Month: April 2008

McCain to Have the Advantage in Petraeus Hearings

Trish

Look for a big ol’ love fest when Gen. David Petraeus testifies before Congress tomorrow. Sen. McCain will get to go before Sen. Obama or Clinton in “questioning” the general, based on seniority.

Hillary Clinton is more and more becoming the Ralph Nader of 2008

Don’t expect Clinton or Obama to speak until late afternoon — one of them will soon be the party standard-bearer, but Senate rules break for no one. “In the ideological duel that will unfold tomorrow, [Sen. John] McCain will have a distinct logistical advantage, Republicans are quick to note,” Jonathan Weisman writes in The Washington Post.

“As the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, he will deliver the second statement and the second set of questions, and will have the right to interject at will. Allies said he is likely to toss out Clinton’s statement from the September hearing that it would take ‘a willing suspension of disbelief’ to accept Petraeus’s security assessment, and Clinton — lacking seniority — will only be able to watch.”

Expect McCain to intone preachy, yet gushing, monologues where he all but gets down on his knees to kiss the general’s butt.

This is why the Democrats need to have a candidate. McCain has a free and clear path. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is more and more becoming the Ralph Nader of 2008. If we lose again, she will join Ralph in the Ego for Ego’s Sake Hall of Fame.

Obama’s ‘No Lobby Money’ Claim is at Best a Half-Truth

Buck Banks

In trying to woo white, middle-class Rust-Belt voters in Pennsylvania, Barack Obama is sticking to a major point that he hopes plays well with unionized, anti-Washington types — he claims he doesn’t take contributions from lobbyists and that the K Street types won’t have a say in his White House. Only trouble is, it’s not 100 percent true.

In his column, Craig Crawford notes: “Obama is careful to claim in the ad that he does not take money from ‘Washington’ lobbyists. That’s because he does take money from state-based lobbyists.”

‘It’s a politically smart position for him to take. It sounds profound. But in fact neither PACs nor lobbyists give a lot to presidential campaigns.’

Politifact.com outed Obama last August for his lawyerly wording in his adverts that left him loopholes to leap through to avoid the lobbying thing:

And Obama still accepts tens of thousands of dollars from people who work for Washington firms that do substantial lobbying. Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle is an Obama contributor who isn’t a registered lobbyist, but works as a consultant for Alston & Bird, a lobbying firm in Washington.

The Center for Responsive Politics found that Obama accepted $55,019 from employees at lobbying firms, and much more from companies that are not classified as lobbying firms but have lobbying divisions.

So we give Obama’s statement a Half-True on the Truth-O-Meter. While Obama can accurately say that he does not accept money from federally registered lobbyists, he still accepts thousands from people in the influence industry.

The Columbia Journalism Review also has done some homework on Obama’s assertions and found them wanting in veracity:

To explain: Opensecrets.org, the Web site of the Center for Responsive Politics, is the most authoritative source on campaign finances. Basing its reports on data from the Federal Election Commission, the Center shows that Obama indeed doesn’t take much money from a sector the Center calls “lobbyists.” Through the end of December, Clinton received more than $800,000 and McCain around $400,000 from this group, which the Center says includes people who work for lobbying firms at the local, state, and federal level and their relatives who are not otherwise employed, as well as those who are officially registered as Washington lobbyists. Obama received contributions of about just $86,000 from this group. Obama’s Web site says he doesn’t take money from Washington lobbyists or political action committees,and the Center says that if his campaign finds that the money came from registered Washington lobbyists, it does get returned.

How meaningful is this? “It’s a politically smart position for him to take. It sounds profound,” says Massie Ritsch, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics. “But in fact neither PACs nor lobbyists give a lot to presidential campaigns. He’s not leaving a whole lot of money on the table by eschewing PACs and lobbyists.” PAC money represents only about one percent of all the money in a presidential race because, Ritsch says, so many people donate that their contributions dwarf PAC money.

OK, so it’s not like saying you dodged sniper fire as you zigzagged across a Croatian runway like Hillary Clinton did, but it does beg the question of whether Obama is really fundamentally any different than any other presidential aspirant who will basically say anything if it serves his ends. I suppose it wouldn’t rub me the wrong way if Obama wasn’t positioning himself as a different kind of animal altogether.

Although he describes himself as an agent of change, taking rhetorical license on the lobbying issue sounds like more of the same old to me. And to think there for a minute I had the audacity to hope the rhetoric matched the reality.

Quote du Jour

Buck Banks

Hypocrisy is the most difficult and nerve-racking vice that any man can pursue; it needs an unceasing vigilance and a rare detachment of spirit. It cannot, like adultery or gluttony, be practiced at spare moments; it is a whole-time job.

— W. Somerset Maugham (1874-1965), English playwright, novelist and short story writer

What Really Went Wrong with Mark Penn

Trish

Mark Penn, from Time Magazine

Yes, I know they’re saying that Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist, Mark Penn, left the campaign because of his mishandling of talks about a Colombian trade agreement.

…Penn had met with the Colombian Ambassador to the United States — in his capacity as the head of public relations firm Burson-Marsteller — in order to help the Colombian government push for congressional approval of a free trade agreement with the United States.

The problem? Senator Clinton — the candidate for whom Penn was also working — opposes that trade agreement.

Later on Friday, Penn described the meeting as “an error in judgment.” On Saturday, the Colombian government cancelled its contract with Penn’s firm.

Colombia, the story goes, was so insulted by Penn’s characterization of their meetings that they fired him. With Clinton’s, that makes two firings in as many days. Bad weekend.

But there’s more to Penn’s banishment from the Clinton campaign than that. For the benefit of those not paying attention, let’s just say Clinton hasn’t been doing so well lately, and she seems to blame a lot of her trouble on Penn. She’s probably right.

[…]

McCain’s VP – Condi’s ‘No’ Said to Mean ‘Yes,’ Romney Nixed by Uber-Right

Jon Ponder

Run, Condi, Run: Here’s a candidate all Democrats can rally around — Condoleeza Rice appears to have unofficially signaled that would she would agree to be John McCain’s running mate.
To win in the fall, just as the Democratic nominee must suddenly pivot to the right, McCain will have to move left in order to appeal to Independents in the vote-rich center.
Rice has said she doesn’t “do” politics. We know from the record that she also doesn’t “do” national security and or international diplomacy, at least not well — but, as we learned during the six years of the GOP ascendancy, Republicans don’t put much stock in competence.

Rice’s supporters say she would bring two things to the GOP ticket: Name recognition, which would mean the McCain campaign would not have to waste time in the fall introducing the VP pick (as Bush I did with Dan Quayle); and, as an African-American woman, she would trump the barrier-breaking of the Democratic nominee, whomever she or he turns out to be.

In the kabuki dance of D.C. rituals, Rice unofficially tossed her hat in the ring late last month when she spoke at a weekly meeting of lobbyist Grover Norquist’s conservative anti-government group, Americans for Tax Reform. In a Q&A after her presentation, Rice answered “no,” but apparently meant “yes,” when asked if she would consider the VP nomination, according to Steve Clemons at the Washington Note:

Others still argue that one does not talk serious foreign policy matters with the Wednesday Group Meeting without wanting to also telegraph that one might be interested in political futures. In other words, though saying she is not interested in the vice presidential slot on a McCain ticket, Condoleezza Rice might be convinced at some point to give up her near California dreams if “necessity” required it…

And by all accounts I have heard, her performance was stunningly good, very well received by one of the major bastions of American conservative power players, and that she “won them over,” according to one source.

Clemons also said Condi told the group she planned to go back to California and write a book about her time in Washington and work in the Bush administration. Let’s hope it’s a novel.

Condi’s bio is a bit problematic however. GOP operative Roger Stone was quick towarn Florida Gov. Charlie Crist last year that if he wanted to be on the GOP ticket, he’d better get hitched, but quick. Stone insinuated that Republican voters would be suspicious that a bronzed, perfectly coiffed, unmarried candidate in his late 40s was gay. The same might also apply to an never-married candidate in her early 50s.

[…]

Clinton Revises History Again and Still Gets It Wrong

Trish

If you only count what I say between two specific dates, then when I change my mind later I can make it look as if I am on whatever side I want you to think I am.

That seems to be Hillary Clinton’s strategy for defending against an assertion by Barack Obama that just won’t go away. In discussing their records on Iraq, Obama has said he’ll put his judgement up against Clinton’s experience any day. Obama opposed the war from Day One while Clinton voted to authorize Bush to invade.

But Clinton now wants to only count what happened from 2005, when Obama took office in the U.S. Senate, and wipe out all his prior years of resistance in the Illinois state senate. ABC’s Jake Tapper deconstructed Clinton’s argument and found that even using the selective time frame, it was still lacking.

It’s an odd way to measure opposition to the war — comparing who gave the first criticism starting in January 2005, ignoring Obama’s opposition to the war throughout 2003 and 2004.

In Eugene, Ore., Saturday. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., attempted to change the measure by which anyone might assess who criticized the Iraq war first, her or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by saying those keeping records should start in January 2005, when Obama joined the Senate. (A measure that conveniently avoids her October 2002 vote to authorize use of force against Iraq at a time that Obama was speaking out against the war.) She claimed that using that measure she criticized the war in Iraq before Obama did.

But Clinton’s claim was false.

…It’s an odd way to measure opposition to the war — comparing who gave the first criticism of the war in Iraq starting in January 2005, ignoring Obama’s opposition to the war throughout 2003 and 2004.

But even if one were to employ this “Start Counting in January 2005” measurement, Clinton did not criticize the war in Iraq first.

[…]

Quick, In One Word Describe Hillary. Um…Phony?

Trish

Hillary Clinton’s parsing, revising, and exaggerating on the campaign trail have taken a toll on her image, according to a recent poll. A lot of people say they think she’s a phony.

It’s not just the Bosnia story, which the candidate explained away by saying she was tired from campaigning and not thinking straight. And it wasn’t even 3 a.m.

A recent Gallup Poll found that 53 percent of Americans think Clinton isn’t “honest and trustworthy.” Just 29 percent said the same of her Democratic rival Barack Obama, and 27 percent said it of Republican John McCain.

Gallup analyst Jeffrey Jones called the credibility gap between Clinton and McCain “the largest between any two candidates for any dimension tested.”

It’s not just Gallup, and it’s not just the Bosnia story, which turned out to be demonstrably false, and which the candidate explained away by saying she was tired from campaigning and not thinking straight. And it wasn’t even 3 a.m. Can you imagine what Clinton would have said if Obama offered that excuse?

Another recent poll, this one conducted by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center before Clinton had to back down from her account of her Bosnia trip, found that 29 percent of white Democrats considered her a “phony,” almost twice as many as the 15 percent who described Obama that way.

Pew researchers concluded that Democrats’ views of Clinton “are more influenced by perceptions that she is phony than by any other trait or emotion tested.”

Warmonger McCain Objects to Label

Trish

How could anyone call Mr. “100 Years in Iraq, Iran is Training Al-Quaida, Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran” a warmonger? Why, the noyve of these people!

The comments in question came Friday evening at an event in North Dakota where Barack Obama also spoke. Radio talk show host Ed Schultz addressed the crowd, during which he criticized McCain’s support of the Iraq war and called him a “warmonger.” Obama was not present for Schultz’s comments and spoke later at the event.

…”John McCain is not a warmonger and should not be described as such. He’s a supporter of a war that Senator Obama believes should have never been authorized and never been waged,” [Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki] said.

Obama’s campaign also notes Schultz is not an official supporter of the campaign and was asked to speak by the North Dakota Democratic Party, not the Obama campaign.

But… If he had been an official supporter… And if he were speaking on behalf of the Obama campaign… I wouldn’t have a problem with it.

Empty the Prisons, Balance the Budgets

Buck Banks

prison.jpgEight state governments currently are contemplating legislation that would shorten jail terms for some offenders as a way to save money during the down economy. No, really:

A Rhode Island proposal would allow inmates to deduct up to 12 days from their sentence for every month they follow rules and work in prison. Even some violent offenders would be eligible but not those serving life sentences.

A plan in Mississippi would offer early parole for people convicted of selling marijuana or prescription drugs. New Jersey, South Carolina and Vermont are considering funneling drug-addicted offenders into treatment, which is cheaper than prison.

Laying off prison guards and making it more difficult to send parole violators back to prison would save money.

If implemented, the plans would save an estimated total of $450 million in California and Kentucky:

In California, where lawmakers have taken steps to cut a $16 billion budget deficit in half by summer, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed saving $400 million by releasing more than 22,000 inmates who had less than 20 months remaining on their sentences. Violent and sex offenders would not be eligible.

Laying off prison guards and making it more difficult to send parole violators back to state prison would account for part of the savings.

Law enforcement officials and Republican lawmakers immediately criticized Schwarzenegger’s proposal, which would apply to car thieves, forgers, drunken drivers and some drug dealers. Some would never serve prison time because the standard sentence for those crimes is 20 months or less.

“To open the prison door and release prisoners back into communities is merely placing a state burden onto local governments and will ultimately jeopardize safety in communities,” said Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer, who could see 1,800 inmates released in his area.

In Kentucky, which faces a $1.3 billion deficit, lawmakers approved legislation Wednesday to grant early release to some prisoners. Initial estimates were that the plan could affect as many as 2,000 inmates and save nearly $50 million.

If the governor signs the bill, the exact number of prisoners would be determined by prison officials. Violent convicts and sexual offenders would be exempt.

Leave it to California and Kentucky to be the voices of reason by not releasing violent prisoners or sexual offenders. Right ….

There probably will be some economic stimuli coming from this program, though. I mean when the druggies get out and start copping again, that should put some greenbacks into circulation. And then there’s all the second-story guys who will need to replace their burglary tools. And the guns, don’t forget about them.

But a recessed economy is probably not going to welcome a bunch of newly minted ex-cons with fabulous, high-paying jobs. So most of them will end up back in the hoosegow within a few months, but think of the money we’ll have saved in the meantime!