Month: May 2008

Game Changer: Capturing bin Laden This Fall Could Flip Race to McCain

Jon Ponder

On Tuesday, my colleague Trish wrote about the possibility that Cheney and Bush might invade Iran as a last, desperate act in order to change the political playing field this fall and tip the race to John McCain. She rightly pointed out that the current occupants cannot afford to allow the Democrats to occupy the White House because “there are too many bodies in shallow graves under the lawn and in the rose garden, too fresh and ready for discovery.”
What has changed recently is that Osama bin Laden has become even more unpopular in Pakistan than George Bush is in the United States, though not by much.
But under the Cheney-Bush layer of secrets in the White House lawn lies another, perhaps equally damaging trove of scandals that, if revealed, could drive the stake deeper into the undead corpse of the Republican brand.

One of George W. Bush’s first acts as president was to seal indefinitely 68,000 documents from the Reagan-Bush administration that, by law, were required to have been released after January 2001. (Bush-Quayle administration records were supposed to have been released in January 2004.) If the next president is a Democrat, Bush’s suppression of these public records will likely be lifted, and nasty secrets could be revealed that destroy the reputations of both Bush’s father and the Republicans’ saint, Ronald Reagan.

In particular, releasing the documents could shed light on two mysteries surrounding dealings between Reagan-Bush officials and Iran: 1) the precise involvement of senior officials, including then Vice President Bush, in the Iran-Contra affair and 2) the truth about the “October surprise” conspiracy theory that Bush Sr. negotiated with Iran to release its 52 American hostages at the precise moment Reagan was being sworn into office.

But here’s another scenario that could be effective in boosting support for Bush, and thus McCain, that would be less costly and risky than an invasion: Capturing Osama bin Laden.

Consensus has it that bin Laden has been hiding out for years in the Northwest Frontier, an impassable region of high terrain along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. He is said to have been living on the Pakistani side under the protection of local conservative factions.

What has changed recently, however, is that bin Laden has become even more unpopular in Pakistan than George Bush is in the United States, though not by much:

[…]

Cheer Up, Democrats – Turns Out Obama Can Fight Down and Dirty

Jon Ponder

The Obama campaign is treating this new expose about Barack’s early career campaign tactics like it is bad news. But for millions of Democrats who are disheartened that the party is sending a chess club president into a shank fight with Beelzebub for the third time in a row, it may be the first glimmer of hope since the Clinton attack machine began to implode.
“Politics ain’t beanbag, as they say in Chicago. You play with your elbows up, and you’re pretty tough and ruthless when you have to be.”
It turns out that at the start of his political career, Obama was not afraid to inflict sharp elbows and bloody noses — on fellow liberal Democrats:

In his first race for office, seeking a state Senate seat on Chicago’s gritty South Side in 1996, Obama effectively used election rules to eliminate his Democratic competition.

As a community organizer, he had helped register thousands of voters. But when it came time to run for office, he employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers.

The move denied each of them, including incumbent Alice Palmer, a longtime Chicago activist, a place on the ballot. It cleared the way for Obama to run unopposed on the Democratic ticket in a heavily Democrat district.

“That was Chicago politics,” said John Kass, a veteran Chicago Tribune columnist. “Knock out your opposition, challenge their petitions, destroy your enemy, right? It is how Barack Obama destroyed his enemies back in 1996 that conflicts with his message today. He may have gotten his start registering thousands of voters. But in that first race, he made sure voters had just one choice.”

Obama’s challenge was perfectly legal, said Jay Stewart of the Chicago’s Better Government Association… “Politics ain’t beanbag, as they say in Chicago. You play with your elbows up, and you’re pretty tough and ruthless when you have to be. Sen. Obama felt that’s what was necessary at the time, that’s what he did. Does it fit in with the rhetoric now? Perhaps not.”

The Obama campaign called this report “a hit job.”

So far, it appears that Obama plans to run his campaign with the same Marquis of Queensbury, “above the fray” rules of engagement waged by the Gore and Kerry campaigns. Let’s hope not. For one thing, that ain’t “change” — for another, it doesn’t work.

It’s good to know Obama played by Chicago street-fighting rules when he had to. That — and John McCain’s gaffe-a-day campaign — are the best signs lately that the Democrats could pull out a win in November, even though the race remains the Republicans’ to lose.

Help Larry “Wide Stance” Craig Come Up with a Title for His Book

Jon Ponder

Steven Reynolds at All Spin Zone has a bit of Friday fun going:

Larry Craig is writing a book about energy, but he’s going to discuss those little adventures in airport restrooms as well. I’m thinking this guy needs a catchy title for his book. Maybe our readers can come up with good ones.

My suggestion was “Out of the Stall And into the Closet!” — or maybe it should be the other way around.

I’m sure you can do better. Go over to ASZ and help Larry out.

McClellan Might Support Obama

Trish

If he wins the White House, I know where Barack Obama can find a press secretary.

That these guys are not jumping on the Straight Talk Express might explain the vehemence of GOP partisans, particularly directed at McClellan

In several interviews with media organizations Thursday night, the former White House press secretary hinted that he was strongly leaning toward the Illinois senator’s White House bid over his own party’s presumptive nominee.

McClellan, a former White House official who has angered several Republicans this week for his scathing critique of the Bush Administration, said he hasn’t made an official decision on which candidate he will back, but offered that he is “intrigued by Sen. Obama’s message.”

“It’s a message that is very similar to the one that Gov. Bush ran on in 2000,” McClellan told CBS News.

One difference, Scotty. Bush didn’t know what he was saying in 2000 and, as he would many times in the years since, he mangled his words. He meant to say he was a divider, not a uniter. And he believed in dispassionate conservatism.

Former Bush pollster and strategist Matt Dowd, who left the White House in 2004, is also rumored to be backing Obama, not McCain.

That these guys are not jumping on the Straight Talk Express might explain the vehemence of GOP partisans, particularly directed at McClellan. But I suspect McCain calls up too much deja vu all over again for the people who once believed and followed a sociopathic liar before painfully discovering the truth.

Flashback 1999: Former White House Flack Takes Flak For Tell-All Book about Sitting President

Jon Ponder

As has been widely noted, critics of Scott McClellan’s new memoir, “What Happened,” are trashing the book’s author, not his writing, because they can’t dispute his accuracy. Karl Rove hurled a particularly nasty epithet at Scott. He compared him to a “liberal blogger.” Harsh.
After his book was released, Stephanopoulos was called “turncoat,” “backstabber,” “ingrate,” “a self-absorbed opportunist” and even “shorty.”
This was predictable. Bush supporters can’t refute McClellan’s claims about the propaganda campaign before the Iraq invasion, the conspiracy to leak information about a covert CIA anti-WMD program and the rest, so all they’ve got left is killing the messenger.

There is a deja vu aspect to this story. In 1999, a former senior White House official was lambasted for publishing a tell-all while his former boss was still in office.The book was “All Too Human: A Political Education,” and the official was George Stephanopoulos, a former campaign adviser, spokesman and aide to Bill Clinton, and who is now the host of ABC News’ Sunday political hour. The external circumstances are so similar the names of the writers and their bosses are practically interchangeable.
Writing then for Time Magazine, Margaret Carlson (now at Bloomberg) described the criticism Stephanopoulos was encountering:

In a nonstop round of interviews, George has been hit with scathing criticism. On NBC, Katie Couric asked him how it felt to be called a “turncoat” whose take on the President was “kind of creepy.” Over at CBS, Mark McEwen said the author was being called a “backstabber” and an “ingrate.” On CNN former Clinton adviser Mandy Grunwald noted that if the President hadn’t given George the “opportunity of a lifetime,” George might still be a Capitol Hill aide, not a “multimillion-dollar book writer and commentator” (inside the White House make that “commentraitor”). And James Carville says Washington has become The Truman Show, broadcasting Clinton’s private life in something approaching real time.

Even George, at one time, wouldn’t have approved of George. Commenting on Dick Morris’ memoirs, George said, “You have a responsibility not to embarrass the President. It hurts the country. It’s just stupidity and weakness.”

From the book, Carlson mentioned this interesting insight into the Clintons’ relationship:

We get a behind-the-scenes look at Hillary feeding Clinton honey-soaked lemon wedges but then the usual, albeit accurate, picture of a paranoid First Lady, responsible for many of the early mistakes. George doesn’t like it that she didn’t trust him. Of course, she may have had good reason, since George goes on to disclose that Whitewater made her cry. Ouch.

Here’s a snippet that has probably come back to bite Jake Tapper on the ass. He was then a freshly minted young writer at Salon.com but is now Stephanopoulos’ colleague at ABC News:

[…]

Internal Email Urges Obama Supporters Not to Demonstrate at DNC Rules Meeting

Trish

The Hill:

Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) campaign is urging its supporters not to demonstrate at Saturday’s highly anticipated Democratic National Committee (DNC) meeting on how to handle the delegates of Florida and Michigan.

Even with just Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Chris Dodd competing on the Michigan ballot, Clinton received only 55 percent of the vote. Yet HRC math still concludes she is entitled to 100 percent of Michigan’s delegates.

In an internal campaign e-mail obtained by The Hill, the Obama campaign states, “We look forward to the meeting proceeding smoothly — and we’re asking our supporters not to show up to demonstrate, passionately as they feel about this campaign.”

…the Obama campaign wants to avoid heated intraparty confrontations that would attract national headlines and be replayed on the cable news networks. Saturday’s potential public relations nightmare comes as the Obama campaign is taking steps to unify the party as the Democratic primary process appears to be winding down.

…In a Q&A section of the e-mail, a question reads, “Sen. Obama has such a large lead that the outcome of this nomination is all-but academic. Why not just seat the delegates as they voted so that Sen. Clinton has one less reason to continue her campaign?”

The answer states, “That’s not Sen. Obama’s decision to make. The rules for this nomination contest were designed and are enforced by the Democratic National Committee. That’s why our campaign is working to forge a fair agreement that will ensure Democrats from Florida and Michigan will be able to participate in our convention.”

…The DNC bylaws meeting is seen as Clinton’s last-ditch effort to make up significant ground on Obama in the delegate count. Clinton won both states easily, but Obama pulled his name off the ballot in Michigan and, like the former first lady, did not actively campaign in Florida.

The talking points memo provides some answers to potential questions about Saturday. One reads, “I don’t think that any of us are in a position to speculate about possible outcomes at the meeting — but what I do know is that the Obama campaign is as eager as anyone to see this situation resolved fairly, which reflects the desire of these delegations to be seated and the fact that we and all the candidates competed under rules in which there were no delegates to be awarded and no campaigning took place.”

Interesting factoid: Even with just Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Chris Dodd competing on the Michigan ballot, Clinton received only 55 percent of the vote. The other candidates whose names appeared took a total of 5 percent, and “Uncommitted” got 40. Yet HRC math still concludes she is entitled to 100 percent of Michigan’s delegates.

Unfortunately, ‘Barack’ Rhymes with ‘Murdoch’

Buck Banks

I don’t know what it is about Barack Obama, but he attracts supporters whose motives one almost immediately suspects. We here at Pensito went through the whole machinations thing here a couple months ago (you know: “They’re trying to get people to vote for Obama so he’ll beat Clinton because he can’t beat McCain.”), and it gets more convoluted than Rush Limbaugh’s moral compass.

But we have been trained to think this way by a government that spies on us and lies to us: “Should I believe what I’m told or the opposite? But maybe they are lying to me to get me to think the opposite, which is what they really want me to think. Maybe.”

I dunno, it’s twisted days, my friends. Anyway, when he stopped by the Wall Street Journal’s D: All Things Digital Conference for a bull session, Rupert Murdoch (who owns the WSJ) was in rare form. He had some good things to say about Obama, but put in the context of his other utterances, for instance on U.S. energy policy — ”We didn’t buy Alaska to save a couple of elk” — one is left to wonder:

The biggest news may have been the News Corp. chairman’s hints that he sees Sen. Obama as having a good chance of winning the November election. Noting that respect for politicians and Washington DC is at an “all time low,” Murdoch described Obama as a “rock star” and “fantastic,” saying his Republican opponent John McCain is “unpredictable” and “doesn’t know much about the economy.” While he is a “patriot” and a “decent guy … he doesn’t know much about organizing a campaign it would seem.”

Murdoch added that he wasn’t backing anyone, saying he wants to know more about Obama’s plans and the people around him. But he said he was involved in the New York Post’s decision to endorse Obama in New York’s Democratic primarily earlier this year.

A major issue in the election will be the economy. The “average American today is really hurting financially and that bodes well for” Obama, he said.

Crazy or canny, you make the call.