WaxWorks
|
Friday, February 14, 2003
Well, I'm starting to get a bit more optimistic.
First, I read this article this morning. I've been a bit worried that 9/11 might have drastically changed NY's view of President Bush in such a way that NY might be a state up-for-grabs in 2004. Rove & Co. apparently thought so too, or else they wouldn't have picked NYC as the site of the Republican convention in 2004. Sure, I agree that there are residual benefits to the rest of the nation being reminded of 9/11 by having the convention there. But I think Rove and others are believing they can carry NY in '04, which, of course, would kill any Democratic chances. But a recent poll gives me some relief. It shows that only 36% of NY voters would vote for Bush today, and 54% would vote for the eventual Democratic nominee, not quite Gore's 25 point margin over Bush in '00, but enough to make Democrats encouraged.
Rove is an evil genius -- I think he handled the '02 elections brilliantly (even though I think what happened in GA was a disgrace). But his one real weakness is hubris, and it could be his undoing. Remember, if Bush doesn't campaign in California at the end of the 2000 campaign, there probably is no Florida. Rove thought he could win California and it nearly cost him. The same could be the case with New York -- it could become his great white whale.
Secondly, the latest CBS News/NYT poll is VERY encouraging for Democrats. Where to begin, because the whole thing is a train wreck for Bush.
Well, his overall approval rating is down to 54%, from 64% a month ago. Over fifty percent favor giving the U.N. process more time before taking unilateral action against Iraq. Only 47% approved of his overall handling of foreign policy, while 44% disapproved. 53% approved of how he is handling Iraq.
But the big issue is the economy. 53% disapproved of his handling of the economy, and only 38% approve of how he is handling it. These are big-time disasterous numbers.
Which is why we need to watch and stop the press from Gore-ing people like Kerry. . .
Thursday, February 13, 2003
I've maintained for a long time that the whole politization of judicial confirmations did not begin, as Republicans claim, with the Robert Bork nomination, but rather with the Abe Fortas nomination for Chief Justice in 1968. Now that Estrada is the other judicial nominee to be filibusted after Fortas, it's worth noting some similarities in these cases. Thanks to the WyethWire for revealing this tidbit from when Strom Thurmond was questioning Fortas during his confirmation hearing in 1968:
When the subject changed to the record of the Warren Court, Thurmond grilled him for two hours with all the subtlety of an attack dog. He focused on criminal cases and voting rights.
Thurmond repeatedly asked (some fifty times) - and Fortas repeatedly declined to answer - questions about specific cases. Each time, Thurmond concluded, "And you refuse to answer that?"
And Fortas answered each time, "Yes."
An irritated Thurmond said he could not understand, nor would the people, why Fortas could write and lecture about legal issues, but couldn't answer his questions."
Ol' Strom, by Jack Bass pp 212-213
So, writes Wyeth, "Thurmond and others filibustered Fortas, in part because of the nominee's refusal to answer questions about ideology and judicial decisions."
Hmm. Seems, as law-talking people like Estrada would say, like we've got a precedent here.
Wednesday, February 12, 2003
Are you feeling like this debate about the Bush Budget is some kind of "Freaky Friday" reversal -- with Democrats arguing for a balanced budget and Republicans saying it doesn't matter? Remember the days of the Balanced Budget Amendment in the mid '90s? Well, here's a quote from Tom DeLay in 1997 about the importance of budget deficits vs. tax cuts:
Being half in love with deficits represents a remarkable shift in thinking from the group's early days, which were consumed with balancing the budget. Members of the group, still known on Capitol Hill as the Cats from their former name, the Conservative Action Team, were among the strongest advocates for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the committee's chairman in the early 1990's, called it a higher priority than cutting taxes.
"Jack Kemp worships at the altar of tax cuts," Mr. DeLay, now the House majority leader, said derisively in 1997 of the party's best-known supply-side theorist. "Jack has always said that deficits don't matter. We think that deficits do matter."
Tuesday, February 11, 2003
|
Well, WaxWorks has surveyed the list of nominees for this year's Academy Awards. Without having seen any of the nominees, WaxWorks is willing to go out on a limb and predict the biggest shoo-in: "Twin Towers" for Documentary Short Subject. I mean, who is going to vote against the WTC?
