck, Campaigns, Candidates, Election, Environmentalism, Extremism, LGBT, Mike Huckabee, Pro-Choice, Radicalism, Republicans
Another news cycle, another embarrassing story for Mike Huckabee. This time, it’s a book he wrote in 1998 called Kids Who Kill. Some key excerpts:
Abortion, environmentalism, AIDS, pornography, drug abuse, and homosexual activism have fragmented and polarized our communities.
[...]
It is now difficult to keep track of the vast array of publicly endorsed and institutionally supported aberrations—from homosexuality and pedophilia to sadomasochism and necrophilia.
[...]
The legal commitment of ideological secularism to any and all of the fanatically twisted fringes of American culture—pornographers, gay activists, abortionists, and other professional liberationists—is a pathetically self-defeating crusade that has confused liberty with license.
[...]
Men who have rejected God and do not walk in faith are more often than not immoral, impure, and improvident (Gal. 5:19-21). They are prone to extreme and destructive behavior, indulging in perverse vices and dissipating sensuality (1 Cor. 6:9-10). And they—along with their families and loved ones—are thus driven over the brink of destruction (Prov. 23:21).
Blaming pro-choice Americans, LGBT rights activists and environmentalism for school violence? Lumping the LGBT community in with pedophiles and necrophiliacs? Asserting that religion is the only source of morality? I knew Huck was a right-wing extremist, but I had no idea he was this extreme.
Then again, this was pretty much the strategy of the conservative culture warriors of the ’90’s–take a bunch of people you don’t like, lump them all together, blame them for society’s ills and prescribe religion/Republicanism as a solution. I’m surprised that Huck–who is renowned by our political press for his “charm” and “authenticity”–would subscribe to this cookie-cutter right-wing boilerplate. Then again, with Huck, stuff like this is hardly surprising.
Another news cycle, another disturbing revelation about Bad Luck Huck. How long until the GOP realizes just how many skeletons there are in his closet? Or do they not even realize that this guy is a complete embarrassment, that it would be political suicide to hand their party over to him?
Personally, I’m wondering what tomorrow will bring…
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Economics, Environment, Faith, Government, House, Immigration, International, Race, Rights | Tags: 2008, Abortion, Campaigns, Candidates, Corporate Power, Elections, Environment, Immigration, Reactionaries, Reproductive Choice, Republicans, Ron Paul, The Oil Industry
Recently, Ron Paul broke the one-day fundraising record for a Republican Presidential candidate, raking in approximately $5.2 million dollars. Political Wire has more:
“Most of the donations were made over the Internet in what the supporters called a “money bomb” timed to coincide with the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. The last fund-raising blitz, which took in 40,000 donations, was timed to coincide with Guy Fawkes Day, which commemorates a British mercenary who tried unsuccessfully to kill King James I on Nov. 5, 1605.” The record take means Paul will likely lead his rivals for money raised during the fourth quarter.
Paul’s supporters will tell you to “Google Ron Paul;” in light of his recent fundriaising success, let’s give that a shot and see what he actually stands for–Orcinus has the definitive account, and it’s nothing less than appalling:
- Ron Paul wants to deny women control of their own reproductive systems–despite calling himself a libertarian, he doesn’t seem to mind government intrusion when it comes to abortion. (H.R.1095 H.R.777 H.R.1548 H.AMDT.1003 (A024) H.AMDT.380 (A022) H.AMDT.312 (A011) H.R.4984). Not only that, but Paul wants to eliminate the legal distinction between a zygote and a person (H.R.2597 H.R.1094 H.R.776 H.R.392).
- Paul wants to prevent the federal courts–or even federal precedent–for being used by those who have been discriminated against due to religious beliefs or sexual orientation. His bills would also prevent cross-state recognition of gay marriage (H.R.300 H.R.4379 H.R.5739 H.R.3893 H.R.1547 H.R.4922 H.R.5078). He also wants to limit the court system’s ability to hear abortion cases (H.R.1545 H.R.1546 H.R.2875 H.R.3400 H.R.3691 H.R.15169).
- Despite claiming to be a libertarian, Paul opposes allowing people to express their freedom of speech by burning the American flag (H.J.RES.80 H.J.RES.82).
- Ron Paul wants to repeal workplace safety and health legislation, including the Occupational Health and Safety Act (H.R.2310 H.R.13264). And so much for giving power to the people–he wants to make it easier to decertify labor unions (H.R.694). In addition, Paul also opposes the minimum wage (H.R.2962) and wants to destroy Social Security (H.R.2030 H.R.4604).
- Paul opposes pro-democracy voting reforms, even after the disastrous 2000 election (H.CON.RES.48 H.CON.RES.443). He also opposes the motor voter laws, which make it easier for people–particularly poorer people–to register to vote (H.R.2139).
- Ron Paul wants to gut anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation (H.R.1247 H.R.1789) and eliminate corporate oversight (H.R.1204). For someone who seems to support giving power to the people, the only people he wants to help are the already-powerful.
- Paul wants to repeal anti-discimination laws (H.R.3863 H.R.5842 H.R.4982), as well as eliminating birthright citizenship (H.J.RES.46 H.J.RES.42), which is in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
- Ron Paul wants to repeal or severely weaken environmental protection legislation (H.J.RES.104 H.R.3735 H.R.4423 H.R.2504 H.R.7079 H.R.724), as well as promoting offshore oil drilling, building more oil refineries and mining for coal on federal land (H.R.2415 H.R.4004 H.R.393 H.R.4639 H.R.5293 H.R.6936).
- Paul, who portrays himself as pro-peace, opposes dismantling ICBM silos in the United States (H.R.1665 H.R.3769) and supports keeping the U.S. out of the International Criminal Court (H.R.1154 H.AMDT.480 (A010) H.R.4169 H.CON.RES.23 H.RES.416). He has also tried to limit the impact of international law on the United States (H.J.RES.1028 H.J.RES.492 H.CON.RES.49 H.R.4118 H.R.1658), going as far as trying to withdraw America from the U.N. (H.R.1146 H.R.1146 H.AMDT.285 (A038) H.R.1146 H.AMDT.190 (A024) H.AMDT.191 (A025) H.R.1146 H.AMDT.306 (A006) H.R.1146 H.AMDT.138 (A010) H.R.1146 H.R.3890 H.R.3891 H.R.6358 H.R.14788). In addition, Paul supports withdrawing the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (H.J.RES.566) and wants to re-establish U.S. ’sovereignty’ over the Panama Canal (H.CON.RES.231 H.RES.1410 H.R.2522).
- Paul wants to weaken our education system by using federal power to interfere with state efforts to improve standards for teachers (H.R.966 H.R.1706 H.R.4653).
- Once again pandering to the powerful, Paul wants to reduce the tax burden of the wealthiest Americans, including those who inherited their fortunes. In addition, he wants to disproportionately burden the poor and working clas by imposing a flat tax (H.J.RES.23 H.J.RES.14 H.J.RES.15 H.J.RES.45 H.J.RES.81 H.J.RES.116 H.R.5484 H.R.2137 H.R.1664 H.J.RES.23 H.R.6352 H.R.4569 H.R.15619). Paul also wants to force us to pay our income tax every month, eliminating withholding (H.R.1364 H.R.4855).
- Paul also wants to abandon the dollar, creating 50 state currencies instead (H.R.2779 H.R.3931).
So, I Googled Ron Paul, and I found a record of conservative, pro-corporate, reactionary policies that are to the far right of even the Republican Party. And keep in mind that I didn’t include some of Paul’s crazier aspects, like his obsession with the gold standard or his desire to “protect” American troops from wearing the insignia of the U.N. or any “foreign states.”
I don’t know what his followers see in him, but it seems that they have been taken in by Paul’s campaign rhetoric, which doesn’t match his record in Congress at all. Personally, I wonder if they would support him so vehemently if they followed their own advice and Googled Ron Paul. Either that, or this country has far more deep-pocketed right-wing extremists than I thought.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Breaking, Conservatives, Economics, Government, Governors, Progressives, Rights, Scandal | Tags: 2004, 2008, Campaigns, Candidates, Democrats, Elections, Joe Lieberman, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ohio, Republicans, Rick Perry, Ronald Reagan, Texas, Voting
Here’s another round of news bites, bits and pieces of political news from across the web.
In 2004, thousands of Ohio voters were kept from voting in that year’s election. Ken Blackwell, Ohio’s Republican secretary of state, distributed the voting machines so that wealthy Republican suburbs had more than enough, while poorer Democratic inner-city areas were left with few machines and massive lines. At the end of the night, thousands of voters were turned away, some having waited on line for hours to cast their vote.
More than three years after that disastrous election, Ohio election officials have finally determined that their voting systems are fatally flawed:
All five voting systems used in Ohio, a state whose electoral votes narrowly swung two elections toward President Bush, have critical flaws that could undermine the integrity of the 2008 general election, a report commissioned by the state’s top elections official has found.
“It was worse than I anticipated,” the official, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, said of the report. “I had hoped that perhaps one system would test superior to the others.”
[...]
Ms. Brunner proposed replacing all of the state’s voting machines, including the touch-screen ones used in more than 50 of Ohio’s 88 counties. She wants all counties to use optical scan machines that read and electronically record paper ballots that are filled in manually by voters.
She called for legislation and financing to be in place by April so the new machines can be used in the presidential election next November. She said she could not estimate the cost of the changes.
It’s about time. A good number of our piecemeal voting systems need to be reformed, and hopefully this will be the first step in bring about some real change.
Moving on to the Presidential race, the Romney-Huckabee plutocrat-theocrat battle worsens, as Romney attacks Huck for criticizing Bush’s foreign policy, demanding that the former Arkansas Governor apologize to the President:
“But it’s very different to point out the mistakes that were made. The President’s pointed out the mistakes as well. And then to say the Bush administration, our President, is arrogant with a bunker mentality — that’s a completely different statement, for which Mike Huckabee owes the President an apology.”
Mitt Romney protects George Bush, which goes to show you that the plutocrats always protect their own. Of course, in response to criticism Huck flip-flops and backs down:
I didn’t say the President was arrogant. … I’ve said that the policies have been arrogant. … I’m the one who actually supported the President’s surge. I supported the Bush tax cuts, when Mr. Romney didn’t. I was with President Bush on gun control, when Mitt Romney wasn’t. I was with the President on the President’s pro-life position, when Mitt Romney wasn’t.
Still on the GOP side of the race, Joe Lieberman is going to endorse John McCain for President tomorrow:
Democratic and Republican sources say that Sen. Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut and fierce supporter of the war in Iraq, will formally endorse Sen. John McCain tomorrow in New Hampshire.
[...]
The move will heighten speculation that McCain might ask Lieberman to join his ticket.
[Emphasis Added]
I’m glad Lieberman is no longer a Democrat–he’s become an out-of-touch extremist.
Of course, this was expected–both Lieberman and McCain have always embraced George W. Bush’s war, so in that sense they’re ideologically identical. There’s also no doubt that Lieberman is eying the Vice Presidential slot, hoping to have another crack at getting into the White House. Fortunately for us–and unfortunately for them–the American people are sick of George Bush and his supporters, so I don’t think McCain-Lieberman will be going anywhere
To Connecticut’s Democrats: Thanks for giving this guy the boot. To the rest of Connecticut: You re-elected him, now you have to live with him. You really have to ask yourselves, would Ned Lamont have been this bad?
UPDATE: Texas Governor Rick Perry rewrites history:
“Rudy is a real fiscal conservative. He’s a bonafide Reagan Republican. George Bush isn’t and he never was,” Perry said on the videotape.
The Governor extolled Giuliani’s conservative credentials. But at the expense of President Bush, who Perry characterized as too big a spender — even during his days in Texas.
“George Bush was spending money,” Perry told the gathering. “George has never ever been a fiscal conservative.”
Sorry, Rick, but the Republican Party aren’t fiscal conservatives anymore–they gave up any claim to that title as soon as they got us into Iraq and dumped huge amounts of money into the federal bureaucracy. There may still be a few holdouts or posers like Rick out there, but the GOP’s leaders have shown that they could care less about spending the people’s money well.
And another thing, Rick–Reagan wasn’t a fiscal conservative, either. Remember, he tripled the national debt in just eight short years.
The Republican attempt to rewrite history is appalling and shameless. A few years ago they were touting George W. Bush as the second coming of Reagan, embodying everything the Republican Party believed in. Now that his approval is in the toilet, though, they’re trying to portray him as some kind of liberal Sorry, guys, but you elected him–he’ll be part of your legacy forever.
Finally, even with Two-Buck Huck’s surge, the GOP still hates their candidates:
A New York Times/CBS News poll last week found that none of the Republican candidates — not even the suddenly hot Mr. Huckabee — was viewed favorably by even half of Republican voters. [...]
[W]hat is worrying Republicans these days is that this tepid rank-and-file reception to the best the party has to offer suggests that the Republican Party is hitting a wall after dominating American politics for most of the last 35 years. Republican voters are reacting to — or rather, not reacting to — a field of presidential candidates who have defined their candidacies with familiar, even musty, Republican promises, slogans and policies. [...]
Richard Lowry, the editor of the conservative magazine National Review, said the field “has been less than the sum of its parts.”
To quantify this a bit, Richard Bond, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, noted data that showed a 17-point “intensity gap” between the Republicans and the Democrats looking ahead to the ‘08 campaign. “That is a monster number,” Bond said. “It shows that the Republicans are not fired up and it’s going to take a nominee who can clearly articulate a post-Bush vision for the country.”
To be sure, this could change once there’s a Democratic nominee Republicans can rally in opposition to. But what does it say about the modern Republican Party that they need a Dem to save their electoral chances?
In other words, the GOP is planning on picking one of their unimpressive candidates and then vilifying the Democrat, hoping to whip up just enough tepid support to keep their foot in the White House door. It’s a pretty poor strategy–in fact, that was basically the Democratic strategy in 2004–and I doubt it will get them anywhere. But don’t tell them that.
And that’s News Bites for this Sunday. Enjoy the rest of your weekend, and I’ll see you tomorrow.
Filed under: 2008 Election, Conservatives, Economics, Faith, Government, Immigration | Tags: 2008, Campaigns, Candidates, Christan Right, Elections, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Paul Waldman, Plutocrats, Republicans, Theocrats
Or, as Paul Waldman calls it, The Plutocrats v. The Theocrats:
After months of tedium and mindless chest-thumping, the race for the Republican presidential nomination finally got interesting over the last couple of weeks. And the way it did so highlights the fundamental rift threatening the future of the GOP: the divide between the party’s corporate/anti-tax wing, which includes the people who write the checks, and its social conservative wing, which includes the people who get bodies to the polls. It’s the plutocrats versus the theocrats, and at the moment it’s hard to tell who’s going to win.
[...]
And the plutocrats had such high hopes for Romney, who is truly one of their own: to the American aristocracy born (his father was a corporate CEO and Michigan governor) and with a successful career in business, Romney gives the sense that he plans out his breakfast with a Powerpoint presentation. (”Today’s waffles will proactively impact forward-oriented goal actualization while incentivizing value-added synergisms. And there will be syrup.”)
The plutocrats couldn’t care less whether Romney’s recent conversion to hard-right social conservatism was sincere. He can blather on all he wants about activist judges and border fences; what’s important to them is the tax code, whether the National Labor Relations Board keeps its Bush-era affection for union-busting, and whether agencies like OSHA and the FDA remain regulatory panda bears, lolling about in the grass munching bamboo without worrying their little heads about the safety of workers and consumers. When it comes to these matters, the plutocrats know Romney is their guy.
But they don’t quite trust Huckabee, who, as Sarah Posner has noted, has shown troubling flashes of sympathy for ordinary people and had a mixed record in Arkansas, both raising and cutting taxes at various times. Perhaps in order to appear more of an anti-tax fundamentalist, Huckabee is advocating eliminating all current federal taxes in favor of a national sales tax, an idea so ludicrous no one bothers to debate it.
But as of yet, Huckabee has not pledged allegiance to the de rigueur Republican tax fantasy that cutting taxes ultimately leads to an increase in revenues. Rudy Giuliani has climbed aboard this express train to Stupidville, saying in a recent television ad, “I know that reducing taxes produces more revenues. Democrats don’t know that, they don’t believe that.”
[...]
These voters [the theocrats] are less than entirely pleased with what they’ve gotten from all their hard work over the last few elections. Every two years, they’re promised that if they work their little hearts out, they’ll finally get those constitutional amendments banning abortion and putting the gays in their place. But even George W. Bush, who worked harder to convince the religious right that he was their man more than any GOP nominee ever has, didn’t power up the time machine and take us all back to the bliss of the 1950s. But he worked hard for those tax cuts — you bet your life he did. The plutocrats got showered with riches, and the theocrats got lines from hymns dropped into speeches. As Bush himself famously said, “Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — can’t get fooled again.”
[Emphsais Added]
And, thus is the nature of the Romney-Huckabee battle, and thus is the nature of the crumbling conservative coalition.
The Republican party relies on the Christian right as footsoldiers–they carry the Party’s message out to rural America, they preach GOP gospel from the pulpits, and on election day they turn out to the polls in large enough numbers to get Republicans elected.
But, in the end, the Christian right gets a lot of talk and nearly no action in return. Why? Because the GOP cares more about money than ideology. Sure, they’ll pander to the wants and needs of the Christian right, but when it comes down to it they spend their political capital on tax cuts for their wealthy buddies, Wall-Street-pleasing Social Security privatization, free trade, and other giveaways to the top 1% (of which the theocrats are usually not members).
Look at recent years–the GOP controlled all three branches of government, yet they never gave the Christian right their day in the sun. Abortion is still legal, and it’s likely to stay legal for a long time. There was no constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and the 2004 state-level gay marriage bans will eventually be overturned. Immigration reform will not happen without a path to citizenship, and so on.
Simply put, the theocrats have been lied to. Year after year, the GOP promises them the world, yet once in office they stab them in the back and spend their time stuffing their pockets. Unfortunately for the Republican Party, the Christian right is quickly learning that they aren’t part of that group of friends, and that the GOP has taken advantage of them for far too long. The Christian right is revolting, hoping to exact revenge against the faux-conservative plutocrats who have taken advantage of them for so long.
The Republicans have created a monster that they can no longer control. The Christian conservative footsoldiers have stopped listening to their plutocratic masters and are bucking the party orthodoxy–they’re determined to make Mike Huckabee their candidate, much to the chagrin of the moneyed Romney campaign. And while plutocratic money can certainly get people out to the polls, it’s not nearly as effective as theocratic zealotry.
The plutocrats are afraid. They’re worried that Huck–who couldn’t care less about stuffing their pockets, but who really does care about Armageddon and the end times–will become the standard-bearer of their party. What will they do? What can they do? Will they support him? Will they abandon him? Will they find someone else?
In the end, there is poetic justice in this–the Republican Party, which has become dependent on the dogmatism of the Christian right, is now being consumed by that same burning zealotry. Will the GOP be able to survive a revolt by the monster that the Party believed–in all hubris–they could control forever?
Filed under: 2008 Election, Breaking, Conservatives, Corruption, Faith, Governors, Iraq, Scandal | Tags: 2008, Arkansas, Campaigns, Candidates, Corruption, Democrats, Ed Rollins, Elections, George W. Bush, Mike Huckabee, Republicans, Two-Buck Huck
As time goes on, story after story comes out that gives us more and more reasons to dislike Mike Huckabee.
In June 1998, the Southern Baptist convention amended its official statement of beliefs for the first time in 35 years to declare that “a wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband.” And Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist minister then serving as governor of Arkansas, signed a full-page ad in USA Today in support of the statement (along with 129 other evangelical leaders).
But wait, there’s more:
Mike Huckabee criticizes the Bush administration for having an “arrogant bunker mentality” that “has been counterproductive at home and abroad.” Nevertheless, Huckabee — who supports the war in Iraq — said he would “not withdraw troops from Iraq any faster than Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander there, recommends.”
And we’re not through yet:
Today, former governor Mike Huckabee (R-AK) announced Ed Rollins as his new campaign chairman. In 1993, Rollins chaired the successful campaign of Christinie Todd Whitman in the New Jersey gubernatorial race, where he paid black leaders to not speak out for opponent Jim Florio:
“We went into black churches and we basically said to ministers who had endorsed Florio, ‘Do you have a special project?’ And they said, “We’ve already endorsed Florio,” Mr. Rollins said. “We said, ‘That’s fine. Don’t get up on the pulpit Sunday and say it’s your moral obligation that you go on Tuesday to vote for Jim Florio.’”
Mr. Rollins said the campaign used a more direct approach to persuade some Democratic political workers to stay home on Election Day. “We said to some of their key workers, ‘How much have they paid you to do your normal duty?’ ” he said. “Well, we’ll match it. Go home, sit and watch television.”
Are you kidding me?
This is the man the GOP wants to be the next President of the United States? This guy represents the absolute worst of the Bush administration–the extremism, dogmatism, corruption, arrogance. A Huckabee presidency would be just as bad–if nor worse–than the Bush presidency.
So much has come to light that hurts Huckabee, it’s hard to even keep it all straight. Corruption as Governor of Arkansas? Wayne DuMond? Quarantining AIDS patients? Ignoring the NIE? Religious extremism? Demanding wives submit to their husbands? Wanting to stay in Iraq? Shacking up with racist anti-black activists? Where will this list end? How much will it take for the GOP to realize that Huck wasn’t even qualified to be Governor of Arkansas, and he’s certainly not qualified to be our next President?
It just goes on and on and on. Then again, let the GOP nominate Two-Buck Huck; it’ll just make it that much easier for the Democrats to win next November.
UPDATE: Another news cycle, another unpleasant revelation about Huck:
Questions are being raised about then-Gov. Huckabee’s 2004 decision to grant clemency to a repeat Driving While Intoxicated offender in Arkansas named Eugene Fields, despite the objections of a law enforcement official at the time. Documents obtained by NBC News reveal Fields’ case was handled differently from any other DWI clemency or pardon granted by Huckabee, and some Republicans are now suggesting significant political contributions may have influenced the governor’s decision.
Cash-for-clemency? Tell me again how this guy is supposed to be the epitome of honesty and morality?
More from, of all people, George Will:
“Huckabee, this week it was learned that he gave more clemencies, one every four days, to convicted criminals in Arkansas – more than the three preceding governors combined, included Bill Clinton.”
Filed under: 2008 Election, Breaking, Conservatives, Government, Governors, House, Polls, Progressives, Senate | Tags: 2008, 2009, Andrew Horne, Bob Schaffer, Campaigns, Candidates, Colorado, Congress, Creigh Deeds, Democrats, Elections, Governors, House, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mark Udall, Mark Warner, Mary Landrieu, Mitch McConnell, Polls, Republicans, Roadblock Republicans, Senate, Tim Kaine, Virginia
In Virginia, Democrat Creigh Deeds–who ran unsuccessfully for Attorney General in 2005–announced his intention to succeed Tim Kaine as the next Governor of Virginia:
Dear Friends,
Under the leadership of Governors Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, we have experienced significant progress in the last few years. Because of their optimistic, commonsense approach to solving problems, we have all been proud to call Virginia our home. Today I?m announcing my campaign for Governor to continue that tradition of moving Virginia forward.
Please visit my new website at www.DeedsforVirginia.com to view my announcement video and join my campaign.
The election for Governor in 2009 will offer every Virginian a choice: do we continue and build upon the work of Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, or do we chart a different course that embraces the attack politics and policies of George W. Bush?s wing of the Republican Party?
I believe that Warner-Kaine approach is the better way to keep Virginia the best place to live, work and raise a family. And, that better way is how I will lead us forward if given the privilege to serve as your next Governor. For me, it?s about creating opportunity in every corner of Virginia: building a modern transportation system that moves our state and our economy forward, creating a research-based economy that develops new sources of alternative energy by investing in our colleges and universities, and retooling our community college system so we can train for the jobs of the 21st century.
I invite you to please join me.
After two wildly successful Democratic Governors–Mark Warner and Tim Kaine–Virginia should keep their tradition of electing common-sense Democrats to their highest office.
Meanwhile, in Kentucky, Lieutenant Colonel Andrew Horne–who served in the Persian Gulf war and the Iraq war–has announced his intention to take on Mitch McConnell:
I am a husband, father, attorney, U.S. Marine, small business owner and citizen of this great Commonwealth.
America was built on the idea of making and leaving a better place for our children and grandchildren. President Bush and Senator Mitch McConnell have not kept this promise.
A misguided war and record deficits are crippling our future.
Washington is broken and our Senator, Mitch McConnell, is fully complicit in this culture of corruption. He works against Kentucky’s interests and rewards his big money donors with his votes…big business, large insurance companies and lobbyist friends. Our jobs are being outsourced, McConnell shows no leadership on immigration, and instead works for his friends in China.
McConnell has turned his back on students and their families as college tuition skyrockets.
It is time we fight back.
I offer trustworthy, competent and genuine leadership. I am not a Politician.
I’ve served this Country and this Commonwealth with the Marines for 27 years, and I am a Veteran of both Gulf Wars.
Together we can make a difference.
I am Andrew Horne. I am running for Senate.
I respectfully ask for your support.
Semper Fi
McConnell’s practically an institution in Kentucky, renowned for his prolific fundraising. Yet, his support for President Bush and his obstructionism have softened his support, leaving him vulnerable. After watching Senator McConnell turn into the head of the Roadblock Republicans, perhaps the people of Kentucky would rather have a no-nonsense Marine representing them.
In Louisiana, SurveyUSA shows Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu beating newly-minted Republican John N. Kennedy 46% to 42%. Those numbers aren’t very heartening for an incumbent Senator, but it shows that this race isn’t nearly as close–or as hopeless–as some assumed. Plus, Landrieu has the benefit of running against Flip-Floppin’ John, a blatant opportunist who changed his lifelong party affiliation just to have a crack at becoming Senator. Personally, I wonder if–after the disastrous Bush years–the people of Louisiana want to continue that legacy of naked politicking.
Finally, in Colorado, a recent poll has Democrat Mark Udall beating Republican Bob Schaffer by 2%. In addition, it shows that Udall’s support is far more solid than Schaffer’s:
Udall’s lead broadens among women and unaffiliated voters, who favor Udall by 11 and 10 percentage points respectively.
The poll shows Udall has broad support from the Democratic base (78 percent), but Schaffer may be having some trouble uniting Republican voters, particularly women, only 62 percent of whom say they will support him.
“Schaffer seems to have some soft spots with his base,” Mehringer said. “Whereas Udall has firmed up his base and is able to focus more on independent voters.”
Udall holds a 17 percentage point lead in his own congressional district. But more curiously, Udall is only trailing Schaffer by 2 percentage points in Tancredo’s heavily Republican sixth district.
“(This poll) is consistent with other polling that shows Udall is strong among Republican and unaffiliated voters, particularly in areas that are not traditionally Democratic areas,” said Mike Melanson, spokesman for Udall. “This is going to be a close race. … We’ll win the race, but only by a few points.”
Overall, this is all good news for Democrats–we have a bunch of strong candidates running in various states on various levels. Our party has recruited some of the best and brightest to challenge the worst of the GOP–hopefully, 2008 will be the beginning of a beautiful new day here in Washington, and beyond.
On The Web:
UPDATED: Mike Moore, the popular former Attorney General of Mississippi, has announced that he will not run for Trent Lott’s open Senate seat:
I met with the leadership in the U.S. Senate while I was in town and talked with many of my friends, former attorneys general who serve their states well as U.S. Senators. The message was clear – the job of Senator is important and fulfilling; the polls show I could win; and I would have the money I needed to win the race. It all just came down to whether it was best for me and my family. The truth is I made my decision four years ago, and it has been a good one for my family and me. In the last four years I made every baseball game Kyle had, Tisha and I have had much more family time, and I have been fortunate in my law practice.
…
The point is I am happy doing what I am doing, my family is happy, and I look forward to making a big difference in my state and nation. I have seriously considered the U.S. Senate vacancy as my friends urged me to do, but I have always known that what I am doing now is good enough for me. I appreciate all the encouragement to run.
This is a huge disappointment–Moore is one of the most popular Democrats in the state, and he had a great shot at picking up this Senate seat.
Fortunately, former Democratic Governor Ronnie Musgrove is now rumored to be interested in running–though not as popular as Moore, he could still make this race a competitive one.
Stay tuned.
Filed under: Conservatives, Government, House, International, Iraq, Senate, Terrorism | Tags: Congress, House, Intelligence, Iran, John Ensign, NIE, Politicization, Politics, Republicans, Senate
Some Republicans are so unhappy with the NIE that they want a do-over:
Some Republicans in Congress are second-guessing a government intelligence report that Iran has abandoned its nuclear weapons program. They want a second opinion.
The National Intelligence Estimate, released last week, concludes Iran halted its weapons development program in 2003 and that the program remained frozen through at least the middle of this year. That reversed a key finding from a 2005 intelligence report, which said Iran was intently developing a nuclear bomb. An unclassified summary of the new report was released specifically to correct that impression.
The new report was received skeptically by some Republicans on Capitol Hill who believe Iran’s nuclear program remains an immediate threat, and think the 2005 report is closer to the truth.
Republican Sen. John Ensign of Nevada plans to introduce legislation to create a bipartisan commission to produce an alternative report on the same intelligence.
[...]
Principal Deputy Director of Intelligence Donald Kerr issued a statement responding to “those questioning the analytic work and integrity” of the intelligence agencies. “We feel confident in our analytic tradecraft and resulting analysis in this estimate,” he said.
And on Wednesday, a senior intelligence official told reporters that intelligence analysts are aware of the political tumult surrounding the report but don’t worry about the political repercussions of their judgments. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was expanding on the official rebuttal.
Analysts focus on making certain their reports are sound, logical and based on reliable information, he said.
He contrasted the Iran National Intelligence Estimate with the flawed 2002 assessment of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program. That report was produced at the request of the Senate Intelligence Committee in just a month.
The Iran report was delayed by the intelligence agencies by more than a year and a half in order to review new intelligence and to take extra care to verify sources and consider alternative explanations for what analysts were seeing, he said.
[Emphasis Added]
So, Republicans are going to ignore the consensus of America’s 16 intelligence-gathering agencies, representing two years worth of rigorous work, for no other reason than they don’t like what it says.
Reality isn’t subjective–it can’t be bent to the GOP’s political will. I know that they’ve become infamous in recent years for politicizing things that should never be political–the Department of Justice, the General Services Administration, the Surgeon General, Christmas–but intelligence-gathering and national security should be kept far, far away from politics.
And, apparently, John Ensign’s spokesman doesn’t know the definition of the word “irony:”
“We just see politics injected into this,” said Tory Mazzola, Ensign’s spokesman. “When it comes to national security we really need to remove politics. We’re saying, let’s take a second look.”
Let me get this straight. To keep politics away from national security, Congress–a political body–is going to create a bipartisan panel of politicians from both political parties to second-guess the conclusions of nonpartisan, nonpolitical intelligence agencies. And remember, “bipartisan” doesn’t mean “nonpartisan”–this commission will be inherently political, staffed with people who have political ideologies and political agendas, who will be focused on creating a report that will be politically marketable.
So, why don’t we drop this nonsense and keep politics out of the intelligence process. Last time politics got involved, we ended up launching a war in Iraq–the last thing we need history to repeat itself with Iran. This is not a political issue, it should not become a political issue, and we should keep the Republicans in Congress from making it a political issue.
(Title quote from Adam Savage)
