Home Front: Politix |
Why Christine O'Donnell's victory is scary |
2010-09-16 |
![]() Partisan Democrats are delighted about Christine O'Donnell's Republican primary victory over Rep. Mike Castle in the race for the open Delaware Senate seat. We'll see what happens in November. She wasn't supposed to win against Castle, either. I'm despondent. Take a deep breath. Have a cigarette. It'll help you relax. From the Democratic point of view, the defeat of the moderate, well-known Castle turns what had looked to be a lost cause into a likely win. For now. If Castle was supposed to tromp her let's see what happens next. My crystal ball's in the shop for repairs. Yesterday she was down 25 points and had $90K in the bank. Overnight people donated a million dollars and she's trailing Coon by 11. Sounds like a lost cause to me, NOT! Keeping the seat in Democratic hands could be the margin of control in the Senate. So the folks who focus on electing Democrats and keeping a Democratic majority can't be blamed for breaking out the champagne over O'Donnell's win. Go ahead. Get a little tipsy. It's good for you. Not me, for two reasons. A tee-totaler, are you? What's the other reason? First, I had thought the silver lining of this election year might be to produce a Senate with a more robust cadre of moderate Republicans. Because Publicans love sending RINOs to Congress. Tell us how conservative you are, how you're gonna get rid of the national debt. Then go sing sweet harmony with Nancy and Harry. Oh, yeah. We need more of that. That caucus has pretty much dwindled to the two senators from Maine, with very occasional company from colleagues such as Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown and departing Ohio Sen. George Voinovich. It's awfully hard for a caucus of two to break with the party. Which brings up the question of why they should break with the party, and why Dems shouldn't break with their party to support things like tax cuts and fiscal responsibility and prosecuting thugs standing outside polling places with truncheons and attitudes. Peer pressure isn't just a phenomenon of middle school. It's alive and well in the U.S. Senate, and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has done a good job of keeping party discipline. A larger number of moderates among his herd of cats might make that more difficult and enhance the prospects for bipartisan legislating. "Bipartisan" seems to equate to supporting Dem policies whether the Dems have Congress in a hammerlock or not. I think most of the country's been shocked and disgusted at the contemptuous lack of bipartisanship by the Dems. There's no reason for anybody to want the Pubs to do anything other than assert control. "Moderation" -- since it's likely the Pubs aren't going to get the hammerlock the Dems have had -- is going to consist of insisting their own side be heard and even occasionally have its way. If Boehner can't achieve that then he's going to get bounced. There is strength in numbers, and you could imagine a bolstered group of (at least relative) moderates made up of the likes of Castle, Carly Fiorina (Calif.), Mark Kirk (Ill.) or Dino Rossi (Wash.) Yasss... Another Gang of Nine or whatever it was, more Mavericks. Now, it's as plausible to envision a bolstered Jim DeMint caucus, following the disturbingly powerful junior senator from South Carolina: Sharron Angle (Nev.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Ken Buck (Colo.) -- plus the two other incumbent-slayers of the primary season, Mike Lee in Utah and in Joe Miller in Alaska. Scary. Very scary. I'm positively clutching myself. I'll probably put somebody's eye out with this thing... But not as scary as reason number two: the ripple effect of victories such as O'Donnell's on other Republican lawmakers. Republican members of Congress look at races such as those in Utah, Alaska and now Delaware and think: There but for the grace of the Tea Party go I. They will be that much more watchful of protecting their right flank against a primary challenge. They will be that much less likely to take a political risk in the direction of bipartisanship. They'll be that much less likely to dump any principles they brought to Washington and go for the boodle. In this sense, it matters less whether O'Donnell will win the general election -- that doesn't seem likely -- than that she won the primary. Welcome to the Revolution, toots. The Delaware result might be good news for both Tea Partyers and Democrats. It is not good news for the cause of good government. Like we've had for the past couple years... |
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
Republicans run ahead in Ohio |
2010-09-07 |
John Kasich leads Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland by 49 percent to 37 percent, with 4 percent preferring some other candidate and 10 percent undecided. For the Senate seat being vacated by the GOP's George Voinovich, former Bush cabinet member and congressman Rob Portman leads Democratic Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher by 50 percent to 37 percent, with 3 percent preferring another choice and 9 percent undecided. |
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
Warning Signs for Obama in Bellwether Ohio |
2010-07-01 |
![]() And most of those races have been close if you subtract the blow-out elections when Lyndon Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater, Richard Nixon swamped George McGovern, Ronald Reagan trumped Jimmy Carter and then Walter Mondale, and George H.W. Bush dispatched Michael Dukakis. So, although 2012 is still a ways off, it is for good reason that the latest Quinnipiac University survey of the state contains this admonition from pollster Peter Brown: "Given Ohio's key position in the Electoral College, the White House needs to keep a sharp eye on the president's numbers in the Buckeye State. They aren't awful, but they aren't good either." Obama won the state in 2008 with 51.4 percent of the vote to John McCain's 46.8 percent, but right now, 49 percent of Ohio voters disapprove of the job Obama is doing while 45 percent approve, with 6 percent undecided. Obama was also in negative territory in Quinnipiac's three previous polls this year. Independents currently disapprove by 53 percent to 40 percent, with 7 percent undecided. In 2008, independents supported Obama by 52 percent to 44 percent with 4 percent not revealing for whom they voted, according to exit polls. Ohioans are split on whether they want their next senator -- the person elected to fill the seat of the GOP's George Voinovich -- to support or oppose Obama's policies. Forty-eight percent want the next Senator to oppose Obama's agenda, 46 percent want him to support Obama, with 6 percent undecided. (That same divide is reflected in the current race where Democratic Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher leads former Republican Rep. Rob Portman by 42 percent to 40 percent, with 17 percent undecided). The poll's margin of error is 3 points. Fifty-four percent disapprove of the way Obama is handling the economy while 41 percent approve, with 5 percent undecided. |
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
GOP's Brown branded turncoat for jobs bill vote |
2010-02-24 |
![]() Looks like politics don't work on him. Don't say you weren't warned. As long as he keeps healthcare takeover at bay. He told everyone up front who he was. He's a moderate Republican. It was him or Coakley ... Like the four other GOP senators who joined him, the man who won the late Democrat Edward Kennedy's seat says it's about jobs, not party politics. And that may be good politics, too. The four other GOP senators who broke ranks - Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, George Voinovich of Ohio and Christopher "Kit" Bond of Missouri - also were criticized on Tuesday. But Brown was the big target on conservative Web sites, talk shows and even the Facebook page his campaign has promoted as an example of his new-media savvy. "We campaigned for you. We donated to your campaign. And you turned on us like every other RINO," said one writer, using the initials for "Republican-In-Name-Only." The conservative-tilting Drudge Report colored a photo of Brown on its home page in scarlet. The new senator responded by calling into a Boston radio station. "I've taken three votes," Brown said with exasperation. "And to say I've sold out any particular party or interest group, I think, is certainly unfair." The senator said that by the time he seeks re-election in two years, he will have taken thousands of votes. "So, I think it's a little premature to say that," he said. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky wasn't particularly perturbed about Brown's vote, saying his election last month has "made a huge, positive difference for us and for the whole legislative agenda." "We don't expect our members to be in lockstep on every single issue," McConnell added. Political observers said each of the five Republican senators had solid reasons locally for voting as they did, to cut off a potential Republican filibuster on the bill. The measure featured four provisions that enjoyed sweeping bipartisan support, including a measure exempting businesses hiring the unemployed from Social Security payroll taxes through December, and giving them a $1,000 credit if new workers stay on the job a full year. It would also renew highway programs through December and deposit $20 billion in the highway trust fund. It faces a final Senate vote Wednesday. Snowe and Collins hail from economically ailing Maine, and they can't stray too far from the Democrats who populate much of New England. And Voinovich and Bond also are from states hard hit by the recession. The latter two also have the ultimate protection from retribution: They're not seeking re-election this fall. "When you have decided to retire and you are a free agent, you can pretty much do what you want," said Peverill Squire, a political scientist at the University of Missouri-Columbia. And Squire doubted that Bond, retiring after 24 years in the Senate, would have paid much of a political price even if the famous appropriator were seeking re-election. "He's had no shyness in trying to send money," he said. While conservative columnist Michelle Malkin used her blog to accuse Voinovich of being a traitor, even suggesting he got some unspecified goody for his vote in favor of the "porkulus" bill, Ohio's governor defended him. Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat, praised the senator for "standing with the people of Ohio over the majority of his party." For Voinovich, a Republican from a Democratic stronghold, the party defection was nothing new. The two-time Ohio governor and former Cleveland mayor has sprinkled his political career with independent votes that can agitate the GOP. Former President George W. Bush famously visited Ohio in 2003 in an attempt to secure Voinovich's support for a tax cut package. Voinovich still voted no. Snowe and Collins, meanwhile, "survive in New England by a unique set of rules," said Dante Scala, political science professor at the University of New Hampshire. He said: "The way they survive with voters in their homes states is by making it clear that, first and foremost, they're the servants of their constituencies, not the party label. So, they'll make a point of defying their party and going their own way." Brown got little such leeway, despite campaigning as an "independent Republican" and publicly eschewing national supporters. National Republican groups, as well as "tea party" members and an array of conservative special interests, all claimed a share of the credit for his upset win in the battle to succeed the legendary Kennedy. They felt especially justified after funneling millions to Brown's campaign, including $348,000 on late television ads paid by the California-based Tea Party Express. "You've already turned out to be as big an idiot as Obama," said one Facebook poster. "Enjoy your one term as senator." One local political scientist believes the vote was anything but dumb, considering Brown faces re-election in less than three years. "Scott Brown knows that he's going to be judged differently in 2012 than he was in 2010," said Jeffrey Berry, a political science professor at the senator's alma mater, Tufts University. "He's facing a different electorate, with more Democratic voters, and Barack Obama at the top of the ticket, in what is still a blue state." |
Link |
Science & Technology |
EPA Denies Request to reconsider Climate Bill |
2009-08-10 |
U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson yesterday denied GOP requests to perform a new economic analysis of the House-passed climate and energy bill, saying the Energy Department has essentially answered any outstanding questions. Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio) asked EPA last month to revise its study of the House bill, because it "offers an incomplete account of the bill's major provisions, how they overlap, and how they impact consumers, households, and the economy." In a letter pdf available at link to EPA, the top two Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee asked the agency to use a reference case including the most recent data from the Energy Information Administration's April 2009 Annual Energy Outlook; insert the economic projections from President Obama's fiscal 2010 budget proposal; and include analysis of a variety of situations in which low-carbon energy sources are constrained. The EPA analysis also at link of the House bill found it would cost U.S. households $80 to $111 a year. Jackson yesterday said EPA won't do a new study because a new analysis same of the bill from the Energy Information Administration - the statistical arm of the Energy Department - contains many of the attributes the senators requested, including scenarios where low-carbon energy sources prove to be very expensive. ![]() The Chairwoman has already made up her mind and does not need to clutter it with so-called facts. But Inhofe said that EIA's analysis does not cover some of the key issues they raised in their letter, including the availability of international offsets and the effects of the bill on states like Ohio, which rely on manufacturing for jobs and coal for electricity. "In effect, EPA has refused to provide members of Congress, as they prepare for meetings and events with their constituents over the August recess, with critical information on the Waxman-Markey energy tax and how it will affect jobs in the Midwest, South, and Great Plains, as well as food, gasoline, and electricity prices for all American consumers," Inhofe said in a statement. |
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
Democratic Senator Predicts None of His Colleagues 'Will Have the Chance' to Read Final Stimulus Bill Before Vote |
2009-02-13 |
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) predicted on Thursday that none of his Senate colleagues would "have the chance" to read the entire final version of the $790-billion stimulus bill before the bill comes up for a final vote in Congress. "No, I don't think anyone will have the chance to [read the entire bill]," Lautenberg told CNSNews.com. The final bill, crafted by a House-Senate conference committee, was posted on the Website of the House Appropriations Committe late Thurday in two PDF files. The first PDF was 424 pages long and the second PDF was 575 pages long, making the total bill 999 pages long. The House is expected to vote on this 999-page bill Friday, and the Senate either later Friday or Saturday. [Editor's note: The first PDF, as posted on the House Appropriations Committee website as of 8:20 AM Friday morning, had grown by 72 pages to 496 pages, increasing the length of the total document to 1,071 pages.] Of the several senators that CNSNews.com interviewed on Thursday, only Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) claimed to have read the entire bill--and he was speaking of the preliminary version that had been approved by the Senate, not the final 999-page version that the House-Senate conference committee was still haggling over on Thursday afternoon. When CNSNews.com asked members of both parties on Capitol Hill on Thursday whether they had read the full, final bill, not one member could say, "Yes." |
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
Another blow for Republicans as senator announces retirement |
2009-01-13 |
The beleaguered US Republican Party, reeling from big losses to Democrats and about to relinquish the White House, took another blow on Monday, when a key Ohio senator announced his retirement. Veteran Senator George Voinovich said he would not run for a third term when his seat comes up for reelection in 2010, leaving Republicans another tricky race in a state which voted for Democrat Barack Obama for president. Given the fierce challenges facing the United States, including the deep economic crisis, Voinovich said he could best serve his state by devoting himself to the Senate rather than campaigning and fundraising. "In my lifetime of public service, I have never seen the country in such perilous circumstances, Voinovich said in a statement. "Not since the Great Depression and the Second World War have we been confronted with such challenges, as a nation and as a world. "These next two years in office, for me, will be the most important years that I have served in my entire political career," said Voinovich, a former mayor of Cleveland and Governor of Ohio. |
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
Rubber, say 'hello' to Road: Cost drives Senate climate debate |
2008-06-02 |
From higher electric bills to more expensive gasoline, the possible economic cost of tackling global warming is driving the debate as climate change takes center stage in Congress. Legislation set for Senate debate Monday would require a reduction in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from power plants, refineries, factories and transportation. The goal is to cut heat-trapping pollution by two-thirds by midcentury. With gasoline at $4 per gallon and home heating and cooling costs soaring, it is getting harder to sell a bill that would transform the country's energy industries and as critics will argue cause energy prices to rise even more. Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent who is a leading sponsor of the bill, says computer studies suggest a modest impact on energy costs, with several projections for continued economic growth. Sponsors says the bill also offers billions of dollars in tax breaks to offset higher energy bills. The debate on global warming is viewed as a watershed in climate change politics. Yet both sides acknowledge the prospects for passage are slim this election year. Several GOP senators are promising a filibuster; the bill's supporters are expressing doubt they can find the 60 votes to overcome the delaying tactic. Only a few senators now dispute the reality of global warming. Still, there is a sharp divide over how to shift lessen the country's heavy dependence on coal, oil and natural gas without passing along substantially higher energy costs to people. The petroleum industry, manufacturers and business groups have presented study after study, based on computer modeling, that they say bear out the massive cost and disruption from mandating lower carbon emissions. Environmental groups counter with studies that show modest cost increases from the emission caps provide new incentives to develop alternative energy sources and promote energy efficiency and conservation. "This debate is going to be mostly about costs," says Daniel Lashoff, director of the Climate Center at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "But we want to make sure in that debate we don't forget that the cost of inaction on global warming would be much higher than the cost of the emission reductions called for in this bill." The proposal would cap carbon dioxide releases at 2005 levels by 2012. Additional reductions would follow annually so that by 2050, total U.S. greenhouse emissions would be about one-third of current levels. The bill would create a pollution allowance trading system. That would generate billions of dollars a year to help people offset expected higher energy costs, promote low-carbon energy alternatives and help industries deal with the transition. Part of the $6.7 trillion projected to be collected from the allowances over 40 years would go toward $800 billion in tax breaks to offset people's higher energy costs. Which encourages less scrupulous countries to start polluting at an incredible rate so they'll have lots of expensive credits to sell to countries who actually have an economy. These reductions "will not only enable us to avoid the ravages of unchecked global warming, but will create millions of new jobs," contends Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, who heads the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Productive jobs, or jobs that merely redistribute money like prostitution? The legislation is not as strong as some Democrats, including presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, would like. They want cuts in CO2 emissions of 80 percent by 2050. Others lawmakers believe the bill goes too far, too fast. They fear it will outpace development of the technology needed to make the shift from fossil fuels, causing energy prices to soar. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the likely GOP presidential nominee, recently announced a less ambitious plan to cut greenhouse emissions 60 percent by 2050. He has not said whether he will support the Senate bill, although he favors a cap-and-trade approach. A separate GOP proposal, from Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, would set milestones for carbon dioxide reductions over the next 20 years. It would allow for mandates after that time once a clearer picture develops about new, low-carbon energy technologies. Senators advocating aggressive action on climate change say that would be too late to avert the worst effects of global warming. Also in dispute is the distribution of pollution allowances. Many Democrats, including Clinton and Obama, want to auction all allowances. The Senate bill would give about half of them to states, municipalities and affected industries. Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, said he will try to get that changed so that none goes to what he considers to be special interests. Why don't you make sure it doesn't go to what I consider to be special interests? Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., also wants most, if not all, the allowances auctioned and the money going out in checks to anyone earning $150,000 or less, or $300,000 for couples. |
Link |
Iraq |
Quietly, US strategy in Iraq shifting |
2007-07-09 |
![]() No decisions have yet been made, and administration officials insist the current strategy that has pumped an additional 30,000 troops into Iraq still must be given time to work. But the contours of a new approach floating around Washington suggest a drawing down of the 160,000 US forces there beginning as early as the end of this year. The thousands that remain would be refocused on training Iraqi security forces and on a long fight against Al Qaeda. Just how much momentum the new Iraq-strategy snowball has behind it will start to become clearer this week as Congress is to receive an interim report on the performance of the force buildup and as Democrats try to use another funding vote on Iraq to press for faster change. The new strategy is still in its formative stages in White House discussions, on Pentagon drawing boards, and on congressional desks. It is a source of division in the White House, although President Bush continues to warn against the dangers of any US withdrawal. But it is reflective of political realities in both the US and Iraq. Time is running short for achieving political consensus in the US on Iraq policy before the 2008 campaign kicks off in earnest, political leaders and experts say. On the other hand, more time is needed to achieve political consensus in Iraq. That leaves an ironic situation where the political clocks of the two countries are not just running at different speeds, as has been said for months, but in different directions. "What we're seeing is preparation for the post-'surge' period, particularly as it coincides with a critical political cycle culminating in the 2008 elections," says Nikolas Gvosdev, a foreign-policy expert and editor of The National Interest, a foreign-affairs magazine. "The hallmark will be fewer troops, but it will also signal the moving away from the idea of any grandiose transformation of Iraq. Instead, it becomes, 'We're there to fight Al Qaeda.' " Signs of the growing consensus for a new approach that includes a major reduction in the US footprint in Iraq are visible on several fronts: Several prominent Republican senators have recently turned against the White House and are now calling for a change in Iraq strategy. Last week Sen. Pete Domeneci of New Mexico joined Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected US foreign-policy specialist, who a week earlier used a Senate speech to call for a new strategy reducing the US presence in Iraq. George Voinovich of Ohio followed Senator Lugar, while John Warner of Virginia is known to be pressuring the White House to change course. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is pressing for a post-"surge" Iraq strategy that would rest on a foundation of broad political consensus around the idea of impeding Iraq from becoming a haven of Islamic extremism. Such a strategy would also keep thousands of US troops in Iraq for a long-term battle with Al Qaeda. White House officials acknowledge that the administration is already looking beyond the current approach. Mr. Bush hinted at the priority he is likely to give the fight against Al Qaeda in a July 4 speech where he said the US has no choice but to "win" the Iraq fight "for our own sake, for the security of our citizens." Democrats are hoping to use a Senate defense authorization bill to be taken up this week to press for troop withdrawals to begin as early as the fall. Congress is also to receive by July 15 an interim report on the force buildup, ahead of a full assessment by commanders in Iraq in September. Significantly, it was Senator Warner who insisted on the July 15 review, upon the passage of funding for the Iraq war in May, saying that waiting for September was "too long." Most observers expect efforts to force quick troop withdrawals to fail, as did Democratic efforts to force a timeline for withdrawals earlier this year. But the Democrats are also armed this time around with fresh evidence that Americans want a new Iraq direction and that they expect a Democratic Congress to do something about it. A survey by the Rasmussen Reports polling group, conducted last week, found that 53 percent of Americans fault the Democrats for not doing "enough to change President Bush's policies on Iraq." At the same time, 56 percent said they would like to see most combat troops out of Iraq by early next year. Many observers expect the efforts before Congress recesses in August to merely "put the writing on the wall" in anticipation of testimony in September from Gen. David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador in Baghdad. The two are to give an assessment of the force buildup, but some analysts expect it will be more like a final report card. "When Petraeus comes in September, he'll say the tactics of the 'surge' are the right ones and they would work, but there's no consensus behind the time and number of people needed to make it work," says Mr. Gvosdev. "And that will be particularly true in the absence of any real progress from the Iraqi government." What seems to worry some congressional leaders like Lugar and even some administration officials is that sticking too long to a doomed strategy could create the political conditions for a full and precipitous withdrawal from Iraq something they believe would be disastrous for US interests in the Middle East. "Basically what you have are the grown-ups in the administration like Gates saying, 'We have to come up with something for the long term, something that achieves broad-based support, because if we don't, the people who say we have to get out now will prevail, and we don't want that,' " says Lawrence Korb, a former Defense Department official now at the Center for American Progress in Washington. Forging a consensus around a long-term strategy for the global fight against Islamist terrorism would give Gates not the closest administration insider a sense of having contributed a significant accomplishment, some Washington insiders say. But they also suggest he could leave the administration if he concluded the wrong road were being followed for too long. Lugar said in a television interview earlier this month that as president, Bush would probably be able to stick to the "surge" strategy through the end of his term if he chose to. But he added that he thought Bush would grasp the political realities and begin charting a new course. Indeed, on the prosaic political level, the pressures of the 2008 election extend beyond the White House race to congressional contests. Analysts note that the terms are up in 2008 for some of the Republicans pressuring Bush, including Senator Domeneci and Warner. "They are beginning to look beyond the president to the horizon after Bush, and they may see that the political cost of sticking with his policy is too high," says Gvosdev. But beyond the political considerations, the juxtaposition of the "three worst months of the war for American casualties" with the failure of the Iraqi government to move the country toward reconciliation has already spelled the current strategy's failure in the eyes of too many Americans, Mr. Korb says. The impending interim strategy review and funding votes, Korb says, "are simply the beginning of the end." |
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
Domenici is the latest to break with the President over the war. |
2007-07-06 |
Politico is a blog, strictly speaking, but they seem to have the story straight. In Albuquerque today, Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), a six-term incumbent who faces reelection next year, said he was "unwilling to continue our current strategy" in Iraq. The announcement follows the split of two other high-profile Republicans with the president over his handling of the war. Last week, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) called on Bush to start withdrawing troops. Domenici did the same today by endorsing a Senate bill that would adopt recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which calls for a draw down of most troops in Iraq. "I have carefully studied the Iraq situation, and believe we cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress to move its country forward, Domenici said in a statement. I do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops. But I do support a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home. This means that political support for the surge among key Republican incumbents has essentially collapsed. The Senate will once again revisit the war during the debate next week over the 2008 Defense department appropriations bill. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Domenici and others should back up their critiques with votes. Senator Domenici is correct to assess that the Administrations war strategy is misguided," Reid said in a statement. "But we will not see a much-needed change of course in Iraq until Republicans like Senators Domenici, Lugar and Voinovich are willing to stand up to President Bush and his stubborn clinging to a failed policy and more importantly, back up their words with action. Beginning with the Defense Authorization bill next week, Republicans will have the opportunity to not just say the right things on Iraq, but vote the right way too so that we can bring the responsible end to this war that the American people demand and deserve." And so on. Basically, Reid is inviting Domenici, Voinovich, and Lugar to save their political tails by aiding the Democrats in squelching the surge. The only chance Bush had to give the surge a chance to make a difference was to run out the clock until the primary season begins in earnest in January 2008. Up until now, he had a chance; now that becomes nearly impossible. I have no idea what happens next, but I have this image in my head of Saigon, 1975. |
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
The Anatomy of a Smear |
2006-08-31 |
![]() That campaign ultimately forced President Bush to give him a recess or temporary appointment. But when Senator George Voinovich recently changed his position on Bolton, going from detractor to supporter, a new confirmation hearing was scheduled. A vote on his nomination is now scheduled in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on September 7. In advance of the hearing, Hoge delivered his broadside, charging that "The Bush administration is not popular at the United Nations, where it is often perceived as disdainful of diplomacy, and its policies as heedless of the effects on others and single-minded in the willful assertion of American interests. By extension, then, many diplomats say they see Mr. Bolton as a stand-in for the arrogance of the administration itself." Hoge said that " over the past month, more than 30 ambassadors consulted in the preparation of this article, all of whom share the United States' goal of changing United Nations management practices, expressed misgivings over Mr. Bolton's leadership." Of course, all of these diplomats "asked to speak anonymously in commenting on a fellow envoy." But that didn't bother Dodd, who noted that "In a recent New York Times article, one colleague characterized him as 'intransigent.' Another suggested that 'Mr. Bolton's high ambition are cover-ups for less noble aims, and oriented not at improving United Nations, but at belittling and weakening it.'" For all we know, these "diplomats" could represent Iran and Syria. To carry matters to another extreme, a Salon.com article made fun of Bolton's appearance, saying he needed a haircut. The major media have failed to point out that opposition to Bolton the last time around was led by a coalition of groups, including one funded by billionaire leftist George Soros, which hired a crook to organize the anti-Bolton campaign. This crook, a liberal operative named Robert W. Creamer, was later sentenced to five months in prison. He is married to liberal Rep. Janice Schakowsky. One of the claims made against Bolton the last time was that he had yelled at somebody 20 years ago. The allegation was made by a specialist in "recovered memories." This time the favored tactic appears to be the use of anonymous sources. The media are the chosen vehicle. |
Link |
Home Front: Politix |
Senate panel takes up Bolton nomination |
2006-07-27 |
![]() The Senate Foreign Relations Committee planned to conduct a hearing Thursday to reconsider Bolton's nomination. By resubmitting Bolton's nomination to the Senate, the president has made clear "that Ambassador Bolton is important to the implementation of U.S. policies at the United Nations and to broader U.S. goals on the global stage," Sen. Richard G. Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in prepared remarks. Lugar, R-Ind., noted in his remarks that the Senate has already conducted an "exhaustive review" of Bolton's credentials. Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., the Foreign Relations Committee's top Democrat, has said Bolton should not get a confirmation vote until the White House turns over documents Biden requested when Bolton was nominated last year. Voinovich announced last week he would support Bolton. "My observations are that while Bolton is not perfect, he has demonstrated his ability, especially in recent months, to work with others and follow the president's lead by working multilaterally," Voinovich said in a statement. The senator insisted he had not been pressured into his decision by the White House and that he believed Bolton's personality had been "tempered" in recent months. |
Link |