Quote of the Day 11/26

“It's [time to] take the mask off and take a look at what kind of governor was he... He throws stones at people. And then on that issue he usually has a worse record than whoever he’s throwing stones at... I think there’s a difference between a guy who gets results, real results, that were applauded nationwide and somebody who had a mixed record at best as governor.”

- Rudy Giuliani in his most pointed attack on rival Mitt Romney. The gloves are off, and it seems that Giuliani is ready to try and take a chunk out of Mitt's big lead in New Hampshire.

This is a rhetorical shift for Rudy, who has been saving this kind of language for Hillary Clinton, in an effort to portray himself as the presumptive nominee. So the fact that Rudy is going after Romney now is probably a good sign for Mitt. Now he just has to respond. So far, the Romney campaign called the comments "nasty."

Possibilites and Peace: All in Vain?

This week, Israeli, Arab and American leaders and diplomats meet in Annapolis, MD to try and hammer out a Middle East peace deal that all sides (and this is this blogger's hope) look to have lasting, positive impacts. Bush's two-state plan will be discussed, as well as several of the classic points that have always made their way onto the agenda of these American-brokered negotiations. From border redrawings to refugees to national identity recognition, all that will be discussed is vital in and of itself to Israelis and Palestinians, and each issue impacts the greater Middle East in uniquely profound ways.

Msnbc.com reports of President George W. Bush's optimism about the talks, this following his meet with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. This president's optimism, it should be noted, is as dependable to go on as Iago's advice to Othello. The outline of what is to be discussed has yet to be agreed upon, Syria has, at the eleventh hour, decided to join the negotiations and they haven't agreed on the agenda, and representatives from Hamas were not invited, despite the fact that they control the Gaza Strip, home to over one million Palestinians. Further undermining Mr. Bush's optimism (or it should, at least) is the fact that Iraq's democratic project has yet to yield any political results since the "Surge", and the diplomatic showdown with Iran leaves open questions to Tehran's military support of Hezbollah and Hamas. Nevertheless, Mr. Bush is positive he can work something out, and in the end, possibly steal the Nobel Peace Prize President Clinton lost due to his failure to bang out a pragmatic agreement.

Of course, a pragmatic agreement should be the goal, but it never seems to be the aim of these summits. What's going on between Hamas in Gaza and Western Israel is nothing short of war, just as that between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas is nothing short of civil war. Yet, Hamas is absent from the negotiations, despite being democratically elected in a Western-sponsored election. Many will say consequences follow democratic elections (we should know), and that the Palestinians must deal with the consequences of electing Hamas. Those same critics always fail to note the precarious position the West and Israel placed Palestinians in, resulting in these two choices: a corrupt incumbency that's done little to improve living standards, or a militant organization at constant war with the obvious aggressor, Israel (obvious to Palestinians, of course). There's no excusing Hamas shelling western Israeli towns and suicide bomb runs, and Israel must retaliate beyond accordingly. But to negotiate sans your enemy does more than further antagonizes him; it makes him an entrenched obstacle to any implementation of policies agreed upon by "all" sides.

Msnbc.com also has a piece highlighting the pessimism among Palestinians and Israelis, those living under the current system, and who will live under any agreeable condition. They've been here before, as have we all, watching America take the lead in something no other Middle Eastern state seems capable of handling, if indeed they had the stomach to. It's a process led by history, and that's always the first mistake. Rarely, if ever, has there ever been an analyses of the status quo and future aspirations of the peoples involved. Whether it was Arafat unreasonably demanding the return of every Palestinian refugee or Barrack irresponsibly agreeing to partition Jerusalem, there's never been any lasting agreement because the most dominant player, and peace broker, doesn't live with the consequences of the decision. Instead of leading negotiations, the U.S. should propel Mid East leaders to assume such a role.

I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt much will change come next week. Israelis on the Golan Heights will continue to feel at home, but not at peace. A Hamas soldier will be ready for another day of battle with the Zionist occupiers. And a region rich in history, culture and bloodshed will continue to spiral away from a world advancing and modernizing.

Bush responds to McClellan

Not sure if you heard, but former White House press secretary Scott McClellan has a new book coming out in which he says he was given false information, which he unwittingly passed on. McClellan blames 5 top White House officials, including the president and vice president, for allowing him to brief the press using lies.

During the CIA leak investigation, McClellan said that White House officials, including Karl Rove, were not involved in the outing of covert agent Valerie Plame. They were.

The woman now in McClellan's old job, Dana Perino, said President Bush "has not and would not knowingly pass false information."

I knew this would happen (before I didn't)

If you needed any more proof that I don't know what I'm talking about, NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg has hired a foreign policy expert, who is briefing him on international affairs. The expert, Nancy Soderberg, was US Ambassador to the UN, a Clinton foreign policy adviser, and has been described as "Bloomberg's Condi."

This is the strongest indication that he'll run for president next year.

I've already flip flopped on this issue, so I'll stay quiet on it

Supreme Court to Decide 2nd Amendment

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

For the first time in 70 years, the US Supreme Court will rule on the 2nd Amendment, it was announced yesterday. The justices will hear a case on Washington DC's 31 year old ban of handguns in private residences.

A wealthy libertarian lawyer recruited a plaintiff and financed the suit, which was successful in the DC court of appeals. The plaintiff is a security guard who carries a gun at work, and wants to keep it at home for protection. Under DC law, he is unable to do so.

At issue is whether the Second Amendment, quoted above, grants an individual right to arm, or if that right is tied to the formation of a militia. To me, the word militia is in the same sentence, so...

The court has shifted conservative over the past 7 years, so I would expect the DC law to be struck down.

Also of note, this will spark the gun- control debate in the presidential race, and it will be interesting to see how Rudy Giuliani handles it. Giuliani was a staunch gun control advocate as NYC mayor, but has distinguished that stance (rightly so, I think) from hunter's rights, and gun control in less dangerous situations.

However, this is Washington, DC we're talking about. One of America's most dangerous and crime- ridden cities. If Giuliani is consistent (honest, really) he'd probably be in favor of DC's restrictive law.

This is going to be interesting.

Rudy Ad

I've been doing a lot of Rudy stuff recently, I don't really know why. Here's his new ad:

9/11 Chairman endorses... McCain?

In a certain blow to the Rudy Giuliani campaign, Former NJ Governor and 9/11 Commission co-chair Tom Kean will endorse John McCain for president today in Boston.

Giuliani has formed his campaign based in large part on his leadership in New York City after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He was originally a member of the 9/11 commission but was removed for poor attendance.

In rebuttal, the Giuliani campaign released a statement of endorsement from New Jersey state senator (and former Senate candidate) Tom Kean Jr., who is, as you might have guessed, Tom Sr.'s son.

“Rudy Giuliani is the proven leader New Jerseyans want as our next President,'’ the younger Kean wrote. “We have witnessed his leadership firsthand and know he will win New Jersey in both the primary and general elections.”

In related news, the group 9/11 Firefighters & Families will be holding a town hall at Dartmouth College. According to their press release:

“9/11 Firefighters & Families are deeply offended at how Rudolph Giuliani has exploited the 9/11 terrorist attack to weave a false myth that he is the only person with the credentials and experience to lead the nation as our next president. They plan to set the record straight.”

If Giuliani gets the nom, expect big things from that group.

Meanwhile, this is a quiet victory for McCain, whose campaign continues to gain new life.

Political Ad of the Year

As I mentioned last month, Chuck Norris endorsed Mike Huckabee for president. Huckabee is not hesitating to take advantage of that star power. Below is his first television spot, and it's Chuck approved.

New Survey Says Men Prefer Less Successful Women

In a recent sociological study done in New York, a Columbia economics professor found that when choosing a potential spouse, men were often threatened by successful women. Men preferred to date successful women to a point, but on the whole, they did not usually choose a suitor that had a higher salary than they did. In contrast, women always preferred the more successful man.

I don't know exactly what to make of this. Except, perhaps men are just the more jealous sex of the two. Or maybe men still prefer to be the breadwinner and leave the women home to take care of the children. Either way, the point of the article was that Hillary Clinton might have a better chance of winning the primary and eventually the presidency if men weren't threatened by successful go-getter ladies.

I am interested to hear your reaction to this article. It seems like a plausible, yet surprising result to me.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/opinion/14dowd.html?_r=1&n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/Maureen%20Dowd&oref=slogin

WSJ: Affluent Voters Switch Brands

The Wall Street Journal has an excellent piece today on the shifting voting patterns of the wealthy. The Journal traveled to traditional- Republican- turned- swing state, Colorado, and spoke with people who have altered their allegiance in favor of Democrats.

Take James Kelly, an executive at the $7B firm Vistar, who supports Barack Obama. For all the Democrats' talk about rolling back the Bush tax cuts on top wage earners, Mr. Kelly still writes big checks to Democrats.

From the article:

"The Democratic Party stands more for creating equal opportunity," says Mr. Kelley. He says the party "speaks more to me on issues of the environment, and even more to me on national security," while he criticizes Republican stands on "so-called moral issues" such as gay marriage.

As for proposals by Democratic congressional leaders and presidential contenders to raise taxes on high earners, Mr. Kelley says: "The pocketbook, the taxes, that's issue 11. And the balance has swayed so far in [favor of] the 10 other things."

It's a pattern that has developed nationally over the last four years. In 2004, voters making at least six-figures favored President Bush 58% to 41% over Democrat John Kerry. During last year's Congressional races the margin was cut to 51% to 47%. According to a new Wall Street Journal- NBC News poll, "Americans earning more than $100,000 want Democrats to win the White House next year by 48% to 41%, and want Democrats to win control of Congress by 45% to 42%."

And don't think that shift hasn't already been felt in the '08 fund-raising race, where the top 5 Dems have raised $242M to their conservative counterparts' $167M.

In my opinion, the shift seems to be the product of the deep division the Republican party has dealt with post- Reagan, between social and fiscal conservatives. The uneasy truce between the two appears to have faded, and we now see the fallout. The social conservatives are having a hard time backing a candidate like Rudy Giuliani, and the fiscal conservatives are so turned off by the party's recent priorities that they've defected.

The old adage says that people will always vote their pocketbooks, but it seems that, like much of the traditional wisdom in this election cycle, has undergone a profound change.

Post Game Spin

After sitting down in front of my set for a few hours tonight hoping to watch a spirited debate, a few thoughts come to mind and I wonder if anyone out there shares them. Before I begin I would preface my comments by saying to this point I was an Edwards backer, but his performance of late has left me wondering about his ability to turn his campaign around so I now consider myself to have a "soft verbal" commitment to his campaign.

I was really looking forward to this debate. After the last MSNBC debate i thought the field had gotten closer and the media was doing a better job of refraining from a Clinton love fest and actually analyzing the candidates and their performance. I will not speculate here about who won the debate, I think both Clinton and Obama had good showings, and even "my boy" Edwards said some important things although he didnt get much facetime. But I will talk about who lost this debate. CNN and Wolf Blitzer. How AWFUL was their perfromance tonight? Oh let me count the ways.

1) Rules are ok, they are the reason debates tend to be organized and the moderato's bias is minimized. How many times did I count Wolf (I love Hillary ) Blitzer cut off Edwards or Obama when they were criticizing Clinton? Just about every single time. Some conspiracy theorists out there argued that he was trying to break up anti-Hillary sound bites. I just think he realized there was a time limit when he was hearing things he didnt like. Further, every time he addressed Hillary he began the sentence by saying "Hillary you have beeen criticized for...". First off, stop making her the victim, secondly this is a debate, ask her about issues, not about how she feels about being beat up on. I agreed with Hillary tonite when she said "They arent attacking me because I am a woman, they are attacking because I am in the lead". So lets move on and discuss issues.

2) CNN, nice touch with the undecided voter pool in the front, but next time actually let them participate instead of giving them questions to read for Wolf. Seriously though, those people were struggling to pronounce the words in the questions they were asking. Let them ask the questions they want, I know they may not sound good or capture the answer you would like the candidates to address, but wasn't that segment really suppossed to be about them? Maybe not. Also, as a laws student I appreciated the question about the Supreme Court Justices, but Wolf Blitzer did the same thing the abortion groups (either pro or con) have done for the last 30 years (if not more). He Hijacked the position of Supreme Court Justice and boiled it down to 1 issue, abortion. Abortion is an important issue, but i am pretty sure the young lady asked about what would make up an ideal justice, not whether they were for or agaist abortion. The Permanent link between the two, the judiciary and abortion rights is tired. Call me a West Wing ideallist on this one, but will we ever consider jsutices on anything other than their thoughts on Roe v. Wade? Wolf even tried to ask the audience memeber whether she wanted the candidates to answer her questions or Wolf's, to which she answered her own, haha take that Wolfy.

3) And finally, because its bedtime more than because I am not still dissapointed by this debate, can we please get some post game analysist that did not work for the Clinton presidency. I know Bill was in office for a long time, but there have to be high profile Democrats out there that can do post game analysis who dont owe the Clintons for prior appointments (looking at you here Gergen and the Ragin' Cajun). The debate was defintiely the Hillary and Barack show, but their analysis that claims that Hillary took the boys to school is biased and flat wrong.

4) And really CNN, you ended on a question about diamonds or pearls? Ugh.

At this point some of you probably think I hate Hillary Clinton. I dont. I actually think she would be a great candidate and is probably our (read Democrats) best chance to win in November, but what I cant stand is the love fest. Be objective, isnt that what the press is suppossed to be about? I thought one of the most important moments of the debate was when Obama made the comment about the middle class not being 6% of the population. The crowd went crazy and Hillary looked stunned. But after a full hour of post game spin that moment wasnt mentioned once. (although i did take a brief bathroom break, but you get the point). MSNBC had done some of the same early on, but as the race got closer they got their act together. CNN let me down tonite and I wonder if anyone else out here noticed any of the same things?

Bill Loves his Burgers... Impressive Clinton Ad

The Clinton campaign must have a top marketing firm working their ads, because this is pretty damn good.

Hillary pokes fun at herself and her husband, and gets a charming hand from the people of Iowa. Not bad.

This video is off, the sound doesn't start until about 10 seconds in. So check the link here to see a corrected version.

NBC's March Madness Metaphor

This morning, NBC News has a pretty cool metaphor for fans of college basketball and politics. As the Dems prepare to debate in Vegas, Domenico Montanaro draws similarities to the infamous UNLV teams of the early 90s.

LAS VEGAS, NV -- Thanks to Drudge, last month's debate in Philly, and Clinton's new position on drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants, tonight's Democratic showdown here at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas could be pretty interesting. Will Drudge's report of a Clinton camp warning to moderator Wolf Blitzer not to "pull a Russert" influence the debate? (Blitzer and CNN deny hearing from the campaign.) Will Clinton go on the offensive after playing defense at last month's debate? Did the New York senator -- by issuing a statement yesterday saying that, as president, she wouldn't support giving drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants -- open herself up to further charges that she evades tough questions? And given the UNLV venue, will Jerry Tarkanian or Larry Johnson be in attendance? Actually, that famous UNLV team could be a good metaphor. They seemed unbeatable until they met a more cerebral, though less talented, opponent. UNLV lost their undefeated season and the championship because they couldn't handle the pressure of a rare close game. Can Clinton handle the pressure now that she doesn't seem so inevitable?

Spitzer backs off...

NY Governor Elliot Spitzer has backed off his plan to issue drivers licenses to some of New York's 1,000,000 illegal immigrants. "You don't need a stethoscope to hear the pulse of New Yorkers on this issue." 75% of New Yorkers (and 55% of New York Democrats) oppose the plan.

This isn't good for Spitzer, because he takes a loss on an issue he led the way on nationally. It keeps the status quo of his stalled first term as governor.

It's also bad news for Hillary Clinton. Her double-talk during the last debate was on a question about Spitzer's plan (she was for it before she was against it). Clinton said she understood why Spitzer was doing it, and commended him for it, but wouldn't come out and support or denounce the plan. Now that Spitzer pulled it, the Clinton stuff will remain in the news and she looks bad for even halfway backing a plan that went nowhere.

As I've noted, I am a big fan of Spitzer. I worked for his campaign for governor and even met him. But he's had a rough go so far. That brings me to my point: Michael Bloomberg is on the cover of Newsweek this week, under the heading The Billion Dollar Wildcard, speculating about a Bloomberg '08 run for the White House. Like that's never been done before.

Anyway, I don't think Bloomberg will run for president, but I think he wants to be president. He's not going to win in 2008. You don't need two New York mayors running, and a third party isn't going to win, and he's too ambitious and pragmatic to run a wasted effort. So, in 2010, I think Bloomberg will run against Spitzer for governor, and see how the White House shakes out. That makes so much more sense from his point of view. He's the only Republican (once he converts back to the party) who has a shot to beat Spitzer.

The Plant Can Talk!

A Grinnell college student at the center of the Clinton question- plant controversy gave an interview to CNN about her experience. This is a must see...


The whole thing is pretty damn shady, and goes to the whole "anything to win" storyline that is really beginning to dog the Clinton campaign. It comes on the heels of her constant non-answers during the last Democratic debate, so the Hillary backlash is gaining some momentum. These are the first real missteps of her expertly run campaign. It will be interesting to see how she and her people handle them.

The upcoming debate in Vegas will be huge, so stay tuned...

The Last "Great Man" Standing?

This morning, famed New York Times columnist David Brooks (the Times' resident conservative) has an excellent profile of the "Last Great Man in the 2008 Presidential race." I'm not sure if Hillary Clinton was an option for this distinction, but somehow I have a feeling Brooks throws her in with the "un-great" masses.

To Brooks, and at least one political consultant he quotes, John McCain is the last "great man" standing.

When Brooks talks about being "great" he does so in the political scientist or sports writer sense. He's not endorsing McCain, any of his ideas or what he stands for. It's more of an objective label that certain people get from just being themselves. Ted Wiliams' swing, Willie Mays going back on a fly-ball. In McCain, Brooks points to his unflinching openness and unparalleled energy.

Telling the truth is a skill. Those who don’t do it habitually lose the ability, but McCain is well-practiced and has the capacity to face unpleasant truths. While other conservatives failed to see how corporations were insinuating themselves into their movement, McCain went after Boeing contracts. While others failed to see the rising tide of corruption around them, McCain led the charge against Jack Abramoff. While others ignored the spending binge, McCain was among the fiscal hawks.

Even though McCain is no where near the media darling he was eight years ago, Brooks says that his principled stances on the Surge strategy (he was the first Republican to the party on that one), and immigration reform (again, an honest effort), show you the kind of man he is. As if he needed to prove himself after living as a POW for six years.

Quote of the Day 11/12

"There are a lot of Americans (who say), 'Why didn't you go get him?' Well, I'm confident that losing men and women as a result of sniper fire inside of Baghdad would have turned the tide of public opinion very quickly."

- Then- Texas Governor George W. Bush on Veteran's Day 1997, in a speech in which he praised his father's decision not to push into Iraq and destroy the Iraqi National Guard during the Persian Gulf War. Bush said that the decision avoided an ugly "guerrilla war."

Apparently, his father agreed with the assessment. Of his son's comments, former President George H.W. Bush said: "I think he got it right." He then referred to Vietnam: "... one guerrilla war in my lifetime was enough."

UK Telegraph: The Dollar is Bad (but in a bad meaning good kind of way)

Writing for the Telegraph out of the UK, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard (who holds the record for most British name ever) predicts the US is well on its way to reclaiming its status as the world's dominant economic superpower.

He notes that as our money is devalued, countries will begin to learn that globalization "cuts both ways," as jobs stream into the US (apparently, IT salaries in India are now up to $18/hr.-- I'll take that). To support his claim, Evans-Pritchard notes the last time the US floundered economically, it rebounded stronger than ever after a dollar devaluation (from 1988-1992).

The factor working most in America's favor?

At the end of the day, the US remains the only major power still producing babies a rate high enough to survive through the 21st century as a dynamic society.

China's workforce will peak in 2015. The country will then tip over into the steepest demographic decline ever recorded. It will be old before it becomes rich, doomed to second-tier status.

There are more details, anecdotes and evidence offered in the article, so it's worth the read. As a bonus, it has finally shed a little light on why I had to pay $15 for a burger this summer in London.

RIP David Serrano

Two nights ago, my friend, David Serrano, fell onto the train tracks at the Mamaroneck train station, and was hit by an oncoming train and killed. David was smart and friendly. He was 26 years old, and taught middle school science.

Clinton Vulnerable, Romney Rising

The air of invincibility that surrounded the Clinton campaign just weeks ago has taken a serious hit on the heels of her poor debate. Check out these numbers.

Clinton's New Hampshire lead, while still formidable, has shrunk nine points in one poll and 10 in another. According to the polls, her support has shifted to Obama, who picked up the 5 points she lost.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney is on the rise. He now leads by 12 points in New Hampshire (32 to Giuliani's 20). As we've covered, Mitt's strategy rests with the early states, so this poll is great news for him. The former governor of Massachusetts cannot lose the New Hampshire primary, and it appears that he's exactly where he needs to be.

There are seven weeks until the Iowa primary.