Three letters to consider for those who suggest that John Edwards is rich and, therefore, can’t possibly mean what he says about helping the middle class: F–D–R.
Oliver Willis on Religion & the Presidential Campaign
Oliver Willis has a thoughtful post up on the subject of religion and the Presidential campaign. He notes the objection of some conservative bloggers to people asking Mitt Romney questions about whether he subscribes to specific elements of Mormon faith. Willis suggests that such questions are entirely appropriate, particularly where faith is listed as a central motivation for the candidates’ campaign. The true motivation, in the case of Romney, is to insulate him because many Americans will just find particular elements of Mormonism to be “weird.” But it’s only familiarity with more common religious beliefs that cause them to be regarded differently than those “weird” elements of Mormonism.
Look, religion is weird. It just is. Whether you believe in it or not, the very idea of invisible men and women, prophets, miracles, burning bushes, talking animals, etc. are just not things we encounter in daily life in the modern era (well, without the aid of drugs, that is). But a lot of people, the majority of people, have these beliefs. And if they are to be our leaders and have these beliefs inform their decision making processes, it is right to ask them about them to find out what they truly believe. Again, if a reporter asked Hillary Clinton, “Senator, do you believe that 2,000 years ago a man named Jesus walked on water?” that’s not out of bounds in the least. My guess is that she would say “Yes”, because it’s what she believes and that belief is part of her make up.
Dog Free, Tancredo Happy
Fort Wayne Blog brings us news of Tom Tancredo and Dog the Bounty Hunter. Tancredo, a Republican Presidential candidate, has indicated his happiness that charges against Dog by Mexican officials have been dropped.
Well, that’s at least one thing Congressman Tancredo and I have in common. I have a thing for bad TV. Really bad TV. And Dog scratches that itch. So, for that reason alone and without knowing anything about the Mexican complaints against him, I am as happy as Congressman Tancredo.
Oh, I couldn’t resist – here is more information about Dog and Mexico. Apparently he went after Max Factor cosmetics heir Andrew Luster who had fled the U.S. in the middle of a trial for poisoning and rape and was convicted on 86 counts including multiple rape charges. Dog and his team picked up Luster in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. Bounty hunting is apparently illegal in Mexico.
Apparently no other Presidential candidates have yet commented on this issue of national importance.
Edwards: Boycott donations from (Fox) News Corp. executives
John Edwards is going after Hillary Clinton for taking contributions from News Corp. executives. News Corporation is Rupert Murdoch’s company, owner of Fox News, among others. This obviously feeds into the Hillary is not a real Democrat storyline that could really hurt Hillary in the primaries.
“The time has come for Democrats to stop pretending to be friends with the very people who demonize the Democratic Party,” Edwards said in a statement.
He has a point. If you’re in a prisoner’s dilemma type situation, the prudent strategy is to treat an adversary nicely at first, then, if they treat you poorly, you respond in kind until they stop. Go for the handshake first, then, if they whack you on the head, you whack them right back until they play nice. So, for Hillary to play nice with Fox News probably isn’t a long term winning strategy. There is an old adage that you should never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel; but, in the case of Faux News, I think the fight has already been picked.
Most of Murdoch’s donations go to Republicans, but he gave $4,200 to Clinton’s Senate campaign in 2006 and held a fundraiser for her at News Corp.’s midtown headquarters. He also donated $2,300 to her presidential campaign, according to online campaign donation database Political MoneyLine. Murdoch’s son James, who is seen by many as a likely candidate to eventually succeed his 76-year-old father, gave $3,450.
Edwards leads in Iowa
I only have half an eye on the national stories, so I don’t know how well they’re covering this stuff. MyDD does an excellent job of tracking national polls. Today, the site posted an entry entitled New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead. Nationally, I guess Edwards is running third behind Clinton and Obama.
Personally, at this point, I favor Edwards as a candidate. More than Clinton and Obama, I think he sees a rock solid middle class as critical to the health of our democracy. I don’t think Clinton or Obama dismiss the need for a strong middle class; I just think it’s lower on their list of priorities.
I was also impressed when he had the courage to point out that “War on Terror” is a slogan, particularly as implemented by the Bush administration. Let’s be clear since folks who hear this become deliberately obtuse since it suits their cause. There are people and groups who wish to do us harm. These people and groups will use terror as a tactic if given the opportunity. These people and groups should be stopped. To stop them, we need to identify them and take away their means and will to cause us harm. War, a term most commonly used to indicate a state of hostility between two states, is a poor metaphor for our efforts against these malicious people and groups. Terror is not our enemy. Rather, the people who want to harm us, whether they use terror or not, are our enemies. So, “War on Terror” is a poor description of what our efforts ought to be. And, as used by the Bush administration, “War on Terror” seems to mean – “Gimme! And shut up about it!”
Folks who don’t particularly like Mr. Edwards should take heart. I haven’t backed a winner since 1988 when I favored the Bush/Quayle ticket.
Pool a little cold for Fred Thompson
The Republicans don’t seem very enamored of their official Presidential candidates. So, it seemed as if maybe actor Fred Thompson might be their man on a white horse. Thompson was testing the waters before throwing his hat in, but they seem a little chilly at this point. His fund raising was a bit lackluster for his first month – raising $3 million instead of the hoped for $5 million.
There have also apparently been some internal problems with his campaign. None of this knocks him out, but it certainly diminishes the aura of invincibility the GOP tends to like to see in its candidates.
Americans evenly split on impeaching Bush
I’ve heard tell that I’m a moonbat and, therefore, out of touch with the mainstream. Turns out, a funny thing happened on the way to the moon. Half of the American people appear to be going with me. A poll by the American Research Group show that 45% of all adults favor impeaching George W. Bush versus 46% in opposition. Among voters, the number changes to 46% in favor versus 44% against. (The ARG site doesn’t have a permalink, so, for posterity, here is a repost at TPMCafe.) George gets off easier than Dick, however. 54% of adults favor impeaching Cheney versus 40% against. By way of contrast, immediately prior to the Clinton impeachment hearings, polls showed just 26% in favor.
I don’t really want the House of Representatives to listen to these poll numbers though. Impeachment is an enormous decision that affects the very roots of our democracy. It shouldn’t be made based on popular sentiment at any given point in time. Congress has to decide for itself whether Cheney or Bush is guilty of “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” If so, they should impeach. If not, not. Still, those poll numbers are pretty astounding. Also in the poll:
Fred Thompson – Senate mole for Nixon administration during Watergate
Michael Kranish, writing for the Boston Globe has an interesting article on Fred Thompson entitled Not all would put a heroic sheen on Thompson’s Watergate role. Thompson served as staff counsel for the Senate Republicans during the Watergate hearings. Without authority to do so, Thompson apparently tipped off the White House that the Senate committee knew about the administration’s taping system and would be making the information public. “It was one of many Thompson leaks to the Nixon team, according to a former investigator for Democrats on the committee, Scott Armstrong , who remains upset at Thompson’s actions.” Thompson apparently dodged the question when asked this week about his role as a leaker to the Nixon administration.
In a bit of editorializing, the article says that Thompson’s support of Nixon puts in context his support of Bush’s special treatment of Scooter Libby. Thompson is on the board of Scooter’s legal defense fund which apparently has something like $5 million.
Libby skates
Holy crap. Bush is going to let Libby skate. Rather than let the taxpayers foot the bill for a lot of expensive legal work, Bush could’ve at least just pardoned Libby right up front. I know, I know. He was hoping for a less politically embarrassing way to let Cheney’s right hand man off the hook for stonewalling the special investigation into the Plame matter.
Libby’s supporters argued that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was over-zealous in prosecuting Libby for lying to investigators when no one was charged over the actual leak of Plame’s status as a Central Intelligence Agency official.
That was sort of the point of making obstruction of justice and lying to federal investigators a crime. If folks aren’t going to tell the truth, investigators can’t uncover criminal acts. There are legitimate reasons to question whether criminalizing these sorts of acts are legitimate under the Fourth and Fifth Amendment scheme set up by our Founders. But, the likes of Bush, Cheney, and Libby are among the last of those who can complain without hypocrisy about the loss of civil liberties that favor criminal suspects.
So, to recap, Scooter Libby, chief of staff to Richard Bruce Cheney, was convicted by a jury of his peers for breaking a law duly passed by the United States Congress. George W. Bush in his infinite wisdom has commuted Libby’s sentence before he has served a day in jail. The pro-war administration mouthpiece from the New York Times, Judith Miller, will have spent more time in jail covering for Libby than Libby spends.
And, it’s not as if Bush has been overly generous with pardons for people who weren’t breaking the law on his behalf:
Bush has granted fewer pardons — 113 — than any president in the past 100 years, while denying more than 1,000 requests, said Margaret Colgate Love, the Justice Department’s pardon attorney from 1990 to 1997.
In addition, Bush has denied more than 4,000 commutation requests, and hundreds of requests for pardons and commutations are still pending, Love said.
You’ll remember that Bush, as Governor of Texas, was Captain Death Penalty. When he was Governor, he had this to say with respect to the 152 death sentences he oversaw:
I don’t believe my role [as governor] is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own, unless there are new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware, or evidence that the trial was somehow unfair.
Of Libby’s 2 1/2 year sentence, President Bush said, “the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive.”
Message: If you do the bidding of the Bush administration, you’re above the law and untouchable.
I think John Edwards put it fairly well:
Only a president clinically incapable of understanding that mistakes have consequences could take the action he did today. President Bush has just sent exactly the wrong signal to the country and the world. In George Bush’s America, it is apparently okay to misuse intelligence for political gain, mislead prosecutors and lie to the FBI. George Bush and his cronies think they are above the law and the rest of us live with the consequences. The cause of equal justice in America took a serious blow today.
Bush just did the Democratic candidates a huge favor; he might as well have put the ball on a tee for them. The Republican candidates will have a tough time reconciling this with a message of law, order, justice, and personal responsibility.
Bloomberg drops Republican affiliation
This could be interesting. Via Balloon Juice: New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that he was dropping his Republican affiliation. While he continues to say that he has no plans to run for the presidency, his disaffiliation will add fuel to the speculation that he will run for the Presidency as an independent. He has a substantial personal fortune and could finance his own campaign. And, he was a Republican – in name, at least – who was able to win in New York City. He seems to have been a more effective city executive than his predecessor, Rudy Giuliani.
I’ll give him a look if he runs.