Author: Trish

Rudy Giuliani’s Home Life is a Mess

Trish

Rut-roh! America’s mayor isn’t the world’s greatest dad. According to his son, Rudy’s kids are not that into their dad’s third wife. Then again, Rudy doesn’t seem that into his kids.

Though he supports his father, Andrew Giuliani does not plan on participating in his campaign. “I will not be active in his campaign,” he said. “I am too busy with golf.”

Andrew Giuliani said he and his father have recently tried to reconcile after not speaking “for a decent amount of time.” In the [recent New York] Times article, Andrew attributed their strained relationship to [Judith] Nathan, saying, “There’s obviously a little problem that exists between me and his wife.”

According to the Times, Rudy Giuliani used to pride himself on attending all his children’s events, but at some point after his marriage to Nathan in 2003 he stopped. He missed his son’s graduation in 2005 and his 17-year old daughter’s plays in the last 18 months…

Though he supports his father, Andrew Giuliani does not plan on participating in his campaign. As a Duke University sophomore and aspiring professional golfer, he has no time for distractions.

“I will not be active in his campaign,” he said. “I am too busy with golf.”

Now there’s a rousing endorsement. At least one pundit, presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, thinks Rudy’s home life could be a liability.

According to Brinkley, the critical area candidates must keep pristine during the grueling race to the White House is their wholesome family image. Scenes like Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., with his irresistible little girls or Republican Mitt Romney surrounding himself with his children and grandchildren when he announced his run for president are priceless.

“The big moment, the memorable moment, isn’t the speech but it’s when the candidate steps forward, the wife comes on, the kids rush on and you hear this great ‘aww,’ and everyone feels there is a specialness to this person,” Brinkley said.

But Rudy is special. How many people have married their second cousin, then moved in with a T.V. personality while still married to her, then had the marriage annulled since it was — after all — to his second cousin, proceeded to marry the T.V. chick and have two kids with her while carrying on a long-term and fairly public relationship with a staffer, then called a press conference to announce he was divorcing the second wife before mentioning it to her, and then married, not the staffer, but a drug company rep?

Yes, there is a “specialness” to Rudy that few men can match. I hope.

Bushevik to Chair Giuliani Exploratory Committee

Trish

The Dallas Morning News:

AUSTIN – Houston lawyer and Republican fundraiser Pat Oxford has been named chairman of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s presidential exploratory committee.

Mr. Oxford is managing partner at Bracewell & Giuliani, the Houston-based law firm that amended its name when the Republican former federal prosecutor signed on in March 2005. Mr. Oxford has been the point person in Texas for Mr. Giuliani’s preliminary efforts to seek the White House.

A longtime ally of Texas Republican political figures, Mr. Oxford was a “Pioneer” for George W. Bush, in the elite tier of fundraisers who collected at least $100,000 for the president’s election. He also was chairman of two of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s Senate races.

As governor, Mr. Bush appointed Mr. Oxford to the University of Texas Board of Regents and he’s remained an adviser to the Bush administration on judicial selections.

Actions Show U.S. Doesn’t Believe Its Iran Lies Either

Trish

Think about it: if the United States really believed Iran had nuclear defense capability, would we be so belligerent and overbearing toward it? Or, as with North Korea, would we call upon others to help us take the diplomatic route? Our behavior tells me we’re lying.

A story in the L.A. Times reports that with regard to Iran, everyone else thinks we’re lying too.

IAEA officials remain suspicious of the information in part because most of the papers are in English rather than Persian, the Iranian language

“Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that’s come to us has proved to be wrong,” a senior diplomat at the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] said. Another official here described the agency’s intelligence stream as “very cold now” because “so little panned out.”

…American officials privately acknowledge that much of their evidence on Iran’s nuclear plans and programs remains ambiguous, fragmented and difficult to prove.

The IAEA has its own concerns about Iran’s nuclear program, although agency officials say they have found no proof that nuclear material has been diverted to a weapons program.

Another way of stating that last sentence is, “The objective international agency that has been investigating Iran for five years has never found a single thing to indicate the country is building nukes.”

On the other hand, there’s plenty of evidence the United States is making crap up again.

Diplomats here were less convinced by documents recovered by U.S. intelligence from a laptop computer apparently stolen from Iran. American analysts first briefed senior IAEA officials on the contents of the hard drive at the U.S. mission here in mid-2005.

The documents included detailed designs to upgrade ballistic missiles to carry nuclear warheads, drawings for subterranean testing of high explosives, and two pages describing research on uranium tetrafluoride, known as “green salt,” which is used during uranium enrichment. IAEA officials remain suspicious of the information in part because most of the papers are in English rather than Persian, the Iranian language.

Oh please! They were written in English? Does that not have the mark of Rover and Dirty Dick all over it?

Iran’s representative to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, dismissed the laptop documents as “fabricated information.” Iran, he said, has produced 170 tons of “green salt” at a uranium conversion facility in Esfahan that is monitored by the IAEA.

“We are not hiding it,” he said in an interview. “We make tons of it. These documents are all nonsense.”

All anyone can prove the Iranians guilty of is the same thing Hussein actually did — scoffing at inspectors and resisting cooperation with what they view as coercion. And while I wish no one had nuclear weapons — including us, Russia, China, Israel, and North Korea — I can’t follow our reasoning about who can and who can’t.

Where is this all going, anyway? The countries that do not today have nuclear weapons can easily have them tomorrow. The only way we’ll ever be safe is if we focus on moving the world away from conflict, not on stacking the deck so we can always win the wars we keep starting. That strategy hasn’t worked in Iraq or Afghanistan and it’s doubtful it will work in Iran. It’s time to try something else.

Cheney Digs His Hole Deeper; Carter Hands Him Shovel

Trish

If he said it once, he’ll say it again. And he did. Dick Cheney wants us to know he really meant it when he said Nancy Pelosi and the members of the House who voted to dial down on Iraq are on the side of al Qaeda.

Carter says Dick is no better at assessing foreign affairs than he is at recognizing quail

“My statement was that if we adopt the Pelosi policy, is that we will validate the strategy of al Qaeda,” Cheney said. “I said it, and I meant it.”

By “the Pelosi policy,” Dirty D must mean anything that involves transitioning from military to political solutions in Iraq. Or Iran, for that matter.

But former president Jimmy Carter says Dick hasn’t been right yet. In an interview to be aired on ABC’s This Week, Carter says Dick is no better at assessing foreign affairs than he is at recognizing quail.

“If you go back and see what Vice President Cheney has said for the last three or four years concerning Iraq, his batting average is abysmally low. He hasn’t been right on hardly anything, in his prediction of what was going to happen; reasons for us going over there; the status of the situation to have a good result. So he’s been almost completely wrong on just about everything he’s said.

“And obviously, this is not playing into the hands of Al Qaida or the people who are causing violence and destruction over there, to call for a change in policy in Iraq.”

Hey David Geffen — Can I Get a Witness?

Trish

David Geffen deserves applause, not contempt, for his comments to MoDo about why he supports Obama over Clinton.

Get over it, Hil. There will be plenty of other people who agree with Geffen, or support John Edwards, or who just cannot get past your inability — so like the Current Occupant’s — to admit when you’re wrong.

“Not since the Vietnam War has there been this level of disappointment in the behavior of America throughout the world, and I don’t think that another incredibly polarizing figure, no matter how smart she is and no matter how ambitious she is — and God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hillary Clinton?” Geffen told the Times’ Maureen Dowd…

“Obama is inspirational, and he’s not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family,” Geffen told Dowd.

Geffen also alluded to possible campaign distractions caused by Bill Clinton’s personal life should his wife secure the Democratic nomination, saying, “Everybody in politics lies, but [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”

The founder of Geffen Records continued, “I don’t think anybody believes that in the last six years, all of a sudden Bill Clinton has become a different person,” calling the former president “a reckless guy” who “gave his enemies a lot of ammunition to hurt him and to distract the country.”

Whether or not Bill has changed, and I suspect he has — kind of — I for one, am already sick of Jay Leno ending every reference to Hillary with the fact that Bill cheated. I was sick of the dirty yucks when he was president and they haven’t gotten any funnier in the time since.

But the reaction of the Clinton folks actually disappoints me. It’s as if they begrudge Geffen the right to have an opinion or support someone else.

This morning, Clinton aide Howard Wolfson demanded that Obama remove Geffen from his campaign and return the money he had helped raise…

“If Sen. Obama is indeed sincere about his repeated claims to change the tone of our politics, he should immediately denounce these remarks, remove Mr. Geffen from his campaign, and return his money,” the Clinton backer said.

Why? What did Geffen say that disqualifies him from polite company? That he prefers Barak to Hillary? And…?

Although Clinton herself is not associated with Wolfson’s remarks, you can bet she favors them. Get over it, Hil. There will be plenty of other people who agree with Geffen, or support John Edwards, or who just cannot get past your inability — so like the Current Occupant’s — to admit when you’re wrong.

Republican Hack Knew Pelosi Plane Story was False Even as He Peddled It

Trish

A little follow-up by the hometown paper on the bellicose voice behind the “Nancy Pelosi’s plane is bigger” brouhaha shows why the public is over Republicans.

He calls the Pelosi plane story, whatever its legitimacy, “the first break [Republicans] have had from the media in driving our message since before the Mark Foley story broke.

U.S. Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Bartow, Fla.) was out in front on the story, supplying quotes and moral high ground by claiming Pelosi wanted a more luxurious plane than her predecessor, Big Denny Hastert. But the 32-year-old wonderGOoP blames the media for starting it and says he was only exploiting the opening they gave him.

Ick.

Putnam now acknowledges he had no personal knowledge of any Pelosi request. He said he was commenting on an anonymously-sourced story in The Washington Times and additional coverage from CNN.

“This was a classic case where the media got out in front of us,” Putnam said. “Did we jump on it? Yes.”

And he is unapologetic about that. He calls the Pelosi plane story, whatever its legitimacy, “the first break [Republicans] have had from the media in driving our message since before the Mark Foley story broke.”

Let’s get this straight. Putnam sees Pelosi needing a plane that will fly nonstop to California instead of Illinois equivalent to former Rep. Mark Foley spending years pressuring teenage male pages for sex while the Republican leadership at best turned a blind eye and at worse, covered it up?

Ick.

But Putnam is just getting warmed up — he’s been appointed chairman of the House Republican conference committee.

It is the conference chairman’s responsibility to coordinate message and manage media relations for House Republicans. That means developing themes that counter and discredit an agenda set by the new Democratic majority. It’s a role Putnam has embraced in the new Congress.

…After Democrats swept to a congressional majority in November’s elections, Putnam moved up in the Republican leadership to conference chairman, the third-ranking House Republican position. Only Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and the whip, Roy Blunt, R-Missouri, outrank Putnam.

And if you’re expecting him to play fair, forget it. Facts just get in the way of whatever makes the best story.

…a set of talking points titled “Air Force 3 – A symbol of Democrat Excess” remained prominently displayed on the regularly updated Web site of the House conference committee days after the story was discredited. It mentioned Pelosi by name and said she was pursuing “an unprecedented perk.”

Asked about the talking points Friday, Putnam responded: “You must check the Web site more often than I do.”

…Putnam blamed any unfairness in how the Pelosi plane issue was portrayed on the media that covered it, and he said he found it “curious” that reporters would question how the story spread.

I guess reporters should just accept these stories on their face and make his life that much easier.

Ick.

Romney Caught Flagrantly Misrepresenting on ABC

Trish

Mitt Romney’s dots don’t connect. That was painfully clear in his recent interview with George Stephanopoulos on This Week.

Every straight question George asked was answered sideways by Romney. He had a “yes, but,” a “not exactly,” and a “O.K., but let’s talk about now” for every query. The most interesting oratory gymnastics by the Republican presidential candidate concerned his membership — including being a bishop, the president of Boston Area Parishes, and a two-year missionary in France — in the cult of Mormonism.

Mormons: “It is our belief that the new Jerusalem will be established within the state of Missouri.”

Stephanopoulos: I just have one more question about this and it has to do with the Muslim world.

In your faith, if I understand it correctly, it teaches that Jesus will return probably to the United States and reign on earth for 1,000 years. And I wonder how that would be viewed in the Muslim world. Have you thought about how the Muslim world will react to that and whether it would make it more difficult, if you were president, to build alliances with the Muslim world?

Mitt Romney: Well, I’m not a spokesman for my church. I’m not running for pastor in chief. I’m running for commander in chief.*

So the best place to go for my church’s doctrines would be my church.

Stephanopoulos: But I’m talking about how they will take it, how they will perceive it.

Mitt Romney: I understand, but that doesn’t happen to be a doctrine of my church.

Hold on there, pard. Even though you went on to claim that you only voted for Democrat Paul Tsongas because you were a registered Independent; and that you were pro-choice but now you’re pro-life except not that much because it should be up to each state to decide; and that you used to favor allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military but since Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is working so well, now you want them to hide their sexual orientation; and that you supported the Brady Bill’s three-day waiting period but now we don’t need it since we have faster computer systems so you joined the NRA a few months ago…even though you wormed you way through all that and more, you were just flat wrong or lying about the Jesus coming to America bit.

[…]

Somebody Missed Snack Time: GOoPer Mica Throws Another Hissy Fit

Trish

The first time my representative, John Mica (R-Winter Park, Fla.), pitched a tantrum against the new Democratic leadership in Congress, everyone figured he hadn’t had his nappie.

The story made national headlines as an embarrassing illustration of how badly the new minority party was adapting to its more humble status. Mica, the former head of the transportation committee, threw a hissy fit when he discovered the comfy chair in which his large GOP ass was formerly housed was reassigned.

Mica: “Google it yourself. This is tomorrow, 8:17 Mecca time, Al Jazeera: ‘Democrats Attack Bush War Policy,’ and the lead quote is from Speaker Pelosi”

Mica arrived for the roundtable and discovered that he did not have one of the nice, cushy chairs at the head of the table that were occupied by Oberstar, Shuster and other speakers…

According to sources, none of whom wanted to be anywhere near this story, Mica threw a fit and demanded to know from staff why he didn’t have a special chair of his own next to Oberstar and the others.

But before staff could rectify the situation, and as startled members looked on, a furious Mica stormed out of the room and ordered the other Republican members to leave. Among the uncomfortable departees was Shuster’s own son and successor, Rep. Bill Shuster.

Everyone gave him that one, especially after his staff said it was all just a big ol’ misunderstanding. But his comments when he got to speak on the Iraq resolution show Johnny’s scorn for Democrats knows no bounds. Hey John, sneer much?

[…]

Judge Says Libby Can’t Have It Both Ways

Trish

Isn’t it a bummer when you have to keep your agreements? Just ask ol’ Scooter, whose case closed today with a pissed-off judge.

The judge in the case became upset Wednesday when defense attorneys sought to follow an agreement with prosecutors that was based on Libby’s taking the stand.

Because Libby and his attorneys decided he would not testify, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton blocked them from using some classified evidence in the case.

The defense announced Tuesday that neither Libby nor Vice President Dick Cheney, who was expected to support him, would testify.

“It’s too much of a game now,” Walton said. “It’s supposed to be about finding the truth, and then we play games with the process.”

The agreed-to material was intended to be a partial substitute for Libby’s testimony, said the judge and Fitzgerald.

Because of that, the defense will not be allowed to get that evidence before the jury, which will deny the government a chance to question Libby about how it may have affected his state of mind.

After the defense and the prosecution each pressed their view on the matter, Walton said, “I won’t permit it,” adding, “If I get reversed on that one, maybe I need to hang up my spurs.”

Oh, you’ll probably just get fired a few months down the road for “performance issues” instead, judge.

Closing arguments will be presented Tuesday.

Sen. Mel Martinez Still Claiming Iraq is About 9/11

Trish

Looks like someone missed the memo. In his floor statement last week, as Republicans in the Senate filibustered their way out of the debate on Iraq that the country has been clamoring for, Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) did it again. He repeated that old chestnut about how we’re fighting in Iraq because these are the people who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001.

I’m quoting the entire passage from his very own web site, so as not to be accused of taking what he said out of context or making this shit up.

Jeez, Mel, where you been? Don’t you know we’ve shifted away from that whole “al Qaeda is the root of all evil in Iraq” bit to “Iran is the root of all evil in Iraq?”

But, getting beyond the procedural debate and the tit for tat that so often signifies what Washington is about, what is it that, fundamentally, this debate is about? It’s about the Global War on Terror. It is about the events that unfolded in our country on the morning of September the 11th, 2001, and the aftermath of all of that, the things that have occurred as our nation has responded to the attacks that were brought upon our shores. And, as we have sought to carry out this difficult war, but one in which we must not waiver, which is this War on Terror. And as a result of this War on Terror, our troops are in Iraq today where they have removed a dictator from power, and where they have confronted the enemy, which regardless of how someone might have felt about the original decision to go into Iraq, today we are there and we are engaging an enemy that is the very enemy that attacked us here on 9/11.

It is known that in al-Anbar province, it is fundamentally an al-Qaeda operation. So to send additional reinforcements to al-Anbar province to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq is in the best interest of this nation; it is in our national interest. To pacify, to bring some peace to Baghdad, which is the capital city of Iraq, which is essential to the peace and security of that nation—of that budding democracy—that is attempting to put itself on its feet and to bring some stability to that capital city, by additional reinforcements of American troops in a new plan, I think is reasonable.

Jeez, Mel, where you been? That is just so, like, last month!

Don’t you know we’ve shifted away from that whole “al Qaeda is the root of all evil in Iraq” bit to “Iran is the root of all evil in Iraq?” Come on, get with the party line already.

For those of you don’t know, Martinez has been tapped to lead the GOP in the next election cycle. I hope for their sake he’s better at fund-raising than making speeches.