Less than seven hours left. Jermone talks it up and Edwards is obviously “on fire,” then there’s Obama, but other candidates too, including Hillary Clinton.
If you’ve got it, give it.
Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.
Archive | March, 2007
Rudy, Mrs. Rudy, and the Thug
 |
I don’t blame any woman or man for marrying up. But there’s something about
Mrs. Rudy that smacks of classic golddigger material, but maybe it’s only of the political
variety.
In an interview with Barbara Walters, former New York City Mayor and presidential
candidate Rudy Giuliani said that if elected president, he would have no problem
allowing his wife Judith Giuliani to sit in on cabinet meetings, “If
she wanted to. If they were relevant to something that she was interested
in. I mean that would be something that I’d be very, very comfortable with,”
he said.He also tells Walters that he welcomes his wife’s involvement in policy
decisions during the campaign “to the extent she wants to be…I
couldn’t have a better adviser.” When asked if she will sit in on policy
meetings, Judith said: “if [Rudy] asks me to, yes. And certainly in the
areas of health care.” … ..Rudy
Giuliani ‘Couldn’t Have A Better Adviser’ Than Wife Judith
Mrs. Rudy was a nurse, so no doubt she has expertise on some issues on health
care. No problem, a nurse’s viewpoint is important, especially one with experience.
So why is it that language like sit in on cabinet meetings makes me
squeamish? There’s something nakedly ambitious about Mrs. Rudy that comes without
much substance and seems mostly for show. I don’t know about you, but something
about Mrs. Rudy just doesn’t hit me right.
It’s not the first time I’ve gotten a really bad feeling about Rudy Giuliani’s
judgment, but not just on his personal choices. Kristen Breitweiser wasn’t exactly
impressed with Rudy either, which she relayed to me in our interview last fall.
Sure Rudy was up front and at the mike on 9/11 while Bush was running for
cover, but the reality behind the man was a bit different. Then there’s the
latest revelations about Bernard Kerik who was once Rudy’s main man.
In addition to charges involving false information and tax law, the U.S.
attorney’s office in New York City is also threatening to charge Kerik with
conspiracy to commit illegal wiretapping in his dealings with the 2006 GOP
candidate for New York attorney general, Jeanine F. Pirro, the sources said.After Kerik left the Giuliani firm, Kerik arranged for two off-duty Giuliani
firm employees to conduct surveillance on Pirro’s husband. Pirro and Kerik
also discussed bugging a boat where Pirro suspected her husband was having
an extramarital affair. Kerik was heard on a wiretap telling Pirro that he
did not want to do the bugging because it was illegal.About a year earlier, Pirro, then the Westchester County district attorney,
ordered the A&P supermarket chain to hire the Giuliani-Kerik security
firm as part of a settlement agreement in a case involving underage alcohol
sales. The security firm was ultimately paid $43,000, according to a knowledgeable
source who spoke about the terms of the contract on the condition of anonymity.
… ..
To refresh your memory on Mrs. Pirro, she’s the one for whom Sean
Hannity campaigned when she was trying to run against Hillary. Sean sang
her praises on H&C, as well as his radio show. Oops.
Republicans are terrible judges of character, which is how we got into the
mess we’re in right now. When you flashback on Rudy blaming the troops to cover for Bush, I’m not convinced his reality matches the “America’s mayor” hype. If you think about Mrs. Rudy being in the cabinet, well, it sounds like amateur hour to me.
Hey, but not to worry, Rudy has already flip flopped on that idea (and this one too). See, it went over like a lead balloon. And you know how those Republicans like their balloons!
Read full story · Comments are closed
Another ‘Hardball’ Hit Job
As I said yesterday, I needed a good laugh as the week closed out. Unfortunately, I didn’t get it on “Hardball.”
At one point in the show on Thursday the topic of discussion turned to a USAToday
poll. But no, it wasn’t about Hillary’s chances for president. It is one
of Chris Matthews’ favorite topics, the Clinton marriage. It’s a renewing theme
on “Hardball” and it seems to make Chris Matthews giggle like a
little girl. For whatever reason, Matthews and people like Patrick Healy just can’t get over the
Big Dog’s big mistake of the 1990s. If Hillary has made peace* with it, why can’t they? Here
was one of the questions in the poll.
“Do you personally believe that since he left the White House, Bill
Clinton has learned his lessons from these scandals or is the same person
he always was?”
Greg Sargent, who also has the
transcript, thinks it was a joke, however inane.
Actually, I don’t think it’s meant as a joke. I think it’s meant to hurt Hillary,
especially among some Democrats who think she’s too polarizing or that she
and Bill bring too much baggage, as is talked about in comment sections, but most particularly,
in the DC press. Matthews has done this before. Or maybe it’s that Clinton was interviewed by Keith and not Chris? Nah, that couldn’t be it.
The Clinton marriage has become a voyeuristic
hobby of Mr. Matthews and he brings it up whenever given the opportunity, accompanied by laughs and snide comments, as he then puts the DC Democratic pundit playing “Hardball” that day on the spot. According to Matthews, America is still fascinated
by Bill and Hill’s marriage, but most especially by Bubba’s alleged bad side, which
Chris simply knows is still in play, especially for voters. Actually, most people are sick of revisiting the ridiculous spectacle we all remember, compliments of a Republican Party that concentrated on Bill’s zipper instead of terrorism.
But what about that poll question; has Bill changed? Does it matter? That’s for primary voters to decide.
Chris is having fun, but it’s nothing less than a swipe at Bill meant to harm Hillary. Because when you look at the real numbers, voters not only believe
Bill Clinton is a huge asset, but that he’ll help Hillary. No one is looking back on Bill Clinton’s two-term presidency, especially when compared to Bush, as anything but a golden eight years. Some Democrats make the case that we lost clout in state legislatures, as well as the Senate and House, but our infrastructure problem didn’t start with Bill Clinton. However, only Chris Matthews would bring high school gossip into a political conversation and openly masquerade it as “hardball.”
* Correction made.
Read full story · Comments are closed
Get Your Freak On
video via TBogg
Tonight the feature is a round up of the most succulently delicious blogger battle worthy of more attention ever. And I never cover this stuff, but this story just begs for more attention. Ms. Thang helped it along with the video above, but also with her post today. It’s the first time I can remember liberals being called “puritanical.” Besides, that’s not even the point. The real issue is that Ms. Thang thinks a night of watching “American Idol” while sipping a nasty looking chardonnay is actually worth video documentation. Seriously, could this woman be any more narcissistic?
But let’s recap where it all began… at least this latest blogger brouhaha…
It started off with just two girls (uh-oh, I used the “g” word) gabbing. Then Garance Franke-Ruta said those
horrifyingly threatening words: the Jessica Valenti breast controversy! Now you've done it. That’s when Ann Althouse flipped out. What ensued was
just bizarre. Is that not the most hilarious talking head video ever? Ms. Althouse, check your ego, babe, it’s showing. All because Garance Franke-Ruta brought up Ms. Althouse’s post Let’s
take a closer look at those breasts, which ticked a lot of people off,
because it was so ridiculously insulting and spiteful, not to mention down right stupid. Women have breasts! Alert the media. For background on last fall’s Ann Althouse breast insult start here, then go here,
with more on Ornicus
and TRex’s
post is a hoot complete with a follow up and a not to be missed finale, with Scott
chiming in too. John
at C&L has some video.
But let’s let Ms. Althouse speak for herself on her original insult. Flashback to fall 2006, complete with the photo that originally set Althouse off.
Let’s take a closer look at those breasts.
I wanted to elevate a discussion from the comments section of a post from
Wednesday, you know the one with the photo of the Daou-wrangled bloggers posing
in front of Bill Clinton? The first commenter, Goesh, picks up on my prompt
— “Let’s just array these bloggers… randomly” —
and wisecracks: “Who is the Intern directly in front of him with the
black hair?”Eventually, Jessica from a blog called Feministing, shows up and says: “The,
um, “intern” is me. It’s so nice to see women being judged by more than their
looks. Oh, wait…”
But seriously, if you watch the video at BloggingHeads this week, once Ms. Franke-Ruta
says the magic words, Ann Althouse comes completely unglued. Just because Franke-Ruta brought up
a post Ann wrote herself? She got what she deserved. Going after a female blogger just because she showed up at
the Bill Clinton blogger lunch wearing something hot that made her look terrific is, let’s just say, petty, to put it mildly.
Ann Althouse would simply hate my publicity shots. Actually, most feminists do. However, I always thought feminism was also about the right to be smart and show sex appeal. To many it’s about following a whole new set of rules. Sorry, not interested.
However, the real issue with Ann Althouse on the BloggingHeads video is how insecure and full of herself she is. Anyone that serious about an event you started yourself so many months ago has got some serious insecurity issues. Get a sense of humor, Ann. It goes a long way.
As for Ms. Althouse’s question about why liberals are so mean to her, as she puts it, well, she should look in the mirror. Or better yet, maybe she should just review the BloggingHead video again. It tells the whole story.
Read full story · Comments are closed
Stupid Gun Law
This is likely the stupidest thing you're ever going to read regarding U.S. gun
laws.
Members of Congress and designated employees can bring unloaded guns into
the Capitol. The lawmakers can even load the guns once inside their offices.But there is a hitch: They cannot bring guns through the District's streets
on their way to the Capitol grounds.(snip)
Although some people are allowed to bring guns into the Capitol, they cannot
legally get them there, said Lt. Jon Shelton, the longtime head of the D.C.
police department's gun unit.“They can't helicopter them in,” Shelton said.
Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Terrance W. Gainer said he would advise lawmakers
to “abide by D.C. laws” when not on Capitol grounds. He said members
of Congress who want guns at the Capitol should ask police to transport the
weapons for them. … ..
The incident
surrounding Senator James Webb not only became a one-liner in Bush's stand
up last night, but it has been illuminating. The D.C. gun laws, one of which was recently
overturned by the Court of Appeals after 30 years on the books, sound like
the most ridiculous set of laws ever to be enacted.
I mean really, you can bring an unloaded gun into the Capitol but you can't travel through the D.C. streets with that same gun on the way to the Capitol?
However, when you have idiots like this guy writing that the Webb event entitles “the next D.C. cop Webb encounters within city limits (but outside the Capitol) to frisk him,” you can understand how stupid gun laws get made.
But it still boggles the mind.
Read full story · Comments are closed
Alberto’s Embarrassment
Alberto\’s Embarrassment
C-SPAN Sampson testimony |
Video of Sampson\’s opening statement is what you\’d expect. Embarrassing. But nothing is worse than Gonzo\’s lack of leadership at Justice.
Christy is liveblogging the hearing here and here.
TPM Muckraker has a guide on what to look for during his testimony, with U.S. News offering a 10 question pointer.
But the bottom line is that Justice is bleeding. It\’s bad. (Read Mash\’s earlier post on Carol Lam if you\’re not convinced). Olbermann ran it down earlier this week. Republicans need to get a grip and understand that the justice system in this country is more important than politics. So far it\’s been all about saving Alberto. The importance of United States attorneys deserves more respect. Whatever happened to the primacy of the rule of law? Under Bush and Karl Rove it\’s all politics.
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales endured blunt criticism Tuesday from
federal prosecutors who questioned the firings of eight United States attorneys,
complained that the dismissals had undermined morale and expressed broader
grievances about his leadership, according to people briefed on the discussion.(snip)
“I can’t imagine a department being more demoralized with what’s
going on there,” said Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking
Republican on the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Specter said in an interview that
Mr. Gonzales needed to demonstrate his candor about the dismissals and assure
people about his competence to retain his post.“The Justice Department is too important to the country to have it
hanging on the edge of a cliff,” he said.A senior Justice Department official said Wednesday that the uncertainty
over Mr. Gonzales’s future and the accusations from Congress were having
a dispiriting effect.“It’s a very difficult time,” said the official, who spoke
on condition of anonymity. Policy and personnel decisions were being put off
because of the uncertainty, the official said, adding, “It’s not
a time to get into a battle with someone.”
When Sen. Feinstein started grilling Sampson on whether he or Gonzo were aware of some of the cases in which the fired U.S. attorneys were involved the laundry list of Republicans being investigated by these fired USAs said it all.
Read full story · Comments are closed
After the Veto
After the Veto
Democrats have two big wins under their belt. Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid
held tough and Republicans buckled, passing the buck to Bush who all of a sudden
had an attack of spending guilt; this after instituting the most profligate
spending spree since Lyndon Johnson, with one-quarter the affect for Americans.
Anything that suits your own purpose, right Mr. President? You can tell by his
demeanor he does not like having Congress play their constitutional role well.
One word: tough. It\’s only the beginning, because with these Iraq wins the Democrats
have proven to voters that what they were voted in to do has begun. Not only
that, but because the American people are behind the Democrats, wanting a withdrawal
timetable for Iraq, there is much that can be built on in the coming months.
… ..Even so, the votes in the House and Senate have already transcended
the standard incrementalism of legislative work. And it may prepare the way
for even more aggressive challenges to come.Julian E. Zelizer, a historian at Boston University, noted that these votes,
like the early votes on civil rights legislation, were critical to the Congressional
psyche. “Every time you take a vote like this, and you survive, and
there’s no big payback, it encourages you to do more,” he said.
So after Bush\’s inevitable veto, what next? Many people remember Congress playing
chicken with President Clinton back in the 1990s. Clinton didn\’t blink, the
government shut down and Newt Gingrich and the Congress got the blame, which helped bring about Newt\’s downfall. It was
a sobering reminder of the price of brinkmanship. So what to do?
Conservative Democrats also discussed alternatives for providing troop funding,
if the standoff proves to be prolonged. For instance, Reps. Dennis Cardoza
(Calif.) and Mike Ross (Ark.) suggested that the war funding be parceled out
in three-month increments to force Bush to keep coming back for more.
Some more thoughts on all this at Tapped,
Yglesias,
but you can\’t talk about any of these developments or options on Iraq without
bringing in Matt
Bennett\’s \”third-way\” CW, as in conventional wisdom. Hold on…
“If getting out of Iraq defines entirely who the Democrats are on national
security, then over the long run, it will be a disaster,” said Matt
Bennett, a co-founder of Third Way, a moderate Democratic group. Rather, Iraq
needs to be part “of a larger strategy aimed at showing how to protect
America’s national security interests,” he said.
Huh?
Mr. Bennett needs to read up on Iraq. He also needs to enter the 21st century.
You don\’t help American national security by repeating occupation mistakes inside
the Middle East that helped bring on 9/11. If this cold war talking
point is all Bennett can offer, then Third Way options are officially dead,
if they weren\’t already. This goes in the same bad rhetoric file as \”all options are on the table.\” As if any American president would ever take military options \”off the table.\” Sheesh, will these Third Way weenies never learn?
Conditions on any Iraq spending bill must continue. Period. Congress forcing
Bush to come back to get more funds every quarter seems like a good place to
start, because the votes to do anything else are not there and Pelosi and Reid need to build on what they\’ve already won. (To add, there is also the constitutional reality.) Today, one more vote came over to our side. So settle in, it\’s one step out of
Iraq at a time.
Read full story · Comments are closed
‘MC Rove’
\”MC Rove\”
The correspondence dinner was missing something this year. That was especially
true when it came to Bush\’s segment. It was obvious that Mr. Bush felt very
comfortable because he had his Fox buddies close, with Fox anchor Brian Wilson sitting
next to him. It was a much different scene from last year, obviously. Of course, HotAir
folks said he had "his game on," but I just didn\’t get that sense.
The jokes were great. But there was no joy or even fun in his delivery. The
jokes prepared for Bush, even though they were funny, seemed to fall flat with
the man delivering them, even as everyone laughed. He basically phoned it in.
I really enjoyed his quip about James Webb providing security. Other jokes were
good too, but Bush didn\’t seem quite there. In fact, he seemed miles away.
The comedy from "Who’s Line Is It Anyway?" was good and so
was Brian Williams singing Johnny Cash, which was fabulous. But the most touching
moment for me was seeing David Bloom\’s young girls up on the stage presenting
the David Bloom award.
But when it came to Karl Rove, you\’ve got to watch
it to believe it. At first, Rove wouldn\’t play along. He was stiff and acted
like a jerk. He made a crack about Patrick Fitzgerald, but didn\’t even get his
name right. The guys from "Who\’s Line" asked Mr. Bush if he had a
nickname for Karl. Bush said, "you\’re fired," then said "no,"
shaking his head. We all know that isn\’t true. Rove\’s nickname is turdblossom,
but Bush couldn\’t even tell the truth about that simple detail, even though it was a night to have fun and a few laughs. Again, Bush was present, but nobody was home.
Read full story · Comments are closed
Saudis Walk Away from Junior
The Saudi King will not be coming to dinner. Oh, and neither will Jordan’s
King Abdullah. However, it’s the former that reveals a tremendously dangerous
sign in the ever unraveling foreign policy disaster of Mr. Bush’s presidency.
President Bush enjoys hosting formal state dinners about as much as having
a root canal. Or proposing tax increases. So his decision to schedule a mid-April
White House gala for Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah signified the president’s
high regard for an Arab monarch who is also a Bush family friend.Now the White House ponders what Abdullah’s sudden and sparsely explained
cancellation of the dinner signifies. Nothing good — especially for Condoleezza
Rice’s most important Middle East initiatives — is the clearest available
answer.Abdullah’s bowing out of the April 17 event is, in fact, one more warning
sign that the Bush administration’s downward spiral at home is undermining
its ability to achieve its policy objectives abroad. Friends as well as foes
see the need, or the chance, to distance themselves from the politically besieged
Bush.Official versions discount that possibility, of course. Bandar bin Sultan,
the Saudi national security adviser, flew to Washington last week to explain
to Bush that April 17 posed a scheduling problem. ” ‘It is not convenient’
was the way it was put,” says one official. … ..Bush’s
Royal Trouble
Why Is King Abdullah Saying No to Dinner?
Not convenient? How very diplomatic. But let’s get serious. The real
reason resides in the disaster continuing to unfold in the nearby desert.
Saudi King Abdullah delivered a harsh verdict on Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy. It
was naked in its fury.
Saudi King Abdullah, whose country is a close US ally, on Wednesday slammed
the “illegitimate foreign occupation” of Iraq in an opening speech
to the annual Arab summit in Riyadh.“In beloved Iraq, blood is being shed among brothers in the shadow
of an illegitimate foreign occupation, and ugly sectarianism threatens civil
war,” Abdullah said. … ..
The
Agonist also offers some thoughts.
I’m really amazed that the son has so totally walked away from his dad’s intellectual
stance to put our entire Middle East policy on its head, but also do it in a
way that ignites the Sunnis even further. Ah, the perils of religion when unleashed through foreign policy. It’s a good moment to revisit Seymour Hersh and the reality of a new Sunni-Shia cold war (with video).
Bush has never been more isolated.
That’s when people, especially presidents hell bent on a legacy, become very dangerous. When you couple it with the Iranian situation we’ve got a real powder keg on our hands with the worse possible people in charge.
Read full story · Comments are closed
Wargaming Iran
Wargaming Iran bumped on new developments
| UPDATE from very early a.m. posting (9:35 a.m.): Pictures just released on MSNBC. There is also a letter allegedly written by one of the sailors saying they were definitely in Iranian waters. It is not known (–ahem–) if she was forced to write the letter. … to add (via an email), there are questions about the Brits\’ map. VIDEO with MSNBC translation of Iranian broadcast. |
| VIDEO: Wargaming Iran |
According to CNN, more than 100 planes and 13 escort ships were involved. These exercises were planned \”a couple of days ago,\” after the British sailors were taken. We\’ve officially got game on.
The story of the captured British sailors has been in the news for several days.
As I said on my radio show yesterday, I\’ve been waiting to see what develops, because there wasn\’t enough information and jumping to conclusions never helps in these types of situations. Besides, I\’m not Sean Hannity, who went off right after it happened saying it\’s \”a declaration
of war\” and the U.S. should allow Britain to arrest Ahmadinejad during his U.S. visit (which was eventually canceled). What a nitwit.
Well, the situation has now escalated. Through these war games, the U.S. Navy and George W. Bush sent
a powerful message to the Iranian hardliners. It was unmistakable. This is the type of thing that can escalate quickly, so everyone should get
prepared. Blair made the rhetorical move yesterday.
Prime Minister Tony Blair warned on Tuesday that his government could be
forced to make public its proof that a captured British navy crew was in Iraqi
waters when seized by Iran, saying the standoff may move into a \”different
phase\” if diplomacy fails to win their release.Britain has said the crew was detained Friday after completing a search of
a civilian vessel in the Iraqi part of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, where the
border with Iran is disputed.Blair\’s office said Tuesday that the sailors were well inside Iraqi territorial
waters when they were seized. \”This is not a case of marginally being
in Iraqi waters, but in Iraqi waters,\” Blair\’s official spokesman said,
on condition of anonymity in line with government rules.
According to the Brits, there is not an \”indefinite approach\” to the current negotiations going on with the Iranians. What that means we don\’t know right
now, but U.S. war games right after the incident aren\’t an accident, that\’s
for sure. More
details came out yesterday.
Britain\’s ambassador to Iran, Geoffrey Adams, also held talks with Iranian
diplomats Tuesday, as a U.S. official gave the first detailed account of the
incident that sparked the seizure of the Britons.The British crew had boarded an Indian-flagged commercial ship when they
were seized Friday by Iranian naval forces.\”It was an Indian-flagged vessel. It was suspected of being involved
in automobile smuggling (into Iraq),\” said Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl, a spokesman
for the U.S. 5th Fleet, in a telephone interview with The Associated Press
from fleet headquarters in Manama, Bahrain.Aandahl said the captain of the Indian ship had provided a statement that
his vessel was in Iraqi waters at the time it was stopped by the British.
He said U.S. officials knew the GPS coordinates of the ship at the time the
incident occurred, but would not release them publicly.Boundaries between Iraqi and Iranian parts of the Shatt al-Arab waterway
have long been disputed. \”They have never come to an agreement as to
who actually controls those waters,\” said Sara Russell, an instructor
at the Maritime Institute of Old Dominion University, in Norfolk, Virginia.Asked whether he thought Iran was retaliating for the arrest of five Iranians
by U.S. forces in Iraq, Blair said that should have absolutely no bearing
at all on the fate of the sailors.\”Any Iranian forces who are inside Iraq are breaching the U.N. mandate
and undermining the democratically elected government of Iraq, so they have
got no cause to be there at all,\” Blair said.
The sailors were likely taken after because of a new round of United Nations Security Council
sanctions being imposed on Iran for their continued uranium enrichment. They\’re
reported unharmed at this point. There are also reports that the sailors were taken by elite units of the mullahs. I don\’t know about you, but that sounds like a contradiction in terms. Reported rumors also add that Ahmadinejad is not involved in this act. Sprinkle a grain of salt here.
There has never been a more important moment for the Iran legislation recently introduced by James Webb (video).
The clock is ticking. Tensions are rising.
Read full story · Comments are closed
Obama Taking Incoming
Last night, The Politico\’s Mike Allen published a petty,
trite hit piece on Barack Obama — entitled Rookie Mistakes Plague Obama
— claiming that Obama \”has also shown a tendency toward seemingly minor
contradictions and rhetorical slips\” and referencing \”imprecise
or incomplete statements by Obama over the years.\” As Bunch noticed,
Allen\’s story was \”highlighted on the Drudge Report no later than 18
minutes after it was filed by Allen (how does he do it!).\” Drudge continues
prominently to promote The Politico\’s story today … ..
Then read Boehlert.
More from Greg
Sargent, with The Carpetbagger having the most fitting headline.
Then the
Swamp chimed in, offering up a link to something that stirred up the storm
this past weekend. It\’s a story about Barack Obama from the Chicago Tribune.
In his best-selling autobiography, \”Dreams from My Father,\” Obama
describes having heated conversations about racism with another black student,
\”Ray.\” The real Ray, Keith Kakugawa, is half black and half Japanese.
In an interview with the Tribune on Saturday, Kakugawa said he always considered
himself mixed race, like so many of his friends in Hawaii, and was not an
angry young black man.He said he does recall long, soulful talks with the young Obama and that
his friend confided his longing and loneliness. But those talks, Kakugawa
said, were not about race. \”Not even close,\” he said, adding that
Obama was dealing with \”some inner turmoil\” in those days.\”But it wasn\’t a race thing,\” he said. \”Barry\’s biggest struggles
then were missing his parents. His biggest struggles were his feelings of
abandonment. The idea that his biggest struggle was race is [bull].\”Then there\’s the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial
awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs
of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts
to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don\’t exist,
say the magazine\’s own historians. … ..
The AP\’s Pickler has a story on Obama, too, covering something that I also
witnessed this past weekend.
The differences among the Democratic candidates were on display Saturday
in Las Vegas, where the contenders answered questions about health care.Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, the only other candidate to serve
less time in elective office than Obama, described in detail his health care
plan to provide insurance for all Americans. New York Sen. Hillary Clinton
doesn\’t have a written plan yet, but no one questions her expertise, since
she was the chief proponent of the issue during her husband\’s presidency.Daniel Romo, 45, a clerk at Kaiser Permanente in Los Angeles and a member
of the Service Employees International Union that sponsored the forum, left
with Clinton and Edwards as his top choices. Obama did not impress him.\”I believe that he needed to know a little more about health care issues
and he was just unprepared,\” Romo said. … ..
There\’s a big difference between Mike Allen\’s \”petty, trite hit piece,\”
as Greenwald rightly describes it, with Allen joining up with Drudge to smear Barack
Obama, and serious questions being raised about the preparedness of Obama and
his team. It simply cannot be ignored by any of us, especially given the events of this past
weekend and Mr. Obama\’s lack of preparedness on health care, which came with his
own statement that he\’d be ready with a plan in two months. Mr. Obama is leaving
himself wide open for Mike Allen – Matt Drudge attack dog pettiness, because
he\’s shown up unprepared on the policy side at least once. When comparing Obama to Edwards and Clinton on health care, you
simply cannot escape the judgment, if you\’re being honest about it.
Obama and his supporters need to have a come to Jesus with and about their candidate and his team. That much is obvious, but they also have to face their own willingness to take constructive criticisms when they occur, as well as the challenges to an Obama candidacy when they arise and push back hard with something other than attacking the messenger. Silence is not golden in presidential primary politics.
It brings to mind something John McCain said recently on AIDS, which
I covered.
And then someone asked about public funding for contraception in Africa to
prevent the spread of AIDS.\”I\’m sure I\’ve taken a position on it in the past,\” he stammered
as he looked to his communications director. \”I\’m sure I\’m opposed to
government funding.\”Sensing a vulnerable moment, reporters kept the questions coming. What about
sex education in the schools? Should it mention contraceptives? Or only abstinence,
like President Bush wants?\”I think I support the president\’s present policy,\” he said, tentatively.
More questions: Do condoms stop sexually transmitted disease?
A long pause.
A stern look. … ..
McCain got slammed on his being unprepared, which was deserved. He also deserves scrutiny over his latest Iraq fantasy he\’s pushing.
There\’s another issue, which few are mentioning. Barack Obama is talented, even gifted, and his adversaries are looking for a weak spot. It\’s obvious that the wingnuts think they\’ve found it. It\’s up to Barack Obama to push back and prove they have not.
We\’re in a very hot contested primary year. If you\’re reading this
blog or listening to my radio show you better come to grips with one thing. No matter the candidate,
I\’m going to take out after him or her when something happens that reveals a
positive or a negative that shines a light on the candidate. No candidate is exempt, because I\’m not
representing anyone in the \’08 primaries right now and may not the whole way
through. For some reason, the Democrats who have already taken sides, which is a good thing mind you, think their candidate is to be held above criticism, fact challenges and honest reporting, something that isn\’t a good thing. Though credit is deserved to one California contingent who actually apologized to me in an email for some of the comments/emails I got, saying they looked forward to changing my mind on Obama over the next months. Just to clarify, I have no opinion of Mr. Obama in general terms, just that this past weekend was not a good one for him.
Right now Barack Obama is taking incoming, much of which is ridiculous wingnut
hit jobs helped along by the GOP, but other criticisms and issues being raised
are justified, especially when they are born about by the facts like what happened this past weekend. Mind you, that\’s only one event, but with Barack\’s numbers rising the scrutiny was bound to rise with it. We need to be able
to separate the two types of criticisms. Oh, and before Obama fans start screaming, remember that I was threatened with a lawsuit in a post where I dared to push back for Barack. Besides, Clinton and Edwards would catch heat for being unprepared.
Barack Obama should too, because if Obama is our candidate for \’08, this is nothing compared to what the Republican machine will do.
Read full story · Comments are closed
Bush Handed Stunning Rebuke on Iraq
Bush Handed Stunning Rebuke on Iraq updated
| VIDEO: Bush Slapped on Iraq |
Cheney showed up on the Hill, but it did no good.
Breaking news, Hagel joins with Democrats to hand Bush a huge defeat.
As drafted, the legislation called for troop withdrawal to begin within 120 days, with a non-binding goal that calls for the combat troops to be gone within a year.
The measure also includes a series of suggested goals for the Iraqi government to meet to provide for its own security, enhance democracy and distribute its oil wealth fairly—provisions…
Will Bush veto money for the troops? If he does only one question comes to mind: Why does the president hate the troops?
UPDATE (3:35 p.m.): The Senate vote on the bill is up.
Read full story · Comments are closed
Republicans Looking to Bush on Iraq
Republicans Looking to Bush on Iraq
The headline of this one says it all.
As the Senate opened debate Monday on a $122 billion Iraq spending bill,
Republicans vowed not to allow Congress to impose a withdrawal date for American
troops, but said they would rely on President Bush’s veto pen rather
than procedural maneuvers to block it.Mr. Bush has vowed to veto any legislation that establishes a specific timetable
to remove combat troops from Iraq. The Democratic-led House has passed such
a plan, and Senate Democratic leaders are seeking to advance a similar measure
this week, but the party does not have enough votes in either chamber to override
a veto.(snip)
The deliberations on Iraq, the latest in a string of debates between the
House and Senate, opened against the backdrop of a nation looking for a new
direction in Iraq. Six in 10 Americans say they want Congress to support a
troop withdrawal plan by August 2008, according to a Pew Research Center poll
released Monday. … ..Republicans
to Rely on President Bush’s Veto to Block Troop Withdrawal Plan
Republicans obviously have gotten the message. The American people want out of Iraq, so they don\’t want to be seen as obstructing the Democrats through a filibuster.
The question is why are Republicans trusting Bush anymore on anything. We certainly
are not.
Read full story · Comments are closed
Prayers for Tony Snow
Prayers for Tony Snow
This is just horrible news. The cancer has spread to his liver.
Fight, Tony, fight.
Read full story · Comments are closed
Webb’s Gun
Webb\’s Gun updated
If you didn\’t see Fox \”News\” earlier this afternoon with Bush\’s boy
Brit you missed a doozy. Brit was tripping all over himself trying to discuss
Webb\’s aide being taken into custody after being found with what was first described
as an unregistered firearm, with unregistered ammunition in a bag. The prissy news anchor couldn\’t even figure out the word for ammunition and how to describe a magazine clip. When the
panel weighed in on the subject they looked and sounded like a bunch of sissies. They just
don\’t make Republicans like they used to. RedState shot off this half cocked headline: Rumor: Webb Staffer Arrested for Smuggling Gun into Capitol. Like I said, sissies.
The details are still sketchy, CNN seemed to offer the most complete report of the \”gun-in-a-bag kerfuffle\” so far.
A congressional official who has been briefed on the incident by law enforcement
told CNN that the handgun belonged to the senator. Thompson was driving Webb
to a Washington-area airport, located in Virginia, earlier Monday morning,
the official said, when Webb remembered that he had the gun on him. It is
legal to carry a concealed handgun in Virginia.He gave the weapon to Thompson, the official said, and asked him to take
care of it. Thompson subsequently put the gun in a briefcase and returned
to Capitol Hill where \”he spaced, he literally forgot\” that he had
the gun, the official said.
The piece running in the New York Times describes what was found as a semiautomatic, 9 millimeter pistol and two magazines.
Webb\’s concealed carry will no doubt make many people freak. I\’ve written many
times about guns, including my support
for the right of D.C. residents to own firearms. As for concealed carry
permits, my husband has one. In fact, I insisted he get it. He works late at
night on the outskirts of town and travels by himself with lots of equipment.
There\’s also the reality that he\’s been shot once and almost died and still
carries a bullet in his gut.
No doubt this is an embarrassment for Webb. It\’s a horrible situation for his
veteran aide (a former Marine) as well. I\’ll update this as more
information is available, but it just might be as simple as what\’s offered above.
That doesn\’t excuse it, but there you have it.
I think you can safely say this is a whole new Democratic Party. Some
won\’t like this event at all. But in recent year\’s if you heard a news report
like this one the last political party you\’d identify it with is the Democrats. Not anymore.
UPDATE (1:50 p.m.): Webb presser video. In it he says he did not give the gun to Thompson, but then goes on to elaborate. It seems obvious that Thompson picked up a briefcase of Webb\’s that had the gun in it after Webb boarded a plane for his trip to New Orleans. Again, it\’s unfortunate, but nothing more.
UPDATE (9:25 a.m.): Webb did a presser a few minutes ago, which confirm CNN\’s details above. He\’s not saying much because Thompson will be arraigned soon, but it boils down to exactly what I thought he\’d say. Webb has the firearm for family protection. He believes strongly in the 2nd Amendment, period. Then he stated what so many other gun owners believe. That when people are allowed to have firearms the crime goes down in that area.
Read full story · Comments are closed
Gonzo-gate Goes Gangsta
Gonzo-gate Goes Gangsta
| VIDEO: Keith on Gonzo-gate When Gonzo talks he makes matters worse. |
Gonzo\’s aide will take the 5th. Wow, I thought only the mob did stuff like that. You know, gangstas trying to beat a rap. It\’s got to make the boss\’s boss (that would be the president) proud.
This from a group that was going to restore honor and dignity blah-blah-blah. Yeah, so much for that mirage.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales\’ liaison with the White House will refuse
to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings about the firings of eight
U.S. attorneys, citing her Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination,
her lawyer said Monday.\”I have decided to follow my lawyer\’s advice and respectfully invoke
my constitutional right,\” Monica Goodling, Gonzales\’ counsel and White
House liaison, said in a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee.The revelation complicated the outlook for Gonzales, who is traveling out
of town this week even as he fights to keep his job and his agency\’s investigatory
power.
Read full story · Comments are closed
Carol Lam vs. The White House Gravy Train
Carol Lam vs. The White House Gravy Train
guest post by Mash
| Photo credit: Thinkpacs |
When Carol Lam, the US Attorney for the Southern District of California, was publicly humiliated and dismissed by the Bush Administration on December 7, 2006, she became the latest casualty in George W Bush\’s "War on Terror". The "War on Terror" is multi-pronged. It consists of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war against al Qaeda, and the war of profit and political favors. It was the war of profit and political favors that killed Carol Lam\’s career.
This is the story of one of the warriors of greed and profit. This is the story of the warpath of dollars that leads all the way to the White House.
The reason being floated by the Administration for Carol Lam\’s dismissal is her alleged lax pursuit of immigration cases. Congressman Darryl Issa has attacked Ms. Lam on her office\’s prosecution of immigration misdemeanors prior to her firing, and that attack is being now spun as a cause for her dismissal. However, it is clear from the emails released by the Justice Department that the Department was aggressively defending Ms. Lam and considered Mr. Issa something of a pest.
It is ironic that Darryl Issa, who has been arrested multiple times for gun possession and auto theft, should pursue Carol Lam for exercising prosecutorial discretion in deciding whether to pursue misdemeanor offenses. If the prosecutors had not exercised prosecutorial discretion in the cases involving the Congressman, Mr. Issa would likely have seen some jail time. But I digress.
Politics however is sometimes fought as asymmetrical warfare. The most plausible speculation about Carol Lam\’s dismissal is that she was fired because of her prosecution of Duke Cunningham and the possibility that the ongoing investigation was starting to come too close to the White House. Darryl Issa, a defender of Duke Cunningham to the end, may have been prosecuting a flanking maneuver.
The smoking gun tying Carol Lam\’s firing to the Duke Cunningham case seemed to be contained in an email from Kyle Sampson:
The U.S. attorney in San Diego notified the Justice Department of search warrants in a Republican bribery scandal last May 10, one day before the attorney general\’s chief of staff warned the White House of a "real problem" with her, a Democratic senator said yesterday.
The prosecutor, Carol S. Lam, was dismissed seven months later as part of an effort by the Justice Department and the White House to fire eight U.S. attorneys.
…
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in a television appearance yesterday that Lam "sent a notice to the Justice Department saying that there would be two search warrants" in a criminal investigation of defense contractor Brent R. Wilkes and Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, who had just quit as the CIA\’s top administrator amid questions about his ties to disgraced former GOP congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham.
The next day, May 11, D. Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, sent an e-mail message to William Kelley in the White House counsel\’s office saying that Lam should be removed as quickly as possible, according to documents turned over to Congress last week.
"Please call me at your convenience to discuss the following," Sampson wrote, referring to "[t]he real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires."
Since that revelation the issue has been much clouded by the raising of the immigration issue. But where there is smoke, there is likely to be fire – especially when the Bush Administration is involved.
Duke Cunningham was being bribed by MZM, a company run by Mitchell Wade. It has emerged through the hard work of Talking Points Memo and Think Progress that MZM got its start in government contracting and the bribery business in a most unusual way:
– Wade’s company MZM Inc. received its first federal contract from the White House. The contract, which ran from July 15 to August 15, 2002, stipulated that Wade be paid $140,000 to “provide office furniture and computers for Vice President Dick Cheney.”
– Two weeks later, on August 30, 2002, Wade purchased a yacht for $140,000 for Duke Cunningham. The boat’s name was later changed to the “Duke-Stir.” Said one party to the sale: “I knew then that somebody was going to go to jail for that…Duke looked at the boat, and Wade bought it — all in one day. Then they got on the boat and floated away.”
Of course, the big prize for MZM followed the very next month:
The money and gifts MZM gave Cunningham were a small price to pay for the ultimate prize. In September 2002, the General Services Administration signed a so-called blanket purchase agreement with MZM totaling $250 million over five years.
So, the facts are a company (MZM) gets its first contract from the White House, gets paid $140,000, and two weeks later spends $140,000 to bribe Duke Cunningham, and the very next month gets a $250 million dollar contract from the Defense Department. That kind of meteoric rise is unheard of in government contracting. Add to that the fact that MZM was the only bidder for a $250 million dollar contract from DOD, and you have the makings of major corruption. Anyone who has ever bid for a government contract, especially a $250 million dollar contract that was a full and open bid, knows that everyone who is anyone in government contracting would have bid for such a lucrative contract.
When the Pentagon noticed that they had handed out such a large contract without a competitive bidding process, they apparently stopped any new work on the contract. That Pentagon decision, in June 2005, came the same week that the relationship between Duke Cunningham and MZM became known:
The Pentagon has ordered a halt in new work for MZM Inc., a local defense and intelligence firm, under a contract that has brought the company $163 million in revenue during the past 2 1/2 years.
A Pentagon spokesman said in a statement that the decision to cut off further awards for MZM under the 2002 contract, known as blanket purchase agreement, was because of a change in procurement law. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.), a member of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, acknowledged last week that his relationship with MZM founder Mitchell J. Wade is being examined by federal authorities.
The story so far is quite damning. But, it is far from complete.
The contract MZM received from the White House for $140,000 was not an isolated contract. That contract was part of a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) that MZM signed with the GSA on May 13, 2002 [Click here for a PDF of the GSA schedule for this BPA]. In addition to this BPA, MZM rode the gravy train on two other BPAs. The three BPAs are as follows:
- GSA BPA contract number GS-35F-0486M effective May 13, 2002 to May 12, 2007
- GSA BPA contract number GS-10F-0392R effective July 19, 2005 to July 18, 2010
- DITCO contract number DCA20002A5016 effective sometime in September, 2002
Between 2002 and 2006, when MZM was ostensibly sold (more on that later), the company was paid over $176 million mainly under GS-35F-0486M and DCA20002A5016. A company that made no money before 2002, made $140,000 in 2002, over $43 million in 2003, over $69 million in 2004, over $60 million in 2005 and over $3 million in a few months in 2006 before the company was sold.
The White House got the ball rolling in 2002 under GS-35F-0486M. In 2004, the Executive Office of the President also paid MZM a total of $421,474 ($50,115, $92,161, $112,161 under DCA20002A5016 and $167,037 under GS-35F-0486M) for "intelligence services" .
On February 24, 2006, the government secured a guilty plea from Mitchell Wade, the head of MZM. Wade pleaded guilty to funneling $1 million in bribes to Duke Cunningham. In the plea agreement Wade admitted to bribing the DOD Program Manager on the DITCO contract (DCA20002A5016) by hiring the Program Manager\’s son and later hiring the Program Manager at MZM. In return MZM received favorable reviews and inside information that helped secure contracts for MZM under the BPA.
As I mentioned earlier in this post, the Pentagon claimed in June 2005 that they would not award any further work to MZM under the DCA20002A5016 BPA. However, government records show that MZM was awarded multiple task orders, amounting to millions of dollars, in fiscal year 2006 on the BPA.
On July 18, 2005, while MZM was being investigated for bribery and after the Pentagon claimed to have cut off the DCA20002A5016 gravy train, the GSA awarded MZM with a $2,250,000 blanket purchase agreement (GS-10F-0392R) for the MOBIS program [Click here for a PDF of the GSA schedule for this BPA]. In September 2005 MZM was renamed Athena Innovative Solutions after a purchase by Veritas Capital. Athena has continued where MZM left off by collecting over $7 million in 2006 under GS-10F-0392R and GS-35F-0486M. The gravy train continues.
Surprisingly, fully 100 percent of Athena\’s inherited (from MZM) contracts and 78 percent of MZM\’s contracts were full and open bids, but only had one bidder – MZM. Given the size of these contracts, these statistics should raise eyebrows.
The question must be asked – how does a small business with no revenue secure a BPA worth tens of millions of dollars (GS-35F-0486M) as the prime contractor in a full and open (not a small-business set-aside) bidding process? The question must be asked – what role did the White House play in securing this contract given that the White House was MZM\’s first customer?
The question must be asked – how does a small business which has only one prior past performance in buying furniture secure a massive DOD contract worth up to $250 million dollars to do classified work without any prior DOD related experience? The question must be asked – how did the White House grant a series of unprecedented contracts in 2004 for "intelligence services" to the very same company that the White House previously hired to buy furniture? The question must be asked – since the DCA20002A5016 contract has been shown to involve bribery, were there any improprieties involved in the granting of task orders by the White House to MZM under this BPA?
The question must be asked – why would the GSA grant a multi-million dollar contract (GS-10F-0392R) to MZM within a month of it becoming public that the company was involved in bribery involving government contracts?
Finally, the question must be asked whether Carol Lam was asking these very questions? In light of the email from Kyle Sampson cited above, it appears quite likely that Carol Lam\’s investigation of the Duke Cunningham scandal was probably venturing into sensitive areas – thus making Carol Lam a "real problem".
That "real problem" was solved on December 7, 2006 when Carol Lam was fired.
[Visit the ever-growing Gonzopedia. Contribute a few minutes of your time and help add content to Gonzopedia.]
Read full story · Comments are closed
The Foreclosure ‘Tsunami’
The Foreclosure \’Tsunami\’
Bonddad: It\’s important
to note that we\’re still in an economic expansion, albeit a slower one. That
means if we hit a recession, we\’re in for some scarier numbers.
Hello, Democrats, you out there?
People better start talking about this, because it\’s what the Democratic president
in \’09 will inherit. The possibility of the \”r\” word, is real.
Over 500,000 mortgages, or 1.19 percent of all loans, were in foreclosure
at the end of the fourth quarter 2006, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association
which reported over 43 million loans in total outstanding at the end of last
year.A main focus has been \”subprime\” loans, or mortgages marketed to
people with poor credit histories, now seeing the worst problems.Jennie Haliburton, a 77-year-old widow, told a congressional hearing chaired
by Dodd on Thursday that she took out an ARM loan with Countrywide Financial
Corporation, one of the US\’ biggest mortgage lenders, without realizing her
monthly repayments would leap from an initial 700 dollars to 1,100 dollars.Federal banking regulators have also told Congress they are worried about
rising foreclosures, especially in the subprime sector.Mortgage executives promised Congress they would tighten up their standards,
but cautioned against tighter regulation.Top Federal Reserve officials have tried to soothe fears about the housing
downturn and the National Association of Realtors (NAR) reported a surprise
3.9 percent rise in February existing home sales Friday.But, as the sum of delinquent mortgage loans has swelled to around 150 billion
dollars\’ worth, some like Democratic senator Robert Menendez (news, bio, voting
record) believe the country could be on the cusp of a foreclosure \”tsunami.\”Pessimists seeking evidence of a gathering storm do not have to look far.
… ..American
dream becomes nightmare as millions face foreclosure
Read full story · Comments are closed
Dare We Call It Malfeasance?
Dare We Call It Malfeasance?
| VIDEO: Bush, Gonzo and Big Tobacco |
There\’s a reason Republicans didn\’t do any oversight during the 109th Congress.
So, the lead prosecutor handling the Justice department\’s biggest investigation, Sharon Eubanks, which just so happened to
be focussed on Big Tobacco, not only never met Mr. Gonzales, but she had her
summation written down for her so she could read it off a script. Mash and Cujo359,
it\’s time to update Gonzopedia. The rest of you get prepared to watch an interview from Fox \”News\” that doesn\’t actually suck.
Oh, but Republicans want us to know that there is no politics being played
at Justice. Uh-huh. Watch the video.
Then there\’s this little bombshell, which proves why Democrats want Karl Rove
under oath, not only on the USAs, but also on all the other things he\’s been
manipulating since, well, the beginning. Karl, meet the Hatch Act.
Witnesses have told congressional investigators that the chief of the General
Services Administration and a deputy in Karl Rove\’s political affairs office
at the White House joined in a videoconference earlier this year with top
GSA political appointees, who discussed ways to help Republican candidates.With GSA Administrator Lurita Alexis Doan and up to 40 regional administrators
on hand, J. Scott Jennings, the White House\’s deputy director of political
affairs, gave a PowerPoint presentation on Jan. 26 of polling data about the
2006 elections.When Jennings concluded his presentation to the GSA political appointees,
Doan allegedly asked them how they could \”help \’our candidates\’ in the
next elections,\” according to a March 6 letter to Doan from Rep. Henry
A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee. Waxman said in the letter that one method suggested was using \”targeted
public events, such as the opening of federal facilities around the country.\”On Wednesday, Doan is scheduled to appear before Waxman\’s committee to answer
questions about the videoconference and other issues. The committee is investigating
whether remarks made during the videoconference violated the Hatch Act, a
federal law that restricts executive-branch employees from using their positions
for political purposes. Those found in violation of the act do not face criminal
penalties but can be removed from their jobs. … ..
Even Senator Grassley calls what Doan did \”unacceptable.\”
But a Bushie accused of playing politics with a federal agency, which is against
the law? More malfeasance from the Bushies? Say it ain\’t so.
Go get \’em, Henry.
Read full story · Comments are closed
Elizabeth and John Edwards on ’60 Minutes’
Elizabeth and John Edwards on \’60 Minutes\’ –updated–
| VIDEO: John and Elizabeth Edwards |
UPDATE: Consider these notes on the \’60 Minutes\’ interview, also
known as \”How many times can Katie Couric ask the same question over
and over again a dozen different ways without ever getting tired of hearing herself
ask the same frickin question yet again.\” Forget sympathy for Elizabeth Edwards, I feel sorry for them both that they had to sit through this horrendous excuse of an interview. Katie Couric just might have
proved she\’s the worst political interviewer I\’ve ever seen; she sure was on this
one. I\’m amazed this is the best CBS could do with the biggest interview
opportunity of the week. Over and over and over and OVER again, Ms. Couric
asked variations on the \”you know you\’re dying so what\’s the point?\”
theme. How about a segue into health care? No. Talking about how the Edwardses have
opportunities for health care others don\’t have and just maybe that\’s what they\’re
fighting for? No. How about talking about their faith, which anyone can see is
at the core of their ability to be strong during this challenge. Nope, Couric
only wanted to talk about how others might judge them, their ambition, how it\’s
too stressful to take care of his wife and be president at the same time. As if
while being president life can\’t throw you some challenges. Good Lord, it was
a disgrace, as well as a missed opportunity. Couric made no effort whatsoever
to broaden the subject, but instead decided to exhaust the \”cancer is
death\” topic, alert the American people. I particularly appreciated the
moment when Couric talked about their kids, saying if I had a \”finite\”
time I don\’t think I\’d choose not being with my kids. No judgment there at all,
Katie. The Edwardses then reminded Ms. Couric that we\’ve all got a finite amount of
time, with Elizabeth saying they learned that in 1996… then John finished the comment, when they lost their son, as Mrs. Edwards lowered her head a moment. By the time it was over I\’m sure both of them wanted a stiff drink.
I\’d have asked for a water back to throw in Ms. Couric\’s face. Though I doubt
even that would have awakened her from her hamster wheel questioning stupor. –end
rant–
UPDATE II (11:01 p.m.): John at C&L has more.
UPDATE III (8:25 a.m. – 3.26.07): Edwards gets important S.C. endorsements.
They are talking
to Katie Couric tonight on \”60 Minutes.\”
\”…there\’s not a single person in America that should vote
for me because Elizabeth has cancer… Do not vote for us because you feel
some sympathy or compassion for us. That would be an enormous mistake.\”
– John Edwards.
Edwards\’s views on the issues speak for themselves: on the middle class, calling out the \”McCain doctrine,\”, being the first to stand up against the Fox \”News,\” debate, even confronting Hillary Clinton, etc. He\’s strong on his own
and his wife knows this, so they\’re willing to fight for it. She said it best
this morning.
But you\’ve still got asses like this
idiot (via Digby)
who just don\’t get it. I remember well my mother fighting for over ten years
with horrible cancer. We used to celebrate every three months every time she
got a \”clean bill\” of health. In the end she succumbed, but she went
out fighting. Her heroism infuses my entire life, because if she hadn\’t fought
I don\’t know what would have happened to me. She went to work the minute her
treatments ended or her operations to lop off another part of her anatomy were
complete. Life went on, thank God, or I would have been destroyed. See, my father
died of cancer when I was young, so she was my whole world.
The courage of the entire Edward family is an inspiration, which includes their children, who will be forever changed by these events. But the policy views of John Edwards can stand on their own. Elizabeth knows this and is willing to fight for it.
It will also likely keep her alive longer. That\’s how this stuff works. It\’s
what heroes do and Elizabeth Edwards stands in a long line of heroic individuals
who fight ongoing diseases for the rest of their lives, however long they last.
Most do it in private, but when a public person gets to teach these lessons
we all gain a tremendous amount. It also says a lot about the man who wants to be president and all of it is good.
Read full story · Comments are closed
