Politics: August 2003 Archives
For the record, our new senator has said she was not interested in the presidency. So has former Vice President Al Gore, who might be rethinking his own future. Not for the record, though, Hillary and her advisers, including her husband the ex-president, her money men and pollsters, will meet shortly after Labor Day - Sept. 6, I hear - to discuss whether she should go for it. It is a decision that has to be made earlier rather than later because of November and December filing deadlines for the early primary elections that will almost certainly (and very quickly) identify the 2004 Democratic nominee.
[via Political Wire]
Wesley Clark is coming ever closer to declaring and while I've been intrigued by the possibility since Senator Hart decided not to run, many observers - myself included - have been getting antsy and letting their attention wander while the General makes up his mind. Now, with his promised decision drawing closer Washington Monthly has a must-read piece on why he might be able to win the primaries despite the late start.
Arguably, Clark matches each of the strengths of the current crop of contenders, and then raises them one. His Army background--stretching from Vietnam to Kosovo--out-oomphs Kerry's military record. His service as commander of NATO forces compares favorably to Dean's executive experience as governor of a small New England state. He adds gravitas to Edwards's aesthetic appeal, charisma to Lieberman's thoughtfulness, and sincerity to Gephardt's liberal policies.That's why more and more Democratic insiders are beginning to argue that--at least in theory--Clark is the best candidate to beat Bush in a general election. The problem, they say, is that it's too late for Clark to make a primary run. Campaigns and Elections 101 teaches that it takes time to acquire name recognition, to build a field organization, to raise the funds to be competitive, to gain endorsements, and to acquire the myriad of intangible skills that it takes to run a winning campaign.
But this time, the conventional wisdom may be wrong.
[via Political Wire]
TNR takes a look at Dean's move to the right. Contrary to some who think think the inevitable collision between Dean's centrist credentials and many of his early supporter's loony leftism will cause a problem for the campaign, TNR believes the loss of the wing-nuts will help.
Why? For one thing, Dean has already gotten more mileage out of the far left-wing than he could have reasonably hoped for, having used their early support to cement his image as coming from the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party." Now that he's trying to strengthen his centrist bona fides, their support isn't so important. And given that he's held these particular centrist positions for years, it was only a matter of time before some groups started to raise eyebrows. In any case, their votes were hardly secure--these are people who typically vote Nader, who long ago indicated that he would run against Dean if he got the nomination. Nor are we talking about all that many people--as noted in &c. today, the vast majority of progressives are still on board.But most of all, their defection is the best possible advertising for Dean's centrism, and a solution to one of his campaign's stickier problems. Indeed, while he has always had mainstream credentials, his antiwar image has ensured that people will greet his attempts to tack to the middle with skepticism. But when you get criticism from The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, even the most doubting of centrists have to rethink their assumptions about Dean's supposedly ideological tendencies. So for now, it seems that the Dean folks have managed to have their cake and eat it, too.
Here is a thought that has been floating around for a bit but now looks like it might be gathering steam. Gary Hart should re-take his old Senatorial seat from Ben Nighthorse Cambell. The Denver Post writes up the feelings of several prominent Democratic leaders that want Hart to run. Senator Hart is too valuable to stay in the political wilderness any longer.
Thanks to Colorado Luis - PolState's Colorado correspondent and, as of late, the proprietor of his own blog - for mentioning this article which I would have otherwise missed in the throes of moving.
Attorney General Ken Salazar and U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, a Boulder Democrat, who had talked about possible candidacies, have not stepped into the race. That leaves Democrats shopping for a candidate to oppose Campbell - who is expected this winter to announce his bid for a third Senate term.Democratic Party brass say they aim to back a millionaire who could bankroll a campaign that's expected to cost up to $10 million or a well-known political veteran who could help snag that money through fundraising.
As party operatives tell it, Hart has the experience and name recognition to beat Campbell.
"I have heard from people all over the state of Colorado that they would love someone of Gary Hart's stature to take a look at the Senate race," Gates said. "Gary Hart still has an incredible contribution to make to the state of Colorado and the entire nation."
Glenn Reynolds is coming around on the WMD as political club theory I presented a few weeks back. I'll note that John-Paul scoffed.
If true, this would tend to support the "rope-a-dope" theory that Bush is letting his critics make a big deal out of WMD, so that he can completely undercut them by producing the weapons at a politically opportune moment. I've been skeptical of that theory, but, well, this is some degree of support for it.
The Scrum has a good post on Al Gore's speech. I have no real feelings on whether he should enter the Presidential race, but he did manage to put together a more concise critique of the current Administration than any of the current candidates. Someone needs to be making these points. The Scrum boils the speech down to its most important passage:
...there is a big difference between [occasional rhetorical excesses and leaps of faith] and a systematic effort to manipulate facts in service to a totalistic ideology that's felt to be more important than the mandates of basic honesty.And, unfortunately, I think it is no longer possible to avoid the conclusion that what our country is now dealing with in the Bush presidency is the latter. That's really the nub of the problem, in my view, and the common source for most of the false impressions that have been frustrating the normal and healthy workings of our democracy....
The Bush administration routinely shows disrespect for that whole basic process. And I think it's partly because they seem to feel as if they already know the truth and are not very curious to learn about any facts that might contradict what they believe they already know.
Can I finish, can I finish? Can. I. Finish?
Is Ross Perot plotting a return to the national stage in time for the 2004 elections? Judging from a well-written 95-page book proposal making its way through the New York publishing circuit, a copy of which arrived unbidden in my e-mail, the crazy aunt in the basement wants to sing again.
[via Political Wire]
The Clintons, Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson and Noam Chomsky worse than Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy and Timothy McVeigh? Why is the right objectively pro-homicidal-maniac?
[...] without further adieu, the worst figures in American history are as follows (with the number of votes following each selection)...Honorable Mentions: Ted Bundy (5), Jane Fonda (5), John Wayne Gacy (5), John Walker Lindh (5), Joe McCarthy (5), Michael Moore (5), Boss Tweed (5)
17) Franklin Delano Roosevelt (6)
17) John Walker (6)
17) Lee Harvey Oswald (6)
17) Robert Byrd (6)
16) Aldrich Ames (7)
14) Richard Nixon (8)
14) Aaron Burr (8)
12) Al Sharpton (9)
12) Charles Manson (9)
8) Timothy McVeigh (10)
8) Lyndon Johnson (10)
8) Hillary Clinton (10)
8) John Wilkes Booth (10)
7) Alger Hiss (12)
6) Noam Chomsky (13)
4) Jesse Jackson (14)
4) Jimmy Carter (14)
3) Bill Clinton (15)
2) Benedict Arnold (19)
1) The Rosenbergs (15) & Julius Rosenberg (5) (20 total votes)
My favorite quote from the intro:
Also, it's worth keeping in mind that this was a fairly conservative group of bloggers and their selections reflected that.
I'll keep that in mind and so should you.
Don't miss the right-wingers crying foul in Oliver's comments. And then read their attempts at a defense at A Small Victory. The hypocrisy is thick and deep.
Please note that this post is a stylistic tribute to pre-Iraq-war right-wing commie/democrat/leftist betrayal hysteria
Larry Flynt would like us all to say a prayer.
"Dear (God/Allah/Buddha/other entity of your choice), we ask you to afflict Bill O'Reilly with a brain aneurysm that will lead to his slow and painful death. O, Lord, may his blood vessels bulge out of his head and explode without mercy. May he writhe in agony on his office floor at Fox studios right after taping The O'Reilly Factor. O, God, may he reach for the phone to call 911 and accidentally dial 411. May he desperately gasp for breath and recall all the people he shouted down with no mercy. May he lay on the floor and twitch uncontrollably as he contemplates his worthless life. O, Lord, may he lose control of his bowels in those final moments so that the last and only warm feeling he ever experiences is his own shit. We ask this in all sincerity and humbleness, Amen."Disclaimer: Prayer parody. However, if Bill O'Reilly dies, it must be God's will.
[via Oliver Willis]
BusinessWeek is running an article covering Dean's conservative credentials. I think if Dean ran as Dean (aka fiscally conservative, socially progressive) he would have a good chance in the general election. My concern is that his swing to the left for the primary season, specifically his ardent anti-war stance, is going to hurt him. I don't see how he can recover a reasonable stance that will appeal to swing voters after heading so far to the left on this very important issue.
Still, Dean had a knack for positioning himself and never lost an election. Those who know him best believe Dean is moving to the left to boost his chances of winning the nomination. "But if he gets the nomination, he'll run back to the center and be more mainstream," predicts Stenger. Says Garrison Nelson, a political science professor at the University of Vermont: "Howard is not a liberal. He's a pro-business, Rockefeller Republican."
[via Political Wire]
More on Mad Mel's Movie from the International Herald Tribune. A good summary for those that didn't want to pay to read the TNR article mentioned previously.
"The Jews didn’t kill Christ," my stepfather was fond of saying. "They just worried him to death." Nonetheless, there was palpable relief in my Jewish household when the Vatican officially absolved us of the crime in 1965. At the very least, that meant we could go back to fighting among ourselves.These days American Jews don’t have to fret too much about the charge of deicide — or didn’t, until Mel Gibson started directing a privately financed movie called "The Passion," about Jesus’ final 12 hours. Why worry now? The star himself has invited us to. Asked by Bill O’Reilly in January if his movie might upset ‘‘any Jewish people,’’ Gibson responded: "It may. It’s not meant to. I think it’s meant to just tell the truth."
[via DrudgeReport]
TNR's &c distills an interesting point from Krugman's latest take on the California recall. Why isn't the White House all over the recall effort? &c covers the convential wisdom, but they offer this as their best guess:
It creates a dicey political precedent. After all, the ostensible reason California Republicans are so intent on booting Davis out of office is that he's badly mishandled the state's finances. But, of course, there's another high-profile chief executive who's presided over a California-style fiscal deterioration--George W. Bush--and he's up for reelection next fall. In fact, according Krugman, the federal deficit (if you don't count Social Security revenues) is higher as a share of spending than California's.
