WaxWorks
|
Thursday, December 19, 2002
Once again, Clinton gets it right. Here are his comments on Lott:
CNN: Do you have a comment on Senator Lott?
Clinton: No, other than....I think that -- obviously -- I don't agree with him.
But I think there is something a bit hypocritical about the way Republicans are jumping all over him. I think what they really are upset about is he made public their strategy.
The whole Republican apparatus supported campaigns in Georgia and South Carolina on the Confederate flag. There is no action coming out of the Justice Department against all those people, Republicans, who suppressed black voters in the South, in Arkansas and Louisiana, and lots of other places. Telephone operations telling people in Florida they didn't have to vote on Election Day, that they could vote on Saturday but not if they had parking tickets. I mean, this is their policy.
So I think the way that the Republicans treated Senator Lott is a pretty hypocritical since right now, their policy is in my view inimical to everything this country stands for. They tried to suppress black voting, they ran on the Conferederate flag in Georgia and South Carolina and from top to bottom Republicans supported them. So I don't see what they're jumping on Trent Lott about.
I think the Democrats can say we disagree with what he said and we don't think its right but that's the Republican policy. How do you think they got a majority in the South anyway?
CNN: So he should step down as majority leader?
Clinton: I think that's up to them. But I think that they can't say it with a straight face. How can they jump all over him when they're out there repressing and trying to run black voters away from polls and to run on the Confederate flag in Georgia and South Carolina. Look at their whole record. The others, how can they attack him? He just embarrassed them by saying in Washington what they do on the back roads every day.
Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) may be in some hot water after Bob Herbert piece in the NYT today. Apparently good ol' Conrad has made some, shall we say, "questionable" comments over the years.
Wednesday, December 18, 2002
Once again, Josh Marshall at talkingpointsmemo.com is right on:
Compare and contrast ...
"There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus," DiIulio tells Esquire. "What you've got is everything—and I mean everything—being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis"
-- Esquire,January 2003
The [decision over which side to take on the Michigan affirmative action case] is ultimately likely to be resolved by Bush's chief political strategist, Karl Rove, who is the architect of Bush's effort to broaden the GOP appeal to minorities.
-- Washington Post,
December 18th, 2002
Looks like DiIulio had no idea what he was talking about ...
-- Josh Marshall
If Daschle decides to run for President, it looks like a fight between Dodd and Reid is shaping up for minority leader. I like Dodd and I had hoped he would be minority leader in 1995, when Daschle beat him. That being said, I think Daschle did a great job and was the right person for that role.
On Dodd vs. Reid, I think Democrats need to remember the selflessness of Harry Reid that resulted in Democrats taking over the Senate when Jeffords jumped from the Republicans. Reid gave up his right to a committee chairmanship, and gave it to Jeffords. That should be rewarded by the party.
Here's a good response to the tit-for-tat Republicans who reflexively respond with Robert Byrd's name when the Lott episode is discussed.
This is quite interesting. Yes, it's too early, but this poll shows Giuliani beating Shumer pretty handily. I've always thought that Giuliani's future lies in 2006, but maybe he will reconsider if numbers like this continue. Personally, I've thought that Shumer was very popular in New York and I've always thought that his gambit to get Bush to promise $20 billion to NY the day after the attacks was one that every New Yorker should relish.
Tuesday, December 17, 2002
Well, President Bush, we've heard from Trent Lott on affirmative action, what about you? Will the Supreme Court ask for the Bush Administration's position on affirmative action, as it did here?
Well, you can pretty much pick your favorite part of the Lott interview with BET last night. Was it when he surprisingly announced his steadfast support for affirmative action? Or was it when he said that he voted against the MLK Holiday because he didn't know what kind of person MLK was (I assume, other than he was black), but now that he knows, he would have voted differently.
For someone who hammered Clinton after his Lewinsky deposition, my favorite part was his attempt to explain what "those problems" meant:
Q.Senator, many of those African-Americans believe, quite frankly, that that was you speaking in code to constituents with a wink and a nod saying, "You know, the good old days."
So you tell us, so we won't have conjecture on what you meant, what did you mean when you said, "those problems"?
A. I was talking about the problems of the defense and communism and budgets and governments sometimes that didn't do the job.
As the principal says in the Goldie Hawn classic film Wildcats, "Riiiiiight."
Also, did you notice this part too:
Lott: I mean, even today I talked to John Lewis, Congressman Lewis from Georgia, and I said, "You know, I heard you on `Meet the Press,' and you talked about——
Q. Inviting you to travel with him, to go out.
A. Yes, but also another thing that I picked up on, the need for perhaps us to develop a plan, working together in a bipartisan way, bicameral, and multiracial, you know, young and old, men and women from all sections of the country to have a task force of reconciliation; sit down and talk.
Lott, to me, seemed to be trying to avoid having to take that trip with Lewis. Could you imagine him going home to his buddies in Mississippi after that?
Monday, December 16, 2002
Obviously, the big story today is Gore, as first discussed here back on December 12. More on that later.
But first, check this out. I didn't really think that this idea that the poor don't pay enough taxes would gain any momentum, particularly after several columnists destroyed the idea in print. But, sure enough, apparently the Bushites are going through with it.
