Posts by James Bremner
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Simon,
Re: your exerpt from Novak's latest article about Bush being isolated.
Both the House and Senate Repubs were extremely pissed at Bush for firing Rumsfeld the day after the election last year. Their view is that the 2006 mid terms wouldn't have gone so badly for them if Bush had cut Rummy a few months before, by which time it was obvious that he was going sooner or later. They would have held the Senate and Pelosi's majority in the House would have been quite a bit smaller, and even less manageable than it is now.
The House and Senate Repubs think that Bush's keystone cops performances on some on a number of issues have hurt them badly, and they are right. Mind you, their own performances didn't exactly inspire much confidence either.
You have not addressed the issue of the CIA confirming Plame's identiy to a journalist. It rather gets to the heart of the whole Plame circus; either she wasn't covert, or the CIA blew her cover.
-
Another poll that does not bode well for Hillary.
"Half of voting-age Americans say they would not vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) if she became the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, according to a Harris Interactive poll released Tuesday."
"Nearly half of the respondents said that they dislike Clinton’s political opinions and Clinton as a person. Fifty-two percent of people also said that “she does not appear to connect with people on a personal level.”
Apparently even more than 20% of Dems say they would not vote for Hill.
-
Ben, things are different this time due to the cable tv and the internet, blogs you tube etc, it is like we are having a cable tv primary in 2007, the 2008 election is on all the time, it never stops. Also the primary schedule is being highly compressed. Many states are moving their primary to Feb 5, which is the date that will decide the winners. In order to be competitive in so many states in Jan Feb, you will need at least $100m in the bank on Jan 1. To get $100m in the bank on Jan 1 you need to be the top dog in Sept Oct. to be the top dog then; you’d better be up there in the polls and getting out and about right now.
2008 will be the first $1 billion election. But don't worry, if that sounds like a lot of money, Americans spend $1billion on chocolate every 6 weeks (and it shows!!)
Rob, take Jon Stewart & Bill Maher etc with a bag of salt. It is a fact that they are both very funny, but the both lean well left too. Watch them for a laugh, but whatever you do, don't develop your understanding about what is going on over here from those guys; you are screwing yourself royally if you do.
Also, the last un-telegenic presidential candidate apart from Bush and Gore, was ... Kerry. He was dreadful, came across as a pompous ass, " I voted for it before I voted against it!!" Please. Rove must have been falling off his chair laughing so hard and thinking to himself, "Kerry, are you doing my job for me or what?!!"
As for Fox gunning for Obama, I haven't seen much if any negative press from anyone on Obama yet. There is a lot of "who is this guy?", "here is more of his background" type stuff. He is a very new and a blank slate politically so that is fair enough. But you know that Hillary's dumpster divers are working overtime. That is happening for sure. No one will out mud wrestle a Clinton. -
Having had a Bush or Clinton on every presidential ballot since 1980 (as prez or VP) is definitely a issue against Hillary. And the comparison against Bill is one Hillary will lose every time, being a phony bitch compared with Bill's ability to connect with any audience or group anywhere anytime is just a comparison terrible for Hillary.
But Bill's past, Monica and all the rest of them, will be part and parcel of Hillary's campaign, whether she or anyone else likes it or not, both from a serious perspective, like the very credible allegation by Juanita Brodderick of rape against Bubba, and from the Leno, Letterman et al aspect of humour which is just going to happen. There is so much material, how can anyone expect them to leave it alone?
I saw a clip of Dennis Miller the other night, it was so funny. He played a clip of Hillary reading her book, Living History (which should be called Re-writing History). She was talking about "how mad she was when she found about Monica, I was just so mad, I was shocked, I had no idea” Miller cuts in with "sorry honey, if you had no idea that Bill was playing around on you, after having being slept around on so many times already, you are just not smart enough to be my President!!" It is only so funny because it is so true. She is either lying in her book and some kind of strange woman for putting up with Bill repeated affairs, or she is an idiot.
BTW, when you are talking about the Clintons, I wouldn't recommend using the phrase " ..leaves a bad taste in my mouth.." Most people state side will either think you are making a joke, or cringe at the thought.
The other Clinton aspect that will surface at some stage is their library. To date no list of donors or expenditure has been disclosed. Bearing in mind plenty of foreign countries and nationals, many from the Middle East have made "donations", (is it a donation, or a fee for services rendered, or services to be rendered?) Americans have every right to know who Bill and Hill owe IOUs to, and what this money has been spent on. A cynic would say that the library is a clever exercise in money laundering.
And no, Armitage is not a Bush insider. In fact when Armitage read a Novak article that described his source on who recommended Walter Mitty (Joe Wilson) for the trip to Niger, as a "not exactly a partisan gun slinger" Armitage thought "shit, Novack is talking about me!!" and went to Powell to say he thought he was Novack's source on Plame. That Powell and Armitage didn't go public and put an early end to the whole silly story right at the beginning, is something that really shreds their integrity and judgment, and highlights the fact that they were no loyal allies of Bush.
Neil, good article on Giuliani. It is exactly what I am reading and hearing over here. I know quite a few people who are quite conservative and they like Rudy because they think he is tough. All Rudy has to say is “I may have some liberal views on some social issues, but I wont use the White House to advance those views, I will appoint staunch judges like Roberts and Alito, I will finish the job in Iraq, fight the war on terror and approach the Iranian issue etc. very aggressively, and I will extend the Bush tax cuts and cut taxes more” and he will get most conservatives voters. Rudy also goes on the record saying that Roe v Wade should be overturned because it was a terrible decision from a legal standpoint, and the issue of abortion belongs at the state level. Add to the mix that there is no rationale for 2 moderate liberal Repubs in the primary race, and that McCain’s campaign is not looking good, and Rudy looks even stronger.
-
Neil,
You wrote, "It would be a mistake to believe that just not having Bush will magically solve the serious issues out there."
Nice to see some recognition of this. It doesn't matter who would have been in the White House these last six years, we would have had some very difficult times regardless.
Rob,
I don’t get this blowing off Novak stuff. He is the guy who Richard Armitage at State (non White House, non Bush insider) told about Plame. Novak is the guy to whom the CIA confirmed that Plame was an employee of the CIA. He is no Bush lackey, he was against the Iraq invasion from the very beginning, and hasn't been shy about it since. His article started the whole Plame thing from the beginning, how can you say that he and his information and views are of no value? Novak is not discredited; he did not come out of the whole sorry saga looking bad (unlike Armitage and Powell)As for Duke Cunningham, the White House had nothing to do with his case either way. He was a crook and he deserves to be in jail, and there are more in the Congress, from both sides, who deserve and need to be in jail as well.
Don't over estimate Bill's help to Hillary. He will be invaluable as a campaign strategist, and yes he is still popular, but nobody will be able to help thinking that do we really want a First Husband who will be groping waitresses at State functions, and heaven only knows what else, for 4 or 8 years. Unfortunately, Bill can fit in a lot of groping in 8 years, and this is not a thought that most Americans find very pleasant.
Obama could well appeal to white Christians, as long as he stays away from the race hustlers and shake down artists, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, he will have no problem getting a lot of white voters, which is great. That a female and a black are top contenders in a Presidential race is great news indeed.
Simon,
Lots of journalists recent past includes the word "swift boating". Any journalist who had a job and a pulse in 2004 would have written about the swift boat issue. Kerry made his very short military service the center piece of his campaign ("John Kerry, reporting for duty!!") and so it was more than fair game for anyone to examine it. And when a sailor is running President and a good number of other sailors in his area have questions that sailor's suitability to be Commander in Chief, that is news that needs to be reported.If Hayden is correct in describing Plame as covert, then her beef should be with the CIA, who confirmed her identify to a journalist. If she really was covert, the CIA blew the cover of one of their own agents.
If Plame was covert, Fitzgerald should have prosecuted Armitage. He didn't.
Who to believe? Maybe someone who helped draft the applicable legislation?
"Toensing testified that Plame was not a covert operative as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (which she had helped draft as a Senate staffer in 1982) if only because she was not stationed overseas for the CIA the past five years."
-
Obama is very, very good. He has phenomenal political skills in terms of emoting and connecting with an audience. I have read experienced commentators who have observed him say that Obama is as good as Bill Clinton in that regard, and Bubba was the best in a generation.
Obama's crucial short coming is that of experience. He has never had a hard political campaign, he has never run any major political office or organization and he has no record of legislative accomplishment. Ideally he would go off and be the Governor of Illinois for a couple of terms and then come back and run for the White House, and be practically unstoppable. I think his lack of experience will be harshly exposed on the national stage if he gets there. He would be a great VP candidate, but after nearly a year of going at it hammer and tongs with Hillary or whoever, that might not be possible.
Hillary is viewed very negatively by a lot of people, and fair enough too, she is a nasty, ruthless piece of work. I saw a poll that had something 45% saying that they would not vote for her under any circumstances. That is very tough to overcome, she has to get 80% of the undecideds, that has never been done.
For my money, the best Dem prospect who gets a little attention every now and again is Bill Richardson, the popular Governor of New Mexico. He is fairly charismatic, 100 times more than Hillary, but quite a bit less than Obama and he would make a good candidate and a good President. He is a sensible guy who understands how economies work, so no big tax hikes or piling too much regulation on business on his watch, he would be quite electable. He may well get selected as a VP candidate.
Rudy will have plenty of scrutiny and mud coming his way, and fair enough too, he has more than a few skeletons of various types in his closet, and he needs to explain them. If any really dodgy or dishonest stuff comes out, then he shouldn’t be President.
If the Repubs had somehow held onto the Congress last year, then 2008 would have been a clean sweep for the Dems, they would have gotten both Houses of Congress and the White House. The Repub Presidential nominee’s best campaign asset will be the Dem House, they are already screwing things up and when the Out of Iraq people get all pissed off that the US stays in Iraq and the Dem House supplies funds, it is going to get really nasty, which will turn off a lot of people (voters). I see Code Pink are planning or have staged a sit in the Pelosi’s office. Fun, fun, fun!!!
Weston,
I am all for oversight, sensible oversight. I am not for grandstanding and trying to set people up which is what this attorney carry on is all about.The White House is unfortunately being their usual wimpy selves in terms of defending their actions. Some of the attorneys were cut loose because they weren't prosecuting voter fraud and illegal immigration cases. The obvious play for the White House is to push the line "so you are okay with not prosecuting voter fraud?" on the Dems. With a bit of spine and smarts the issue could at least be effectively communicated to the public if not turned on the Dems. If you act hesitant and like you have done something wrong, it is not unreasonable for people to think that you have in fact done something wrong.
Simon,
So you wont bother with the journalist who wrote the article and was thus involved in the middle of the Plame case from the beginning, and who obviously knows as much as anyone about what actually happened? Interesting strategy. I guess ignoring anything that contradicts your views is one way of trying to win an argument.And you didn't answer the question about whether someone is covert if, when a well known journalist calls the CIA to enquire about a certain person, the CIA public affairs office confirms to the well known journalist that the person in question does in fact work for the CIA. Can you please explain to me how that employee is covert?
As for poll numbers out this far, I wrote on a previous post that the internet, blogs, & cable TV and the front loaded primary calendar are pushing the campaigning back to a much earlier start and will require a lot more money, which only the front runner later on in 2007 will be able to secure. It is different this time.
-
As far as the attorney "scandal" goes, here is an exerpt from the WaPo's editorial today.
".. The many e-mails that the administration has released for the most part suggest nothing nefarious in the dismissal process.
It would not be acceptable for Mr. Bush to fire the attorneys to short-circuit prosecutions of political corruption among Republicans. So far there's no evidence that he did .."
And that is the WaPo, hardly a member of the vast right wing conspiracy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/AR2007032101974.html
More from the editorial page of the WSJ
".. But no one should be under any illusions that their political sacrifice at the current moment would appease Democrats. Their real target is Karl Rove, and ultimately the crippling of the Bush Presidency"
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009818
Let's not be under any illusions to what is really going on here. At a stretch it may be fair to consider what is going on hardball politics as usual, but trying lay the ground work to try to set up a Presidential advisor in a perjury trap is not the noble pursuit of the truth.
-
I would be careful about taking Waxman at face value. Here is an article by Robert Novak (who ought to know about the ins and outs of the whole sorry affair) on the subject of Plame's status.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/was_valerie_covert.html
While he was researching his original article that started the whole thing off, Novak called the CIA to ask about Plame. The CIA spokesman confirmed that Plame worked for the CIA to a journalist. Does that sound like covert status to you? I have a hard time getting there myself, but maybe that is just me.
Here is a Miami Herald article about their vote recount examination from April 2001. It is pretty clear who won Florida, and who didn't. Either way the whole thing was a ridiculous fiasco and an embarrassment to the US.
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/footnotes/2005/08/miami_herald_ap_1.html
The DOJ fuss is a non-scandal in the sense that the firings in question were perfectly legitimate. The positions in question are political appointees who serve at the pleasure of the President; they can be fired for any reason at anytime.
If Gonzales or his staff mislead the Congress then that is a problem that needs to be sorted out, I have no problem with that at all. If getting to the bottom of the issue and finding out why the attorneys were fired is all that the Dems wanted, then that could be easily sorted out.
But the Dems have been very open that there strategy for the next 2 years to fight the White House is, to quote Chucky Schumer, "subpoena after subpoena". They are going to try to bog the Administration down as much as they can. Also, the corruption/competence issue worked very well for the Dems in 2006 so it makes sense for them to keep pushing that issue at every chance, and of course they fantasize about getting Karl Rove's scalp.
Personally I think Gonzales and some of his staff should go (and Harriett Myers too, please!!) , but doing that would put blood in the water and only serve to encourage the Dems in their strategy, which is probably why Bush is resisting it. Being loyal to your staff is an important leadership trait, but Bush over does it to the detriment of his Administration and Repubs in general. If Bush had fired Rumsfeld before last year’s election, the Repubs would still hold the Senate.
The silver lining to this "scandal" is that now Bush won’t be able to nominate Gonzales to any Supreme Court vacancy, should one arise, and that is a good thing.
-
Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but everyone knows that there is this thing called the electoral college, that for better or worse is used to decide elections.
And Gore did lose Florida by about 500 votes. After the election, a consortium of newspapaers including the NYT Miami Herald etc spent months counting and recounting the votes in Florida using various standards for counting hanging chads etc, and under most scenarios Bush won by a round the amount he was declared the winner on election night.
In the political and economic climate of 2000 against a candidate like Bush, Gore should have won easily. That he didn't shows what a lousy candidate he is, and a lot of Dems cant and wont forget that.
The attorney "scandal" is the biggest non-scandal, since the last famous non- scandal, Valerie Plame, the covert agent who wasn't. If she was covert Fitzgerld whould have had no choice but to put Richard Armitage behind bars, that he didn't tells you all you need to know about that so called scandal.
Dick Morris sums up the phoney attorney scandal nicely:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/the_phoniest_scandal_of_the_ce.html
-
Gore might win the Dem primary if Hillary tanks, but I don't think he would win the general election, in fact I am damn sure he wouldn't.
Like Hillary, Gore is not a natural politician, he has zero charisma and a political tin ear, and he not only has a reputation as a loser, he is a loser. He lost what should have been for a politician of any ability at all, an unlosable election in 2000.
Gore was just such an utter tool in the Presidential debates, even I felt bad for him. It is hard to look poor against Bush in that kind of environment, but Gore managed it. SNL slaughtered him for it, and deservedly so (actually I would love to some of those SNL takeoffs on YouTube!!)
It is late over here, but I will post some links to some articles about the Rudy/conservative angle tomorrow. It is the real deal; conservatives believe that come Jan 2009, it will most likely be either Hillary or Rudy being sworn in. And how many conservatives do you think want Hillary being sworn in?