According to another campaign colleague, during the Iowa Caucuses, Richardson decided to ask his supporters to back Obama if he wasn’t “viable” in their precinct. In the Democratic Caucuses, a candidate must receive 15% of the vote on the first round in order to be eligible to win delegates. Supporters of candidates deemed “unviable” are cajoled, sweet talked, persuaded and threatened by their neighbors into supporting their 2nd preference. Richardson was always the only viable candidate among the 2nd tier under these rules and this actually explains why he didn’t come in with more than 2% of the vote.
Going into the Caucuses, Edwards was the 2nd choice of a majority of caucus goers. In fact, many political observers thought that he would win on that basis alone. By asking (and getting) his supporters to back Obama on the 2nd round instead of Edwards, Richardson essentially threw the election to Obama, kneecapping Hillary in the process. She would have been able to withstand an Edwards victory (after all, he has no money) but as we’ve seen an Obama victory is something else – a victory for the forces of real change and an inspiration our nation hasn’t felt since the days of RFK (apparently – I wasn’t here yet). Ironically Hillary really is not perceived as “a change agent” since she has been on the national scene at least since failing to get Congress to enact her misbegotten health care plan. Obama on the other hand, really is a new fresh face who does represent change and a new direction for the Democratic Party (i.e. away from the Clinton’s).
Now the question arises as to why Richardson, whom many perceived as angling for Hillary’s VP or Secretary of State slots, would do this. It’s quite simple really and it goes back to the Clinton Administration: Terry McAuliffe. Apparently there was some dust up between the Governor and the former Democratic Party Chairman/fundraiser extraordinaire in which it was strongly intimated that not backing Hillary would result in some type of retribution. Given McAuliffe’s position it could either be a threat to cut off Richardson’s funding for the NM Senate Primary (assuming he gets in during the short deadline after Feb. 5) or the promise of being excluded from a future Hillary Clinton Administration.
Ironically, whatever threat McAuliffe made obviously backfired and put Clinton in the position she’s now in – on the verge of losing a 2nd straight primary/caucus by double digits (assuming the David Duke Statistical Lie problem isn’t affecting the polling outcome, which based on my previous posts I believe it is though I still think Obama MAY be able to squeak through a victory). Should Hillary be unable to regain her footing before Feb.5, she will tarnish the Clinton legacy and effectively end the Clinton Machine’s hold on the Democratic Party. It would be morning in the Democratic Party.
To paraphrase Nixon, “Richardson knows a little about politics too.”
Oh, and just for the record, Hillary saying she knows how to beat Republicans is bunk. A Republican Minority, lead by Senator Phil Gramm of Texas beat her health care plan to smithereens in 1993. In both 1992 and 1996 more people voted against Bill Clinton than voted for him. He only received 43% of the vote in 1992 and 49% in 1996. The Clinton’s only know how to beat Republicans in a three-man race (Perot ’92, Buchanan ’96) in which the 3rd guy appeals to core Republican values. Put her head to head with anyone but Huckabee and she’ll have a hard time of it – Romney’s actually achieved universal health care in his state, McCain is definitely more trustworthy and likeable despite the establishment’s attitude towards him and can play the military b ackground card in a way she can’t, and Giuliani can counter the change argument easily (“I changed the country by bringing down the mob,” “I changed Wall Street culture, at least temporarily, by bringing down Ivan Boesky,” “I changed New York City, the untamable city, and made it livable for families again” – how does she counter that?).
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Romney Tried to Suppress Giuliani IA Support (IA Field Report Three)
According to another colleague of mine who was monitoring Iowa Caucus 0precincts for his candidate in parts of Eastern Iowa, Romney County Chairs were demanding that Giuliani representatives not be allowed to speak since some of them were from out of state. This is a blatant abuse that should have been dealt with by the Iowa GOP County Chair or the state party.
As a veteran of Iowa caucuses, I can tell you that anyone can be authorized to speak on behalf of a candidate, regardless of state of voter registration. This is completely acceptable under party rules as long as the "outsider" doesn't attempt t vote. I'm a native Iowan, but not registered to vote there, and I've given multiple nominating speeches for different candidates.
In fact, last week both Governor Dave Heineman (Nebraska) and Governor Matt Blunt (Missouri) were allowed to speak on behalf of their respective candidates (can't remember who campaigned for whom). Either they shouldn't have been allowed to speak, or everyone should have been, regardless of where they were from as long as they didn't attempt to vote.
Putting on my analyst/pundit hat my observation is this: Despite Giuliani's lack of a strong presence in Iowa (And I do admire his attempt to run an entirely new strategy), Romney felt the need to keep Giuliani support down in Iowa in order to damage the viability of the person most likely to threaten Romney's ascension to the nomination. Huckabee is a joke - like Pat Robertson he'll get crushed in New Hampshire, where McCain will will. I already wrote about Thompson's dubious Iowa victory, though he has a strong chance of winning South Carolina if he plays it right. After two defeats for Romney and a mixed bag of other winners, Giuliani's strategy may prove wise, in which case he and Romney stand the best chance of being the last men standing and forcing a Feb. 5 showdown (Where, if all goes to their plan, Giuliani is likely to win California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois and a few other big delegate states). Romney obviously wanted to damage Giuliani as early as possible to undercut this possible scenario.
This is likely the last Iowa field report. I should be posting some from other states later this month. If you have anything to report, please let me know, and I'll do my best to verify it and put it up.
As a veteran of Iowa caucuses, I can tell you that anyone can be authorized to speak on behalf of a candidate, regardless of state of voter registration. This is completely acceptable under party rules as long as the "outsider" doesn't attempt t vote. I'm a native Iowan, but not registered to vote there, and I've given multiple nominating speeches for different candidates.
In fact, last week both Governor Dave Heineman (Nebraska) and Governor Matt Blunt (Missouri) were allowed to speak on behalf of their respective candidates (can't remember who campaigned for whom). Either they shouldn't have been allowed to speak, or everyone should have been, regardless of where they were from as long as they didn't attempt to vote.
Putting on my analyst/pundit hat my observation is this: Despite Giuliani's lack of a strong presence in Iowa (And I do admire his attempt to run an entirely new strategy), Romney felt the need to keep Giuliani support down in Iowa in order to damage the viability of the person most likely to threaten Romney's ascension to the nomination. Huckabee is a joke - like Pat Robertson he'll get crushed in New Hampshire, where McCain will will. I already wrote about Thompson's dubious Iowa victory, though he has a strong chance of winning South Carolina if he plays it right. After two defeats for Romney and a mixed bag of other winners, Giuliani's strategy may prove wise, in which case he and Romney stand the best chance of being the last men standing and forcing a Feb. 5 showdown (Where, if all goes to their plan, Giuliani is likely to win California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois and a few other big delegate states). Romney obviously wanted to damage Giuliani as early as possible to undercut this possible scenario.
This is likely the last Iowa field report. I should be posting some from other states later this month. If you have anything to report, please let me know, and I'll do my best to verify it and put it up.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Thompson IA "Momentum" fueled by Ron Paul Database Crash (Field Report Two)
One of my well connected political contacts learned yesterday at a Midwestern airport that Ron Paul's 10% Iowa showing was due to a database crash that severely hampered their Get Out The Vote (GOTV) efforts. I feel badly for the unknown staffer/volunteer who accidentally caused this and debated posting this item due to the potential pain it might cause the anonymous person in question. The anonymous Paul staffer/volunteer went into seclusion after this debacle. I wish him the best of luck in the future and empathize with his embarassment / personal pain.
In any event, Fred Thompson lived in Iowa for the 18 days prior to the Iowa Caucuses, while Ron Paul did not make nearly as many appearances. The fact that Thompson only beat Paul by 3000 votes illustrates that his momentum is mostly an illusion. Had the Paul GOTV operation been operating properly, it is quite likely he would have been able to garner at least another 3500-5000 votes either by turning out additional voters or taking some away from Thompson (Paul actually has more appeal to the conservatives that voted for Thompson than Thompson does due to his "purity" on their issues).
Thus, the late "Thompson surge" is more a product of accidental, technological failing by a competitive rival with unparralleled grass-roots support among non-evangelicals than any indication of real support for Thompson. This is true despite anything Rich Galen has to say on the matter.
In any event, Fred Thompson lived in Iowa for the 18 days prior to the Iowa Caucuses, while Ron Paul did not make nearly as many appearances. The fact that Thompson only beat Paul by 3000 votes illustrates that his momentum is mostly an illusion. Had the Paul GOTV operation been operating properly, it is quite likely he would have been able to garner at least another 3500-5000 votes either by turning out additional voters or taking some away from Thompson (Paul actually has more appeal to the conservatives that voted for Thompson than Thompson does due to his "purity" on their issues).
Thus, the late "Thompson surge" is more a product of accidental, technological failing by a competitive rival with unparralleled grass-roots support among non-evangelicals than any indication of real support for Thompson. This is true despite anything Rich Galen has to say on the matter.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Edwards Alienates Hundreds of Potential Volunteers, Endangers Country and Party
About a week before the Iowa Caucuses John Edwards stated that if he became President, he would not hire anyone who had been a federal lobbyist. Now, I understand that he doesn't think trial lawyers are a special interest or that his actions as a trial laywer are actually what has caused the health care crisis (health insurance companies raise rates due to jackpot jury awards, thus making healthcare unaffordable and causing companies (especially small firms)to drop their health care coverage for employees.
However, there are literally thousands of people who have been lobbyists and frankly, most of the top lobbyists are the pre-eminent experts in their fields. Why would you want to forgo the expertise of someone simply because of a job they may have held? This is especially concerning considering that some of our nation's top foreign policy people have worked as lobbyists for one firm or another, and sacrificing their knowledge due to some populist BS concern that they're tainted could put our nation in real jeopardy.
Additionally, if he is serious about this, his administration would basically have to depopulate the ranks of senior political/policy experts on Capitol Hill. The effect of this would be to essentially disarm unilaterally against the Republicans on the Hill by taking away all the top Dems with institutional memory and knowledge of how to get things done, while leaving their Republican counterparts in place and able to outmaneuver his own party. In the wake of this past disastrous year for Congressional Democrats, why would you want to make them even weaker?
Finally, lobbyists and former lobbyists are the people who are willing to fly in from out of state on their own dime and help you get out the vote, ID supporters, etc. Telling them they'll have no place in his administration pretty much guarantees they'll drop their plans to help out. After all, why help an ingrate? No one, even "evil lobbyists," volunteers on campaigns simply for future jobs, but a telling them that you're not grateful and won't even consider them for a job in the future pretty much guarantees the loss of a lot of money (from their personal accounts) and help from people who otherwise share his values.
However, there are literally thousands of people who have been lobbyists and frankly, most of the top lobbyists are the pre-eminent experts in their fields. Why would you want to forgo the expertise of someone simply because of a job they may have held? This is especially concerning considering that some of our nation's top foreign policy people have worked as lobbyists for one firm or another, and sacrificing their knowledge due to some populist BS concern that they're tainted could put our nation in real jeopardy.
Additionally, if he is serious about this, his administration would basically have to depopulate the ranks of senior political/policy experts on Capitol Hill. The effect of this would be to essentially disarm unilaterally against the Republicans on the Hill by taking away all the top Dems with institutional memory and knowledge of how to get things done, while leaving their Republican counterparts in place and able to outmaneuver his own party. In the wake of this past disastrous year for Congressional Democrats, why would you want to make them even weaker?
Finally, lobbyists and former lobbyists are the people who are willing to fly in from out of state on their own dime and help you get out the vote, ID supporters, etc. Telling them they'll have no place in his administration pretty much guarantees they'll drop their plans to help out. After all, why help an ingrate? No one, even "evil lobbyists," volunteers on campaigns simply for future jobs, but a telling them that you're not grateful and won't even consider them for a job in the future pretty much guarantees the loss of a lot of money (from their personal accounts) and help from people who otherwise share his values.
New Hampshire Racism Imperils Obama Momentum (Field Report One)
I've been doing some volunteer campaign work recently for one of campaigns. Doesn't matter which one or where (but it's not Obama - I'm a Libterarian and am VERY pleased with Ron Paul's 10% result in Iowa).
One of my colleagues on another campaign told me that they have a South Asian volunteer who has been harassed, threatened and called the N word more times than anyone can count. While I am EXTREMELY pleased with what Obama's Iowa victory says about our nation slowly transcending race as an issue, the treatment of this volunteer by New Hampshire residents is discourgaging in the utmost. Not being representative of the country in terms of diversity is ok if you're openminded (witness Iowa last night), BUT BEING LILLY WHITE AND RACIST is just one more example of why New Hampshire should lose its first in the nation primary status. I don't support Obama due to policy disagreements, but the way New Hampshire is treating this volunteer indicates that he has a hard row to hoe there.
Putting on my analyst/pundit hat, this does not bode well for the Obama campaign and New Hampshire racism could halt his momementum and pitch the race towards Hillary or Edwards. I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are good Americans who hate racism and don't want to win this way. It's just unfortunate that this racist little state will get to kneecap Obama before he can really take full advantage of what President George H. W. Bush referred to as "The Big Mo." I mean, it's not like this is happening in the South where such things are to be expected.
I wish our country would finally embrace MLK's dream of judging us by the content of our character and not the color of our skin. New Hampshire residents obviously don't share this dream.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised - after all New Hampshire is populated by former Boston residents, and it's no secret that Boston is one of the most racist cities in the country.
One of my colleagues on another campaign told me that they have a South Asian volunteer who has been harassed, threatened and called the N word more times than anyone can count. While I am EXTREMELY pleased with what Obama's Iowa victory says about our nation slowly transcending race as an issue, the treatment of this volunteer by New Hampshire residents is discourgaging in the utmost. Not being representative of the country in terms of diversity is ok if you're openminded (witness Iowa last night), BUT BEING LILLY WHITE AND RACIST is just one more example of why New Hampshire should lose its first in the nation primary status. I don't support Obama due to policy disagreements, but the way New Hampshire is treating this volunteer indicates that he has a hard row to hoe there.
Putting on my analyst/pundit hat, this does not bode well for the Obama campaign and New Hampshire racism could halt his momementum and pitch the race towards Hillary or Edwards. I have no doubt that Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are good Americans who hate racism and don't want to win this way. It's just unfortunate that this racist little state will get to kneecap Obama before he can really take full advantage of what President George H. W. Bush referred to as "The Big Mo." I mean, it's not like this is happening in the South where such things are to be expected.
I wish our country would finally embrace MLK's dream of judging us by the content of our character and not the color of our skin. New Hampshire residents obviously don't share this dream.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised - after all New Hampshire is populated by former Boston residents, and it's no secret that Boston is one of the most racist cities in the country.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Thompson Advisor Insults Iowans' Intelligence
During a rant about how badly he was treated during the Des Moines Register/Iowa Public Television GOP Presidential debate, Senior Thompson Advisor Rich Galen earlier this month wrote in his Mullings Cyber Column:
Now, I am from Iowa and find this offensive. This statement implies that Iowans are uneducated and don't know the meaning of "abysmal." In fact, Iowans read more books per capita than the residents of ANY other state in the Union. Iowa high school students also score number one or number two in both the SAT and ACT EVERY YEAR. Hardly the hallmarks of an uneducated populous. Taking potshots at the residents of an entire state (Iowa) simply out of pique directed at one person does not seem smart politics for a senior advisor to a campaign (Thompson) which desperately needs to come in third just to keep alive.
And he wrote this just after a soliloquy of getting into fights with people who buy ink by the barrel.
"It is also possible that there is a law in Iowa forbidding the use of any form of the word 'abysmal.'"
Now, I am from Iowa and find this offensive. This statement implies that Iowans are uneducated and don't know the meaning of "abysmal." In fact, Iowans read more books per capita than the residents of ANY other state in the Union. Iowa high school students also score number one or number two in both the SAT and ACT EVERY YEAR. Hardly the hallmarks of an uneducated populous. Taking potshots at the residents of an entire state (Iowa) simply out of pique directed at one person does not seem smart politics for a senior advisor to a campaign (Thompson) which desperately needs to come in third just to keep alive.
And he wrote this just after a soliloquy of getting into fights with people who buy ink by the barrel.
The Lastest Stupid Conspiracy from Late Night Shots
A member of Late Night Shots, that exclusive networking site, recently posted the most inane political conspiracy theory I have come across in a long time:
My measured response to this absurd notion:
This is a really flawed analysis and if people in Hillaryland really believe this, you have to wonder if they're literally smoking crack. If she did this and lost she'd destroy her political career, damage her husband's legacy and harm the Democratic party for years to come. The only upside for the Dems on this is that it would bring a lot more of them to the polls and likely increase their down ballot victories substantially.
This scenario is much less plausible than a brokered GOP convention. It could happen, but it's more of a secret desire for something interesting/cool to happen in politics than it is a likely scenario. Of course I could be wrong and it could be a smart move politically for Hillary, but I doubt the analysis above. And the statement below is absolute crap:
"No candidate in a three way race Hillary/Obama/Republican race would be able to get [the] required 270 votes." Let's look at the last two signficant three candidate races:
20% of voters chose Ross Perot in 1992's 3-man race and he didn't receive a single electoral vote. Instead Clinton won the Presidency with 43% of the vote, which is what would happen to the GOP nominee, though the percentage would vary. George Wallace's electoral votes didn't hurl the election to the House either.
If Hillary did run as an independent, it would come down to Hillary vs. the Republican with Obama the odd man out due to money. Obama likely wouldn't win ANY electoral votes, and if he did they would be in heavily Democratic states that would hurt Hillary; not in states the GOP would win. This scenario also would essentially erase the money gap between Hillary and the GOP nominee since she'd have to fight on two fronts.
As someone who likes divided government, this scenario would almost guarantee a Republican electoral vote landslide for the GOP because the Dem fracturing would be so pronounced and would motivate their base WAY more than anything else could. Winning the Presidency would be the only way for the GOP to have a hold on power.
Also, even though the House has and likely will have a Democratic majority, as it states below the way it works is that EACH STATE DELEGATION gets one vote. It's not even clear that the GOP doesn't/won't control enough state delegations to impose a GOP President despite being in the minority - especially because some Democrat-controlled delegations (i.e., Illinois) would still vote for Obama instead of Hillary since he'd be the official Dem nominee. Also, we basically control all the small state delegations (Alaska, Montana, etc), and those votes count just as much as the one vote each for California and New York.
Plus, the Blue Dogs could throw in with the GOPers in their delegation to get their state to vote for the more conservative, i.e., Republican candidate. It might be hard for the Speaker to retaliate against them for it too because if she did, they could just cut deals with the Republicans to switch parties, and keep their committee slots and seniority when their mass defections make the GOP the Majority.
Also, if Huckabee is the GOP VP nominee, in this scenario he'd likely still end up as VP since too many of the Dem Senators are/would be from states with strong pro-life constituencies which would punish them in the next election. Dems likely to vote for Huckabee:
Nelson (NE) - up in 2012 and sold his soul to Nebraskans United for Life to get their endorsement.
McCaskill (MO) - up in 2010 in a state that is among the most pro-life in the country - most of the significant right to die and abortion cases the Supreme Court has ruled on came from Missouri.
Baucus (MT) - up in 2012 - a pretty pro-life state.
Bayh (IN) if he's not the VP nominee - up in 2010 and won't want to alienate the pro-life voters in his state - he even votes pro-life on some issues. He'll still win re-election though.
Johnson, Tim (SD) -- not up again til 2014, but in a VERY pro-life state.
Lincoln (AR) - it would be hard for her not to go with her home state Governor who has always won more votes than she.
Pryor (AR) -- same reasons, plus he's about as pro-life as Bayh if not more so.
So that's 7 potential Democrat votes for Huckabee as VP and the Dems are really only likely to pick up about 3-5 seats this cycle, giving them 54-56 Senators. By no means are any of these Senators guaranteed to vote for Huckabee, but to varying degrees each would face pressure to vote for him. Their votes, when combined with their Republican colleagues would install Hucabee in the White House VP.
My scenario is equally inane by itself, but it illustrates the abusurd possibilities that could be spawned by a Hillary Clinton independent Presidential Run.
Whisper on the street... Hillary strategists consider independent candidacy
Posted By: Karl Drove on 12-14-2007 1:06 pm
Report as shockingly offensive
Heard some amazing speculation today from a credible source that Hillary’s brain-trust is considering a worst case scenario should she drop early primaries in IA, NH, SC. Hillary would declare as an independent. Such a move would clearly fracture the Democratic party, but would major advantages. Hillary is polling 10% higher nationally than in early primaries, but with early loses, she would be forced to campaign all the way through, burning up time, money, and energy. Stepping out early would allow her to save her cash horde for a costly general campaign.
Also, the electoral process would support such a bold move. No candidate in a three way race Hillary/Obama/Republican race would be able to get required 270 votes. So the race would be settled in the house…
“If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each State delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.”
My measured response to this absurd notion:
This is a really flawed analysis and if people in Hillaryland really believe this, you have to wonder if they're literally smoking crack. If she did this and lost she'd destroy her political career, damage her husband's legacy and harm the Democratic party for years to come. The only upside for the Dems on this is that it would bring a lot more of them to the polls and likely increase their down ballot victories substantially.
This scenario is much less plausible than a brokered GOP convention. It could happen, but it's more of a secret desire for something interesting/cool to happen in politics than it is a likely scenario. Of course I could be wrong and it could be a smart move politically for Hillary, but I doubt the analysis above. And the statement below is absolute crap:
"No candidate in a three way race Hillary/Obama/Republican race would be able to get [the] required 270 votes." Let's look at the last two signficant three candidate races:
20% of voters chose Ross Perot in 1992's 3-man race and he didn't receive a single electoral vote. Instead Clinton won the Presidency with 43% of the vote, which is what would happen to the GOP nominee, though the percentage would vary. George Wallace's electoral votes didn't hurl the election to the House either.
If Hillary did run as an independent, it would come down to Hillary vs. the Republican with Obama the odd man out due to money. Obama likely wouldn't win ANY electoral votes, and if he did they would be in heavily Democratic states that would hurt Hillary; not in states the GOP would win. This scenario also would essentially erase the money gap between Hillary and the GOP nominee since she'd have to fight on two fronts.
As someone who likes divided government, this scenario would almost guarantee a Republican electoral vote landslide for the GOP because the Dem fracturing would be so pronounced and would motivate their base WAY more than anything else could. Winning the Presidency would be the only way for the GOP to have a hold on power.
Also, even though the House has and likely will have a Democratic majority, as it states below the way it works is that EACH STATE DELEGATION gets one vote. It's not even clear that the GOP doesn't/won't control enough state delegations to impose a GOP President despite being in the minority - especially because some Democrat-controlled delegations (i.e., Illinois) would still vote for Obama instead of Hillary since he'd be the official Dem nominee. Also, we basically control all the small state delegations (Alaska, Montana, etc), and those votes count just as much as the one vote each for California and New York.
Plus, the Blue Dogs could throw in with the GOPers in their delegation to get their state to vote for the more conservative, i.e., Republican candidate. It might be hard for the Speaker to retaliate against them for it too because if she did, they could just cut deals with the Republicans to switch parties, and keep their committee slots and seniority when their mass defections make the GOP the Majority.
Also, if Huckabee is the GOP VP nominee, in this scenario he'd likely still end up as VP since too many of the Dem Senators are/would be from states with strong pro-life constituencies which would punish them in the next election. Dems likely to vote for Huckabee:
Nelson (NE) - up in 2012 and sold his soul to Nebraskans United for Life to get their endorsement.
McCaskill (MO) - up in 2010 in a state that is among the most pro-life in the country - most of the significant right to die and abortion cases the Supreme Court has ruled on came from Missouri.
Baucus (MT) - up in 2012 - a pretty pro-life state.
Bayh (IN) if he's not the VP nominee - up in 2010 and won't want to alienate the pro-life voters in his state - he even votes pro-life on some issues. He'll still win re-election though.
Johnson, Tim (SD) -- not up again til 2014, but in a VERY pro-life state.
Lincoln (AR) - it would be hard for her not to go with her home state Governor who has always won more votes than she.
Pryor (AR) -- same reasons, plus he's about as pro-life as Bayh if not more so.
So that's 7 potential Democrat votes for Huckabee as VP and the Dems are really only likely to pick up about 3-5 seats this cycle, giving them 54-56 Senators. By no means are any of these Senators guaranteed to vote for Huckabee, but to varying degrees each would face pressure to vote for him. Their votes, when combined with their Republican colleagues would install Hucabee in the White House VP.
My scenario is equally inane by itself, but it illustrates the abusurd possibilities that could be spawned by a Hillary Clinton independent Presidential Run.
Friday, September 21, 2007
The Stupidest Thing Ever Said on TV , , ,
When asked which was closer, the sun or the moon, one of the applicants to be on the show Beauty and the Geek actually said "aren't they the same thing?" Now, I realize that not everyone's parents are middle class or interested in science or understand the basic nature of the solar system by age 5, but you shouldn't be allowed to graduate from grammar school without knowing that the Sun (Sol) is enormous; Mercury is the closest planet to the Sun; the Moon revolves around the earth; Jupiter is the largest planet; Saturn's Great Red Spot is actually a storm that has been raging for over 300 years and its moon's are the most likely place for extraterrestrial life in the solar system; Neptune is the only planet which has rings that orbit perpendicular to the equator instead of a parallel manner; and Pluto is the 9th planet. Ok, that last one will no longer be true, but this lets me work in that I think it's interesting that they decided to downgrade it from a planet instead of promoting a few more Oort Cloud objects to planet status.
It's things like that answer which make me think No Child Left Behind is a good idea and that WE SHOULD HAVE A NATIONAL CURRICULUM. I get that lots of teachers (including the two generations of teachers in my family) oppose NCLB because it fosters "teaching to the test," but teaching to the test is not necessarily a bad thing. If the test is properly constructed around questions central to understanding the subject (e.g., the transitive property in math, or the proper use of semi-colons - please note irony) then teaching to the test can be an incredibly valuable tool for improving general education levels. And of course recent immigrant children should not be included in the measurement of a school's performance.
Competition is a good thing and in most cases brings out the best in people. It's also the fundamental basis of our society - we are primates and mammals after all and exhibit the same range of programmed behaviors - and would force schools to focus on education as an output, teaching as an input and administration to act like good managers - paying teachers by their merit instead of seniority and firing teachers who don't care or are poor performers.
End of Rant.
It's things like that answer which make me think No Child Left Behind is a good idea and that WE SHOULD HAVE A NATIONAL CURRICULUM. I get that lots of teachers (including the two generations of teachers in my family) oppose NCLB because it fosters "teaching to the test," but teaching to the test is not necessarily a bad thing. If the test is properly constructed around questions central to understanding the subject (e.g., the transitive property in math, or the proper use of semi-colons - please note irony) then teaching to the test can be an incredibly valuable tool for improving general education levels. And of course recent immigrant children should not be included in the measurement of a school's performance.
Competition is a good thing and in most cases brings out the best in people. It's also the fundamental basis of our society - we are primates and mammals after all and exhibit the same range of programmed behaviors - and would force schools to focus on education as an output, teaching as an input and administration to act like good managers - paying teachers by their merit instead of seniority and firing teachers who don't care or are poor performers.
End of Rant.
Friday, September 07, 2007
The Problem With Thompson
isn't that he's lazy; it's that he most definitely is not the Second Coming of Ronald Reagan. The comparisons with Reagan are facile at best as simply being actors and politicians does not make them the same, or even very similar.
Reagan had been active in politics and had honed his ideology and principles since his days at the Screen Actors Guild. He also was was a sucessful two-term Governor of California who almost denied a sitting the President the nomination of his party before obtaining the nomination. Thompson is a former Republican Senate Committee Counsel who engaged in a bit of political theatre that helped bring down a President. He later served as a Senator with an undistinguished record, and I would argue that his actions as a Senate staffer were as or more important than his actions as a U.S. Senator. They could not be more different in terms of the experience and commitment to firm principles.
Reagan was a strident anti-Communist and forger of a great political realignment based on the conservative ideology he developed from Goldwater's campaign. Every knew were Regan stood on any given issue because he was committed to his ideals. Thompson however is presumably a strong anti-terrorist, but we don't really know what he believes - after all he was willing to lobby to liberalize abortion laws but then claims to be 100% pro-life. He was also willing to lobby for a deposed Haitian dictator trying to get the U.S. to launch and invasion to reinstall him as the nation's leader. This rasing issues about his commitment to human rights, which has other implications in the wake of scandals like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.
As I said Thompson is Reagan. He's simply an echo of what the right yearns for - clarity of purpose derived from a coherent ideology (which we now lack) and a strong leader who doesn't betray our faith in some way.
Reagan had been active in politics and had honed his ideology and principles since his days at the Screen Actors Guild. He also was was a sucessful two-term Governor of California who almost denied a sitting the President the nomination of his party before obtaining the nomination. Thompson is a former Republican Senate Committee Counsel who engaged in a bit of political theatre that helped bring down a President. He later served as a Senator with an undistinguished record, and I would argue that his actions as a Senate staffer were as or more important than his actions as a U.S. Senator. They could not be more different in terms of the experience and commitment to firm principles.
Reagan was a strident anti-Communist and forger of a great political realignment based on the conservative ideology he developed from Goldwater's campaign. Every knew were Regan stood on any given issue because he was committed to his ideals. Thompson however is presumably a strong anti-terrorist, but we don't really know what he believes - after all he was willing to lobby to liberalize abortion laws but then claims to be 100% pro-life. He was also willing to lobby for a deposed Haitian dictator trying to get the U.S. to launch and invasion to reinstall him as the nation's leader. This rasing issues about his commitment to human rights, which has other implications in the wake of scandals like Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay.
As I said Thompson is Reagan. He's simply an echo of what the right yearns for - clarity of purpose derived from a coherent ideology (which we now lack) and a strong leader who doesn't betray our faith in some way.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Hell No! No Immunity for Telecoms That Helped Bush Spy on You
The Bush Administration's own Justice Department had to browbeat an incredibly sick man into approving procedures and wiretaps that he rightly believed to be unconstitutional (as so declared by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals). And now they want to help protect the people who helped them break the law instead of refusing on the grounds that Bush Administration's requests were illegal. Those corporate CEOs had a responsibility to their shareholders to do the right, legal thing - they have no responsibility to help the government break its own laws. For this reason alone the companies should be subject to, and hopefully lose, class action lawsuits from their customers.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Who is the WH Official Most Deserving of Blame for the Katrina Debacle?
The Bush Administration continues its self-flagellations over the Katrina Debacle,but the press has never really pushed for a full accounting of who really was responsible for the government-wide failure to prepare for and address the catastrophe. If it wasn't Brownie (and it wasn't), who was responsible for this failure?
That answer is easy: Andy Card. Not only because he was Chief of Staff at the time, but because (a) he was on vacation when this happened; and (b) he had the most experience with hurricane disaster clean up. In fact, during the Bush 41 Administration, he was President George H.W. Bush's point person coordinating the recovery from Hurricane Andrew, another devastating hurricane to hit the U.S. - it's even on his official WH bio. In fact, he did such a good job in this role, that it became a model of how to handle these types of situations.
If anyone in the Bush 43 White House should have been able to manage this disaster, it was him. And what's more, he was the WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF at the time. He should have been on the ground helping organizing the recovery. Afterall, he had the most experience dealing with this of anyone close to the President.
It wasn't Brownie's fault; it was Andy Card's, but the MSM hasn't really picked that up at all.
That answer is easy: Andy Card. Not only because he was Chief of Staff at the time, but because (a) he was on vacation when this happened; and (b) he had the most experience with hurricane disaster clean up. In fact, during the Bush 41 Administration, he was President George H.W. Bush's point person coordinating the recovery from Hurricane Andrew, another devastating hurricane to hit the U.S. - it's even on his official WH bio. In fact, he did such a good job in this role, that it became a model of how to handle these types of situations.
If anyone in the Bush 43 White House should have been able to manage this disaster, it was him. And what's more, he was the WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF at the time. He should have been on the ground helping organizing the recovery. Afterall, he had the most experience dealing with this of anyone close to the President.
It wasn't Brownie's fault; it was Andy Card's, but the MSM hasn't really picked that up at all.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Of Course Hillary Won't Pick Obama - She'll Pick Harold Ford, Jr. Instead
Robert Novak wrote last Saturday (8.18.07):
Novak is right that Obama brings nothing to the table, and it is debatable wheteher he really does share much of the African-American experience in the United States. (It doesn't matter what I think about this, but it does matter with African-American grassroots and grasstops members think). However, Novak is wrong in predicting Mark Warner as the leading Veep candidate.
The leading dark horse candidate should be, and I believe is, Harold Ford, Jr. Unlike Obama he hails from a red state in the South, has actually had to run competitively statewide (does anyone really think Obama gained a lot of solid campaign experience beating Alan Keyes?) and many Democrats believe (incorrectly or not) that he was robbed of the Senate seat due to blatant race-baiting which should increase Democratic turnout in Tennessee if he is on the ticket. This could be especially important if Fred Thompson upsets Giuliani to become the GOP 2008 Nominee.
Ford also is the current Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, formerly chaired by Bill Clinton during his days as Governor of Arkansas. Additionally, the Obama phenomenon and the decent results achieved by Bill Richardson have acculturated Democratic activists to the idea of a minority on the ticket (beyond a privileged white woman of course). However, picking Richardson or any hispanic politician would enrage the nation's black community who beleive their time for a more prominent place on the national stage/in the national debate, and who likely would view an hispanic pick as "skipping over" one of their own.
Additionally, while it's crass to say this, Harold does not look especially black, thus blunting nationally any latent racism. In fact, the emergence of narrowcasting means that his ethnicity would be more promoted in some regions of the nation and less in others, and the liberal media would do much to protect him this time around from a nationwide repeat of 2006. Additionally, while his family is from Tennessee political aristocracy, it is much harder to argue that he doesn't understand or hasn't shared in the African-American experience, or "isn't black enough."
Clinton-Ford '08. The ticket even sounds like the name of a reliable friend who'll help you out. It also subtley evokes fond memories of former President Ford, making him an even better choice and a familiar name in Michigan (a potential battleground state) even if he's not from there.
Hillary-Harold or H2 would be good campaign bumper stickers too.
Against Clinton-Obama
Anticipating that Sen. Hillary Clinton will clinch the Democratic presidential nomination, some supporters are beginning to argue against her principal rival -- Sen. Barack Obama -- for vice president.
They maintain that Obama provides no general election help for Clinton. As an African-American from Illinois, Obama represents an ethnic group and a state already solidly in the Democratic column.
This school of thought advocates a Southerner as Clinton's running mate. The last time Democrats won a national election without a Southerner on the ticket was 1944. Prominent Democrats from the South are in short supply today. The leading prospect: former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner.
Novak is right that Obama brings nothing to the table, and it is debatable wheteher he really does share much of the African-American experience in the United States. (It doesn't matter what I think about this, but it does matter with African-American grassroots and grasstops members think). However, Novak is wrong in predicting Mark Warner as the leading Veep candidate.
The leading dark horse candidate should be, and I believe is, Harold Ford, Jr. Unlike Obama he hails from a red state in the South, has actually had to run competitively statewide (does anyone really think Obama gained a lot of solid campaign experience beating Alan Keyes?) and many Democrats believe (incorrectly or not) that he was robbed of the Senate seat due to blatant race-baiting which should increase Democratic turnout in Tennessee if he is on the ticket. This could be especially important if Fred Thompson upsets Giuliani to become the GOP 2008 Nominee.
Ford also is the current Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, formerly chaired by Bill Clinton during his days as Governor of Arkansas. Additionally, the Obama phenomenon and the decent results achieved by Bill Richardson have acculturated Democratic activists to the idea of a minority on the ticket (beyond a privileged white woman of course). However, picking Richardson or any hispanic politician would enrage the nation's black community who beleive their time for a more prominent place on the national stage/in the national debate, and who likely would view an hispanic pick as "skipping over" one of their own.
Additionally, while it's crass to say this, Harold does not look especially black, thus blunting nationally any latent racism. In fact, the emergence of narrowcasting means that his ethnicity would be more promoted in some regions of the nation and less in others, and the liberal media would do much to protect him this time around from a nationwide repeat of 2006. Additionally, while his family is from Tennessee political aristocracy, it is much harder to argue that he doesn't understand or hasn't shared in the African-American experience, or "isn't black enough."
Clinton-Ford '08. The ticket even sounds like the name of a reliable friend who'll help you out. It also subtley evokes fond memories of former President Ford, making him an even better choice and a familiar name in Michigan (a potential battleground state) even if he's not from there.
Hillary-Harold or H2 would be good campaign bumper stickers too.
Morrissey Still Not Over it: Turns down Smith Reunion with Johnny Marr
Rolling Stone : Morrissey Turned Down Mega-Bucks Smiths Reunion Offer Over Johnny Marr
From RS Online:
For background on the Smith's break up click here.
From RS Online:
Morrissey has once again broken the hearts of millions of already-damaged Smiths fans by refusing to reunite the band. The Mozzer’s publicist has confirmed that the crooner declined a $75 million offer to tour as the Smiths in 2008 and/or 2009 even though the only requirement was that Johnny Marr also be a part of the reunion. What does this new information tell us? That the theory surmising that Morrissey’s legal battles with former Smith Mike Joyce were behind his resistance to reuniting the band is flawed. Apparently Morrissey isn’t up for any kind of Smiths reunion … yet. In the meantime, Marr is still an integral part of Modest Mouse, and Joyce is counting the Smiths back pay and royalties he collected in 1996 and releasing an album with his latest band, Vinny Peculiar, in October.
For background on the Smith's break up click here.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Traveler: A Retread of the Da Vinci Code & National Treasure?
Traveler has been one of the real joys of the summer season for a conspiracy fan like me. Like the X-Files, the show revolves around a conspiracy composed of high-level government officials involved in a shadowy project. They claim to be derived from the "Fourth Branch," of which the only clue we have regarding them is a painting which seemingly depicts the Continental Congress at work.
And of course the primary conspirator of which we are aware is a high level official at the Department of Homeland Security, since DHS has replaced FEMA in conspiracy/public consciouness. Under the aegis of the Fourth Branch, the conspirators start to implement a plan of domestic terrorism in order to gain more power at the expense of public freedom.
Where I'm going with this is that the painting implies that the Fourth Branch was created at the beginning of the Republic and is a secret branch of the government dedicated to protecting it from internal enemies (remember the Alien & Sedition Acts?). This bears some similarity to the conspriracies in both National Treasure and the Da Vinci Code.
I would argue that the conspiracy in Traveler is more engaging and franklyT simply more interesting than that of the above mentioned movies. Most of the episodes share Prison Break's break-neck pace and cliff-hanger endings combined, with great effect, with an equally intriguing story line. The most interesting contrast between the two shows is that with Prison Break, the audience witnesses the inside of the conspiracy, while in Traveler we witness the quest for knowlege of the consipiracy.
To answer my own question: No. It is not.
And of course the primary conspirator of which we are aware is a high level official at the Department of Homeland Security, since DHS has replaced FEMA in conspiracy/public consciouness. Under the aegis of the Fourth Branch, the conspirators start to implement a plan of domestic terrorism in order to gain more power at the expense of public freedom.
Where I'm going with this is that the painting implies that the Fourth Branch was created at the beginning of the Republic and is a secret branch of the government dedicated to protecting it from internal enemies (remember the Alien & Sedition Acts?). This bears some similarity to the conspriracies in both National Treasure and the Da Vinci Code.
I would argue that the conspiracy in Traveler is more engaging and franklyT simply more interesting than that of the above mentioned movies. Most of the episodes share Prison Break's break-neck pace and cliff-hanger endings combined, with great effect, with an equally intriguing story line. The most interesting contrast between the two shows is that with Prison Break, the audience witnesses the inside of the conspiracy, while in Traveler we witness the quest for knowlege of the consipiracy.
To answer my own question: No. It is not.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Jericho: An Illustration of our Deepest Fears
Jericho is the story about an American Nuclear Holocaust, told in an idyllic setting, leaves many questions unanswered at the end, much like Surface and Invasion did a few years ago.
(They too were conspiracy shows with season long arcs to maintain interest and slowly reveal the full conspiracy as well as its purpose. The mid-run format change of both Alias and Veronica Mars from season-arc to several mini-arcs throughout the season also demonstrates that we collectively are too impatient to apply to Jericho too watch a conspiracy unfold over that long a time period. This seemed to applies to Jericho as well.)
The Show
Jericho itself seems a relatively good representation of what could happen after a mulitple nuclear strike attack on the United States. Commications systems would break down due to the EMP pulses from the detonations, some towns and cities would remain relatively peaceful due to strong leadership, some would become dictatorial compounds, and the nation itself wold divide along regional lines as competing centers of power vied for supremacy. Learning why it happened would be of secondary importance for the first few months after the attack. The show implies that the man pulling the strings in Jericho, like the man pulling the strings in Traveler is deeply embedded in the Federal Government as, of course, an official at the Department of Homeland Security and is attempting to use the respective attacks to cause choas and fear out of which a New Order would arrive.
Thankfully the Jericho writing campaign resulted in seven more episodes being made for the fall. Hopefully the full conspiracy will be revealed in these episodes and we'll have an interesting resolution to the series.
The Cultural Implications of Its Cancellation
One of the questions regarding its cancellation is whether we collectively are we getting tired of season long story arcs that gradually unfold with a series of twists and turns? You could argue that the third season of Veronica Mars changed from the above mentioned format to one with several multiple-episode story arcs instead of just one. I do believe however, that Veronica Mars was one of the recent catalysts for the emergence of several season-long story arc programs such as Prison Break and Burn Notice.
My answer to the question posed above is no. The two shows mentioned above mentioned programs are the reason why. They are both well written and have compelling story lines within each episode along with an overarching goal towards which each episode moves the characters at a relatively fast clip.
(They too were conspiracy shows with season long arcs to maintain interest and slowly reveal the full conspiracy as well as its purpose. The mid-run format change of both Alias and Veronica Mars from season-arc to several mini-arcs throughout the season also demonstrates that we collectively are too impatient to apply to Jericho too watch a conspiracy unfold over that long a time period. This seemed to applies to Jericho as well.)
The Show
Jericho itself seems a relatively good representation of what could happen after a mulitple nuclear strike attack on the United States. Commications systems would break down due to the EMP pulses from the detonations, some towns and cities would remain relatively peaceful due to strong leadership, some would become dictatorial compounds, and the nation itself wold divide along regional lines as competing centers of power vied for supremacy. Learning why it happened would be of secondary importance for the first few months after the attack. The show implies that the man pulling the strings in Jericho, like the man pulling the strings in Traveler is deeply embedded in the Federal Government as, of course, an official at the Department of Homeland Security and is attempting to use the respective attacks to cause choas and fear out of which a New Order would arrive.
Thankfully the Jericho writing campaign resulted in seven more episodes being made for the fall. Hopefully the full conspiracy will be revealed in these episodes and we'll have an interesting resolution to the series.
The Cultural Implications of Its Cancellation
One of the questions regarding its cancellation is whether we collectively are we getting tired of season long story arcs that gradually unfold with a series of twists and turns? You could argue that the third season of Veronica Mars changed from the above mentioned format to one with several multiple-episode story arcs instead of just one. I do believe however, that Veronica Mars was one of the recent catalysts for the emergence of several season-long story arc programs such as Prison Break and Burn Notice.
My answer to the question posed above is no. The two shows mentioned above mentioned programs are the reason why. They are both well written and have compelling story lines within each episode along with an overarching goal towards which each episode moves the characters at a relatively fast clip.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Huckabee Victory Not A Surprise
Ok, so the post is a little late, but Senator Huckabee's 2nd place showing in the Iowa Straw Poll on the 11th, seems to have shocked members of the political cognoscenti who thought he would be eclipsed by Brownback or Tancredo. However, had you seen Huckabee at CPAC in March, you would understand why: Huckabee already has a coherent theme that encompasses his entire agenda: he's a "Freedom Conservative," a name almost calculated to bring the "leave me alone coalition" back into the party fold after their collective disgust with Republican venality, corruption, and betrayal of core principles. His speech was very well received by those of use who attended it. Romney by comparison was a surprisingly flat speaker and eclipsed by his eloquent wife.
Governor Huckabee is also a former minister and has a knack for connecting with audiences that other candidates don't have, which was definitely an advantage. Having that in his background allows him to focus on other issues that can expand the party base, since his previous occupation and positions pretty well cover the issues important to the largest segment of the Republican Coalition.
The Straw Poll's importance was obviously diminished this year compared to 1999 due to the decisions of the McCain and Giuliani campaigns to skip the party fundraising event. However, it is still important enough that Huckabee likely will get a bounce and needed fundraising assistance out of his Second Place showing. This should be enought to elbow himself past McCain (the fork's been stuck in him a while yet - now he's just holding on to get FEC matching funds to pay his debts) into the top three position depending on how Fred Thompson performs over the next few weeks. Huckabee is even set to challenge both Romney and Thompson on pure accomplishments. He's simply done more as Governor than Romney did, and does anyone remember anything substantive that Fred Thompson did while in the Senate?
Huckabee is currently doing everything he can ((and doing, and doing it) and doing it well). With a little luck, he could become the conservative alternative to Giuliani, and much more comforting to the base in general than a Mormon. Plus, the fact that he lost all that weight is a testament to his will power, and demonstrates commitment to follow through on necessary issues.
This could be the start of something interesting . . .he'll just have to maximize his earned media and try to keep the MSM more focused on him than on their favorite: Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson.
Governor Huckabee is also a former minister and has a knack for connecting with audiences that other candidates don't have, which was definitely an advantage. Having that in his background allows him to focus on other issues that can expand the party base, since his previous occupation and positions pretty well cover the issues important to the largest segment of the Republican Coalition.
The Straw Poll's importance was obviously diminished this year compared to 1999 due to the decisions of the McCain and Giuliani campaigns to skip the party fundraising event. However, it is still important enough that Huckabee likely will get a bounce and needed fundraising assistance out of his Second Place showing. This should be enought to elbow himself past McCain (the fork's been stuck in him a while yet - now he's just holding on to get FEC matching funds to pay his debts) into the top three position depending on how Fred Thompson performs over the next few weeks. Huckabee is even set to challenge both Romney and Thompson on pure accomplishments. He's simply done more as Governor than Romney did, and does anyone remember anything substantive that Fred Thompson did while in the Senate?
Huckabee is currently doing everything he can ((and doing, and doing it) and doing it well). With a little luck, he could become the conservative alternative to Giuliani, and much more comforting to the base in general than a Mormon. Plus, the fact that he lost all that weight is a testament to his will power, and demonstrates commitment to follow through on necessary issues.
This could be the start of something interesting . . .he'll just have to maximize his earned media and try to keep the MSM more focused on him than on their favorite: Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson.
You Know You're Campaign's Going South When You're a Game Show Joke
Responding to Power of 10's Drew Cary, a contestant replied that her haircuts cost $200. Mr. Cary went on to make a joke about the price of Senator Edwards's haircut. Once a campaign blunder becomes a cultural meme, it's clear the campaign is going South, and that it needs to recover quickly. The Edwards campaign has not. $400 haircuts and a woman fighting your fights (Elizabeth and her feeble attacks on Edwards' opponents) does raise questsions as to whether the whispers about him, publicly aired by Ann Coulter to howls of liberal outrage, are true.
What's worse is that as the haircut meme spreads throughout our popular culture, self-replicating as a it moves along, it continually undermines the Senator's poverty/Two Americas/class-warfare agenda. This is a huge problem for him, and because it wasn't dealt with properly fast enough, has likely already sent his campaign into a death spiral.
What's worse is that as the haircut meme spreads throughout our popular culture, self-replicating as a it moves along, it continually undermines the Senator's poverty/Two Americas/class-warfare agenda. This is a huge problem for him, and because it wasn't dealt with properly fast enough, has likely already sent his campaign into a death spiral.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
A Victory in the Battle to Retain Our Constitutional Rights
In the wake of the Democratic Congress granting the Presidency almost totalitarian powers of citizen suveillance, the ACLU has won and important court case
ACLU Press release regarding recent court victory below:
ACLU Press release regarding recent court victory below:
In Unprecedented Order, FISA Court Requires Bush Administration to Respond to ACLU's Request That Secret Court Orders Be Released to the Public (8/17/2007)
Government Must Respond by August 31
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
WASHINGTON - In an unprecedented order, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) has required the U.S. government to respond to a request it received last week by the American Civil Liberties Union for orders and legal papers discussing the scope of the government's authority to engage in the secret wiretapping of Americans. According to the FISC's order, the ACLU's request "warrants further briefing," and the government must respond to it by August 31. The court has said that any reply by the ACLU must be filed by September 14.
"Disclosure of these court orders and legal papers is essential to the ongoing debate about government surveillance," said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. "We desperately need greater transparency and public scrutiny.We're extremely encouraged by today's development because it means that, at long last, the government will be required to defend its contention that the orders should not be released."
The ACLU filed the request with the FISC following Congress' recent passage of the so-called "Protect America Act," a law that vastly expands the Bush administration's authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping of Americans' international phone calls and e-mails. In their aggressive push to justify passing this ill-advised legislation, the administration and members of Congress made repeated and veiled references to orders issued by the FISC earlier this year. The legislation is set to expire in six months unless it is renewed.
"These court orders relate to the circumstances in which the government should be permitted to use its profoundly intrusive surveillance powers to intercept the communications of U.S. citizens and residents," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU's National Security Project. "The debate about this issue should not take place in a vacuum.It's imperative that the public have access to basic information about what the administration has proposed and what the intelligence court has authorized."
FISC orders have played a critical role in the evolution of the government's surveillance activities over the past six years. After September 11, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to inaugurate a program of warrantless wiretapping inside the United States. In January 2007, however, just days before an appeals court was to hear the government's appeal from a judicial ruling that had found the NSA program to be illegal in a case brought by the ACLU, Attorney General Gonzales announced that the NSA program would be discontinued. Gonzales explained that the change was made possible by FISC orders issued on January 10, 2007, which he characterized as "complex" and "innovative." Those orders are among the documents requested by the ACLU.
Since January 2007, government officials have spoken publicly about the January 10 orders in congressional testimony, to the media and in legal papers - the orders remaining secret all the while. They have also indicated that the FISC issued other orders in the spring that restricted the administration's surveillance activities. House Minority Leader John Boehner stated that the FISC had issued a ruling prohibiting intelligence agents from intercepting foreign-to-foreign calls passing through the United States. To a large extent, it was the perception that the FISC had issued an order limiting the administration's surveillance authority that led Congress to pass the new legislation expanding the government's surveillance powers. Yet the order itself, like the January 2007 order, has remained secret.
The ACLU's request to the FISC acknowledges that the FISC's docket includes a significant amount of material that is properly classified. The ACLU argues, however, that the release of court orders and opinions would not raise any security concern to the extent that these records address purely legal issues about the scope of the government's wiretap authority, and points out that the FISC has released such orders and opinions before. The ACLU is seeking release of all information in those judicial orders and legal papers the court determines, after independent review, to be unclassified or improperly classified.
A copy of the FISA court order, the ACLU's motion to the FISC, as well as information about the ACLU's lawsuit against the NSA and other related materials are available online at: www.aclu.org/spying
In addition to Jaffer, lawyers on the case are Steven R. Shapiro, Melissa Goodman, and Alexa Kolbi-Molinas of the ACLU and Art Spitzer of the ACLU of the National Capital Area.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Pop Culture Gets the NSA Wrong Again
The latest episode of Burn Notice repeats a government-conspiracy meme about the NSA that seems to have emerged in Enemy of the State and become embedded in Hollywood's conception of government covert operations (not that Hollywood has a real grasp on anything internationally-related beyond the superficial, Syriana included).
The NSA officially has supplanted the CIA as the official spooky agency in American pop culture, much like the Department of Homeland Security has supplanted FEMA as the source of traitorous governmental conspiracies against the U.S. government.
The meme I'm speaking of is the conception of the NSA as a spy agency like the CIA, but on steroids. The NSA is a an intelligence gathering organization. They monitor electronic signals around the world from emails to cell-phone calls to landline calls. They do not run assassination squads, train covert agents or anything of the sort. That is what the CIA and possibly parts of the military/Department of Defense do.
This meme seems to have emerged in the early 1990s because it was then that the U.S. government officially acknowledged the agency's existence. Until that time, its entire existence was classified.
By repeating this meme, Burn Notice is contributing to the misinformation/miseducation of the American people regarding what our government really does. It also perpetuates the meme, making it even more likely to survive, and contributing to the general public's misunderstanding of which parts of the government do what.
The NSA officially has supplanted the CIA as the official spooky agency in American pop culture, much like the Department of Homeland Security has supplanted FEMA as the source of traitorous governmental conspiracies against the U.S. government.
The meme I'm speaking of is the conception of the NSA as a spy agency like the CIA, but on steroids. The NSA is a an intelligence gathering organization. They monitor electronic signals around the world from emails to cell-phone calls to landline calls. They do not run assassination squads, train covert agents or anything of the sort. That is what the CIA and possibly parts of the military/Department of Defense do.
This meme seems to have emerged in the early 1990s because it was then that the U.S. government officially acknowledged the agency's existence. Until that time, its entire existence was classified.
By repeating this meme, Burn Notice is contributing to the misinformation/miseducation of the American people regarding what our government really does. It also perpetuates the meme, making it even more likely to survive, and contributing to the general public's misunderstanding of which parts of the government do what.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
The Redeeming Qualities of Greeks
By far, the most surprising pleasure of the evolving summer season is Greeks on the ABC Family Network. The show revolves around Rusty the Freshmen negotiating his way through the ins and outs of rushing a fraternity. Rusty's adventures are impacted by his geekiness and the role his sister plays in one of the school's premier sororities.
Dale, Rusty's abstinent, evangelical electronic engineering major of a roommate is by far one of the most innovative side characters in a long time. My favorite line of his to a fraternity boy he was evangelizing to: "No, David smote the Philistine with a stone, he didn't smoke with the Philistine and get stoned!"
However, the most intriguing thing about Greeks is the subtle exploration of the issue of meritocracy vs. aristocracy and their uneasy co-existence. Meritocracy in Greeks is embodied in the character of Rusty's sister Cassie who plays by the rules and does what it takes to achieve her goals. Aristocracy by Cassie's sorority little sister, and daughter of one of the states Senaors, who posesses a lesser sense of ethics which is driven by a sense of entitlement.
Cassie's boyfriend cheats on her at the beginning of the show with the Senator's daughter, thus setting up the series of subtle conflicts between the two that presumably go on all semester. The conflict culminates in Evan, Cassie's boyfriend, having to ditch Cassie in favor of the Senator's daughter as his date for a benefit with his parents. He does it without hesitation, because of the connections he will help forge for his family. Meanwhile, Cassie the Meritocrat is left on the sidelines because of her ethic of earning everything she has/needs.
Rusty also earns his way to what he wants. He rushes all the fraternities and ends up in the one most laid back, and coincidentally run by his sister, which rewards him with cheers of admiration when he exhibits various skills which benefit the fraternity. He isn't required to conform to any standard, unlike the implied members of the rival fraternity lead by Cassie's new boyfriend.
Pop Culture really hasn't explored issues of class like this since the heydays of the John Waters film.
Dale, Rusty's abstinent, evangelical electronic engineering major of a roommate is by far one of the most innovative side characters in a long time. My favorite line of his to a fraternity boy he was evangelizing to: "No, David smote the Philistine with a stone, he didn't smoke with the Philistine and get stoned!"
However, the most intriguing thing about Greeks is the subtle exploration of the issue of meritocracy vs. aristocracy and their uneasy co-existence. Meritocracy in Greeks is embodied in the character of Rusty's sister Cassie who plays by the rules and does what it takes to achieve her goals. Aristocracy by Cassie's sorority little sister, and daughter of one of the states Senaors, who posesses a lesser sense of ethics which is driven by a sense of entitlement.
Cassie's boyfriend cheats on her at the beginning of the show with the Senator's daughter, thus setting up the series of subtle conflicts between the two that presumably go on all semester. The conflict culminates in Evan, Cassie's boyfriend, having to ditch Cassie in favor of the Senator's daughter as his date for a benefit with his parents. He does it without hesitation, because of the connections he will help forge for his family. Meanwhile, Cassie the Meritocrat is left on the sidelines because of her ethic of earning everything she has/needs.
Rusty also earns his way to what he wants. He rushes all the fraternities and ends up in the one most laid back, and coincidentally run by his sister, which rewards him with cheers of admiration when he exhibits various skills which benefit the fraternity. He isn't required to conform to any standard, unlike the implied members of the rival fraternity lead by Cassie's new boyfriend.
Pop Culture really hasn't explored issues of class like this since the heydays of the John Waters film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
