WaxWorks
|
Thursday, January 09, 2003
Interesting line of questioning by Russell Mokhiber in a recent White House briefing:
Q Ari, other than Elliott Abrams, how many convicted criminals are on the White House staff?
MR. FLEISCHER: (Laughter.) You tell me, Russell. You seem to keep count.
Q Can you give me a list of convicted criminals on the White House staff, other than Elliott Abrams?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'll go right to the convicted criminals division and ask them to turn -- (Laughter.)
Q No, seriously -- why isn't being convicted of a criminal a disqualifier for being on the White House staff?
MR. FLEISCHER: Russell, this is an issue that you like to repeat every briefing. I refer you to the --
Q But you don't answer --
MR. FLEISCHER: -- repeat I gave you the third time you asked it, which matched the second, which corresponded to the first.
Tuesday, January 07, 2003
Here's the rare situation where a judicial nominee reveals the advice given to him by the administration that appoints him, when everyone knows this is the advice that is given. Still, after donning his black robe Friday, the unapologetic McConnell said the most difficult aspect of the nomination process was keeping his sometimes contentious views in check.
"My handlers in Washington told me not to do anything that might be deemed controversial," McConnell told some 200 well-wishers. "That was the hardest part." Imagine what was said to Clarence Thomas.
This is very telling. Apparently the Bush Administration has ordered the Department of Labor to stop publishing its monthly report on mass layoffs by companies. The last time this was done: Bush Sr. during the 1992 recession. Clinton reinstated the report in 1995, a year before his reelection. Hmmm.
You may have heard about the reward being offered by Tom Paine.com for the Eli Lilly bandit. That is, the person who convinced Dick Armey and the Republicans in the House to secretly add a provision in the Homeland Security Bill to give lawsuit protection to Eli Lilly for a vaccine that some parents have alleged caused autism in their children. (And I thought bills of attainder were unconstitutional??) Interestingly, given the way things have played out in the Senate recently, one of the leading suspects is none other than Bill Frist, given his connections with Lilly and the fact that he put it in an earlier Senate bill.
But I'm offering my own type of "Eli Lilly Bandit" type reward -- no, no money for being right, just recognition on WaxWorks. This one is called the "Danny Tartabull Bandit." I want to know who was the one Baseball Hall of Fame voter who voted for Danny Tartabull for the Hall of Fame. Excuse me, Danny Tartabull? I mean, as a Yankees fan, I was thrilled when we traded Tartabull for Ruben Sierra, even though Sierra stepped into the bucket worse than unschooled Little Leaguer. Come on, WaxWorks readers. It's up to you.
Two things about 2004 today. First, Daschle announces that he won't run. I think this is a good thing. First of all, Daschle made a mistake in the eyes of many Democrats by forgiving Lott too quickly and also by getting hammered by Bush on Homeland Security. Second, Daschle's Senate seat is up in 2004 and he cannot run for Senator and President at the same time under S.D. law (unlike N.C. law). One Senator putting his seat at risk to run for President is bad enough, but two would be disasterous for us. Hopefully Daschle will stay on as minority leader, where he has been very effective in stymying Republicans, and run for reelection in 2004 (there has been some talk he might retire).
Second, I saw that Dick Gephardt will not seek reelection in the House to focus on his Presidential campaign. Two things on this. One, I can almost guarantee that Gephardt will not be the party's nominee in 2004 and he certainly will not win. Josh Marshall put it best: "Gephardt deciding to run for President after what happened in November is "sort of like having your girlfriend dump you and then you say, 'Okay, baby, I can live with that. But I've got another idea for you. How 'bout you and me get married? Huh? Huh? Yeah, baby ... Whaddya think???'"
Second, assuming that Gephardt is out of a job after next year, I think we know who will challenge newly elected Republican Senator Talent in 2008.
Monday, January 06, 2003
Excuse me?
QUESTION: If we do have to go to war...
BUSH: With which country?
-Press conference, 1/2/03
God save us -- from Washingtonian Magazine:
Will Hatch Seek Opening for Himself on Supreme Court?
When President George W. Bush sends his first Supreme Court nomination to the Senate, Judiciary Committee chair Orrin Hatch is expected to shepherd it through.
But, as they say, not so fast.
Hatch has been spreading the word, through his old friend Attorney General John Ashcroft and others, that perhaps it’s time his name should be sent to the Senate.
Hatch hassurfaced in the past as a potential Supreme Court nominee. If anything works against him now, it will be his age—68. That reality seems to have sent the hale and hearty Hatch into a now-or-never mentality.
His renewed interest in the court has confounded judge pickers at the White House. They worry that if they choose someone else, the powerful chairman might not be helpful.
The most likely nomineesinclude Virginia federal appeals-court judges J. Harvie Wilkinson and Michael Luttig; Solicitor General Theodore Olson; former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr; and White House counsel Alberto Gonzalez.
If Chief Justice William Rehnquist is the first to retire, who will move up to his spot? It now looks like Clarence Thomas, and not Antonin Scalia, would replace Rehnquist. The juxtaposition of Thomas’s breaking his usual silence to deliver an impassioned lecture against cross-burning and Senator Trent Lott’s remarks on the virtues of the 1948 segregationist Dixiecrats was not lost on President Bush. He now believes that elevating Thomas would be the most dramatic way to return his party to being the party of Lincoln and not the party of Lott.
Okay, after a long New Year's nap, I'm back.
Well, I just saw that the Republicans have chosen New York City as the site for their convention in 2004. It's really a no-brainer for them, particularly since the date of the convention is the week of August 30, which means that the week after the convention will be Sept. 11 events, giving them a two-week convention, in essence. But, if the economy doesn't improve it could be a striking thing that the convention is in New York, focusing on terrorism, rather than the economy. We'll see.
