What exactly was "the Fairness Doctrine"?
I'll allow Wikipedia to explain.
"The Fairness Doctrine was a United States FCC regulation requiring broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance in an honest, equitable and balanced manner. The doctrine has since been withdrawn by the FCC, and certain aspects of the doctrine have been questioned by courts.
The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in an atmosphere of anti-Communist sentiment in the US in 1949 (Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246 [1949]). The doctrine remained a matter of general policy, and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations.
In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in a case of an on-air personal attack, in response to challenges that it violated the First Amendment. The case began when journalist Fred J. Cook, after his publication of Goldwater: Extremist of the Right was the topic of discussion by Billy James Hargis on his daily Christian Crusade radio broadcast on WGCB in Red Lion, PA. Mr. Cook sued arguing that the FCC’s fairness doctrine entitled him to free air time to respond to the personal attacks."
In essence the fairness doctrine forced broadcasters to give equal time to opposing viewpoints. The end result is that listeners and viewers got both sides of the story. On the positive side, the public got the information needed to make informed choices. On the negative side, broadcasters had to give time to people with views diametrically opposed to their own.
The Fairness doctrine was voted out of use by the FCC under Reagan in 1987. Congress attempted to bypass that by codifying it into law but were thrwarted by a Regan veto in 1987 and again by a threatened Bush veto in 1991.
"Two corollary rules of the doctrine, i.e., the "personal attack" rule and the "political editorial" rule, remained in practice until 2000. The "personal attack" rule applied whenever a person (or small group) was subject to a personal attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons (or groups) within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said and offer the opportunity to respond on-the-air. The "political editorial" rule applied when a station broadcast editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulated that the unendorsed candidates be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond."
In 2000 the FCC allowed both rules to lapse freeing media to practice character assasinations under the misleading banner of "news".
And that ladies and gentlemen is the origin of Fox News.:)
Joking aside, I think that the repeal of that act has lead to the heated division that exists between red and blue Americans. Newscasters used to hold the delivery of the news as a near holy act. Great pains were made to report the news in a non-stilted manner. When the media attacked politicians, they did it because the politicians were doing un-American or illegal things, not because they had different political views.
It is clear that the media (fox being the worst offenders by far) no longer thinks this way. However they continue to present their broadcasts are unbiased. That is a huge disservice to the American people.
There is a movement to attempt to restore the old fairness doctrine. I think that is a mistake as even if you could get the doctrine reinstated, as originally conceived, is likely to be immediately struck down by the 5-4 Conservative Supreme Court. Instead of wasting time attempting to restore the old fairness doctrine under Bush, I think a new fairness doctrine should be submitted to the next president of the U.S.
If I wrote it, it would be fairly simple.
"We belive that American News stations have a responsibility to attempt to provide news in an unbiased fashion. This law is designed to ensure the news is always reported in an even handed manner.
For any TV or radio station to promote themselves as a news station,news stories have to be handled in an unbiased fashion without stated or implied opinions. Additionally, equal coverage and time has to be given to liberal and conservative viewpoints on these stations.
Any station that does not comply may not use the term "news" in discribing their content in their advertising, name, or daily broadcasts. They will instead have to identify themselves as either a "Provider of conservative content" or a "Provider of liberal content". Any media passes given to news stations will not neccessarily have to be provided to those networks.
Finally, multiple instances of news stories involving U.S. Politics or issues politically contriversial in the US that are conspicuously buried on a station vs. their competitors can also result in a suspension of a network's ability to describe and or classify itself as a news network."
Now obviously that is a bit fuzzy in who evalutes multiple instances, but that can be worked out pretty quickly.
Stations like CNN and MSNBC will be able to comply with this in a matter of days if not hours. Fox News, on the other hand...
Are you ready for the "Fox Provider of Conservative Content Network"?
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Will he run or won't he?
Contrary to what you might have guessed, I am not talking about Fred Thompson. No, Newt Gingrich is the more interesting name. He seems more and more critical of the Republicans for "not getting it". I think he had little intent of running 2 months ago. Now, I am not sure.
Gingrich can sit on Fox news spouting platitudes and still be on any republican's short list for VP candidates.
But VP is not the Presidency. Most VPs never become president. I think previously he might have looked at the landscape and said that the direct path to the Presidency was not possible. But now, it just might be. I think the general mood with the republican faithful may be getting tired of not seeing a committment from Thompson. If Gingrich declares I think he could steal much if not all of Thompson's thunder as savior of the conservatives' hopes for the 2008 campaign.
He might squeeze in if it is a 3 man race between him, Guliani, and Romney. If it comes down to that, he has a good shot. If he gets into a presidential campaign vs. hillary Clinton, I am not prepared to say Clinton walks away with that.
Can Gingrich continue to resist the temptation?
Gingrich can sit on Fox news spouting platitudes and still be on any republican's short list for VP candidates.
But VP is not the Presidency. Most VPs never become president. I think previously he might have looked at the landscape and said that the direct path to the Presidency was not possible. But now, it just might be. I think the general mood with the republican faithful may be getting tired of not seeing a committment from Thompson. If Gingrich declares I think he could steal much if not all of Thompson's thunder as savior of the conservatives' hopes for the 2008 campaign.
He might squeeze in if it is a 3 man race between him, Guliani, and Romney. If it comes down to that, he has a good shot. If he gets into a presidential campaign vs. hillary Clinton, I am not prepared to say Clinton walks away with that.
Can Gingrich continue to resist the temptation?
Political opportunism vs. Political courage
Robert Byrd, an animal loving democratic member of congress (apparently a former official in the KKK, no less) has said
he would be OK if Michael Vick were assasinated over Vick's alleged involvement in the dog fighting venture based out of one of Vick's houses. John Kerry asked the NFL to suspend Vick until the case comes to a close.
Both instances are great examples of political oppportunism disguised as political leadership. Vick has few meaningful political ties and therefore has no congressional advocate. This means that he is an easy target to attack for political profit as there will be no political backlash.
Byrd appeals to both his racist and animal loving constituents and Kerry scores points with Animal lovers accross the US and gets some publicity to keep the doors open for another presidential run in 2012 or 2016.
I hate that politicians are not called on the carpet for this stuff; Instead we reward politicians for this chickenshit behavior.
Politicians who have actual principles and take stances on what they hold to be worth fighting for are rarely rewarded. Dog and Pony show politicians are constantly rewarded with election and re-election.
Don't believe me? Take a look at our current election.
====================================================
How is John McCain doing in the polls? For all the questions you may have about John McCain, no one can question his love of America or dedication to this country. You may disagree with his politics, but can you say McCain is not a true patroit? He is a national hero who served our country with extreme valor and who takes whatever path he firmly beleives in, regardless of the political outfall. He is running as a member of a party the claims to value patroitism; to love national heroes; and to want a consistent and dedicated conservative candidate. And yet he has dropped to what 15%? 12%?
For all the lip service the Republicans pay to valuing those attributes, you'd think he would rank a lot higher than a distant 4th. This is a candidate who has enough of a national reputation that he would stand a very good chance vs. a democratic opponent, but the rank and file of the republican base has turned on him because he doesn't suck the teat of the Republcan Party.
You look at the people ahead of him in the polls. Rudy Guliani. A democrat in republican clothes. His views on issues are democratic views. He came up through the Republican Party in NY. America under Bush uses our victimization on 9/11 as a justification for a slew of immoral activities. Likewise Guiliani personally used that 9/11 victimization to become a Presidential candidate. He doesn't embrace extreme Republican conservative values on abortion and other lightning rod issues, but instead suggests he will appoint judges who will vote for the conservative base's agenda --- over his own beliefs. He basically is saying he will sell out his own beleifs to be President. My own impression of him is greatly shaped by seeing him appearing in terrorism fear ads supporting the republican candidate for an Alaskan conressional seat in the last election (I repeat that was for a seat representing ALASKA!!!!) and seeing him proclaiming George Bush ran away with one of the debates with Kerry. That I can see, he is a republican party shill with very little honesty and integrety. That is the republican front runner.
Fred Thompson. As I understand it, Thompson's voting record was eirily similar to McCain's. Not all too suprising really as they are apparently friends. Thompson reportedly endorsed McCain before the conservative base of the party begged Thompson to run. Thompson's candidacy effectively undercut McCain's. All the financial issues affecting the McCain camp are probably due to Thompson's decision to run. Thompson is seen as McCain without the baggage. He is a hollywood face the Republicans think they can turn into another Regan. Thompson's advisors have him stalling officially getting into the race so they can thwart the attacks of other republicans on him as long as possible. Thompson has a lot more skeletons in the closet that most of his conservative fans would think. His marital status/history and his role in the Nixon scandal will probably hurt his candidacy (as I understand it he spied for Nixon the Watergate fiasco) if he wins the nomination. There is a perception that he may not have the stomach for the race and I have seen nothing to indicate that perception is wrong.
Mitt Romney. Another liberal democrat in Republican clothing. I wouldn't have thought it, but between Guliani's lack of clothes, Thompson's clay feet, and McCain's struggling campaign, and Romney has a real shot to win the republican nomination which is hugely supring to me as he is effeminate, throwing out the gay vibe big time. Additonally he is contradicting just about every political stance he took and value he expressed as a lower level politician. He seems perfectly willing to tell the Republican faithful what they want to hear to get himself elected. In essence, he is running a brilliant Republican campaign. He is sinking gobs of money to flood the airwaves in the early primary states with his newfound conservative beleifs and is actually the frontrunner in a few of those states now. (Although I resent what he is doing, I'd be on board with a Romney Presidency. I think in the white house he would revert to a Dem in Republican clothing and frankly is brilliantly effective as a politician and a manager.)
Republicans want people who suck the teat of the Republican Party. They don't want people with principles.
I look at the rest of the feild and see a number of conclusions:
Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas - a political shill with nothing to offer. Guiliani without 9/11 to back him up.
Jim Gilmore former Governor of Virginia - Loudly proclaimed himself "the conservative in the race", but when the conservative base selected Thompson as their choice, Gilmore saw tht writing on the wall and got out of the race.
Tommy Thompson, former Governor of Wisconsin - Very similar to Gilmore, but hasn't dropped out yet.
Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado - An odd duck and honestly one of the Republican candidates I admire. He seems conservative but sensible. Taking a different course to the presidency than the other candidates by calling out Bush. Too early to put a fork in his candidacy with the Thompson factor out there.
Representative Ron Paul of Texas - He is the Pat Buchanon of this race. He seems to think just being in the race is going to force the party to adopt his beleifs. He doesn't seem to get that a guy with less than 5% of the vote doesn't have that power.
Representative Duncan Hunter of California - This guy scares me, quite honestly. MY impression of him is very unfavorable. He seems like a nutjob to me, who shouldn't be trusted with nuclear weapons, and I am glad there are so many other conservative candidates trying to get traction that this guy cannot get going. I think if the conservative base had embraced him instead of Thompson, he would be a George W. Busheque nightmare of 8 years of poor decision-making adored by the rich.
Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas - the preacher is a man of principle. I admire him a great deal. He has ironclad christian beliefs that he applies in sensible ways in his political dealing. He does not unneccessarily alienate people and is a very effective politician.
So Brownback, Paul, Hunter, and (I'll grudgingly admit) Tancredo are political opportunists. Gilmore & T. Thompson are conservatives who appear not to have the knack for running a national campaign. And then there is Huckabee, who along with McCain are the only republican candidates I see who have potitical guts and don't survive off political opportunism.
====================================================
The Dems are not much better.
Hillary Clnton. Frankly, she is running away with this race. There was a thought that Clinton, with her high negative numbers would only be able to sew up say 40% of the vote as solidly for her and a small fraction leaning democrat in principle --- That you eaither like her or hate her --- and the other 55% would vote against her. That may still come into play in the general election, but there is mounting evidence that the Obama camp has waited too long and that perception will not help them. Clinton has more or less had the freedom to run unopposed as a dominant frontrunner and to instead focus on looking and acting presidential and warm and motherly. Months ago, the Clinton camp wisely threw out some guidelines for Iraq that she could walk away from. They got a bump from that, that helped them build their lead. There is no lasting cost from that, because she can brush it away as something that the changing conditions in Iraq made moot. She running a smart campaign that isn't taking any unneccessary chances. She doesn't have to be a leader to win the nomination so she isn't going to take the lead on issues like immigration reform or Iraq, she just has to avoid missteps and look presidential and kind.
Obama is also avoiding taking a stance on aything. His campaign in comfortable with the status quo and beleives they can launch a media ad blitz ala Mitt Romney's and sell Obama the rockstar to overtake Hillary. It is possible, but frankly Obama has a credibility issue with me at this point and I am probably not alone. Where is the substance? He is an intelligent guy, but he hasn't shown any leadership to me in months. I think he has political courage, but is saving it like it is his last card to play.
John Edwards. The Mitt Romney of the Democratic feild. Many of the same opinions I have of Romney apply to Edwards. I think he says a lot of things he doesn't beleive in to play to his base (although I genuinely beleive in his committment to universal health insurance coverage). He also puts out a gay vibe, although I have come to beleive Edwards is in fact, not gay, and is a devoted family man who just happens to merely be effiminate. (Not that being gay is even a negative in the Democratic party!) Edwards dropped out of office to prepare for this presdiential campaign and right now you'd have to say things are looking pretty good for him. Edwards dropped out so he could criticise Obama and Hillary without having a running voting record that others can call him on. I think it stinks of political opportunism, but it has worked well for him. Hillary has to present herself as a moderate by effectively campaigning as a conservative. Obama has to do the same to distance himself from the joke african American candidates of the past and present himself as a viable candidate for white America too. That left the liberal wing of the party uncatered to. Edwards can attack and attack and his two main competitors are pretty limited on how much they can defend. Edwards has also really been aggressively campaigning in the early primary races and seems to be turning those states into 3 man races. If he wins a couple of those states, the dynamic of the nomination could quickly change. Obama and Hillary are soft front runners who are effectively splitting the northern democratic base. Edwards is a white southerner (a good combo for the south and midwest) making inroads in liberal areas in the north. There is room for his candidacy upsurge to become a national movement after the first few primaries. (Do want to put out some love for his wife. She is maybe not supermodel hot like Dennis Kucinich's wife, but she puts out the good person vibe and you never see her on TV and question her sincerity in beleiving in her husband. I think a lot of the success Edwards is having is fueled by his wife's efforts. Top notch lady who I'd be pretty happy to see as America's first lady.)
Senator Joe Biden of Delaware. Unlike Edwards, Biden didn't get out of politics so he had the freedom to henpeck from the outside. Unlike Hillary and Obama, Biden is still making his opinion known on issues and taking stances. His political courage has his share of the vote growing, but time is not on his side and Edward's campaigning may end up successfully blunting his charge.
Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. Kucinich is an odd combination of acceptable insider and firebrand reformer. No question he is a man of conscience who has admirable beliefs. His main drawback in terms of getting elected is that he doesn't look presidential. He is a short man who favors Mad Magazine's Alfred E Newman. He too is blocked from getting into position for a run by the presence of John Edwards.
====================================================
I think you can see how there appears to be a direct correlation between America's willingness to get behind a political opportunistic candidate over a politcally courageous candidate.
Which brings me to David Vitter. Vitter was one of the Republican's driving the impeach clinton bus for Bill's extramarital affair. Here's a short video of Vitter's political history.
Despite Vitter's role in the Clinton effort, and yet there is scarcely a word from other members of congress about this --- perhaps they are scared that they might be the next person outed by Larry Flint's money. I think it is far more likely that (at least for the time being) they have learned from the lesson of David Vitter. If you make your career off another's private failings, your private failing will come out more often and will be reported with much more vigor.
I think this gets back to the peer advocacy issue. There is a pretty good chance that if a Democrat really threw it on Vitter, a republican friend of Vitter's would throw it on them in the future given the chance. I suspect politicans on the Hill have decided to reverse the process that began with the clinton witchhunts and have evolved into Flint's scandal buying venture that threatens them all. I think as a group they are probably trying despirately to put the failings of their personal relationships back into pandora's box.
(Obviously, Republicans despite their loudly proclaimed ownership of all Morality, are not going to call for Vitter's resignation. Morality is after all only a tool for them to get votes --- not actually anything they live by.)
It is a shame. When you are a politician who has made your political capital feeding off someone else's maritial infidelity, someone really should take you to task on your own. You shouldn't be able to throw a press conference, admit it was shameful, then tell everyone to stop reporting on it and announce you are on your way back to work. Someone should take these people to task.
And Vitter should not go down alone in this. His wife is equally worthy of derision. In 2000, his wife, Wendy Vitter, commenting on the Clinton scandal, said, "I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he [Vitter] does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony, trust me."
Yes, she essentially looked down her nose at Mrs. Clinton, claiming Mrs. Clinton lacked spine and assured all the world that she, Wendy Vitter, was made of sterner stuff. She would never be the quiet doting wife as her husband rolled into bed with someone else.
REALLY?...
Apparently, Wendy has learned that sometimes being a good mother involves swallowing very bitter pills in public. Today, Wendy vitter seems like a MUCH MORE PATHETIC version of Hillary Clinton as she sheepishly begs the media to leave the vitter family alone---in fact, going so far as to open her speech bemoaning the fact that vitter's infidelity is not a private issue between her and her husband--- and let David go back to his job.
When I say more pathetic, I mean that Hillary, for all the pressure she was under, was very strong when she faced the media and said she forgave her husband. Mrs. Vitter on the other hand basically aknowledged she was broken by the news and then asked everyone to stop talking about it as she hid behind her kids and her church.
Perhaps even worse for Mrs. Vitter are the still unacknowleged claims of infidelity; Those from Louisiana. Those claims of Louisianna prostitutes state vitter came to see them mostly TO TALK --- strongly implying Mrs. Vitter is every bit the judgemental harpy she seems to be.
"To forgive is not always the easy choice." Perhaps Mrs. Vitter might consider issueing a public apology to Mrs. Clinton now that she has spent a few short days seeing life from Hillary's point of view.
Anyway, I am going to wrap up my condemnation of political opportunists with a semi-amusing video appeal to Wendy Vitter to spare her husband's penis. Click here and enjoy.
he would be OK if Michael Vick were assasinated over Vick's alleged involvement in the dog fighting venture based out of one of Vick's houses. John Kerry asked the NFL to suspend Vick until the case comes to a close.
Both instances are great examples of political oppportunism disguised as political leadership. Vick has few meaningful political ties and therefore has no congressional advocate. This means that he is an easy target to attack for political profit as there will be no political backlash.
Byrd appeals to both his racist and animal loving constituents and Kerry scores points with Animal lovers accross the US and gets some publicity to keep the doors open for another presidential run in 2012 or 2016.
I hate that politicians are not called on the carpet for this stuff; Instead we reward politicians for this chickenshit behavior.
Politicians who have actual principles and take stances on what they hold to be worth fighting for are rarely rewarded. Dog and Pony show politicians are constantly rewarded with election and re-election.
Don't believe me? Take a look at our current election.
====================================================
How is John McCain doing in the polls? For all the questions you may have about John McCain, no one can question his love of America or dedication to this country. You may disagree with his politics, but can you say McCain is not a true patroit? He is a national hero who served our country with extreme valor and who takes whatever path he firmly beleives in, regardless of the political outfall. He is running as a member of a party the claims to value patroitism; to love national heroes; and to want a consistent and dedicated conservative candidate. And yet he has dropped to what 15%? 12%?
For all the lip service the Republicans pay to valuing those attributes, you'd think he would rank a lot higher than a distant 4th. This is a candidate who has enough of a national reputation that he would stand a very good chance vs. a democratic opponent, but the rank and file of the republican base has turned on him because he doesn't suck the teat of the Republcan Party.
You look at the people ahead of him in the polls. Rudy Guliani. A democrat in republican clothes. His views on issues are democratic views. He came up through the Republican Party in NY. America under Bush uses our victimization on 9/11 as a justification for a slew of immoral activities. Likewise Guiliani personally used that 9/11 victimization to become a Presidential candidate. He doesn't embrace extreme Republican conservative values on abortion and other lightning rod issues, but instead suggests he will appoint judges who will vote for the conservative base's agenda --- over his own beliefs. He basically is saying he will sell out his own beleifs to be President. My own impression of him is greatly shaped by seeing him appearing in terrorism fear ads supporting the republican candidate for an Alaskan conressional seat in the last election (I repeat that was for a seat representing ALASKA!!!!) and seeing him proclaiming George Bush ran away with one of the debates with Kerry. That I can see, he is a republican party shill with very little honesty and integrety. That is the republican front runner.
Fred Thompson. As I understand it, Thompson's voting record was eirily similar to McCain's. Not all too suprising really as they are apparently friends. Thompson reportedly endorsed McCain before the conservative base of the party begged Thompson to run. Thompson's candidacy effectively undercut McCain's. All the financial issues affecting the McCain camp are probably due to Thompson's decision to run. Thompson is seen as McCain without the baggage. He is a hollywood face the Republicans think they can turn into another Regan. Thompson's advisors have him stalling officially getting into the race so they can thwart the attacks of other republicans on him as long as possible. Thompson has a lot more skeletons in the closet that most of his conservative fans would think. His marital status/history and his role in the Nixon scandal will probably hurt his candidacy (as I understand it he spied for Nixon the Watergate fiasco) if he wins the nomination. There is a perception that he may not have the stomach for the race and I have seen nothing to indicate that perception is wrong.
Mitt Romney. Another liberal democrat in Republican clothing. I wouldn't have thought it, but between Guliani's lack of clothes, Thompson's clay feet, and McCain's struggling campaign, and Romney has a real shot to win the republican nomination which is hugely supring to me as he is effeminate, throwing out the gay vibe big time. Additonally he is contradicting just about every political stance he took and value he expressed as a lower level politician. He seems perfectly willing to tell the Republican faithful what they want to hear to get himself elected. In essence, he is running a brilliant Republican campaign. He is sinking gobs of money to flood the airwaves in the early primary states with his newfound conservative beleifs and is actually the frontrunner in a few of those states now. (Although I resent what he is doing, I'd be on board with a Romney Presidency. I think in the white house he would revert to a Dem in Republican clothing and frankly is brilliantly effective as a politician and a manager.)
Republicans want people who suck the teat of the Republican Party. They don't want people with principles.
I look at the rest of the feild and see a number of conclusions:
Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas - a political shill with nothing to offer. Guiliani without 9/11 to back him up.
Jim Gilmore former Governor of Virginia - Loudly proclaimed himself "the conservative in the race", but when the conservative base selected Thompson as their choice, Gilmore saw tht writing on the wall and got out of the race.
Tommy Thompson, former Governor of Wisconsin - Very similar to Gilmore, but hasn't dropped out yet.
Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado - An odd duck and honestly one of the Republican candidates I admire. He seems conservative but sensible. Taking a different course to the presidency than the other candidates by calling out Bush. Too early to put a fork in his candidacy with the Thompson factor out there.
Representative Ron Paul of Texas - He is the Pat Buchanon of this race. He seems to think just being in the race is going to force the party to adopt his beleifs. He doesn't seem to get that a guy with less than 5% of the vote doesn't have that power.
Representative Duncan Hunter of California - This guy scares me, quite honestly. MY impression of him is very unfavorable. He seems like a nutjob to me, who shouldn't be trusted with nuclear weapons, and I am glad there are so many other conservative candidates trying to get traction that this guy cannot get going. I think if the conservative base had embraced him instead of Thompson, he would be a George W. Busheque nightmare of 8 years of poor decision-making adored by the rich.
Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas - the preacher is a man of principle. I admire him a great deal. He has ironclad christian beliefs that he applies in sensible ways in his political dealing. He does not unneccessarily alienate people and is a very effective politician.
So Brownback, Paul, Hunter, and (I'll grudgingly admit) Tancredo are political opportunists. Gilmore & T. Thompson are conservatives who appear not to have the knack for running a national campaign. And then there is Huckabee, who along with McCain are the only republican candidates I see who have potitical guts and don't survive off political opportunism.
====================================================
The Dems are not much better.
Hillary Clnton. Frankly, she is running away with this race. There was a thought that Clinton, with her high negative numbers would only be able to sew up say 40% of the vote as solidly for her and a small fraction leaning democrat in principle --- That you eaither like her or hate her --- and the other 55% would vote against her. That may still come into play in the general election, but there is mounting evidence that the Obama camp has waited too long and that perception will not help them. Clinton has more or less had the freedom to run unopposed as a dominant frontrunner and to instead focus on looking and acting presidential and warm and motherly. Months ago, the Clinton camp wisely threw out some guidelines for Iraq that she could walk away from. They got a bump from that, that helped them build their lead. There is no lasting cost from that, because she can brush it away as something that the changing conditions in Iraq made moot. She running a smart campaign that isn't taking any unneccessary chances. She doesn't have to be a leader to win the nomination so she isn't going to take the lead on issues like immigration reform or Iraq, she just has to avoid missteps and look presidential and kind.
Obama is also avoiding taking a stance on aything. His campaign in comfortable with the status quo and beleives they can launch a media ad blitz ala Mitt Romney's and sell Obama the rockstar to overtake Hillary. It is possible, but frankly Obama has a credibility issue with me at this point and I am probably not alone. Where is the substance? He is an intelligent guy, but he hasn't shown any leadership to me in months. I think he has political courage, but is saving it like it is his last card to play.
John Edwards. The Mitt Romney of the Democratic feild. Many of the same opinions I have of Romney apply to Edwards. I think he says a lot of things he doesn't beleive in to play to his base (although I genuinely beleive in his committment to universal health insurance coverage). He also puts out a gay vibe, although I have come to beleive Edwards is in fact, not gay, and is a devoted family man who just happens to merely be effiminate. (Not that being gay is even a negative in the Democratic party!) Edwards dropped out of office to prepare for this presdiential campaign and right now you'd have to say things are looking pretty good for him. Edwards dropped out so he could criticise Obama and Hillary without having a running voting record that others can call him on. I think it stinks of political opportunism, but it has worked well for him. Hillary has to present herself as a moderate by effectively campaigning as a conservative. Obama has to do the same to distance himself from the joke african American candidates of the past and present himself as a viable candidate for white America too. That left the liberal wing of the party uncatered to. Edwards can attack and attack and his two main competitors are pretty limited on how much they can defend. Edwards has also really been aggressively campaigning in the early primary races and seems to be turning those states into 3 man races. If he wins a couple of those states, the dynamic of the nomination could quickly change. Obama and Hillary are soft front runners who are effectively splitting the northern democratic base. Edwards is a white southerner (a good combo for the south and midwest) making inroads in liberal areas in the north. There is room for his candidacy upsurge to become a national movement after the first few primaries. (Do want to put out some love for his wife. She is maybe not supermodel hot like Dennis Kucinich's wife, but she puts out the good person vibe and you never see her on TV and question her sincerity in beleiving in her husband. I think a lot of the success Edwards is having is fueled by his wife's efforts. Top notch lady who I'd be pretty happy to see as America's first lady.)
Senator Joe Biden of Delaware. Unlike Edwards, Biden didn't get out of politics so he had the freedom to henpeck from the outside. Unlike Hillary and Obama, Biden is still making his opinion known on issues and taking stances. His political courage has his share of the vote growing, but time is not on his side and Edward's campaigning may end up successfully blunting his charge.
Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio. Kucinich is an odd combination of acceptable insider and firebrand reformer. No question he is a man of conscience who has admirable beliefs. His main drawback in terms of getting elected is that he doesn't look presidential. He is a short man who favors Mad Magazine's Alfred E Newman. He too is blocked from getting into position for a run by the presence of John Edwards.
====================================================
I think you can see how there appears to be a direct correlation between America's willingness to get behind a political opportunistic candidate over a politcally courageous candidate.
Which brings me to David Vitter. Vitter was one of the Republican's driving the impeach clinton bus for Bill's extramarital affair. Here's a short video of Vitter's political history.
Despite Vitter's role in the Clinton effort, and yet there is scarcely a word from other members of congress about this --- perhaps they are scared that they might be the next person outed by Larry Flint's money. I think it is far more likely that (at least for the time being) they have learned from the lesson of David Vitter. If you make your career off another's private failings, your private failing will come out more often and will be reported with much more vigor.
I think this gets back to the peer advocacy issue. There is a pretty good chance that if a Democrat really threw it on Vitter, a republican friend of Vitter's would throw it on them in the future given the chance. I suspect politicans on the Hill have decided to reverse the process that began with the clinton witchhunts and have evolved into Flint's scandal buying venture that threatens them all. I think as a group they are probably trying despirately to put the failings of their personal relationships back into pandora's box.
(Obviously, Republicans despite their loudly proclaimed ownership of all Morality, are not going to call for Vitter's resignation. Morality is after all only a tool for them to get votes --- not actually anything they live by.)
It is a shame. When you are a politician who has made your political capital feeding off someone else's maritial infidelity, someone really should take you to task on your own. You shouldn't be able to throw a press conference, admit it was shameful, then tell everyone to stop reporting on it and announce you are on your way back to work. Someone should take these people to task.
And Vitter should not go down alone in this. His wife is equally worthy of derision. In 2000, his wife, Wendy Vitter, commenting on the Clinton scandal, said, "I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he [Vitter] does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony, trust me."
Yes, she essentially looked down her nose at Mrs. Clinton, claiming Mrs. Clinton lacked spine and assured all the world that she, Wendy Vitter, was made of sterner stuff. She would never be the quiet doting wife as her husband rolled into bed with someone else.
REALLY?...
Apparently, Wendy has learned that sometimes being a good mother involves swallowing very bitter pills in public. Today, Wendy vitter seems like a MUCH MORE PATHETIC version of Hillary Clinton as she sheepishly begs the media to leave the vitter family alone---in fact, going so far as to open her speech bemoaning the fact that vitter's infidelity is not a private issue between her and her husband--- and let David go back to his job.
When I say more pathetic, I mean that Hillary, for all the pressure she was under, was very strong when she faced the media and said she forgave her husband. Mrs. Vitter on the other hand basically aknowledged she was broken by the news and then asked everyone to stop talking about it as she hid behind her kids and her church.
Perhaps even worse for Mrs. Vitter are the still unacknowleged claims of infidelity; Those from Louisiana. Those claims of Louisianna prostitutes state vitter came to see them mostly TO TALK --- strongly implying Mrs. Vitter is every bit the judgemental harpy she seems to be.
"To forgive is not always the easy choice." Perhaps Mrs. Vitter might consider issueing a public apology to Mrs. Clinton now that she has spent a few short days seeing life from Hillary's point of view.
Anyway, I am going to wrap up my condemnation of political opportunists with a semi-amusing video appeal to Wendy Vitter to spare her husband's penis. Click here and enjoy.
The Michael Vick case: Echoes of O.J.
Like most other Americans, I am not a fan of Dog or cock fights. I first heard of them as a child growing up in Hawaii, where they occurred with a fair amount of regularity. They idea of breeding something to fight to it's death seems pointless and as such,unneccessarily cruel.
But I am not a lover of the indoor mutt either. (Wake up America! The dark ages are over; We don't have to co-habitate with filty beasts anymore. :) ) I think this gives me a less biased view on the Michael Vick debate.
I will not be discussing the legal ramifications of the Vick suit, because they are pretty straightfoward. Vick has been charged with having some involvement with the dog fighting enterprise that was occurring on one of his properties. Unlike others, I am not real interested in trying to overturn his conviction in the court of public opinion. He will have his day in real court. If he is innocent or his lawyers are quite convincing, he will be found innocent. If not, he will likely do time.
That is all very straight forward. Nothing more to discuss.
It is everything else that intests me about this, not the least the racist overtones and origins of the national interest in this. One animal loving democratic member of congress (apparently a former official in the KKK, no less) has said
he would be OK if Vick were assasinated over this. Another Democratic leader has asked the NFL to suspend Vick until the case comes to a close. (Both instances are great examples of political oppportunism as Vick has few meaningful political ties and therefore no congressional advocate = political profit and no political backlash.) One blogger rightly posted that Michael Vick has replaced OJ as the most hated man in America (I personally would argue "White America", but he's probably right as is too.).
Earl O. Hutchinson
wrote a piece that accurately covers a lot of the shared ground with the O.J. trial and the unfair treatment of African Americans in U.S. courts. Even if you got tired head with Black America's constant defending of O.J., you may find his article interesting and eye opening.
I am going to deal with things not addressed in his article. These interest me and it all dovetails into a talk I was having with some friends about this controversy. They made some interesting points that have me thinking about this whole thing from a different perspective.
One of my friends is Puerto Rican and the other one I was speaking with is from Viet Nam. Both expressed to me that dog fighting (and cock fighting) are considered acceptable sports in their homelands. They have friends who participate in Dog and cock fighting and as such have some sympathy towards Vick, even though they acknowledge the law is the law. They would favor a slap on the hands or a fine and are more than a little taken back by the anti-Vick response this case has generated. While my friends are American and do not participate in the sport themselves, they raise the question of culture influencing perception.
In America, our laws are primarily proclamations of white culture (the group with the money to buy votes and influence) applied to the rest of us. I think white America looks at this whole dog fighting thing and sees their house dog forced to fight for their life. That is where the passion against Vick originates, IMO.
That is quite far cry from what apparently usually goes on in these dog fighting enclaves. House dogs are the product of 1000's of years of breeding mild tempered animals. Wild feral dogs were often killed removing them from those genepools.
These dogs are bred for meanness. From what I understand the female dogs are often so vicious that the fertilization process is not at all normal---even for dogs. The human equivilant would be if the govenment started breeding insane humans.
These dogs that were seized from the Vick house --- what will happen to them? Do you think they will be given to some family with young children? I could be wrong, but I suspect these animals will either spend most of the rest of their lives in solitary confinement or will be put down.
These are not house pets. I suspect these may be a lot closer to wild feral dogs, which society has always put down.
I heard a black caller make a compairison of Horse racing to dog fighting in regards to this case. It isn't a perfect equality, but it is not a meaningless compairison and it gets to the heart of the racial undertones in the Vick case. Horse racing is a sport involving animals selectively bred to excell in the sport and pushed to their limits --- sometimes resulting in the animals having to be put to sleep. Dog fighting is a sport involving animals selectively bred to excell in the sport and pushed to their limits to kill other dogs.
In both sports, owners express pride in their animals' acheivements. In both sports owners claim to love their animals and express that their animals are doing what they are born to do.
White America likes/is tolerant of horse racing. I think it isn't a stretch to say that some of brown America (latinos, Asians, islanders) is tolerant of dog (and cock) fighting.
White America will argue that horses are not intentionally injured in horse racing. I would counter that horses are made to run as fast as they possibly can while carrying a human. I am no Vet, but with my rudimentary knowledge of science, I would strongly suspect those horses' chances of suffering a fatal broken leg would be greatly reduced if the horses weren't carrying a guy on their backs.
White America will argue that their owners feel remorse when a horst suffers a fatal injury. A cynic would argue there is no difference between their remorse and the remorse an owner of a champion dog or cock would feel at their animal's passing.
O.J. divided America because you had a black man allegedly killing his white wife. Interracial relationships between whites and other races and especially between white women and other races have always been looked at as taboo by white America. There is a perception that white women chase danger in dating men of other races. O.J. allegedly killing his white wife was fuel for the justification of that belief. (In a side note, that view may not be totally dead. I went to an estate sale at a white home in Denton with my girlfriend yesterday --- she is white, I am mixed --- and we both independently noted the many uncomfortable gazes at us. We are normally pretty oblivious to that kind of thing, so it was pretty obvious.)
I think the Vick case is another that teeters on a larger division between white America and the rest of America. White America sees dogs as family members and therefore seems to be valueing this activity as if it were an attack on family. (European white couples have moved in large numbers to having pets instead of children. American whites seem to be trending that way as well. Is this the origin of the valuation of pets as family members?) The rest of America seems a lot more divided on the place of dogs and therefore seems more willing to let the courts decide Vick's fate. I think a good chunk of minority America sees dogs as tools. Guard dogs, possessions, breeding stock; Assets not to be wasted to be sure, but not family members.
But I am not a lover of the indoor mutt either. (Wake up America! The dark ages are over; We don't have to co-habitate with filty beasts anymore. :) ) I think this gives me a less biased view on the Michael Vick debate.
I will not be discussing the legal ramifications of the Vick suit, because they are pretty straightfoward. Vick has been charged with having some involvement with the dog fighting enterprise that was occurring on one of his properties. Unlike others, I am not real interested in trying to overturn his conviction in the court of public opinion. He will have his day in real court. If he is innocent or his lawyers are quite convincing, he will be found innocent. If not, he will likely do time.
That is all very straight forward. Nothing more to discuss.
It is everything else that intests me about this, not the least the racist overtones and origins of the national interest in this. One animal loving democratic member of congress (apparently a former official in the KKK, no less) has said
he would be OK if Vick were assasinated over this. Another Democratic leader has asked the NFL to suspend Vick until the case comes to a close. (Both instances are great examples of political oppportunism as Vick has few meaningful political ties and therefore no congressional advocate = political profit and no political backlash.) One blogger rightly posted that Michael Vick has replaced OJ as the most hated man in America (I personally would argue "White America", but he's probably right as is too.).
Earl O. Hutchinson
wrote a piece that accurately covers a lot of the shared ground with the O.J. trial and the unfair treatment of African Americans in U.S. courts. Even if you got tired head with Black America's constant defending of O.J., you may find his article interesting and eye opening.
I am going to deal with things not addressed in his article. These interest me and it all dovetails into a talk I was having with some friends about this controversy. They made some interesting points that have me thinking about this whole thing from a different perspective.
One of my friends is Puerto Rican and the other one I was speaking with is from Viet Nam. Both expressed to me that dog fighting (and cock fighting) are considered acceptable sports in their homelands. They have friends who participate in Dog and cock fighting and as such have some sympathy towards Vick, even though they acknowledge the law is the law. They would favor a slap on the hands or a fine and are more than a little taken back by the anti-Vick response this case has generated. While my friends are American and do not participate in the sport themselves, they raise the question of culture influencing perception.
In America, our laws are primarily proclamations of white culture (the group with the money to buy votes and influence) applied to the rest of us. I think white America looks at this whole dog fighting thing and sees their house dog forced to fight for their life. That is where the passion against Vick originates, IMO.
That is quite far cry from what apparently usually goes on in these dog fighting enclaves. House dogs are the product of 1000's of years of breeding mild tempered animals. Wild feral dogs were often killed removing them from those genepools.
These dogs are bred for meanness. From what I understand the female dogs are often so vicious that the fertilization process is not at all normal---even for dogs. The human equivilant would be if the govenment started breeding insane humans.
These dogs that were seized from the Vick house --- what will happen to them? Do you think they will be given to some family with young children? I could be wrong, but I suspect these animals will either spend most of the rest of their lives in solitary confinement or will be put down.
These are not house pets. I suspect these may be a lot closer to wild feral dogs, which society has always put down.
I heard a black caller make a compairison of Horse racing to dog fighting in regards to this case. It isn't a perfect equality, but it is not a meaningless compairison and it gets to the heart of the racial undertones in the Vick case. Horse racing is a sport involving animals selectively bred to excell in the sport and pushed to their limits --- sometimes resulting in the animals having to be put to sleep. Dog fighting is a sport involving animals selectively bred to excell in the sport and pushed to their limits to kill other dogs.
In both sports, owners express pride in their animals' acheivements. In both sports owners claim to love their animals and express that their animals are doing what they are born to do.
White America likes/is tolerant of horse racing. I think it isn't a stretch to say that some of brown America (latinos, Asians, islanders) is tolerant of dog (and cock) fighting.
White America will argue that horses are not intentionally injured in horse racing. I would counter that horses are made to run as fast as they possibly can while carrying a human. I am no Vet, but with my rudimentary knowledge of science, I would strongly suspect those horses' chances of suffering a fatal broken leg would be greatly reduced if the horses weren't carrying a guy on their backs.
White America will argue that their owners feel remorse when a horst suffers a fatal injury. A cynic would argue there is no difference between their remorse and the remorse an owner of a champion dog or cock would feel at their animal's passing.
O.J. divided America because you had a black man allegedly killing his white wife. Interracial relationships between whites and other races and especially between white women and other races have always been looked at as taboo by white America. There is a perception that white women chase danger in dating men of other races. O.J. allegedly killing his white wife was fuel for the justification of that belief. (In a side note, that view may not be totally dead. I went to an estate sale at a white home in Denton with my girlfriend yesterday --- she is white, I am mixed --- and we both independently noted the many uncomfortable gazes at us. We are normally pretty oblivious to that kind of thing, so it was pretty obvious.)
I think the Vick case is another that teeters on a larger division between white America and the rest of America. White America sees dogs as family members and therefore seems to be valueing this activity as if it were an attack on family. (European white couples have moved in large numbers to having pets instead of children. American whites seem to be trending that way as well. Is this the origin of the valuation of pets as family members?) The rest of America seems a lot more divided on the place of dogs and therefore seems more willing to let the courts decide Vick's fate. I think a good chunk of minority America sees dogs as tools. Guard dogs, possessions, breeding stock; Assets not to be wasted to be sure, but not family members.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
John Zogby on Bloomberg, Gore, Gingrich
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-zogby/the-guys-who-just-arent-_b_49040.html
The Guys Who Just Aren't There: Are There Gore, Gingrich, and Bloomberg Scenarios for 2008?
Posted May 22, 2007 | 10:05 AM (EST)
It's time to deal with it. Could it be possible that the top contenders for president in 2008 are not even running just yet? Will Al Gore jump in and take the Democratic nomination? Is Newt Gingrich really going to run? Will Mike Bloomberg once again prove the greatness of this country: any man with a dream and a billion dollars can reach great heights?
Let's examine the pros and cons -- the political calculations -- to each of these men getting into an already crowded field. First of all Gore. I could argue that the time is ripe for the former vice president to run. He never supported the war in Iraq, thus he has nothing to back away from. He also represents perhaps better than anyone else the essence of multi-lateral foreign policy. Both of these put him right where the base of the Democratic party is on foreign policy. He has over two decades of public service experience -- but can make the claim that he does not have any of the negative experience of the past six or seven years. What a perfect mix: the right stuff at the right time.
Above all, he defines -- pardon the pun -- one of the hottest issue before the U.S. today: global warming. This is a national consensus issue with over 70% of voters agreeing that humans play a major role in carbon emissions. It is also a key foreign policy issue and he was the chief brain behind the Kyoto Protocols. And global warming is a great crossover issue that appeals to disaffected Republicans, including many evangelical Christians.
He has won an Oscar and could win a Nobel Peace Prize this fall. He can wait until then to announce since he has huge name recognition, can raise the money he needs (plus some), and has a bevy of experienced staff waiting in the wings to help out.
But the path is not cleared for a Gore run and he still faces a major obstacle: almost four in five Democratic primary and caucus voters in early states -- as well as nationally -- tell us that they are satisfied with the crop of candidates out there already. And the Big Three -- Clinton, Obama, and Edwards -- are almost each receiving that share. My latest poll in new Hampshire has Richardson at 10 percent. So in order for it to make sense for Gore to to enter the fray, one (or even two) of the top three are going to have to decline in the polls or drop out by September.
Newt Gingrich brings a lot to the table on the Republican side. Only a little more than half of likely Republican primary and caucus voters in early states and nationally tell us that they are satisfied with the field. Of the over 40% who are dissatisfied, most are self-described conservatives who tell us they are waiting for the Great Conservative to emerge. Gingrich can be that man. He is also a winner having taken Republicans from decades of minority status in the House and turning them into a big majority. He is very smart, is a keen historian, and knows how to present issues -- especially issues about the future -- that are outside the box.
But, as is the case with Democrats and Gore, there are limitations to this scenario with Gingrich. For starters, Gingrich is a polarizing figure and this might not be the right time for a divider, not a uniter. Fifty-two percent of our national poll of likely voters in mid-March said they would NEVER would vote for him. Never is a daunting word. Besides, there already are good candidates out there -- I mean, how do you dismiss Giuliani, McCain, and Romney?
However, as we saw throughout the second half of 2003 when Democrats in the early primary and caucus states said they did not think that George W. Bush could be defeated, they wanted Howard Dean to be their standard-bearer because "he stands up for what he believes", rather than "he can beat President Bush." That all changed in early January 2004 in our Iowa tracking polls.
If Republicans are demoralized and ready to go down in a blaze of glory, then there is no one better to state the conservative case and prepare the party for the new realities of the twenty-first century. Mr. Gingrich is a firebrand who can certainly light up a debate.
Enter Mike Bloomberg, who has had a very successful run at being mayor of New York, without Rudy's divisiveness. Bloomberg is popular, effective, and is one of the very few who can run for the presidency without ever needing it on his resume. (Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Eisenhower are really the only ones who fit this bill). He can run on his record, as a global icon, and who can spend a fortune to define himself. No worries here about getting on the ballot in the 50 states.
Now -- if the Democrats nominate any one of their leading possibilities -- Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, or Gore -- and the Republicans opt for a conservative like Gingrich, Romney, or Fred Thompson, then Bloomberg, running as an independent, could have a chance. He could ride a collective wave from several different streams of support -- among them moderate Republicans, Democrats who admire his social policies and management of New York City, and conservatives who want to keep a Democrat out of the White House. This is the formula he used to win two races for mayor. With $1 billion to spend, it's reasonable to assume he could build a national replica of his successful mayoral model -- especially in a field that could seriously split at least three ways. His chances improve more as new, minor candidates at the extreme right and left ends of the political spectrum take their own small bites away from the major party candidates.
We've known for some time this would be an historic presidential election because of the issues at hand. We are just now getting a peek at how the political machinations will make it even more so.
I dug this up on line from a few months ago by John Zogby.
The Guys Who Just Aren't There: Are There Gore, Gingrich, and Bloomberg Scenarios for 2008?
Posted May 22, 2007 | 10:05 AM (EST)
It's time to deal with it. Could it be possible that the top contenders for president in 2008 are not even running just yet? Will Al Gore jump in and take the Democratic nomination? Is Newt Gingrich really going to run? Will Mike Bloomberg once again prove the greatness of this country: any man with a dream and a billion dollars can reach great heights?
Let's examine the pros and cons -- the political calculations -- to each of these men getting into an already crowded field. First of all Gore. I could argue that the time is ripe for the former vice president to run. He never supported the war in Iraq, thus he has nothing to back away from. He also represents perhaps better than anyone else the essence of multi-lateral foreign policy. Both of these put him right where the base of the Democratic party is on foreign policy. He has over two decades of public service experience -- but can make the claim that he does not have any of the negative experience of the past six or seven years. What a perfect mix: the right stuff at the right time.
Above all, he defines -- pardon the pun -- one of the hottest issue before the U.S. today: global warming. This is a national consensus issue with over 70% of voters agreeing that humans play a major role in carbon emissions. It is also a key foreign policy issue and he was the chief brain behind the Kyoto Protocols. And global warming is a great crossover issue that appeals to disaffected Republicans, including many evangelical Christians.
He has won an Oscar and could win a Nobel Peace Prize this fall. He can wait until then to announce since he has huge name recognition, can raise the money he needs (plus some), and has a bevy of experienced staff waiting in the wings to help out.
But the path is not cleared for a Gore run and he still faces a major obstacle: almost four in five Democratic primary and caucus voters in early states -- as well as nationally -- tell us that they are satisfied with the crop of candidates out there already. And the Big Three -- Clinton, Obama, and Edwards -- are almost each receiving that share. My latest poll in new Hampshire has Richardson at 10 percent. So in order for it to make sense for Gore to to enter the fray, one (or even two) of the top three are going to have to decline in the polls or drop out by September.
Newt Gingrich brings a lot to the table on the Republican side. Only a little more than half of likely Republican primary and caucus voters in early states and nationally tell us that they are satisfied with the field. Of the over 40% who are dissatisfied, most are self-described conservatives who tell us they are waiting for the Great Conservative to emerge. Gingrich can be that man. He is also a winner having taken Republicans from decades of minority status in the House and turning them into a big majority. He is very smart, is a keen historian, and knows how to present issues -- especially issues about the future -- that are outside the box.
But, as is the case with Democrats and Gore, there are limitations to this scenario with Gingrich. For starters, Gingrich is a polarizing figure and this might not be the right time for a divider, not a uniter. Fifty-two percent of our national poll of likely voters in mid-March said they would NEVER would vote for him. Never is a daunting word. Besides, there already are good candidates out there -- I mean, how do you dismiss Giuliani, McCain, and Romney?
However, as we saw throughout the second half of 2003 when Democrats in the early primary and caucus states said they did not think that George W. Bush could be defeated, they wanted Howard Dean to be their standard-bearer because "he stands up for what he believes", rather than "he can beat President Bush." That all changed in early January 2004 in our Iowa tracking polls.
If Republicans are demoralized and ready to go down in a blaze of glory, then there is no one better to state the conservative case and prepare the party for the new realities of the twenty-first century. Mr. Gingrich is a firebrand who can certainly light up a debate.
Enter Mike Bloomberg, who has had a very successful run at being mayor of New York, without Rudy's divisiveness. Bloomberg is popular, effective, and is one of the very few who can run for the presidency without ever needing it on his resume. (Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Eisenhower are really the only ones who fit this bill). He can run on his record, as a global icon, and who can spend a fortune to define himself. No worries here about getting on the ballot in the 50 states.
Now -- if the Democrats nominate any one of their leading possibilities -- Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, or Gore -- and the Republicans opt for a conservative like Gingrich, Romney, or Fred Thompson, then Bloomberg, running as an independent, could have a chance. He could ride a collective wave from several different streams of support -- among them moderate Republicans, Democrats who admire his social policies and management of New York City, and conservatives who want to keep a Democrat out of the White House. This is the formula he used to win two races for mayor. With $1 billion to spend, it's reasonable to assume he could build a national replica of his successful mayoral model -- especially in a field that could seriously split at least three ways. His chances improve more as new, minor candidates at the extreme right and left ends of the political spectrum take their own small bites away from the major party candidates.
We've known for some time this would be an historic presidential election because of the issues at hand. We are just now getting a peek at how the political machinations will make it even more so.
I dug this up on line from a few months ago by John Zogby.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
The potential affects of a Bloomberg indepent candidacy.
Michael Bloomberg is a filthy rich Jewish man with liberal values who is currently the Mayor of New York, after being elected as a Republican. He was reportedly the hand picked successor to Guliani, although most reports suggest they really dislike each other. He has the reputation of being a better mayor than Guliani. He is very effective and refuses most of the perks that come with the job.
There is talk that he could run for President as a candidate for the non-partisan internet based thing they have going on. If he does, could he win?
First, lets talk about what he has going in his favor. He is seemingly scandal free. He is well known in both parties. He seems to have some support with California Governor Arnold Schwatzenger. He seems to be the choice of the internet independents and did I mention he is filthy rich?
I think if the race is Hillary vs. Guiliani, he will run, hoping to at worst deny Guliani and at best to win it all.
-----------------------------------
Let's look at recent presidential election maps.
Assuming the cities remain liberal and the country remains conservative---a safe assumption, IMO---most of the country is already set.
Dem states:
WASH, ORE, CAL, MN, WISC, MICH, IL, PA, NY, ME, NH, MA, CT, NJ, DEL, Maryland, DC, HAWAII = 245 electorals
Undecided states I think would tend to lean Dem
NM, OH, VT, RI, = 32 electorals
Undecided states I think would tend to lean Rep
NV, CO, IA, = 21 electorals
Republican states
AZ, UT, ID, MT, WY, ND, SD, NEBRASKA, KS, OK, TX, LA, MS, AL, GA, SC,NC, TN, VA, WV, KY, TN, IN, AR, MO = 233 electorals
Here is my logic. Bush speaks Spanish, has been well known in the SW for the last decade, and without debate has been very good to Mexican Americans. I think he profited from a bump in the SW that most republicans just won't get. New Mexico was still only Republican by a slight margin. which tells me it probably would lean Dem without Bush in the race. Nevada and Colorado are not as heavily Hispanic, so I have left them leaning conservative with the rest of the midwest. Arizona is richer than NM and IMO more religious --- it seems more like Utah (more conservative) than it's neighbors to the east and west. Iowa has a a school in the Big 12 and one in the Big 10. Politically the state is similarly divided. I put it leaning conservative because it does not have as many large cities as some of the other Big 10 states and does not border Canada (not so exposed to foreign and progressive ideas). Indiana I have as conservative as they have gone heavily that way the last two races. Ohio, I would put leaning Dem, but I will freely admit I might be wrong there. My gut feeling is that the Kerry group dropped the ball in Ohio. Vermont and Rhode Island have gone both ways in the last two elections, but they are in areas bombarded by liberal thought from nearby metro areas. Florida has gone to Bush twice by suprisingly narrow margins considering his brother Jeb is the governor. Considering all the disaster relief that a President gives to Florida on a fairly regular basis, I think there would likely be an advantage there for an incumbent. I don't think they get that bounce if a Bush is not running. I think Florida has Democratic leanings.
So I am saying that in a vacuum, the Dems would win most elections 277 to 254 (until the votes are redistributed next). Now lets look at it with Guliani in the race. The conservative states go conservative, so 233. The leaning states lean as predicted above, so 254. The idea that Guliani could steal Ohio, or PA, or NJ and some small state to win the election doesn't seem inconceivable.
I didn't think Hillary could win NY vs. Guliani, but frankly her margin appears comfortable. Could Obama stave off Guliani winning NY, carrying some of the neighboring states, AND overcome the racial hurdle of being the first black American presidential candidate. Based on his current level of campaigning, I doubt it.
But now lets figure in the Bloomberg factor.
---------------------------------------------
The hedge report reached the following conclusions after looking at these survey results compiled by SurveyUSA in June:
"....Bloomberg is not yet running, and has not yet spent any of his fortune, but at this hour, a Bloomberg 3rd-Party candidacy hurts Republicans.
Bloomberg siphons enough Republican votes to FLIP RED states Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, and New Mexico BLUE.
There are two instances in which a Bloomberg 3rd-Party run FLIPs a BLUE state to RED, compared to 27 instances where a RED state FLIPs to BLUE.
Should Bloomberg enter the race, and should Bloomberg begin to spend money, and should Bloomberg begin to form non-traditional coalitions, these dynamics may well alter. For now, his candidacy helps color more of the map BLUE..."
=====================================
Based on these poll results it appears Bloomberg seems likely to capture 8-15% of the vote in each state. Based on the polls it seems likely that this starting point of the voting public will be independents who lean republican/have republican financial values. That is good news for Hillary who may have loyal support, but may be capped in a lot of states at 40-45% with her large negative approval rating.
That may be the justification Bloomberg uses to run.
In Hillary vs. Bloomberg vs. Thompson or Guiliani polls, 2008 Republican states Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, and New Mexico appear to go dem to Clinton. That would have the results at 245 Republican electoral votes for Guliani or Thompson to 293 Democratic electoral votes for Clinton.
Bloomberg hurts Guiliani in NY more than Hillary as his base is Guliani's.
How would bloomberg do in the mid-west and southwest? Would he throw colorado and Nevada to clinton? Would he sap enough of the Republican southern vote from Guliani to give Clinton a handful of southern states like Bill won in 1992?
Certainly, if bloomberg wanted to, he could really cripple either candidate, but just looking at the numbers I don't see a path to victory for him. But we will revisit this in a few months.
Michael Bloomberg is a filthy rich Jewish man with liberal values who is currently the Mayor of New York, after being elected as a Republican. He was reportedly the hand picked successor to Guliani, although most reports suggest they really dislike each other. He has the reputation of being a better mayor than Guliani. He is very effective and refuses most of the perks that come with the job.
There is talk that he could run for President as a candidate for the non-partisan internet based thing they have going on. If he does, could he win?
First, lets talk about what he has going in his favor. He is seemingly scandal free. He is well known in both parties. He seems to have some support with California Governor Arnold Schwatzenger. He seems to be the choice of the internet independents and did I mention he is filthy rich?
I think if the race is Hillary vs. Guiliani, he will run, hoping to at worst deny Guliani and at best to win it all.
-----------------------------------
Let's look at recent presidential election maps.
Assuming the cities remain liberal and the country remains conservative---a safe assumption, IMO---most of the country is already set.
Dem states:
WASH, ORE, CAL, MN, WISC, MICH, IL, PA, NY, ME, NH, MA, CT, NJ, DEL, Maryland, DC, HAWAII = 245 electorals
Undecided states I think would tend to lean Dem
NM, OH, VT, RI, = 32 electorals
Undecided states I think would tend to lean Rep
NV, CO, IA, = 21 electorals
Republican states
AZ, UT, ID, MT, WY, ND, SD, NEBRASKA, KS, OK, TX, LA, MS, AL, GA, SC,NC, TN, VA, WV, KY, TN, IN, AR, MO = 233 electorals
Here is my logic. Bush speaks Spanish, has been well known in the SW for the last decade, and without debate has been very good to Mexican Americans. I think he profited from a bump in the SW that most republicans just won't get. New Mexico was still only Republican by a slight margin. which tells me it probably would lean Dem without Bush in the race. Nevada and Colorado are not as heavily Hispanic, so I have left them leaning conservative with the rest of the midwest. Arizona is richer than NM and IMO more religious --- it seems more like Utah (more conservative) than it's neighbors to the east and west. Iowa has a a school in the Big 12 and one in the Big 10. Politically the state is similarly divided. I put it leaning conservative because it does not have as many large cities as some of the other Big 10 states and does not border Canada (not so exposed to foreign and progressive ideas). Indiana I have as conservative as they have gone heavily that way the last two races. Ohio, I would put leaning Dem, but I will freely admit I might be wrong there. My gut feeling is that the Kerry group dropped the ball in Ohio. Vermont and Rhode Island have gone both ways in the last two elections, but they are in areas bombarded by liberal thought from nearby metro areas. Florida has gone to Bush twice by suprisingly narrow margins considering his brother Jeb is the governor. Considering all the disaster relief that a President gives to Florida on a fairly regular basis, I think there would likely be an advantage there for an incumbent. I don't think they get that bounce if a Bush is not running. I think Florida has Democratic leanings.
So I am saying that in a vacuum, the Dems would win most elections 277 to 254 (until the votes are redistributed next). Now lets look at it with Guliani in the race. The conservative states go conservative, so 233. The leaning states lean as predicted above, so 254. The idea that Guliani could steal Ohio, or PA, or NJ and some small state to win the election doesn't seem inconceivable.
I didn't think Hillary could win NY vs. Guliani, but frankly her margin appears comfortable. Could Obama stave off Guliani winning NY, carrying some of the neighboring states, AND overcome the racial hurdle of being the first black American presidential candidate. Based on his current level of campaigning, I doubt it.
But now lets figure in the Bloomberg factor.
---------------------------------------------
The hedge report reached the following conclusions after looking at these survey results compiled by SurveyUSA in June:
"....Bloomberg is not yet running, and has not yet spent any of his fortune, but at this hour, a Bloomberg 3rd-Party candidacy hurts Republicans.
Bloomberg siphons enough Republican votes to FLIP RED states Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, and New Mexico BLUE.
There are two instances in which a Bloomberg 3rd-Party run FLIPs a BLUE state to RED, compared to 27 instances where a RED state FLIPs to BLUE.
Should Bloomberg enter the race, and should Bloomberg begin to spend money, and should Bloomberg begin to form non-traditional coalitions, these dynamics may well alter. For now, his candidacy helps color more of the map BLUE..."
=====================================
Based on these poll results it appears Bloomberg seems likely to capture 8-15% of the vote in each state. Based on the polls it seems likely that this starting point of the voting public will be independents who lean republican/have republican financial values. That is good news for Hillary who may have loyal support, but may be capped in a lot of states at 40-45% with her large negative approval rating.
That may be the justification Bloomberg uses to run.
In Hillary vs. Bloomberg vs. Thompson or Guiliani polls, 2008 Republican states Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, and New Mexico appear to go dem to Clinton. That would have the results at 245 Republican electoral votes for Guliani or Thompson to 293 Democratic electoral votes for Clinton.
Bloomberg hurts Guiliani in NY more than Hillary as his base is Guliani's.
How would bloomberg do in the mid-west and southwest? Would he throw colorado and Nevada to clinton? Would he sap enough of the Republican southern vote from Guliani to give Clinton a handful of southern states like Bill won in 1992?
Certainly, if bloomberg wanted to, he could really cripple either candidate, but just looking at the numbers I don't see a path to victory for him. But we will revisit this in a few months.
Friday, July 6, 2007
Tancredo takes on Bush
Another interesting bit of political strategy was put forth by Tom Tancredo. Tancredo is a huge advocate of controlling U.S. borders. As such, the killing of the immigration bill should have been a potential huge shot in the arm for his candidacy---if he took advantage of the moment.
I think he did, but the way he did was very interesting. He essentially used that moment as a free pass to voice his extreme displeasure with the policies of the Bush administration. From here on out, he (perhaps alone among the Republicans) has positioned himself to have free run on kicking the failing Bush administration to spur his candidacy if he choses. As a long shot candidate who couldn't get traction, I think this was an exceptionally wise move by Tancredo and his handlers. It gives him airtime and it allows people to see his strengths --- his honesty and candor at looking at the US. It shows him talking passionately without interruption about an issue he totally owns. I lean democrat, but I'd vote for Tancredo over Hillary and possibly over Obama as well. Click here to see the video.
Another interesting bit of political strategy was put forth by Tom Tancredo. Tancredo is a huge advocate of controlling U.S. borders. As such, the killing of the immigration bill should have been a potential huge shot in the arm for his candidacy---if he took advantage of the moment.
I think he did, but the way he did was very interesting. He essentially used that moment as a free pass to voice his extreme displeasure with the policies of the Bush administration. From here on out, he (perhaps alone among the Republicans) has positioned himself to have free run on kicking the failing Bush administration to spur his candidacy if he choses. As a long shot candidate who couldn't get traction, I think this was an exceptionally wise move by Tancredo and his handlers. It gives him airtime and it allows people to see his strengths --- his honesty and candor at looking at the US. It shows him talking passionately without interruption about an issue he totally owns. I lean democrat, but I'd vote for Tancredo over Hillary and possibly over Obama as well. Click here to see the video.
Hillary Clinton Calls Bush 'Radical'
link
"...Clinton questioned whether the United States could seek tougher trade sanctions against China when it's economically beholden to the nation.
"How do you get tough on your banker?" she asked.
She pledged to put the country on a firmer economic footing.
"There's nothing conservative about squandering a budget that was in surplus," she said.
Later in the day, during a rally that drew nearly 1,000 people in Ottumwa, Clinton criticized President Bush's claim to be conservative.
"I think the only description of him is radical," Clinton said. "He is a radical departure from presidents of both parties."..."
No doubt about it. Hillary has the best political advisors in this campaign.
If you look at it, she is running as a conservative. She is harkening back to the age of the Southern Democrat. That may pay off in the South. If she can win a couple of southern states (maybe a state in play like florida?) vs. a northern opponent, that might help her win the election.
This was big because it allows Hillary to present herself as "THE moderate" if not the conservative in this race. When you have valid points to backup your claims the American public is more than willing to accept negative campaigning without questioning it. Bush has a huge negative rating and has spent US taxpayer money like...well...like someone with a drug problem might. (Not saying that Bush still HAS a drug problem, mind you --- only that drug users often can't help themselves about spending their money against logic to get what they want. Bush does seem to still have that problem.)
In contrast, my boy Biden comes up with brilliant ideas, but doesn't get that he is having to fight the media to get traction. They don't want to report things like Biden's outline of his plan to make America & to finance homeland security or his critique of the failings of the Bush adminstration's approach in Iraq--- instead they want to focus on his throwaway comment that Bush is "brain dead". Why? Because the media know that a certain percentage of the populace hate criticism of the standing president because of a belief that the position demands a level of respect. You can criticize decisions of the president, but not the president himself.
They focus on that because that helps usher a "non-player" out of the election, which makes their job easier. They do this to all of the "minor" candidates. If Biden is going to make headway, he has to stop making these type of comments and force the media to report his substance.
Saying "The decision by the President to prevent a member of his cabinet from doing time for lying under oath to the government is an absolute abuse of Presidential power. This was against the wishes of over 70% of America and constitutes an total betrayal of the American public. It honestly begs the question of how much corruption is actually taking place in the Bush Administration and to what lengths the administration is going through to cover it's tracks. We have a Vice President who is the first in history to refuse to submit his paper to oversight. We have a war were Billions of U.S. Taxpayers and their children's tax dollars have been given to corporations under auspices that many consider to be questionable and where literally PALLETS of our our and our children's tax dollars have gone missing. If this administration was willing to go under the microscope, we could chalk it up to only gross incompetence by the members of this cabinet. As this decision illustrates, they are not willing to go under that microscope and instead hide behind the Administration's smokescreens and the President's ability to pardon them from all wrong doing. That suggests more than just incompetence.... I promise if elected President to launch a thorough investigation into this Administration and it's corporate partners." is a lot juicier for the media than "This guy is brain dead".
...But I can acknowledge that may be more than he is willing to commit and has issues as well. For example, there is no built in escape clause like those headliners (hillary and Obama) throw out. It isn't saying someone should look into this, it is saying I WILL look into this.
I recognize at this point that Biden may be angling for the VP spot, but he isn't going to get it if he is known for political missteps, which means he has to go for the presidency. That means it is time to lead. When these opportunities come up, Biden can't go off the cuff. His handlers have to give him a prepared statement that maximizes his ability to gain traction.
The only positive spin I can put on this is that Biden's people may be aiming for a 2 step process to get into this race. They may be aiming for Edwards' supporters. That, to me, is a good first step. Edwards thus far is the only democratic candidate who is actively courting the more liberal (and radical) parts of the democratic party. Hillary is running as a Neo-con and Obama is trying to mirror Hillary. That leaves the hard core Dems out in the cold with Edwards, who can't shake the spoiled rich guy tag and while making good points is frankly seeming very disengenuous. He looks like a guy who won't get any tractions beyond 15%. No one likes to waste a vote. They could be ready to defect.
It is possible that Biden's people agreed to the "Brain Dead" comment because that kind of "light Bush on fire" comment that really appeals to Edward's base. The thought could be that the mainstream will not remember that comment in 6 months, but that might give the most bang for the buck with that group today.
If Biden could steal Edward's 15%, that would put him on the map with the media and he would be given much fairer coverage. Biden, unlike Edwards, might be able to grow that 15% in the next 4-5 months as he throws off competency vibe as well as Hillary and the presidential vibe stronger than any other democrat in the debates. Additionally, he might resonate in the south as he is personable and isn't black or female (Don't hate, I am just speaking the truth).
link
"...Clinton questioned whether the United States could seek tougher trade sanctions against China when it's economically beholden to the nation.
"How do you get tough on your banker?" she asked.
She pledged to put the country on a firmer economic footing.
"There's nothing conservative about squandering a budget that was in surplus," she said.
Later in the day, during a rally that drew nearly 1,000 people in Ottumwa, Clinton criticized President Bush's claim to be conservative.
"I think the only description of him is radical," Clinton said. "He is a radical departure from presidents of both parties."..."
No doubt about it. Hillary has the best political advisors in this campaign.
If you look at it, she is running as a conservative. She is harkening back to the age of the Southern Democrat. That may pay off in the South. If she can win a couple of southern states (maybe a state in play like florida?) vs. a northern opponent, that might help her win the election.
This was big because it allows Hillary to present herself as "THE moderate" if not the conservative in this race. When you have valid points to backup your claims the American public is more than willing to accept negative campaigning without questioning it. Bush has a huge negative rating and has spent US taxpayer money like...well...like someone with a drug problem might. (Not saying that Bush still HAS a drug problem, mind you --- only that drug users often can't help themselves about spending their money against logic to get what they want. Bush does seem to still have that problem.)
In contrast, my boy Biden comes up with brilliant ideas, but doesn't get that he is having to fight the media to get traction. They don't want to report things like Biden's outline of his plan to make America & to finance homeland security or his critique of the failings of the Bush adminstration's approach in Iraq--- instead they want to focus on his throwaway comment that Bush is "brain dead". Why? Because the media know that a certain percentage of the populace hate criticism of the standing president because of a belief that the position demands a level of respect. You can criticize decisions of the president, but not the president himself.
They focus on that because that helps usher a "non-player" out of the election, which makes their job easier. They do this to all of the "minor" candidates. If Biden is going to make headway, he has to stop making these type of comments and force the media to report his substance.
Saying "The decision by the President to prevent a member of his cabinet from doing time for lying under oath to the government is an absolute abuse of Presidential power. This was against the wishes of over 70% of America and constitutes an total betrayal of the American public. It honestly begs the question of how much corruption is actually taking place in the Bush Administration and to what lengths the administration is going through to cover it's tracks. We have a Vice President who is the first in history to refuse to submit his paper to oversight. We have a war were Billions of U.S. Taxpayers and their children's tax dollars have been given to corporations under auspices that many consider to be questionable and where literally PALLETS of our our and our children's tax dollars have gone missing. If this administration was willing to go under the microscope, we could chalk it up to only gross incompetence by the members of this cabinet. As this decision illustrates, they are not willing to go under that microscope and instead hide behind the Administration's smokescreens and the President's ability to pardon them from all wrong doing. That suggests more than just incompetence.... I promise if elected President to launch a thorough investigation into this Administration and it's corporate partners." is a lot juicier for the media than "This guy is brain dead".
...But I can acknowledge that may be more than he is willing to commit and has issues as well. For example, there is no built in escape clause like those headliners (hillary and Obama) throw out. It isn't saying someone should look into this, it is saying I WILL look into this.
I recognize at this point that Biden may be angling for the VP spot, but he isn't going to get it if he is known for political missteps, which means he has to go for the presidency. That means it is time to lead. When these opportunities come up, Biden can't go off the cuff. His handlers have to give him a prepared statement that maximizes his ability to gain traction.
The only positive spin I can put on this is that Biden's people may be aiming for a 2 step process to get into this race. They may be aiming for Edwards' supporters. That, to me, is a good first step. Edwards thus far is the only democratic candidate who is actively courting the more liberal (and radical) parts of the democratic party. Hillary is running as a Neo-con and Obama is trying to mirror Hillary. That leaves the hard core Dems out in the cold with Edwards, who can't shake the spoiled rich guy tag and while making good points is frankly seeming very disengenuous. He looks like a guy who won't get any tractions beyond 15%. No one likes to waste a vote. They could be ready to defect.
It is possible that Biden's people agreed to the "Brain Dead" comment because that kind of "light Bush on fire" comment that really appeals to Edward's base. The thought could be that the mainstream will not remember that comment in 6 months, but that might give the most bang for the buck with that group today.
If Biden could steal Edward's 15%, that would put him on the map with the media and he would be given much fairer coverage. Biden, unlike Edwards, might be able to grow that 15% in the next 4-5 months as he throws off competency vibe as well as Hillary and the presidential vibe stronger than any other democrat in the debates. Additionally, he might resonate in the south as he is personable and isn't black or female (Don't hate, I am just speaking the truth).
Monday, July 2, 2007
Bush commutes Libby Sentence; Will his approval rating drop below Nixon's or rise above Carter's?
"WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Bush has commuted the prison term of former White House aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who faced 30 months in prison after his March conviction on federal charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators.
Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted in March of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to
investigators probing the 2003 disclosure of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity. A federal judge in Washington sentenced Libby to prison in June, and a federal appeals court rejected the ex-official’s bid to remain free while appealing his conviction earlier Monday.
In a written statement issued hours after that ruling, Bush called 30-month term “excessive.” But he also rejected calls for a pardon for Libby, and said the onetime adviser will still have to pay a $250,000 fine and remain on probation for two years...."Click here for article.
====================================================
I think this is interesting on a number of levels. Bush clearly was unwilling to pardon Libby last month because he needed Democratic support to try to pass his immegration reform. His thought clearly was that he couldn't strongarm laws through using the no longer existant Republican majority, so he would cook a deal with the devils and get a law passed that the Republicans would never agree to.
His supporters could then argue, "Well, while it is true that his approval rating dipped slightly below Carter's, Bush WAS re-elected and after that approval rating dip he did pass legislation that permanently allowed the Republicans to at least break even on the latino vote."
That would suggest that he successfully skirted being a lame duck president by delivering legislation that had long term value for his party.
But that failed. With the bill's death, the effort only succeeded in angering members of his party. Staring at the possiblity of his next approval poll rating showing the anger of the party faithful and the very real possibility of his approval rating falling BELOW NIXON'S LOWEST RATING, Bush had to do something to rally the party faithful. So he pardoned Libby.
I think it is an extremely interesting question. Will his approval rating go up with the pardon, giving him a shot to escape the cruel eye of historians tagging his Presidency with the title of "worst in Modern history, if not of all time" or will it drop below Nixon's, essentially confirming it?
Either way, I think Bush rightly recognized he had to do it, if he wanted to be anything more than a political outcast (ala Nixon and Carter) after leaving office. Clearly, his legacy matters a LOT to him. As a Bush hater, I am enjoying this immensely.
============================================
Bush's legacy
1) Iraq
2) Afganistan
3) The debt those wars incurred
4) The precidence of the use of Presidential notes as a defacto veto (ex. McCain ushered through a law preventing torture of captured soldiers. Bush threw in a presidential note that essentially made that portion of the law irrelevant/non-binding/ whatever. That is a huge departure from previous President's use of this ability.)
5) Religion invading the world of politics.
6) The Rich evading taxes and corporations profiting on US taxpayers.
7) The deportation of US jobs to fund bonuses for Corporate leaders.
8) No child left behind.
9) Some good economic times, some bad.
10) Homeland security.
That is Bush's legacy that I see today. Not a lot of good there. I think Homeland security will eventually turn into a positive for him once the new President makes that department work. It will have been created on Bush's watch, so Bush will get credit. Historians will judge him pretty harshly as he had did this with a congress rubberstamping him for 6 years.
=================================================================
Lowest Approval Ratings for Presidents
President % Approve
George W. Bush 26 6/18-19/07 Newsweek
Clinton 36 5/26-27/93 Newsweek
G.H.W. Bush 29 7/31-8/2/92 Gallup
Reagan 35 1/28-31/83 Gallup
Carter 28 6/29-7/2/79 Gallup
Ford 37 1/10-13/75 & 3/28-31/75 Gallup
Nixon 23 1/4-7/74 Gallup
Johnson 35 8/7-12/68 Gallup
Kennedy 56 9/12-17/63 Gallup
Eisenhower 48 3/27-4/1/58 Gallup
Truman 22 2/9-14/52 Gallup
Roosevelt% 48 8/18-24/39 Gallup
Source: The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research iPoll database.
"WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Bush has commuted the prison term of former White House aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who faced 30 months in prison after his March conviction on federal charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators.
Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was convicted in March of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to
investigators probing the 2003 disclosure of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity. A federal judge in Washington sentenced Libby to prison in June, and a federal appeals court rejected the ex-official’s bid to remain free while appealing his conviction earlier Monday.
In a written statement issued hours after that ruling, Bush called 30-month term “excessive.” But he also rejected calls for a pardon for Libby, and said the onetime adviser will still have to pay a $250,000 fine and remain on probation for two years...."Click here for article.
====================================================
I think this is interesting on a number of levels. Bush clearly was unwilling to pardon Libby last month because he needed Democratic support to try to pass his immegration reform. His thought clearly was that he couldn't strongarm laws through using the no longer existant Republican majority, so he would cook a deal with the devils and get a law passed that the Republicans would never agree to.
His supporters could then argue, "Well, while it is true that his approval rating dipped slightly below Carter's, Bush WAS re-elected and after that approval rating dip he did pass legislation that permanently allowed the Republicans to at least break even on the latino vote."
That would suggest that he successfully skirted being a lame duck president by delivering legislation that had long term value for his party.
But that failed. With the bill's death, the effort only succeeded in angering members of his party. Staring at the possiblity of his next approval poll rating showing the anger of the party faithful and the very real possibility of his approval rating falling BELOW NIXON'S LOWEST RATING, Bush had to do something to rally the party faithful. So he pardoned Libby.
I think it is an extremely interesting question. Will his approval rating go up with the pardon, giving him a shot to escape the cruel eye of historians tagging his Presidency with the title of "worst in Modern history, if not of all time" or will it drop below Nixon's, essentially confirming it?
Either way, I think Bush rightly recognized he had to do it, if he wanted to be anything more than a political outcast (ala Nixon and Carter) after leaving office. Clearly, his legacy matters a LOT to him. As a Bush hater, I am enjoying this immensely.
============================================
Bush's legacy
1) Iraq
2) Afganistan
3) The debt those wars incurred
4) The precidence of the use of Presidential notes as a defacto veto (ex. McCain ushered through a law preventing torture of captured soldiers. Bush threw in a presidential note that essentially made that portion of the law irrelevant/non-binding/ whatever. That is a huge departure from previous President's use of this ability.)
5) Religion invading the world of politics.
6) The Rich evading taxes and corporations profiting on US taxpayers.
7) The deportation of US jobs to fund bonuses for Corporate leaders.
8) No child left behind.
9) Some good economic times, some bad.
10) Homeland security.
That is Bush's legacy that I see today. Not a lot of good there. I think Homeland security will eventually turn into a positive for him once the new President makes that department work. It will have been created on Bush's watch, so Bush will get credit. Historians will judge him pretty harshly as he had did this with a congress rubberstamping him for 6 years.
=================================================================
Lowest Approval Ratings for Presidents
President % Approve
George W. Bush 26 6/18-19/07 Newsweek
Clinton 36 5/26-27/93 Newsweek
G.H.W. Bush 29 7/31-8/2/92 Gallup
Reagan 35 1/28-31/83 Gallup
Carter 28 6/29-7/2/79 Gallup
Ford 37 1/10-13/75 & 3/28-31/75 Gallup
Nixon 23 1/4-7/74 Gallup
Johnson 35 8/7-12/68 Gallup
Kennedy 56 9/12-17/63 Gallup
Eisenhower 48 3/27-4/1/58 Gallup
Truman 22 2/9-14/52 Gallup
Roosevelt% 48 8/18-24/39 Gallup
Source: The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research iPoll database.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)