I put Middle Earth Journal in hiatus in May of 2008 and moved to Newshoggers.
I temporarily reopened Middle Earth Journal when Newshoggers shut it's doors but I was invited to Participate at The Moderate Voice so Middle Earth Journal is once again in hiatus.

Showing posts with label Rudy Giuliani. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rudy Giuliani. Show all posts

Sunday, January 27, 2008

What happened to Rudy?

Just a few short months ago Rudy Giuliani was the front runner for the Republican nomination. In the first primary where he is actively competing it looks like he will come in fourth. We have seen the last few weeks the more he campaigned the lower he went on the polls. So what happened? Jazz keeps reminding everyone that a few months ago I said that Rudy was popular only because most of the country really didn't know him - now they do. The always brilliant Digby takes a look at the reasons behind the fall of Rudy and I think she gets it right.
What happened? My suspicion is that his absurd braggadocio about everything 9/11 just finally became too much. He was a mayor. He wasn't Patton or Churchill and the only thing he did was wander around on the ground and hold press conferences, which was only meaningful by comparison to the president who ran around the first day like he didn't know what to do.

His "foreign policy" was completely nuts, even in by the standards of the Republican nut grove. He sounds like he's foaming at the mouth when he talks about "Islamofascism" and "staying on offense." There's just something a little bit crazy in his eyes that probably makes even right wingers worry that his aggressiveness might be a bit much.

[.....]

Mostly, though, I think it's that he has virtually no appealing positive attributes. He's not funny, he's not compassionate, he's not somebody you'd want to have a beer with and with all of his gloating and bragging, he's just an unpleasant, creepy fellow. I honestly can't figure out why New Yorkers elected him except that he must have been better than the other guy.

It was always going to be hard for twice divorced, pro-choice serial adulterer from New York City to win the nomination. He would have had to have at least been a flamboyant war hero to make all that national security stuff scan. But he was a mayor, not a general, and everything that has come out of his mouthabout 9/11 and "staying on offense" sounds like nothing so much as some sad small man trying to puff himself up to look bigger than he is. New York City doesn't have an army and this guy tries to make it sound like he led the invasion of Normandy. He's ridiculous.
Shaun Mullen's explanation for Rudy's problems in Florida is still my favorite.
His greatest strength is the substantial number of New York transplants in densely populated South Florida who know him well.

His greatest weakness is the substantial number of New York transplants in densely populated South Florida who know him well.

Friday, January 25, 2008

Benito Giuliani

Cold
But amusing:
At first, Giuliani’s unusual strategy seemed unusual but not entirely irrational. He would win over Florida by proving that he loved it more than any other state, the way John McCain loved New Hampshire and Mitt Romney loved Michigan. But many commentators have pointed out — really very unkindly — that the longer Giuliani stayed in Florida, the lower his standing in the state polls.
And what happened? Shaun Mullen writing at The Moderate Voice may have the explanation:

His greatest strength is the substantial number of New York transplants in densely populated South Florida who know him well.

His greatest weakness is the substantial number of New York transplants in densely populated South Florida who know him well.

Now our very own Jazz accused the New York Times of plagiarizing some of my posts here on MEJ when they endorsed John McCain by slamming Rudy:
Why, as a New York-based paper, are we not backing Rudolph Giuliani? Why not choose the man we endorsed for re-election in 1997 after a first term in which he showed that a dirty, dangerous, supposedly ungovernable city could become clean, safe and orderly? What about the man who stood fast on Sept. 11, when others, including President Bush, went AWOL?

That man is not running for president.

The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.

Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking. When he claims fiscal prudence, we remember how he ran through surpluses without a thought to the inevitable downturn and bequeathed huge deficits to his successor. He fired Police Commissioner William Bratton, the architect of the drop in crime, because he couldn’t share the limelight. He later gave the job to Bernard Kerik, who has now been indicted on fraud and corruption charges.

The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city’s and the country’s nightmare to promote his presidential campaign.
Cold
But accurate!

Interesting Poll

SurveyUSA has a new Florida Poll that has John McCain leading Mitt Romney 30% to 28%. No, that's not the interesting part. It is interesting in that Rudy Giuliani at 18% seems to be all but out of the Race. But the real interesting stuff is in the details as Jennifer Rubin explains over at Commentary.
Even more startling is this nugget from the poll: McCain leads 37 percent to 25 percent over Romney among voters who say the economy is the number one issue. This seems counterintuitive in light of Romney’s improved messaging and his obvious command of economic issues. However, there may be something missing in his appeal. In a speech today at the Latin Builders Association he added some lines that we haven’t heard before:
I’ve had settings where I’ve had to lay people off. It’s an awful feeling. No one likes laying someone off . . . Someone who thinks that you’re a bad person if you lay someone off doesn’t understand. You feel bad. Its probably the hardest thing I’ve done in business.
Could it be that Romney comes across too corporate or too upscale and is now attempting a slight course correction? There is some evidence this is a problem for him. In New Hampshire, for example, he lost every economic group except those making $150-199K, and lost 22 percent to 39 percent to McCain among voters who considered the economy the number one issue. His focus on economics has intensified since then, and he has had much more time to demonstrate his expertise, but if the Florida poll is accurate it suggests he still has not connected with the majority of voters on what should be his best issue.
While it's true people say they want change they have to believe you will change things and that the change will be for the better. Romney is seen as a big business guy and many blame big business for the mess we are in now. Perhaps John McCain is picking up on that. In Florida he said this:
“America is looking for leaders, not managers,” McCain said this morning. “Governor Romney has touted his qualities and experience and resume as a manager. I am telling the American people, and they know it, that I am a leader.”

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Quote of the day

The quote of the day is from Tim F at Balloon Juice:
An optimist Republican thinks that Rudy! might be the best guy to represent the party in ‘08. A pessimist Republican fears that might be true.
Go check out Tim's post for the context. It's pretty funny!

Thursday, December 27, 2007

I don't know

Benazir Bhutto Assassinated in Pakistan
RAWALPINDI, Pakistan, Dec. 27 -- Former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday at a political rally, two months after returning from exile to attempt a political comeback.
Now I don't have a clue what this will lead to. It will further destabilize a country that is already unstable. Al Qaeda is taking credit but Musharraf is being blamed.

I also don't have a clue as to how this will impact US politics. Joe Scarborough thinks he knows - it will help Rudy the fascist but as Greg Sargent points out:
As Atrios says, the logic is very tortured here indeed. But it's actually worse than that. This rank bit of punditry serves as yet another reminder of just how gullible the pundit corps in general has been about Rudy's candidacy, on two levels: First, the near wholesale acceptance of the idea that Rudy's mayoralty counts as counter-terrorism experience; and second, the presumption that he automatically has a political advantage on terrorism over his rivals.
The Republicans themselves don't even see Rudy as being that strong on security.

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Inspiration

I'm not a Democrat or a Republican and there is very little inspiration to be found it the Democrats or Republicans running for the highest office in the land. There is one thing that inspires me however - keeping Rudy Giuliani out of the White House. I have made it clear how I feel about Rudy and as it turns out I have allies on the right, the old right that is.
The American Conservative magazine has an issue with a cover story and an article by progressive Glenn Greenwald that attempts to deconstruct Rudy. The first is by Michael C. Desch, Professor and Robert M. Gates Chair in Intelligence and National Security Decision-making at the George Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University.
Declaring Forever War
Giuliani has surrounded himself with advisers who think the Bush Doctrine didn’t go nearly far enough.
In one sense, his campaign is a big tent: it has by some estimates between 60 and 70 advisors. Some—British Soviet expert Robert Conquest and Reagan campaign defense advisor William Van Cleave—are clearly window-dressing. The core of senior advisors includes former Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz, Martin Kramer (Middle East), Stephen Rosen (defense), S. Enders Wimbush (diplomacy), Peter Berkowitz (statecraft, human rights, and freedom), Kim Holmes (foreign policy), and perhaps Daniel Pipes. Giuliani’s chief foreign-policy advisor is retired diplomat and Yale instructor Charles Hill. In the face of controversy about how many neoconservatives were playing prominent roles, Podhoretz bragged to the New York Observer,“Giuliani doesn’t think that this is a liability.”

Podhoretz is the person whose presence has done the most to set in concrete the notion that Team Rudy is all neocon all the time. Famous for arguing that we are in the midst of “World War IV,” Podhoretz is scathing in his criticism of those he suspects of not waging the war with enough vigor. He even charges that many senior military officers show insufficient stomach for the fight, singling out former CENTCOM commander John Abizaid and his successor, Adm. William Fallon. Podhoretz is also an assiduous peddler of the new neocon myth that the antiwar camp stabbed President Bush in the back.

And he doesn’t stop at Iraq: Podhoretz constantly beats the drum for bombing Iran to halt its nascent nuclear program. Air Marshal Podhoretz assured The Telegraph that the air campaign “would take five minutes.” His optimism that attacking Iran would be another cakewalk combines with pessimism about the prospects of multilateral sanctions preventing Iran from getting the bomb. “Yet for all their retrospective remorse over the wholesale slaughter of the Jews back then,” Podhoretz sneers, “the Europeans seem no readier to lift a finger to prevent a second Holocaust than they were the first time around.”
That's right, Rudy's chief foreign policy advisor is none other than the bull goose looney of the neocon asylum, Norman Podhoretz.

But Rudy's threat doesn't stop there. The American Conservative calls on lefty Glenn Greenwald to explain Rudy's authoritarian personality

Authoritarian Temptation

Can we trust the the presidency to a mayor like Giuliani?
As constrained as a mayor’s power typically is, Giuliani never ceased pushing those limits. In a 2001 retrospective on the mayor’s tenure, the New York Times concluded, “the suppression of dissent or of anything that irked the mayor, became a familiar theme.” Giuliani’s idiosyncratic—one could say Orwellian—understanding of “freedom,” expressed during a 1994 speech, reveals just how literally authoritarian his worldview is:
What we don’t see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.
By the nature of the office, even the most excessively secretive, grudge-harboring authoritarian in charge of a municipality can only do so much damage. But the dangers posed by allowing such an individual to rule the most powerful nation on earth are boundless. And those general risks are greatly enhanced after eight long years of unprecedented expansions of government power and systematic erosions of virtually every check on executive authority.

A President Giuliani would inherit an office bestowed with such dark powers as indefinite detention, interrogation methods widely considered to be torture, vast warrantless surveillance authority, and an impenetrable wall of secrecy secured by multiple executive and judicial instruments. Set all of that next to a submissive and impotent Congress and an equally supine media—to say nothing of the prospect of another terrorist attack to exacerbate every one of those factors—and it is hard to imagine a more toxic combination than Rudy Giuliani and the Oval Office.

Rudy is the kind of leader/tyrant Orwell had in mind when he wrote 1984 and it Cheney on steroids. Now Rudy appears to be in a nosedive at the moment but he still has the support of the corporate media and the DC establishment.

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Karl Rove's Frankenstein

This is an interesting little post by The National Review's Rich Lowry:
Revenge of the Evangelicals
Remember how evangelicals had "matured"? Remember how the war on terror had replaced social issues? It shouldn't be hard, since all those things were being said a couple of weeks ago (heck, still being said maybe even a few days ago). Part of what seems to be going on with the Huckabee surge is evangelicals sticking their thumbs in the eyes of the chattering class—we're still here, we still matter, and we still care about our signature issues. Remember the lack of excitement in the Republican race, especially among dispirited social conservatives? Well, now there is some excitement, and it isn't over free market economics or the war on terror, but a candidate who doesn't speak compellingly about either of those things but instead about social issues. As a friend I was talking to a little earlier points out, the most important moment of the campaign so far came when a social conservative excited a social conservative audience—Huckabee with his "I come from you" speech at the "values summit." This friend argues that the Huck surge makes it harder, not easier, for Rudy to win the nomination. Now that many evangelicals have a horse in this race, it would be very hard to tell them that not only will their guy not get the nomination, but they'll have to settle for a pro-choicer. I don't know about that, but Huck has certainly trashed about nine months-worth of conventional wisdom on the changing nature of social conservative voters.
This was oh so predictable. Karl Rove marshaled the 16th century masses to vote against their own best interests in order to stop a woman's right to choose, an individual's right to die with dignity and to enforce selected portions of Leviticus. They all but took over the party. Well they are once again being ignored by the party's movers and shakers and they don't like it. Well guess what? They have their own guy in the race, Mike Huckabee, and they don't see any reason to support the anti Leviticus, Rudy, or the cultist, Mitt. A Frankenstein monster indeed.

Monday, November 26, 2007

Methodology

Note
I didn't see Chuck's post below when I did this one but it represents some contrast.
.........................................................
Two polls two different results. A recent poll conducted by Zogby which surveys individuals who have registered to take part in online polls shows Hillary Clinton behind all Republican candidates. A conventional poll by Gallup shows her leading all Republican candidates by at least five percent. Which one is right? We are looking at two different demographics - which one best represents the US electorate? Hillary is indeed a polarizing figure but so are Rudy and Mitt. If it's Rudy I would expect a big chunk of the Evangelical base to sit this one out. The same could be said for Mitt. Rudy is a totalitarian and I can't see the Libertarians giving him their support. I still think that third party candidates will decide the next presidential election. None of them will win but they will decide who does.

Update

Our friend Captain Ed also questions Zogby's methodology.

Monday, November 19, 2007

It's not over until it's over.....

.....unless you're Fred
The latest poll from New Hampshire shows some real movement - in the wrong direction for Fred and Rudy.
Thompson skids while Romney, Paul climb in N.H. poll
Thompson came into the GOP race late with the hope of winning over social conservatives unsatisfied with the rest of the party's field, and racked up a key endorsement from the National Right to Life Committee last week. But the former star of the television drama "Law and Order" has trailed the GOP front-runners in early voting states since entering the race in August, and his support in New Hampshire dropped from 13 percent in a September poll to 4 percent in November's survey.
By contrast, Romney's support grew from 25 percent to 33 percent over the same period; McCain held steady at 18 percent; and Giuliani dipped from 24 to 16 percent.

Meanwhile, the percentage of support for Paul grew from 4 percent to 8 percent, putting him fourth among the GOP contenders in the Granite State.
I suspect this indicates that people are getting to know the candidates. In Fred's case once you get to know him you realize there's not much to know. In Rudy's case once you get to know him you don't like him very much.

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Pillow Talk

We all know that Rudy has a lot of skeletons in his closet. Below Jazz discussed Rudy's problem with the New York City fire fighters. Frank Rich explains that Rudy has another storm cloud in his future, Judith Regan.
What ‘That Regan Woman’ Knows
But how quickly and stupidly we forgot about the other Judith in the Rudy orbit. That would be Judith Regan, who disappeared last December after she was unceremoniously fired from Rupert Murdoch’s publishing house, HarperCollins. Last week Ms. Regan came roaring back into the fray, a silver bullet aimed squarely at the heart of the Giuliani campaign.

Ms. Regan filed a $100 million lawsuit against her former employer, claiming she was unjustly made a scapegoat for the O. J. Simpson “If I Did It” fiasco that (briefly) embarrassed Mr. Murdoch and his News Corporation. But for those of us not caught up in the Simpson circus, what’s most riveting about the suit are two at best tangential sentences in its 70 pages: “In fact, a senior executive in the News Corporation organization told Regan that he believed she had information about Kerik that, if disclosed, would harm Giuliani’s presidential campaign. This executive advised Regan to lie to, and to withhold information from, investigators concerning Kerik.”

Kerik, of course, is Bernard Kerik, the former Giuliani chauffeur and police commissioner, as well as the candidate he pushed to be President Bush’s short-lived nominee to run the Department of Homeland Security. Having pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors last year, Mr. Kerik was indicted on 16 other counts by a federal grand jury 10 days ago, just before Ms. Regan let loose with her lawsuit. Whether Ms. Regan’s charge about that unnamed Murdoch “senior executive” is true or not — her lawyers have yet to reveal the evidence — her overall message is plain. She knows a lot about Mr. Kerik, Mr. Giuliani and the Murdoch empire. And she could talk.
Now we don't yet know what Mr Kerik told Ms Regan between the sheets but...
Few know more about Rudy than his perennial boon companion, Mr. Kerik. Perhaps during his romance with Ms. Regan he talked only of the finer points of memoir writing or about his theories of crime prevention or about his ideas for training the police in the Muslim world (an assignment he later received in Iraq and botched). But it is also plausible that this couple discussed everything Mr. Kerik witnessed at Mr. Giuliani’s side before, during and after 9/11. Perhaps he even explained to her why the mayor insisted, disastrously, that his city’s $61 million emergency command center be located in the World Trade Center despite the terrorist attack on the towers in 1993.

Perhaps, too, they talked about the business ventures the mayor established after leaving office. Mr. Kerik worked at Giuliani Partners and used its address as a mail drop for some $75,000 that turns up in the tax-fraud charges in his federal indictment. That money was Mr. Kerik’s pay for an 11-sentence introduction to another Regan-published book about 9/11, “In the Line of Duty.” Though that project’s profits were otherwise donated to the families of dead rescue workers, Mr. Kerik’s royalties were mailed to Giuliani Partners in the name of a corporate entity Mr. Kerik set up in Delaware. He would later claim that he made comparable donations to charity, but the federal indictment charges that $80,000 he took in charitable deductions were bogus.
Will Ms Regan start singing?

Check your six, Rudy

While "check your six" is primarily an established term in aviation, (meaning, look out behind you) somebody should probably tell Rudy Giuliani to check his six pronto. Since the moment Rudy entered the presidential race and began garnering huge poll numbers, I have been predicting on these pages that he would have a nasty swiftboating in his future. My crystal ball was a bit on the fritz though, as I had anticipated it coming from some far right wing, anti-abortion group. I never imagined it would come from the New York City 9/11 emergency relief workers. (Hat Tip to Jill from Brilliant at Breakfast.)
A group of 9/11 firefighters and victims' family members with eyes on derailing Republican Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign is close to a decision on forming an entity that would run issue ads in key early nominating states.

"TV made him a hero, and we'll use TV to take him down," New York Fire Chief Jim Riches told ABC News.

Now, I live in New York and I really love the place. But it's long been a given that politics in the Empire State - particularly in the Big Apple - tends to leave a stain on anyone who gets involved. And Rudy has been steeping in it for decades. As Sridhar Pappu noted today in the Washington Post, quoting Faulkner, "The past is not dead. In fact, it's not even past."

I could go on for a bit about how appropriate this is, given some of the skeletons hiding out in Rudy's closet, but I think Jill already said it best.
The issue about the radios is real and is documented. And until Rudy Giuliani set himself up as the Saint of 9/11, the Tough Guy Who Knows All About Terrorism, and started lying about having been obsessed with terrorism for decades when he told the 9/11 Commission under oath that he really hadn't thought about it, it's unlikely that anyone would have made the radios an issue. But if Rudy is going to run on 9/11, then let's let him run on ALL of 9/11.

Indeed.

Saturday, November 17, 2007

A Mussolini for our times

I may not be thrilled with any of the candidates running for President but I have made it clear that I think there is one who is truly terrifying - Rudy Giuliani. Glenn Greenwald doesn't say anything that would make me feel differently in
Rudy Giuliani's messianic paranoia
But far more significant was Giuliani's expressed view of what he thinks his mission will be as President. After proclaiming that "America has a special, even a divinely inspired role in the world," Giuliani vowed:
It was this nation that saved the world from the two great tyrannies of the 20th century, Nazism and Communism. It's this country that's going to save civilization from Islamic terrorism.
So Islamic Terrorism is no longer merely "a threat to our freedoms." It isn't even just an existential threat to our country any more. It's been upgraded rather severely in Giuliani's mind: it's now a threat to civilization itself. And Rudy Giuliani is running for President because he is "going to save civilization" -- his words -- from the Terrorists.

In one sense, this isn't surprising. After all, Giuliani -- with barely any attention from the press -- has assembled a foreign policy team led by someone who just wrote a book declaring "World War IV" and whose "prayers" consist of the deranged plea that bombs be dropped now on Iran.
Greenwald goes on to point out that this good v. evil paranoid style of politics is nothing new but the fact that Rudy actually has a shot at the presidency is truly frightening. The other candidates may be bad but....
Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and John McCain are all horrific in their own right. But Giuliani is in a different league in terms of messianic extremism. There really hasn't been someone like Rudy Giuliani -- someone so drenched in plainly authoritarian impulses, merged with such wild-eyed militarism -- anywhere near the White House in modern American history, if ever. It's not some coincidence or political ploy that he chose the most bloodthirsty neoconservative militants to serve him; that is who Giuliani is and has been for a long time.
I think you could add the names of many of the Democratic contenders to that list as well but Giuliani does stand out. He is the Bush/Cheney administration on steroids. Even crazier than Cheney.

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Quote of the day

Sully hits a bulls eye with this one so the entire post is the quote of the day.
Since the Bush right insists that Robertson is completely irrelevant to the current GOP, I have no idea why they are fixated by his endorsement of Giuliani. For me, however, it seals the deal. Robertson blamed Americans for causing 9/11. He is a charlatan and a religious phony. He has enriched himself at the expense of millions of gullible Christians who did not understand that this man's sole principle is his own power and wealth. It doesn't surprise me that he sees eye to eye with Giuliani. They are very similar characters. But he does represent what may be becoming the consensus among Christianists: that the war on Islamic terrorism is the prime issue; and that the way to tackle it is by increasing military aggression, bombing or occupying Muslim countries, preserving Israel solely to hasten the Apocalypse, and entrenching torture as a pillar of American national security policy. The fusion of Giuliani's authoritarianism with Robertson's Christianism is indeed one future path for the GOP. It is enlightening to me to witness two very similar politicians sink their differences to forge that new, fascistic direction.
The bold is mine.

An Endorsement Made In Heaven?

Bat shit crazy millionaire evangelist, Pat Roberson, has endorsed bat shit crazy presidential candidate, Rudy Giuliani, in spite of the fact that Rudy represents nearly everything he's been preaching against all these years.
Pat Robertson endorses Giuliani
WASHINGTON - Pat Robertson, a prominent Christian leader and social conservative, endorsed Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, at a news conference this morning in Washington, D.C.

The former New York mayor backs abortion rights and gay rights, positions that put him in conflict with GOP orthodoxy, and has been trying to convince cultural conservatives to overlook their differences with him on those issues. That makes the support of a high-profile religious conservative like Robertson a particular boon.

Giuliani, the front-runner in national popularity polls, and Robertson will make the endorsement official later Wednesday at a news conference in Washington. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid publicly pre-empting the announcement.
This is probably an endorsement the Giuliani campaign has mixed feelings about. Crazy Pat doesn't have the power he once had and his endorsement could have a negative impact on secular voters.

Monday, November 05, 2007

A Natural Transition - BDS to RDS

Phillip Klein writes:
Hating Rudy
The Angry Left finds a new target.
With the end of the dreaded Bush era approaching, Rudy Giuliani has slowly begun to supplant the president as the leading hate figure among liberals, a reality that will only help Mr. Giuliani in his efforts to overcome his differences with conservatives and win the Republican nomination.
Now there certainly is some truth in the statement above. With the lawless horrors of the Bush administration winding down the next potential constitution hating tyrant is certainly someone who is getting a lot of attention. There is a flaw in this however: "a reality that will only help Mr. Giuliani in his efforts to overcome his differences with conservatives and win the Republican nomination". It may help him when the nomination but not the general election. Rudy will simply be a continuation of what 70% of Americans have rejected - the policies of the Bush administration. There has been some talk about the Religious Right rejecting Rudy but I think a greater conservative threat comes from the Libertarians. The Bush administration's treatment of the constitution and law as inconvenient and irrelevant has shocked the Libertarians. When Rudy talks you hear someone who has even less respect for constitution.

Update

Digby explains why many of us are suddenly afflicted with RDS.
I'm finding myself more and more obsessed with the Giuliani campaign because it really appears to me that the Republicans may just nominate someone dumber than Bush and crazier than Cheney. And without the morals of either of them. How is that even possible?

Friday, November 02, 2007

A why the hell do I bother moment!

It's times like this that I ask my self "why the hell do I bother"?
Schumer, Feinstein Announce Support for Mukasey
Sens. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) announced this afternoon that they will vote in favor of confirming Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general, effectively ending a growing revolt by fellow Democrats that had threatened Mukasey's confirmation.

By announcing their support, the two Democrats virtually guarantee that Mukasey, with support from the nine Republicans, will be narrowly approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.
OK, I'm not happy but:
This is why I still bother


Hillary still has big lead

I questioned whether Hillary Clinton's "poor" performance in the "debate" would do any real harm and it didn't. Let's be honest, no body watched it but the pundits and they only watched it so they would have something to talk about when nobody was listening. The latest Rasmussen Poll shows that if anything she gained in the polls.
Data from the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that on the two nights following the debate (Wednesday and Thursday) Clinton held a 45% to 18% lead over Barack Obama. For Clinton, that’s an improvement from Monday and Tuesday nights when her lead over Obama had been 40% to 24%.

John Edwards was at 10% on the first two nights and 12% on Wednesday and Thursday. Bill Richardson went from 5% to 7% during the same time frames.
Although I still don't like her she does still have more support as the one most likely to have what it takes to keep Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney out of the White House.

It would appear that the real looser was Obama who needed to hit a home run and just got a single.

On the other side Giuliani continues to try to sound like George Bush and Dick Cheney on steroids at a time that Bush's approval rating is now below 50% in all 50 states - a first.

Storm Clouds

The House and the Senate are about to send another SCHIP bill to Bush who will veto it. There is every indication that the veto will be sustained in the house. Now the veto and refusal by the House has nothing to do with children's health, a few million dollars or a cigarette tax. It is all about a growing storm that threatens the bottom line of the insurance industry. In an opinion piece that received little attention the New York Times describes this storm front.
America’s Lagging Health Care System
Americans are increasingly frustrated about the subpar performance of this country’s fragmented health care system, and with good reason. A new survey of patients in seven industrialized nations underscores just how badly sick Americans fare compared with patients in other nations. One-third of the American respondents felt their system is so dysfunctional that it needs to be rebuilt completely — the highest rate in any country surveyed. The system was given poor scores both by low-income, uninsured patients and by many higher-income patients.

The survey, the latest in a series from the Commonwealth Fund, is being published today on the Web site of Health Affairs, a respected health policy journal. Researchers interviewed some 12,000 adults in Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.
While the American people think the health care system is in need of a major overhaul they are not alone. Many of America's largest corporations agree.

As we have seen on other issues when the Republicans don't have the facts on their side they simply lie and make stuff up. Paul Krugman describes the latest example in:
Prostates and Prejudices
“My chance of surviving prostate cancer — and thank God I was cured of it — in the United States? Eighty-two percent,” says Rudy Giuliani in a new radio ad attacking Democratic plans for universal health care. “My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England? Only 44 percent, under socialized medicine.”

It would be a stunning comparison if it were true. But it isn’t. And thereby hangs a tale — one of scare tactics, of the character of a man who would be president and, I’m sorry to say, about what’s wrong with political news coverage.
Yes it's all about Rudy Giuliani lying and making stuff up.
Let’s start with the facts: Mr. Giuliani’s claim is wrong on multiple levels — bogus numbers wrapped in an invalid comparison embedded in a smear.

Mr. Giuliani got his numbers from a recent article in City Journal, a publication of the conservative Manhattan Institute. The author gave no source for his numbers on five-year survival rates — the probability that someone diagnosed with prostate cancer would still be alive five years after the diagnosis. And they’re just wrong.

You see, the actual survival rate in Britain is 74.4 percent. That still looks a bit lower than the U.S. rate, but the difference turns out to be mainly a statistical illusion. The details are technical, but the bottom line is that a man’s chance of dying from prostate cancer is about the same in Britain as it is in America.

So Mr. Giuliani’s supposed killer statistic about the defects of “socialized medicine” is entirely false. In fact, there’s very little evidence that Americans get better health care than the British, which is amazing given the fact that Britain spends only 41 percent as much on health care per person as we do.
This is not to say the British program isn't flawed, it is. But no one is suggesting the US adopt the British model.
Anyway, comparisons with Britain have absolutely nothing to do with what the Democrats are proposing. In Britain, doctors are government employees; despite what Mr. Giuliani is suggesting, none of the Democratic candidates have proposed to make American doctors work for the government.

As a fact-check in The Washington Post put it: “The Clinton health care plan” — which is very similar to the Edwards and Obama plans — “has more in common with the Massachusetts plan signed into law by Gov. Mitt Romney than the British National Health system.” Of course, this hasn’t stopped Mr. Romney from making similar smears.
Fear Tactics And Lies
At one level, what Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney are doing here is engaging in time-honored scare tactics. For generations, conservatives have denounced every attempt to ensure that Americans receive needed health care, from Medicare to S-chip, as “socialized medicine.”

Part of the strategy has always involved claiming that health reform is suspect because it’s un-American, and exaggerating health care problems in other countries — usually on the basis of unsubstantiated anecdotes or fraudulent statistics. Opponents of reform also make a practice of lumping all forms of government intervention together, pretending that having the government pay some health care bills is just the same as having the government take over the whole health care system.
Krugman then goes on to point out that the media has given Rudy a free pass to lie - his bogus data and what that indicates about his character is never brought up.
And much of the coverage seems weirdly diffident. Memo to editors: If a candidate says something completely false, it’s not “in dispute.” It’s not the case that “Democrats say” they’re not advocating British-style socialized medicine; they aren’t.

The fact is that the prostate affair is part of a pattern: Mr. Giuliani has a habit of saying things, on issues that range from health care to national security, that are demonstrably untrue. And the American people have a right to know that.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

The Myth of unification and electability

I'm not a fan of Hillary Clinton but I endorsed her a few months back - and yes, I had to hold my nose. Writing at Newshoggers my friend Libby is afraid that Hillary can't unify the country and I agree. But I really don't think that any one person can. My comment to Libby's post:
I think at this point the entire "unite the country" meme is absurd. After 8 years of Bush/Cheney the country is so polarized that no one will be able to unite it in the foreseeable future. The way the country will be united is with policy that helps the majority.
A progressive congress and a Hillary Clinton can do that. As Jazz pointed out the other day the electability issue is a none issue when you look at her running against Rudy. As I pointed out here Hillary has one plus - she is a fighter and up to taking on the GOP slime machine. And Hillary has another plus:
The right has been digging up dirt on Hillary for 16 years - there is very little they can say that most people don't know already. The same can't be said for Rudy or Mitt. Rudy has so many skeletons in his closet that the US voter doesn't know about that Bill Clinton and James Carville will have plenty of ammunition.
The path to unifying this country may well be a divisive character like Hillary Clinton.

More important I think she is the candidate who is most likely to keep Rudy Mussolini Giuliani out of the White House.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Mussolini in drag

The other day I wrote the following:
Giuliani is the scariest individual running for president. You can find some reasons here and here. While I don't like Hillary and I don't trust Hillary I will vote for Hillary to keep Rudy out of the White House. Rudy Giuliani is Dick Cheney on meth.
Ezra Klein agrees and wonders why the press is afraid to point out that Giuliani is bat shit crazy - just as bat shit crazy as Cheney.
You know, a few years ago, Sally Quinn wrote an article explaining why elite Washington had united against Bill Clinton. In it, David Broder famously said that, "He came in here and he trashed the place, and it's not his place." He got a lot of flack for that comment. But it gets at an important truth: That the media does, indeed, come together to repel perceived threats. In Clinton's case, it was a gauche striver. He was a threat to DC's prestige, or vision of itself. Not the greatest danger in the world, but the media was quite effective in kneecapping him.

So what of Rudy? Rudy, after all, is a danger to the world. Every reporter in this town knows that he's become a pandering lunatic. Why doesn't Time have cover stories asking "Is hGiulianie out of his #($*^ mind!?" Why aren't the Sunday shows filled with horrified reporters agreeing to disagree about much of the race, but uniting against the apocalyptic stupidity on evidence in the Giuliani campaign? Why aren't the various horserace reporters fitting every successive foreign policy pronouncement into an overarching narrative of Giuliani's crazed belligerence, "which is causing serious doubts about his campaign among some in the GOP?"

There is precedent for all this. And in Giuliani's case, the threat has the added benefit of being true. You don't need to make anything up, invent any scandals, concoct any problems. You just have to honestly evaluate the words coming out of Giuliani's mouth, the rhetoric coming out of his campaign, and the advisers circling the candidate. It's all there. There's no blowjob, I know, but there's a real threat, and the media should, in its role as guardian of some minimal level of competency within the political process, be pointing out that this man is dangerous, his statements scary, his campaign unsettling, and his advisers insane. His is not a normal candidacy, and so long as the reporters continue treating it as the equivalent of Hillary Clinton's campaign rather than Pat Buchanan's, we're in trouble.
Even the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, agrees that Cheney is bat shit crazy. Will the press actually let Giuliani's insanity go unreported? Will they risk letting another Mussolini wannabe run the country for another eight years which would certainly be the end of the US Republic as we've known it.