A Solo Dialogue
Florida problems?
Stories like this have to cause some heartburn in the upper levels of the White House. If Junior were to lose the Cuban vote in South Florida (or even if they just stayed home), he would have a lot of trouble taking the state.
I still think that the White House doesn't understand the damage that the "16 words scandal" is doing to the President, especialy his credibility. He had a very good opportunity to put it to rest, or at least take some of the air out of it, by giving a good answer during his press conference this morning. Instead we got this:
QUESTION: Mr. President, you often speak about the need for accountability in many areas.
I wonder then why is Dr. Condoleezza Rice not being held accountable for the statement that your own White House has acknowledged was a mistake in your State of the Union address regarding Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium? And also, do you take personal responsibility for that inaccuracy?
BUSH: I take personal responsibility for everything I say, of course. Absolutely. I also take responsibility for making decisions on war and peace. And I analyzed a thorough body of intelligence--good, solid, sound intelligence that led me to come to the conclusion that it was necessary to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
We gave the world a chance to do it. We had--remember, there was--again, I don't want to get repetitive here but it's important to remind everybody that there was 12 resolutions that came out of the United Nations because others recognized the threat of Saddam Hussein. Twelve times the United Nations Security Council passed resolutions in recognition of the threat that he posed. And the difference was is that some were not willing to act on those resolutions. We were, along with a lot of other countries, because he posed a threat. Dr. Condoleezza Rice is an honest, fabulous person, and America is lucky to have her service. Period.
I guess the current White House theory is that the less they say about the controversy, the more likely it is to go away. But given the chance to take full responsibility and express some anger, I would have advised him to do so. But then again, I am not sitting by the phone waiting for Karl Rove to call.
Bush v. Gore in 2004?
It was probably inevitable, but the
rumors that Al Gore may reenter the 2004 race have begun to spring up. I put this in the same category as the “Hillary is going to jump in” rumors, namely ones that warm the hearts of GOP activists and dissatisfied Democrats, but without any backing in fact.
I wish Gore had never backed out last year, but he did, and a careful reading of the story doesn't give any factual support to the notion that he has changed him mind.
On the Road Again.
Once again Democratic legislators have taken to fleeing the state of Texas. This time its State Senators, and to New Mexico. (Frankly, wouldn't you rather be in Albuquerque than Austin?) Tom DeLay will have his redistricting, no matter how many people have to leave Texas.
You can read local coverage
here,
here,
here and
here.
A Modest Proposal.
This is not my idea, it comes from
Jim Baker at ESPN.com, but it does compliment my
previous post on the topic of Canada:
I recently attended a ballgame in which the singer made five lyrical mistakes while singing our National Anthem. I won't mention where this was because my intent is not to show up any one individual but to show pity on the entire singing community as a whole. Let's face it, The Star Bangled Banner is a stone difficult one to sing and, even when done right, it is not an especially great song.
On the other hand, everybody loves O Canada, right? It's short. It's got a nice melody. It makes its point and then lets the listener get on with their lives. Here are the lyrics:
O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
See? Direct and to the point. So, here's my idea: why doesn't the United States buy the rights to O Canada from Canada and adopt it as our own National Anthem? I'm not talking about stealing the melody like we did for My Country Tis of Thee, I'm talking about throwing some serious money at the Canadians for their wonderful song. With only a few adjustments (like going PC with the "sons" thing), it works perfectly. The wonderful coincidence is that the line O Can-a-da fits the new lyric perfectly in terms of the meter:
A-mer-i-ca!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all of us command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
America strong and free!
From far and wide,
A-mer-i-ca, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
A-mer-i-ca, we stand on guard for thee.
A-mer-i-ca, we stand on guard for thee.
Wouldn't baseball games be more palatable if we did this? You bet they would.
Hasta La Vista
Arnold Schwarzenegger will not be running for governor says
SacBee political blogger Daniel Weintraub. There should be an announcement soon. The race just got even more confusing and chaotic, and fun.
Arrogance
Great column by
Bob Novak about this White House's attitude toward their allies on Capitol Hill, and seemingly about everything else. The administration's attitude has been that they know what is right, everyone else be damned. You can see it in the way the handle the press, the desire for secrecy in everything they do, how they oversold the war in Iraq and how they have responded to the controversy over the State of the Union speech.
Arrogance was a common complaint in the early years of the Clinton administration (93-94) and they paid the price in the next election. Hearing these complaints should be a warning sign to this White House.
Burnt Rice? -
I have always felt that Condi Rice's strongest skill was her ability to communicate with Junior. (I have rarely been very impressed with her during TV interviews.) But now that the White House is faced with the 16 WORDS THAT JUST WON'T DIE, her standing is apparently may actually be in question. This
Washington Post story leaves the reader with two choices, either she wasn't paying close attention to one of the most important aspects of her job, or she lied to sell the war. And now there are
whispers that she may step down and take one for the team, which would be ironic given that this White House doesn't get rid of anyone who is loyal, no matter how incompetent.
Actually I think she should pony up the $3,500 and run for governor of California. She could avoid any Iraq questions by telling people that she is only concerned with California issues. I bet she could pull 35% of the vote, which should be good enough to win. She does that and her name would be up for a Presidential bid in 2008. A Hillary - Condi race would be certainly interesting.
Bill Bennett Repents? -
It appears in watching Bill Bennett on the Time Russert Show, on CNBC, that Bill Bennett has decided that America is not headed to the abyss of moral decay after all. He says that after 9/11 he had to reevaluate his ideas in light of the bravery and heroism of so many young people. I guess this is his way of saying he was wrong about everything he was predicting in the 90's, especially given that many of these brave young men and women that he was praising came of age during the Clinton years. I guess that I don't have to bother reading all the
books he wrote about the topic after all.
A New Name & Look
I have changed this blog's name, because,
as I have complained about before, Random Thoughts was amazing unoriginal. The new name has the advantage of being more unique, and slightly more clever. I am not sure about the new design, but I figured a new name deserves a new design.
MICHIGAN POLL - A
recent poll done by the Detroit News reveals that 48% of Michiganians (Michiganders?) think that President Bush mislead them about why we should go to war in Iraq. This number, even more than the 45% reelect number vs. 47% for someone else in an important battleground state, must send shivers down spines at the White House. As I've mentioned before, if the President is seen as just another politician, and not a straight shooting cowboy, he is going to be in a whole lotta trouble next year.
FOLLOW THE TRAIL - It has now been admitted that top officials within White House knew that the Iraq/Niger uranium intelligence reports were deeply flawed, yet still allowed the claims to be made in the President's State of the Union address.
According to the
Washington Post:
Yesterday's disclosures indicate top White House officials knew that the CIA seriously disputed the claim that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium in Africa long before the claim was included in Bush's January address to the nation. The claim was a major part of the case made by the Bush administration before the Iraq war that Hussein represented a serious threat because of his nuclear ambitions; other pieces of evidence have also been challenged.
Hadley, who also received a phone call from CIA Director George J. Tenet before the president's Oct. 7 speech asking that the Africa allegation be removed, took the blame for allowing the charge to be revived in the State of the Union address. "I should have recalled . . . that there was controversy associated with the uranium issue," he said. He said Bush and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice were counting on his dependability, and "it is now clear to me that I failed." Hadley said Rice was not made aware of the doubts but "feels personal responsibility as well."
The real question is once this report had been discredited, it kept resurfacing. Obviously someone kept pushing the report, and that someone had to know that questions had been raised about the reports veracity and that the CIA had kept it out of previous speeches.
Frankly, it is not really credible that this information was only known by the deputy National Security Advisor. Even more troubling than the lack of forthrightness about who knew what and when, the White House doesn't really seem all that worried about it, except as a PR problem. Where are the stories about the president being outraged, or demanding that the truth about this fiasco come out sooner rather than later? Why hasn't Junior told people that he is deeply troubled about the fact that this questionable (to be generous) information got into this important speech? And where is his "the buck stops with me" comments to the public?
Ultimately, the biggest problem for Bush may not be just that people begin to question his truthfulness because of this story, it will be that they just see him as a politician. He has gone to great pains to avoid that tag, successfully, while as Governor of Texas, during the campaign and through his Presidency. His great strength is that the public sees him as an everyman who isn't worried about political consequences. The problem with this mini-scandal is not the facts; it's that he appears political.
This is great news for the Democrats, as the everyman, straight shooter Bush is a colossus. As a politician, he is beatable.
DEVASTATING POLL NUMBERS - A poll released by Quinnipiac University in May showed 33 percent of Connecticut baseball fans root for the Red Sox, while Yankees fans make up 47 percent of the state's fan base.
URBAN LEGEND ALERT - The "
Hunting for Bambi" experience in Las Vegas is a hoax according to
Snopes.com. The story has gotten a lot of play from the press (including from
FoxNews,
ABCNews and
CNN) and outraged a lot of people. But the idea of hunting naked women with paintball guns always seemed a bit too outrageous to be true.
Snopes.com is the best for uncovering hoaxes and urban legends, so if they say "Hunting for Bambi" is a fraud, it probably is.
GOOD NEWS FROM IRAQ? - If true,
the capture or killing of Uday and Qusay Hussein would certainly be the first good news we have heard from Iraq in a while.
DELAY INC. -
A fascinating Washington Post article on Tom DeLay and his fundraising. For anyone who doubts where the real power in the House of Representatives is centered, this article should dispel any doubts.
(Another related DeLay story
here.)
A HOUSE DIVIDED - Because I am disturbed over what the House of Representatives seems to be becoming (a rubber stamp for the House leadership), I am especially heartened when I see that leadership stumble a little bit. On two recent issues,
reimportation of pharmaceuticals and
AmeriCorp funding , the Republican leadership seems to be having some difficulty in getting the rank and file to march in lock step.
Of course, my guess is that the leadership will end up the winner in both battles, but at least they have to sweat it out a little bit.
LEFT COAST DONNYBROOK - Wednesday appears to be the day when the California recall election will be certified. The election will probably be scheduled for late September or early October. There are still two interesting questions: 1) Will Arnold run; and 2) Will any Democrats get in the race? (And I guess to a lesser extent, can Davis survive?).
However the rules for this election seem very much up in the air, especially what is required to get on the ballot. Expect more lawsuits and general chaos.
CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG - I'm not sure if this is the result of House Democrats getting frustrated by their lack of power or control, or by House Republicans being overbearing because of their majority (probably both), but
calling in the police over a political argument is just the latest example of how the House of representatives is getting more and more dysfunctional. Our politicians shouldn't act like this.
LEFTY? - I have been interested in Howard Dean for a few years now, mainly because of his fiscal conservativism. I know that conservative and Dean don't seem to go together, but as the
LA Times points out, Dean isn't your dyed in the wool liberal, even if he is from Vermont. Frankly, his antiwar rhetoric cooled me to him, but I think the media portraying him as this big LIB is not an accurate picture of a guy I have been keeping an eye on for some time.
Frankly, his fiscal conservativism combined with his obvious passion could make for a successful candidate, if he can keep from saying anything too stupid on the campaign trail. Republicans seem to be praying that he will prevail, sensing an easy mark, but Dean is not as easy to categorize as it appears. (For example, no other Democrat in the race can say they are on as good terms with the NRA.) Now that he has the firm support of the liberal side of the party, see if he tacks a little to the right, emphasizing his balanced budgets and firm stand on taxes, as well as, his health care plan. If he can make this shift, and not alienate his current base, it could be the thing that separates him from the pack.
Remember, Bill Clinton's biggest strength was to make both liberals and the moderate DLCers feel as though he was one of their own, regardless of what he was saying. Let's see if Dean can try to do that same thing.
OH CANADA - Although I am a big fan of their national anthem, I apparently cannot be a citizen without more studying. You can take the
citizenship test here. I could only manage 8 out of 20. (But, seriously, I should get some bonus points since I know most of the words to
O Canada.)
TEFLON REDUX? - With the evidence piling up that the White House at least knew that their Niger uranium story was questionable, if not outright bogus, the political question becomes who takes the hit, if anyone? It doesn't seem likely that there will be any imminent head rolling, given Junior's
pronoucement of support for the George Tenet. (Of course, Junior is a baseball man and in baseball you always know the manager is doomed once he has gotten the dreaded pronouncement of support.) It is unthinkable that Condi Rice would be in danger, even though she is probably the one with the most info, so does anybody take the fall?
This administration doesn't seem to hold individuals responsible when mistakes are made, so long as they show the proper loyalty to the boss. (Secretary O'Neil was set free not because of a poor economy, but because he couldn't stay on message and appeared to question the Boss' economic thing.) No heads rolled for 9/11, and Iraq is becoming a quagmire
(Newsweek's word, not mine) without anybody paying the price.
Will anyone pay the price for the State of the Union casuistry?(
Maureen Dowd's word, and a good one -- go look it up.) That answer is still probably a week or two away, after the more important political question get answered: Does the public really care?
CALIFORNIA - With a recall vote a virtual certainty let me suggest a site to visit for the best feel for what's happening on the left coast.
The Sacramento Bee has a political weblog which is done by Daniel Weintraub and so far has the best overall coverage among the blogs. (
Calpundit also has some good stuff.)
Of course the two most interesting questions are when will a major Democrat get in the race and will Arnold run? (At this point I don't feel like going on and on about the idiocy of a recall election, but I will give it credit for livening up a fall that otherwise would have been microscopically focused on the comings and going of the Dem. field.)
AL SHARPTON, MIA? - One of the nice things about the crowded Democratic field is that we have heard very little from Al Sharpton. I don't expect this to last, since if Sharpton knows nothing else, he knows how to get attention. I think there are two ways that he will get this attention: 1) by flying under the radar and staging an impressive showing in an early primary (probably South Carolina); or 2) accusing the front runners (and by extension the party) racists, and threaten that if his nebulous "demands" are not satisfied, he will break away from the party and either attempt a third party candidacy or just have his supporters stay home. Even the casual Sharpton watcher should know to put their money on option number two.
The more interesting question to me is which candidate is laying in wait for Sharpton’s demagoguery, so they can pounce and make points with the more moderate white voters. I expect that either Edwards or Lieberman are the prime candidates, but the shrewdest play would be if Dean challenged Sharpton. Such a move would help to move him from his misplaced position as the “liberal” candidate.
UPDATE - Apparently
Robert Novak also had Al Sharpton on his mind.
I am becoming more and more disturbed by the unoriginality of my blog’s name. I will try to reach into my rather shallow well of creativity and come up with something a bit more interesting.
A SHORT BREAK - I am off to Cape Cod with the family. Expect another post around Sunday. Have a nice Fourth.
IN CASE YOU FORGOT - Texas stills has redistricting “issues” to deal, at least according to the Governor, who has called a special session of the legislature to deal with them. The Washington Post has an
editorial opposing Texas redistricting, which I am sure will have a big effect in Austin. The New York Times has
good summary of what has happened in Texas and Colorado. For a more local perspective, look at this story from
The Houston Chronicle.
Apparently, the issue is the hands of the Lt. Governor and two or three Democratic State Senators, but somehow I think that Tom DeLay will prevail. The question then becomes, will the Democrats show some muscle in states like California and Illinois? Maybe taking away some of Speaker Hastert’s friends’ seat in Illinois might make an impression. Of course, that would require the Dems to be organized, and ruthless.
FINALLY A DECISION - After an a weekend of “agonizing and soul searching,” Miami did exactly what everyone expected they would do and joined the ACC. Despite the embarrassment that the ACC has suffered, it probably works out better for them long term to add Va. Tech and Miami, rather than Miami, BC and Syracuse. It makes more sense geographically, and makes them stronger in football. However, this is only the beginning of the process (even as long and drawn out as it was.)
Some of the questions that need to be answered: Does the ACC look for a 12th team or do they seek a waiver to allow for a football playoff with only 11 teams? Does Louisville jump to the Big East or make overtures to the ACC? What does Notre Dame really want*, other than to be pursued by the SEC, PAC 10 and Big 12, in addition to the Big East, ACC and Big 10? Who else can add to the football strength of the Big East - Cincinnati, Marshall, South Florida, Central Florida, Army? Can UMass try to get their football program up to D1 in time to take advantage and become an obvious fit? Will the basketball Big East schools just sit back while the football schools become dominant, or will they try to add two basketball schools (Marquette, Xavier, DePaul)? What does this mean for Conference USA or the A-10? Can the WAC try to take the Big East's BCS Bowl spot? Will the BCS drop the Big East? (That would make a majority of D1 schools not eligible for BCS bowls, which could be trouble for the BCS.) Can the Big East ever get any money from the ACC or Miami from the lawsuit that is still pending in Connecticut? Can the Big East go about its expansion/poaching without looming as bad as the ACC did?
So many fun questions yet to be answered. So while the ACC portion of this drama may be mostly over, I hope no one is bored with this yet, because the full drama is only beginning.
*There is speculation that Notre Dame had a hand in keeping BC out of the ACC. The third, and deadly, vote against inviting BC was made by NC State President Marye Anne Fox, who is also a trustee at Notre Dame.
