WaxWorks
|
Friday, April 23, 2004
Surprise, Surprise
Time to play "Guess Who Said This" again. Who do you think gave this quote on February 26, 2001, 7 months before 9/11:
"The new administration seems to be paying no attention to the problem of terrorism. What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident and then suddenly say, 'Oh, my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?' That's too bad. They've been given a window of opportunity with very little terrorism now, and they're not taking advantage of it. Maybe the folks in the press ought to be pushing a little bit."
Richard Clarke? Al Gore? Bill Clinton?
Nope, none other than Iraq Administrator Paul Bremer. Wonder if Bush will attack his credibility now too?
Senate Prospects
I was particularly disheartened by the election results in 2002 because I thought that the Democrats had blown an excellent opportunity to not only hold onto control of the Senate, but to extend their hold by a few seats. Close losses in Minnesota, Colorado, Missouri and New Hampshire, coupled with Cleland's loss in Georgia, prevented that. One reason for my strong disappointment was that I had looked at the seats up in 2004 and I did not feel that the Democrats would have a good opportunity to regain control in 2004 if they lost control in 2002.
Well, here we are, nearly in the middle of 2004, and I'm happy to report that my initial analysis, as so often happens (did anybody read the Sports Illustrated article about that phrase?), was too pessimistic. As it currently stands, the Democrats stand a pretty good chance of retaking control of the Senate. (Currently, things stand at 51 R, 48 D and 1 I, Jeffords, who caucuses with the Democrats -- so the Democrats need a net pick up of 2 seats to regain control. This is the case even if Kerry wins, because, even though his VP would break ties, Kerry would leave the Senate and, until a new law is passed setting up a special election, Gov. Romney would appoint a Republican.)
Illinois , which currently has Republican Peter Fitzgerald, who is retiring, is a likely Dem pickup. Given the way Illinois has voted in the past few President elections, it should come as no surprise that Illinois is the best chance for the Democrats to pick up a seat. Barack Obama is a charismatic young political whose only negatives appear to be having a last name that looks a lot like the #1 U.S. Enemy. He should coast to victory, particularly since the Republicans, for the second straight election since the corruption scandal of former Gov. Ryan, have foolishly nominated a "Ryan" to a statewide office.
Thanks to Ben Nighthorse-Campbell's (R) decision not to run for reelection, Colorado looks like another likely Democratic pick up. The Democratic candidate, Salazar is the current AG and is popular. Current polls have the Dem ahead. The Republicans were hurt by Gov. Owens' decision not to run, leaving some lesser candidates to fight it out in the primary.
Believe it or not, Alaska also represents a prime opportunity for another Democratic pickup. Current Senator Lisa Murkowski was appointed by her father to fill his Senate seat when he was elected Governor and she has gotten a lot of criticism. The Democratic candidate is popular former Governor Tony Knowles. Although Alaska is a historically Republican state, Knowles is currently running ahead in the polls and the Democrats have a very good chance of winning this seat as well.
In the same vein, Oklahoma presents another unusual opportunity for a Democratic pickup. Usually solidly Republican, the retirement of Senator Nickles has provided the Democrats a chance to go after an open seat and they have nominated a very, very strong candidate in Congressman Brad Carson. The Republican primary will decide his opponent, probably former Congressman Coburn, but Carson has a good chance and has raised a lot of money.
We'll know more about whether Pennsylvania is a possible Democratic pickup after Tuesday's Republican primary. Incumbent Arlen Specter is being challenged on the right by conservative Congressman Pat Toomey. The Democrats have nominated Congressman Joe Hoeffel. CW has been that the Democrats stand a decent chance if right-winger Toomey defeats true-moderate Specter, but it might also be said that a weakened Specter, who barely squeaks by in the primary, might be a prime target for the Dems. Keep an eye on this race.
One wildcard is the Missouri race. Republican Senator Kit Bond looks strong for reelection, but Democratic Candidate Nancy Farmer is gaining ground. This seat could be in play down the road, particularly if Gephardt is the VP nominee.
On the Democratic side, Georgia is a sure Republican pick-up. But let's be honest, with Zell Miller, the seat pretty much was in Republican hands anyway. Looking at Miller now, it's hard to fathom that he gave one of the keynote addresses at Clinton's '92 Democratic convention, and a pretty stirring one at that.
But other than that, the Republicans have more difficulty picking up Democratic seats. Yes, South Dakota will be close again, but I believe Daschle will pull it out, particularly since the third party candidate has dropped out and endorsed him.
Where control of the Senate lies is in the open Democratic Southern seats. As Southern Democrat after Southern Democrat retired, things looked bleak for Democratic chances in the Senate. But, other than in Georgia, an actual analysis of each of those states looks much more promising.
South Carolina on the surface looks like another Georgia, with Democratic Fritz Hollings retiring at 82 after finally getting the opportunity to be the "senior senator" from South Carolina, after being the junior senator under Strom for so long. However, the Democrats have nominated Inez Tannebaum, who has been elected to statewide office several times. This race looks to be close to the end .
In North Carolina, with Edwards retiring and hoping to be promoted to VP, the Democrats are running a very strong candidate in Erskine Bowles, who lost a very competitive race to Liddy Dole in 2002. Bowles opponent is Congressman Richard Burr, and although Bowles is currently slightly ahead, this race should be close as well .
Like its place in Presidential politics, the Florida Senate race also looks like a tossup. Replacing retiring Democratic Senator Bob Graham (who also hopes to be promoted to VP) The nominees for each party aren't close to being settled, but this race looks like it too will be real close.
Finally, a run-off in Louisiana might decide the fate of the Senate, which means that interest will continue into December. Given the crazy Louisiana open primary system, I'm not even going to try to predict the nominees. But it will also be close.
All that being said, things look pretty good for Democrats. If they can pick up Illinois, Alaska and Colorado, and lose Georiga, they will retake the Senate. Now the Southern open seats will be difficult to hold -- it's certainly possible that Dems might lose one or two additional seats, which is why Oklahoma or Pennsylvania could prove to be important possible pickups. It's still waaay too early for predictions, but things look a lot better than they did a year ago.
The Name of the Photographer: Jayson Blair
I could imagine this being a little bit disconcerting:
Thursday's New York Times misidentified GOP Senate candidate Pete Coors as a Ku Klux Klan member who murdered a black sharecropper.
The Coors campaign found the error "so outrageous it's kind of funny," said spokeswoman Cinamon Watson.
The Times story concerned a federal court decision upholding Louisiana resident Ernest Avants' 2003 conviction in the slaying.
The story indicated the accompanying photo was of Avants. But the picture actually was of Coors on the day the Golden beer baron announced he was running in Colorado's open Senate race.
Coors' picture ran on page 21 of the A section in the Times' national briefs package.
Prosecutors maintain that the Ku Klux Klan plotted to kill White in 1966, in an attempt to lure Martin Luther King Jr. to the state so it could assassinate the civil rights leader.
Watson said she notified the Times after the Rocky Mountain News spotted the mistake.
"I think there will be a correction," she deadpanned.
The Times did not return a call from the News.
Watson said the Times is working on a story about Colorado's Senate race, which has been a national political story since Ben Nighthorse Campbell's surprise announcement on March 3 that he would not seek re-election.
"I'm assuming they were pulling pictures for the Senate story and somehow got them mixed up," Watson said.
"We all have off days."
Thursday, April 22, 2004
Prophetic, Oui?
Ann Coulter is about as awful and nasty a person as they come -- readers may remember my quoting her column about Max Cleland a few weeks back. I'm still amazed that anyone can get up on TV and claim that liberals don't make arguments, they only call people names -- and then proceed herself to refrain from argument while calling liberals the most vile vitriol she can think of.
That's why I got such a kick out of this Coulter column from April 30, 2003, around the same time as the infamous "Mission Accomplished" landing by Bush and expressing the same smug view that the war in Iraq is over. Here's the money line for me:
However many precious pots were stolen, it has to be said: The Iraqi people behaved considerably better than the French did after Americans liberated Paris. Thousands of Frenchmen were killed by other Frenchmen on allegations of collaboration with the Nazis. Subsequent scholarship has shown that charges of "collaboration" were often nothing more than a settling of personal grudges and family feuds. This was made simple by the fact that so many Frenchmen really did collaborate with the Nazis. The French didn't seem to resent the Nazi occupation very much. Nazi occupation is their default position. They began squirming only after Americans came in and imposed democracy on them.
Hmm, guess you didn't see that coming, huh, Ann?
C'mon, It's Probably Just a Coincidence...
"America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's policies are doing; or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation."
- United States Treasury Press Release, April 9, 2004
"America has a choice: It can continue to grow the economy and create new jobs as the President's polices are doing; or it can raise taxes on American families and small businesses, hurting economic recovery and future job creation."
-Republican National Committee "Fact Sheet", April 2, 2004
Take Heed
It's obviously way too early to be concerned by poll numbers at this time (man, seven more months of this!?!), but some Democrats have expressed concern by the latest national poll numbers showing Bush ahead of Kerry, despite the recent events in Iraq.
Before people starting drinking the kool aid, I wanted to point to this recent Zogby poll that shows Kerry still ahead of Bush by three points. And I'll let Zogby defend himself against those who criticize him and his results:
I haven’t gotten it wrong. I have gotten the presidential elections almost perfect. 1996 was within a couple of tenths of a percent, I had the Gore victory in the popular vote in 2000 and nailed almost all of my elections in 2004 – the primaries. I don’t think that you should look at pinpoint precision, I think you should look at how close the polls are to each other. If you look at mine and the other two we are all in the margin of error.
But Zogby makes another point in defending his recent poll which I think is very salient:
I would ask this question – after the two weeks that the president has had do people really believe he got a bump in the polls?
Zogby has earned the benefit of the doubt from me based on his past results. So let's wait and see.
Crafty?
Is it just me, or did the Kerry campaign play a perfect Br'er Rabbit over this whole issue of Kerry's military records? For those of you who don't remember, Br'er Rabbit, after being caught by Br'er Fox, repeatedly told Fox to do anything to him, but "please don't throw me in the briar patch!!!" Of course, that's what Fox ultimately did, and Br'er Rabbit, as comfortable in the briar patch as he was in his hole, happily scampered away.
I think the same thing has probably transpired here -- these records speak very well of Kerry and provide a nice contrast to Bush's military records. The most striking contrast: Kerry's letter in February 1968 that begins succinctly: "I request duty in Vietnam."
Bring it on.
A Few Initial Thoughts on Woodward
I've got the Woodward book, but I haven't had a chance to dive into it yet. But a few things jump out to me based on the media reports:
1. It now appears clear that Richard Clarke's statements about this Administration and Iraq were absolutely correct.
2. This book cements the fact that Cheney's power is frighteningly strong. Clearly, he is pulling the strings in this White House and able to move Bush in his direction at will. At some point the story will need to come out about how much he pushed the intelligence train concerning the WMDs.
3. The $700 million issue appears to be an Iran-Contra type scandal, pure and simple. Even if they used funds that were arguably allowed to be used for Iraq, the Administration was still required to report those expenditures to Congress, which they didn't do for obvious reasons. You can add this to the recent list of scandals.
Remember, Bush promised to restore "honesty and integrity" to the Oval Office. One authority on that subject thinks they've failed.. How frightening will it be if they win in November and then have no accountability in terms of worrying about reelection.
Monday, April 19, 2004
Why Tenet Still Has A Job
I'm going to comment more on Woodward's book soon, as I plan to read it, but I want to make one important point based on what I saw on 60 Minutes last night.
People have repeatedly asked why George Tenet still has a job given the unbelievable intelligence failure in Iraq. Woodward reports that Tenet himself told Bush that it was a "slam dunk" that Hussein had WMDs. In the end, it is clear that Tenet was spectacularly wrong. So why hasn't he been fired?
I think the answer is pretty obvious, following up on another of Woodward's revelations -- it was because Cheney was driving the train, including the intelligence gathering. Woodward reports Powell being concerned about Cheney's unyielding desire to go to war and Cheney's habit of only seeing one side to the intelligence. I believe Cheney was feeding Tenet's team unreliable intelligence from Chalabi and then Tenet passed it on. If you fire Tenet, you need to fire Cheney. And that ain't happening until November.
Negligence Per Se?
The Bush Administration has been pushing the statement that blame shouldn't be assessed for 9/11, or that blame should be scattered among several groups or people. I'm not saying that you can blame one person or group for what happened that day, but it sure looks like you can pin negligence on certain people. There may be a reason that the Bush Administration has such a vested interest in making that argument, based on Clinton's testimony before the 9/11 Commission, as reported by TIME:
The most memorable part of Clinton's testimony may turn out to be what he said to his successor. The panel quizzed Clinton in detail about a meeting he had with President- elect Bush during the truncated transition period after the 2000 election. Clinton said he told Bush in that meeting that bin Laden would be his No. 1 national-security problem. Clarke, who recounts this episode in his book Against All Enemies, writes that the incoming Administration found this assessment "rather odd."
