Hard News: Some Politics
129 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
But Clinton's record is interesting. She scraped in in her first senatorial race...
55% over 43% isn't really scraped in.
-
Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but everyone knows that there is this thing called the electoral college, that for better or worse is used to decide elections.
And Gore did lose Florida by about 500 votes. After the election, a consortium of newspapaers including the NYT Miami Herald etc spent months counting and recounting the votes in Florida using various standards for counting hanging chads etc, and under most scenarios Bush won by a round the amount he was declared the winner on election night.
In the political and economic climate of 2000 against a candidate like Bush, Gore should have won easily. That he didn't shows what a lousy candidate he is, and a lot of Dems cant and wont forget that.
The attorney "scandal" is the biggest non-scandal, since the last famous non- scandal, Valerie Plame, the covert agent who wasn't. If she was covert Fitzgerld whould have had no choice but to put Richard Armitage behind bars, that he didn't tells you all you need to know about that so called scandal.
Dick Morris sums up the phoney attorney scandal nicely:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/the_phoniest_scandal_of_the_ce.html
-
The CIA seems to disagree with you on her covert state:
Plame's testimony on the covert nature of her job was buttressed by a statement that Waxman read at the hearing's opening which, he said, was approved by Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the CIA's director. The statement said that Plame worked in a covert capacity at the time of Novak's column and that her employment status was classified under an executive order.
.
And I'm willing to wait for a less partisan opinion on Gonzales than a Morris post on Real Clear Politics, although that such a swipe against Bush's White House is found on such a site is worth noting. It seems that nobody wants to put their hand up and rally for the prez these days. What's also notable is the number of Republicans out there now who are saying that AG should go.
In a sign of Mr Gonzales's loss of support among Republicans as well as Democrats, the senate voted overwhelmingly yesterday to end the Bush administration's power to appoint prosecutors on its own. The senate passed a bill by 94 to two that overturned a provision in the Patriot Act that gave Mr Bush the power.
And I wonder where those missing 16 days have gone....it may be a non scandal to you but it seems to be growing daily..I'd rather wait and see before making definitive judgements.
There are more opinions than actual voters on who won in Florida it seems. Certainly its pretty hard to state "Bush won by 500" with such certainty, as you do.
-
I would be careful about taking Waxman at face value. Here is an article by Robert Novak (who ought to know about the ins and outs of the whole sorry affair) on the subject of Plame's status.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/was_valerie_covert.html
While he was researching his original article that started the whole thing off, Novak called the CIA to ask about Plame. The CIA spokesman confirmed that Plame worked for the CIA to a journalist. Does that sound like covert status to you? I have a hard time getting there myself, but maybe that is just me.
Here is a Miami Herald article about their vote recount examination from April 2001. It is pretty clear who won Florida, and who didn't. Either way the whole thing was a ridiculous fiasco and an embarrassment to the US.
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/footnotes/2005/08/miami_herald_ap_1.html
The DOJ fuss is a non-scandal in the sense that the firings in question were perfectly legitimate. The positions in question are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President; they can be fired for any reason at anytime.
If Gonzales or his staff mislead the Congress then that is a problem that needs to be sorted out, I have no problem with that at all. If getting to the bottom of the issue and finding out why the attorneys were fired is all that the Dems wanted, then that could be easily sorted out.
But the Dems have been very open that there strategy for the next 2 years to fight the White House is, to quote Chucky Schumer, "subpoena after subpoena". They are going to try to bog the Administration down as much as they can. Also, the corruption/competence issue worked very well for the Dems in 2006 so it makes sense for them to keep pushing that issue at every chance, and of course they fantasize about getting Karl Rove's scalp.
Personally I think Gonzales and some of his staff should go (and Harriett Myers too, please!!) , but doing that would put blood in the water and only serve to encourage the Dems in their strategy, which is probably why Bush is resisting it. Being loyal to your staff is an important leadership trait, but Bush over does it to the detriment of his Administration and Repubs in general. If Bush had fired Rumsfeld before last year’s election, the Repubs would still hold the Senate.
The silver lining to this "scandal" is that now Bush won’t be able to nominate Gonzales to any Supreme Court vacancy, should one arise, and that is a good thing.
-
The DOJ fuss is a non-scandal in the sense that the firings in question were perfectly legitimate. The positions in question are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President; they can be fired for any reason at anytime.
The attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the president, so it's uncontroversial when people like Reagan and Clinton fire every single AG's and hire a bunch of party apparatchiks (although that strikes me as being a really bad way to run a government).
It is controversial when you selectively fire a bunch of AG's who are either investigating members of your party or have refused White House requests to investigate democrats. It's really controversial when you defend your decision by claiming you sacked them for performance reasons and it transpires that they were some of the highest rated AG's in the country.
But the Dems have been very open that there strategy for the next 2 years to fight the White House is, to quote Chucky Schumer, "subpoena after subpoena". They are going to try to bog the Administration down as much as they can.
Cough . . . the Gingrich Congress . . . Cough.
-
As far as the attorney "scandal" goes, here is an exerpt from the WaPo's editorial today.
".. The many e-mails that the administration has released for the most part suggest nothing nefarious in the dismissal process.
It would not be acceptable for Mr. Bush to fire the attorneys to short-circuit prosecutions of political corruption among Republicans. So far there's no evidence that he did .."
And that is the WaPo, hardly a member of the vast right wing conspiracy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/AR2007032101974.html
More from the editorial page of the WSJ
".. But no one should be under any illusions that their political sacrifice at the current moment would appease Democrats. Their real target is Karl Rove, and ultimately the crippling of the Bush Presidency"
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009818
Let's not be under any illusions to what is really going on here. At a stretch it may be fair to consider what is going on hardball politics as usual, but trying lay the ground work to try to set up a Presidential advisor in a perjury trap is not the noble pursuit of the truth.
-
sorry craig, just couldn't quite reconcile your statement that
ever since I've been involved the National Party has a clear policy that it doesn't run or endorse local body tickets
with the fact that
Nick Albrecht, the C&R campaign manager, works in [Maurice] Williamson’s electorate office
i guess you have a 'National' idea of what it means to 'run' something. but i guess that's just a vast left-wing conspiracy right, i'm sure we can't possibly prove that can we? good thing you've invoked the conspiracy line nice and early, it might help you to save some face, although references to Hodgson and King are a bit spurious. Is that meant to be a cunning segue to the DHB diversion?
Is that the one where King foolishly took the word of someone recommended by a National Party politician? -
Gore-Obama is just not going to happen. Gore has given enough indications that he is not running to make that a certainty. (If he does, look forward to a very nasty shootout with the Clinton gang).
The contest is between Clinton and Obama which from a liberal perspective is something to celebrate but it makes life a bit difficult for the Dems. What an ideal team it would be for Pres and VP - a woman and a black. The problem is voter appeal redundancy. Clinton will get the black vote without Obama. There is no need for her to have him on the ticket. She would seek someone to broaden her appeal.
One intriguing possibility is if Obama can get a significant amount of white conservative Christian votes to make him an asset. He's done very well at the few appearances he's made with that audience.
But looming in the background is Giuliani who poles show will beat them both. Which goes to show that disillusionment with Bush doesn't necessarily equate to success for the Dems, especially now that the Reps have lost their monoply on power.
-
What I'd really prefer is the damn Health Minister doing his job instead of playing hide and don't seek with the Opposition and media. Sorry for finding all the Parliamentary wankage tiresome, but there are people out there who need medical advice based on timely and accurate lab results.
Pete Hodgson's a vet, not a doctor.
And fronting up to the media and the opposition isn't going to get people their lab results and/or medical advice either. It's just going to end up on the news, and that's ego-boosting for both sides, and neither are lacking in that department.
-
If Clinton gets the Dem nomination then I suspect whoever the Republicans run will win - too many people hate her and not enough people like her, no matter how much money she raises.
If Obama is nominated then I think he will win no matter who he runs against. Giuliani beats him in the polls right now but I think he's unlikely to survive the scrutiny of a presidential campaign.
-
WH,
James,
Danyl was right when he said:
It is controversial when you selectively fire a bunch of AG's who are either investigating members of your party or have refused White House requests to investigate democrats. It's really controversial when you defend your decision by claiming you sacked them for performance reasons and it transpires that they were some of the highest rated AG's in the country.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-usattys19mar19,0,2790807.story?track=ntothtml
The corruption/competence issue worked very well for the Dems in 2006 so it makes sense for them to keep pushing that issue at every chance
This is not the mere political gimmick that you imply it is. Good governance involves more than just political theatre - the congressional and senatorial oversight committees exist for a purpose. I would have thought that few would remain unpersuaded of the need for better oversight of the current US Executive.
In the political and economic climate of 2000 against a candidate like Bush, Gore should have won easily. That he didn't shows what a lousy candidate he is, and a lot of Dems cant and wont forget that.
Bush would kill for Clinton's 2nd term approval ratings, but 2000 was a different time - "honour and integrity back to the White House" and "compassionate conservative" were still benign aspirations of a nice but dimwitted candidate. A lot of moderate people just thought it was time for a change, but I'd say most of them are regretting that now.
-
If Obama is nominated then I think he will win no matter who he runs against
Danyl, why so confident about Obama? I'm not closely following the race (yet) and I can see Obama's obvious appeal but I'm not so sure that that will be sufficient? I'd have thought, after 8 years of a very poor Republican administration, the Dems were more likely than not to win but I've figured that Edwards is the strongest candidate compared with Clinton and Obama. Interested in your, and others, views.
-
- too many people hate her and not enough people like her, no matter how much money she raises.
That's the line being taken by the more left-leaning activists in the Democrat party (and the Reps unsurprisingly) but that's just projection. They hate her. That's no indication of the electorate's opinion and the poles have consistently had Clinton out in front and she's at present extending that lead. The poles also show she will loose to Giuliani but not as badly as Obama.
Yes early days, I expect her to win against Giuliani, but don't put your faith in the wishful thinking of the anti-Clinton faction of the Dems. She's got by far the most powerful campaign organisation and really the Democrat activists are a small minority that just talk amongst themselves.
-
WH,
Sorry for the double up, but if anyone is interested in Gore's relationship with the media, the WaPo's Howard Kurtz included this quote today (it also covers some of the clips that Russell wrote about):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html
"-- From the perspective of Democrats, no politician has been more right, more often, on more important questions. On global warming, words that had a radical edge in 1992 -- and still do, to many conservative ears -- Gore wrote 'Earth in the Balance,' anticipating mainstream liberal rhetoric by a decade. Many Washington Democrats cringed at what they regarded as his shrill people-vs.-powerful 2000 convention speech, when he warned that a Bush presidency would favor special interests and the wealthy. They cringed even more in 2002 at what they regarded as Gore's naive warnings that the coming Iraq war was a disaster in waiting and a distraction from other fronts in the campaign against terrorism. But within a year or so of both speeches, most Democrats inside Washington and beyond essentially embraced Gore's argument and tone."
-
Ridley wrote:
Is that the one where King foolishly took the word of someone recommended by a National Party politician?Somehow, I don't think you're going to put the words clear conflict of interest in a letter if you're engaged in blatant cronyism.
As far as I can tell, even Tony Bierre's worse enemies grant that he was a more than competent clinician - something Hutchinson was happy to point out, considering they both worked at National Women's. Then again, I keep forgetting everyone in the National Party must be a liar and all-round scum bag, right?
Now if anyone was being 'spurious', I think it was Hodgson and his little proxies trying to trump up charges of cronyism against Dr. Hutchinson to change the subject. Unlike Kyle Matthews, apparently, I happen to think when you accept a ministerial warrant it doesn't mean you front up for the photo ops and patsy questions then duck for cover when there's legitimate questions to be answered.
-
James,
I'm not going to take Novak, who is a protagonist on the wrong side of the Plame debacle, writing for RCP, over Waxman. I'm sorry but that veers towards the ludicrous.
I'm aware of the Florida newspaper investigation, but, as I said, others disagree. The New York Times own investigation came to the conclusion that under any scenario, if the counting had continued, Gore would have won. You'll note that even the Herald says there are some scenarios under which Gore would have won. It is nowhere near as clear as you imply. And that excludes the voter registration scandal and all other other pre election day trickery.As to Rudy's poll ratings this far out and their relevance...two words...Bush / Clinton....it means nothing. Any Republican who can't distance himself from the disastrous policies of the Bush Jr White House is already dead, and I thint McCain has that problem. Rudy may be that man, but I suspect he's running for the wrong party.
My gut feeling is that Obama, if he can get the nod, has the momentum in a nation that seems to be increasingly desirous of moving out of a particularly dark and evil period in it's history and regenerating what it perceives to be the its moral, philosophical and political soul.
-
cool Craig, i'll take that as a gracious admission then that CitRat is Nat.
cheers -
Unlike Kyle Matthews, apparently, I happen to think when you accept a ministerial warrant it doesn't mean you front up for the photo ops and patsy questions then duck for cover when there's legitimate questions to be answered.
He's a politician, and fairly experienced and good at it (relative to some of the other Labour ministers who don't know when to open their mouth and when to shut up).
If I was a media minder for a minister, I'd tell him to do exactly what you don't think he should do.
Kiss the babies, cut the ribbons, open the hospitals, turn up to press conferences for good news, and if there's bad news coming out of health, push some top bureaucrat out there to take the flak, and then come charging in and say you're going to fix it later. If the top bureaucrat gets too bad, fire them and look good doing it.
Why would the government want their ministers fronting up as the face of every bit of bad news? That's crazy strategy.
(My original point was that, the minister can't fix the health system by fronting up for the media. So he'll only do it if he's under enough pressure to be forced to do so, or if there's something good in it for him. Clearly he doesn't feel that's the case at present).
-
Kyle, I think Craig expects Labour ministers to behave like the honourable members representing National, who are always forthright when taking responsibility for their errors, always the epitome of sincerity and credulity, who are never self-interested, and who always not only have all the facts, but also always lay them all on the table for the public to judge. If only Hodgson could be like Jonkey - never smarmy or disingenuous, and always so demonstrablely familiar with his own party's policy.
-
Kiss the babies, cut the ribbons, open the hospitals, turn up to press conferences for good news, and if there's bad news coming out of health, push some top bureaucrat out there to take the flak, and then come charging in and say you're going to fix it later. If the top bureaucrat gets too bad, fire them and look good doing it.
I actually think the Labtest fiasco is something for which the authorities directly involved should take the rap. The alternative is a return to central control of the the whole system, which I suspect Tony Ryall doesn't really want ...
-
yep, couldn't disagree with with either of those observations
-
Obama is very, very good. He has phenomenal political skills in terms of emoting and connecting with an audience. I have read experienced commentators who have observed him say that Obama is as good as Bill Clinton in that regard, and Bubba was the best in a generation.
Obama's crucial short coming is that of experience. He has never had a hard political campaign, he has never run any major political office or organization and he has no record of legislative accomplishment. Ideally he would go off and be the Governor of Illinois for a couple of terms and then come back and run for the White House, and be practically unstoppable. I think his lack of experience will be harshly exposed on the national stage if he gets there. He would be a great VP candidate, but after nearly a year of going at it hammer and tongs with Hillary or whoever, that might not be possible.
Hillary is viewed very negatively by a lot of people, and fair enough too, she is a nasty, ruthless piece of work. I saw a poll that had something 45% saying that they would not vote for her under any circumstances. That is very tough to overcome, she has to get 80% of the undecideds, that has never been done.
For my money, the best Dem prospect who gets a little attention every now and again is Bill Richardson, the popular Governor of New Mexico. He is fairly charismatic, 100 times more than Hillary, but quite a bit less than Obama and he would make a good candidate and a good President. He is a sensible guy who understands how economies work, so no big tax hikes or piling too much regulation on business on his watch, he would be quite electable. He may well get selected as a VP candidate.
Rudy will have plenty of scrutiny and mud coming his way, and fair enough too, he has more than a few skeletons of various types in his closet, and he needs to explain them. If any really dodgy or dishonest stuff comes out, then he shouldn’t be President.
If the Repubs had somehow held onto the Congress last year, then 2008 would have been a clean sweep for the Dems, they would have gotten both Houses of Congress and the White House. The Repub Presidential nominee’s best campaign asset will be the Dem House, they are already screwing things up and when the Out of Iraq people get all pissed off that the US stays in Iraq and the Dem House supplies funds, it is going to get really nasty, which will turn off a lot of people (voters). I see Code Pink are planning or have staged a sit in the Pelosi’s office. Fun, fun, fun!!!
Weston,
I am all for oversight, sensible oversight. I am not for grandstanding and trying to set people up which is what this attorney carry on is all about.The White House is unfortunately being their usual wimpy selves in terms of defending their actions. Some of the attorneys were cut loose because they weren't prosecuting voter fraud and illegal immigration cases. The obvious play for the White House is to push the line "so you are okay with not prosecuting voter fraud?" on the Dems. With a bit of spine and smarts the issue could at least be effectively communicated to the public if not turned on the Dems. If you act hesitant and like you have done something wrong, it is not unreasonable for people to think that you have in fact done something wrong.
Simon,
So you wont bother with the journalist who wrote the article and was thus involved in the middle of the Plame case from the beginning, and who obviously knows as much as anyone about what actually happened? Interesting strategy. I guess ignoring anything that contradicts your views is one way of trying to win an argument.And you didn't answer the question about whether someone is covert if, when a well known journalist calls the CIA to enquire about a certain person, the CIA public affairs office confirms to the well known journalist that the person in question does in fact work for the CIA. Can you please explain to me how that employee is covert?
As for poll numbers out this far, I wrote on a previous post that the internet, blogs, & cable TV and the front loaded primary calendar are pushing the campaigning back to a much earlier start and will require a lot more money, which only the front runner later on in 2007 will be able to secure. It is different this time.
-
Some of the attorneys were cut loose because they weren't prosecuting voter fraud and illegal immigration cases.
If I understand correctly, that goes to the very heart of the issue. Many people think that that is an ostensible, post-hoc reason only, and that there are some very odd and ugly coincidences in the firing, relating to pending investigations of Republican corruption on the one hand, and a refusal to trump up charges against Democrats before the last election on the other. It certainly doesn't look good to read that the prosecutors were divided into "loyal Bushies" and others. Thus the call for investigation is aimed at proving or laying to rest those concerns.
-
James,
Novak has not come out of this well, as you must agree. Whether I take his word or the that of the serving CIA chief is a matter of relativity.On one hand we have the cries of a Democratic conspiracy
That confirmed Republican suspicions that Hayden is too close to Democrats.
from a journalist whose past includes the word "swiftboating".
On the other we have the head of the CIA, under expert advisement, making crucial testimony to Congress....
Who to believe??? mmmmm...a tough one, no?
-
Thus the call for investigation is aimed at proving or laying to rest those concerns.
Exactly. Sidney Blumenthal puts it fairly well in The Guardian today. There is an aura out there, rightly or wrongly. that something is not quite right in this. If there is no fire under the smoke this can be put to rest by sworn testimony (and perhaps the provision of the missing 18 days of emails).
The more the right says there is no story here, and the more Bush threatens executive privilege, the more this story will look like somebody has something to hide. And that is not something the Republicans need right now,
Post your response…
This topic is closed.