Month: February 2008

Super Tuesday Primary Results

Jon Ponder
Clinton Obama
• AR
• AZ
• CA
• MA
• NJ
• NY
• OK
• TN 		• AK
• AL
• CO
• CT
• DE
• GA
• ID
• IL
• KS
• MN
• MO
• ND
• UT
Delegates: 845 Delegates: 765

3:35 p.m.: Exit polling looking bad for Hillary Clinton. Sizable majorities said “change” was more important than “experience.”

4:02 p.m.: One of the few sure bets that was not a home state:
• Georgia: Obama projected winner (MSNBC).

5:38 p.m.: Had to take a break, but here’s an update.
• Alabama – Obama up by 71 percent but only 6 percent of precincts are in.
• Arkansas – Clinton projected winner (MSNBC).
• Connecticut – Too close to call.
• Illinois – Obama projected winner (MSNBC).
• Massachusetts – Too close to call.
• New Jersey – Clinton leading but only 1 percent of precincts are in.
• Tennessee – Clinton projected winner (CNN)

6:04 p.m.:
• Delaware – Called for Obama..
• Massachusetts – Called for Clinton. No Kennedy-Kerry effect at all.
• Oklahoma – Called for Clinton.

6:21 p.m.:
• New Jersey – Called for Clinton (MSNBC).

6:27 p.m.:
• Alabama – Called for Obama (MSNBC).

6:47 p.m.: McCain is winning Northeastern liberal states. Not good for him. He’ll probably also do well in the West but doing poorly in the South.

7:18 p.m.:
• Kansas – Called for Obama (MSNBC).

7:46 p.m.:
• New York – Clinton (MSNBC).

7:58 p.m.:
• Minnesota – Obama (MSNBC).
• Idaho – Obama (MSNBC).

9:13 p.m.:
• California – Clinton

Voting Today: Polling Place Busy But Not Crowded

Jon Ponder

I ambled down the street to my polling place, the rec room of a condo building, at about 11 a.m.
There are no Republicans for miles and miles around, so half the booths reserved for Republican voters stood empty in both polling places.
Our polling place changes from election to election — this precinct in West Hollywood is the only one among the dozen or so I’ve lived in where this happens. The venue seems to depend on the type of election (municipal, county, state, federal) but this is the first time there have been two polling places open simultaneously — the one where I voted and another one in a community building in a pocket park next door. Not sure what, if anything, this means.

My fear was that the writer’s strike would make the polling places as crowded as the coffee shops and lunch spots have been. I inadvertently went to the park first, so I can report that both places were busy but there were no lines, which is normal.

There are no Republicans for miles and miles around, so the GOP booth stood empty in both polling places. I did overhear the poll worker give her spiel to the guy ahead of me: “You’re listed as an unaffiliated voter. I can give you a Democratic ballot or a nonpartisan ballot.” (Independents can’t vote in the Republican primary. The nonpartisan ballots don’t include the presidential candidates, just the votes for the six or eight propositions in this round.) He spoke up: “I want the Democratic ballot.

Separately, I heard Sen. Barbara Boxer tell David Gregory on MSNBC that over 1 million of California’s 6.75 million Democrats had voted by mail, most of them before the Obama surge hit the state over the past three or four days. We can expect that number of absentee ballots to double, and then some, before the counting is over.

Stay tuned.

Quote du Jour

Buck Banks

My granddad, viewing earth’s worn cogs,
Said things were going to the dogs;
His granddad in his house of logs
Said things were going to the dogs;
His granddad in the Flemish bogs
Said things were going to the dogs;
His granddad in his old skin togs
Said things were going to the dogs;
There’s one thing that I have to state:
The dogs have had a good long wait.

— Perennial Journeys

The New Bush Legacy — Sticking Us in Iraq

Buck Banks

iraq_multiple_bases.jpgA trillion-dollar federal deficit isn’t enough. A slime trail of obfuscation and secrecy is not enough. A record of trampling on our constitutional rights with secret wiretaps and illegal Internet monitoring is not enough. Now George Bush wants to cement his legacy by tying us to Iraq indefinitely by means of a “status of issue agreement.”

The agreement that Bush wants states that the United States will defend Iraq whenever and wherever — forever. There’s no end date, no out point. There has never been a clearer expression of Bush’s long-term goal in Iraq than the status of issue agreement, which ties us to the occupation indefinitely.

As far back as 2004 the army was building 14 “permanent” bases in Iraq. But somehow, Bush’s overall plan to maintain bases in Iraq long-term to use as launching pads for aggression against Iran or Syria, to protect oil supplies and quell insurgents continues to fly just under the media’s radar.

And the worst part of this status of issue agreement is that there are members of the Senate who say that Bush is within his rights as president to strike such an agreement without consulting Congress.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said she believes Bush probably does have the power to strike such a deal if he wants.

“He would have authority, I think,” said Feinstein. “Based on what I know, he would.”

Fortunately, there are some senators who are of the opinion that Bush would need the ratification of Congress for what is, in effect, a treaty:

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, had a one-word answer as to whether Bush had the legal authority he is claiming: “No.”

And Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told the administration in a letter that the proposed status of forces agreement obligates the United States to use force to protect Iraq’s security — the kind of commitment he says the Constitution requires Congress to bless.

“A commitment that the United States will act to assist Iraq, potentially through the use of our armed forces in the event of an attack on Iraq, could effectively commit the nation to engage in hostilities,” Biden wrote. “Such a commitment cannot be made by the executive branch alone under our Constitution.”

Tough talk, no doubt about it. But Congress has shown a marked inability or lack of will or just plain lack of intestinal fortitude when it comes to bucking this imperial presidency. Bush has ruled by proclamation, repetition and obfuscation for so long that he knows that all he has to do is repeat the same lies enough times and the citizens of the Benighted States of America will nod like the pod people we have become and let him get away with whatever atrocity du jour he proposes.

But we can’t allow him to tie us to Iraq indefinitely. That’s a legacy none of us can afford and one we shouldn’t have to even countenance.

In Desperation, Real Conservatives Seek to Open Up the GOP Campaign

Buck Banks

Please join me in an all-out effort to keep Rush Limbaugh from voting in the 2008 election. But more on that later.

Our favorite right-wing nut job, Richard Viguerie, is up on his soapbox again. This time he’s calling on his fellow conservative Goldwater worshipers to call on the Republican Party to open up its convention next September in hopes that some party savior will materialize. Here’s Viguerie dreaming out loud:

The discombobulated state of the Republican presidential campaign means that it is still possible for someone to jump into the race. Such a candidate could serve as a kingmaker at the Republican convention in September, or even – yes, it’s possible – could become the party’s nominee.

Viguerie then goes on to critique the current batch of GOP candidates. Guess what? He finds that none of them is Ronald Reagan:

  • McCain has Reagan’s toughness, is a Vietnam War hero, supports a strong military, and opposes pork-barrel spending, but sides with liberals on immigration, freedom of speech, taxes, environmental extremism, and other important issues.
  • Huckabee is a Reagan-style populist and a conservative on social issues, but is sympathetic to Goreism, and he fought conservatives on taxes, spending, immigration, and other issues when he was governor.
  • Romney has adopted a mostly-Reaganite platform, but he is suspect because he converted to conservatism only after serving as governor, and, besides, many conservatives see him as a probable loser in November.
  • Ron Paul is the real straight-talker in the race, the one who stays truest to the libertarian beliefs that are, as Reagan said, “the heart of conservatism.” He is the one candidate who doesn’t confuse a strong defense with the failed policy of nation-building. But most conservatives want a powerful U.S. presence in world affairs and will never support Paul’s defense and foreign policy. In any event, Paul’s chance of getting elected, or even nominated, is infinitesimal.

But do you want to know how really bad it is? Viguerie lays it out like the voice of doom:

Even Rush Limbaugh has raised the possibility that he may not support the Republican nominee this year. The nomination of McCain or Huckabee, he said, would destroy the party as we know it.

Gasp! The Bloviator not support the GOP nominee? Man, things really do look bleak. Of course, they don’t look much brighter when Viguerie goes down his short list of possible party saviors: Former Virginia Gov. and Sen. George Allen, Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Sen. Jim DeMint or Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina. That’s it? That’s the best you can do Richard?

Well, I think readers of Pensito Review could help out in Viguerie’s time of need by making some recommendations. Viguerie asks for them. He even provides an e-mail address to send them to: RAV@ConservativesBetrayed.com.

What about a Tom DeLay or Larry Craig? Not conservative enough? I hear David Duke’s out on the lecture circuit. But don’t let me tell you who to suggest. Let’s all e-mail Viguerie and do our part to keep Rush Limbaugh away from the polls.

If Bush Tax Cuts Don’t Kill Economy, Congress Will

Trish

Speaker Freckles, Senate Majority Leader Fluffy, Rep. Peanut, and Sen. Blackie

Let me see if I’ve got this straight. The economy is in recession following years of wild spending on private contractors and unwanted embassies in Bush’s Iraq occupation, combined with tax cuts for the very rich. So what are we are going to do about it? Give everyone a tax rebate, plunging us even deeper into debt. Or, as Dartmouth Economics Prof. Andrew A. Samwick put it:

It is ironic that additional borrowing is prescribed as the remedy for a malady that arose from unwise borrowing.

Somebody explain to me how giving American tax dollars to people in Guam will stimulate the economy in the United States.

Everyone loves Ronald Reagan now that he’s really dead so let’s bring back this old favorite: voodoo economics. That was the counterintuitive scheme that said money rich people were no longer contributing for the public good would trickle down and benefit us working stiffs. It caused Reagan’s successor, Bush Jr.’s father, to ban lip-reading and raise taxes, but we still wallowed in recession until Bill Clinton forced us to spend within our means.

So here we are again. But Samwick notes there’s a new buzzword this time.

Let’s drop the euphemism of “stimulus package” and call this agreement by its proper name: “deficit spending.”

When you and I get our $300, we will have two choices: go to Wal-mart and blow it on more cheap crap from China, or use it to pay down our credit card bills. Neither option stimulates our economy, although I’m sure the Chinese will laugh gleefully.

Wait, it gets better. Bush originally called for a “tax rebate,” which would imply that those receiving a check had actually paid into the system to begin with. But thanks to the bunny rabbits in Congress whose only concern is staying in office, coverage is now extended to retirees and people on public assistance, who never paid any taxes. And — hold on to your hat — even people who don’t live in this country.

[…]

Poll: Romney Pulls Ahead of McCain in California

Jon Ponder

The latest Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby daily tracking poll has Romney and Obama in the lead in California.

Here are the numbers from yesterday, Feb. 3:

Republicans
Romney: 40 percent, up from 37 percent
McCain: 32 percent, down from 34 percent
Huckabee: 12 percent, unchanged
Paul: 5 percent, unchanged
Someone else: 4 percent, down from 5 percent
Undecided: 8 percent, up from 7 percent

Democrats
Obama: 46 percent, up from 45
Clinton: 40 percent, down from 41 percent
Gravel: < 1 percent, unchanged Someone else: 5 percent, down from 6 percent Undecided: 9 percent, unchanged

Democrats Must Win in November — That’s Why I’m Voting for Clinton Tomorrow

Jon Ponder

There is nothing as fragile and elusive in politics as charisma. It has been sorely lacking of late. George Bush doesn’t have it, and neither did John Kerry or Al Gore. There is no question that Barack Obama has it, and that he could be in the same charismatic league as Bill Clinton and (the much lower wattage of) Ronald Reagan.
The Swiftboating of John Kerry in 2004 was nothing compared with what the rightwing did to the Clintons in the 1990s — and will pale in comparison with what they have in store for Barack Obama.
But in the knife fight that is today’s political way of war, when opponents are attacked not on their weaknesses but on their strengths, no personal attribute is easier to destroy than charisma.

If Obama is the Democratic nominee, I believe Republican political tacticians — whoever the next Karl Roves turn out to be — will have his charisma sliced to ribbons within a week or two.

The question is, without his charisma, who is Barack Obama? I don’t know, and, dear reader, neither do you. Compared with the other candidates in the race, he has barely been vetted. His opponent in his run for the Senate in Illinois in 2004 was Alan Keyes, who had no money and barely put up a fight.

I have no doubt Barack Obama is a smart and decent man who’d make a fine president. But then John Kerry and Al Gore were fine and decent men, too. Sans charisma, my fear is, Barack Obama is like them — an upright, honorable fellow whom the GOP can easily mow down. (Yes, I know they cheated at the ballot boxes too, but vote rigging only works if the margins are slim. We need a blow-out this year.)

Clinton may be thin on charisma, but she is as much a known quantity as we’ve had from any candidate in memory who was not an incumbent. If she is the nominee, most of what the GOP will have to throw at her will have already been vetted — and either has been proven false or accurately could be labeled “old news.”

I am generally neutral on the Clintons. I think the Clinton administration was a hallmark in good governance among administrations of the recent past (which is not really saying a lot) and that America made net gains during their eight years in office. On the other hand, I will never forgive Bill Clinton for signing the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 at the same time he was conducting an extramarital affair.

But having read extensively on the Republicans’ behind-the-scenes anti-Clinton campaigns in the 1990s, the record is clear: Most of what people seem not to like about Hillary Clinton is based on lies and distortions that had their genesis in the Arkansas Project and were fed to the public by the likes of Barbara Olson, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter and David Brock — all of whom were nobodies before becoming professional Clinton-haters in the 1990s.

We know now what liars the Republican blond squad turned out to be, and, in 2002, David Brock published a full mea culpa on his hatchet jobs against Hillary Clinton and others, titled “Blinded by the Right.” He has come out of the rightwing darkness and is using his considerable intellect as a force for good instead of evil, as the brains behind Media Matters for America.

[…]