Courage Makes A Majority

A Very Dangerous Game of Chicken

I will have to get back to case for impeachment later because there has been a very interesting development in Washington.  As many of you know the President is perturbed that Congress won't give him a blank check funding bill for the Iraq War.  The president has warned the Democrats in Congress that "playing politics" with the lives of our soldiers is unacceptable.  Of course the President conveniently leaves out that Congress has passed the appropriations, just with the conditions that we pull out by next year.  King George has said he will veto anyting but a "clean bill."  Even today, the President has extended the "invitation" to Sen Reid and Speaker Pelosi to talk about the bill, but there would be no negotiation on the terms he has outlined.

Funny thing happened however.  The leaders of the Congress said no deal, let us know when you want to actually work with us (code: you must negotiate).  The money quote comes from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:

"He has to deal with Congress. We are an independent branch of this government, and by our Constitution we have equal say that he has. And he’s got to listen to us. Because we are speaking for the American people; he isn't."

There is the civics lesson that the majority of the country has either missed or forgotten.  The Congress is one of three separate and equal branches of the U.S. goverment.  It is not forced to give the President anything.  The Congress is operating perfectly within its Constitutional duties in requiring the President to negotiate.  Just because the President is Commander in Chief doesn't mean he sets all the rules when it comes to legislative process needed to run the military.

This constitutional showdown really goes to show how fragile our republic and the rule of law really is.  We have a president that has expanded the power of the exectuive branch for six years without check from the republican controlled congress.  The change in power has been a cold slap in the face to that trend.  This is a showdown our country desparately needs.  Restoring some semblance of power to the represntatives of the people instead of solely in our executive branch.  Unfortunately this game of chicken to restore balance in our branches of government comes at the expense of our brave soldiers.   I sure hope the President blinks soon.

A Time to Act

I have always thought of myself as a pragmatist above all else.  It is primary reason why I haven't really brought up the subject of impeachment in relation to the president and vice-president.  Impeachments are divisive and time-suckers.   Nothing else can get done on the hill if an impeachment (and the subsequent senate trial) is on the docket, and we have so many things to focus on.  But sometimes the pragmatist in me must take a back seat to the idealist, and I may have reached that point with the latest revelation that the VP continues to link Al Queda and Saddam despite the pentagon's recently release report refuting that claim.

One of things I expect of my president (and vice-president) is a firm grip on reality.  Everyone with the smallest bit of objectivity realizes the case for war made 4 years ago is a bunch of caca de toro.  Yet we continue to see our leaders (in front of friendly crowds) make the same claims over and over again, with little regard for the truth.  For an administration up in arms about the lack of respect Nancy Pelosi showed them by going to Syria and talking to the President of that country, they show absolutely no respect for the American public in general.

I would make the case that the administrations behavior has moved beyond arrogance to illegal.  I will make that argument tomorrow after a night of clarity.  I need some separation from that pragmatist in me.  Happy Easter everyone.

Franko...eh, Obama, number please!

In the great war movie, the Dirty Dozen, Victor Franko's (John Cassavetes) number was 11.  In the fundraising race for the democratic nomination, Obama's number is 25...as in $25MM raised in the first quarter of 2007, just $1MM behind frontrunner HRC.  Or maybe his number is 100,000 which the number of individual donors he had for his campaign, an amazing number.  HRC did not release her number of donors, but it is safe to say it is no where near that number, otherwise she would have shouted it out as soon as possible to blunt the positive news that Obama is getting right now. 

Why is this important?  First, it shows that Obama is an effective a fundraiser as HRC, if not more.  Second, Obama has much more upside that HRC on the fundraising trail.  An individual can give up to $2,300 to a candidate for both the primary and the general election ($4,600 total).  The entire $4,600 can be given at once, but only the first $2,300 can be spent before the Democratic Convention.  HRC's dollars are not all available for the primary because a lot of her donations were for the max $4,600/person (exact number have not been released.  Obama can use $23.5MM of the $25MM for the primary, meaning the great majority of his donors can give at least another $2,300.   Again, if the numbes were favorable to HRC, she would release them.

Third, Obama outraised HRC on the internet $6.9MM to $4.2MM.  Quite shocking given the all the media talk about how HRC outclassed Obama on the website front as I mentioned in my January 31st post.  This speaks to Obama ability to engage the masses.  Assuming that the average internet donation is the same, regardless of candidate, Obama and his inferior name recognition has nearly 70% more internet donors than HRC.

Finally, as I said before, just about every American has an opinion about HRC.  All the money in the world won't change you either love her or hate her.  Which leaves her money to do only one thing.  Go negative. When half the country hates you that is a very dangerous game.  Also, going negative in the presidential primary has the unfortunate impact of alieniating voters that you need to win the general.  If HRC is too harsh on someone's favorite candidate, there is a good chance he or she won't push the button for her, no matter who she is running against. 

Recent polling still has HRC in front with 33%, followed by Obama at 26% and John Edwards at 17%.  This shows how tenuous HRC's front runner status really is.  If either Obama or Edwards were to drop out, the majority of their supporters would go to other, very little would bleed over to HRC.  It is the old runoff axiom.  Rarely does the person with the most votes ever wins the run-off, because if you supported the frontrunner, you would have vote for him or her the first time.  The more time goes by, the more I am convinced HRC will not be the nominee.  It will be Obama or Edwards, or maybe Richardson, but not HRC.

"You think I'm going to die? Ha! If you think that then you don't know Victor Franko." or Barack Obama.

The Straight Talk Express Left Behind at the Station

So I have to admit, back in 2000, I was a big fan of John McCain.  He seemed to be the one candidate that cut through all the bullshit with his "straight talk" style.  He had the credentials of an American Hero, and most of all he was not "social conservative."  But ever since he got his ass kicked by George Bush in the primaries back then, McCain has shifted course and become a smarmy, double talker with little regard for the straight talk he used to capture the minds of so many independents just 7 years ago.

Case in point, his unwillingness to talk honestly about the situation in Iraq.  The Arizona senator made it clear a few weeks ago that the surge was going well and it was safe to walk the streets of Baghdad.  Funny that if it was so safe that he would need an armed escort and a chevlar vest during he recent visit as seen in this picture at the Daily Kos.  It just seems a little ridiculous that a grown man that is a veteran of the worst military blunder in U.S. History (Vietnam), would condemn our soldiers to repeat the same mistakes.

The news today for John McCain wasn't that great either.  He is lagging behind both Mitt and Rudy in fundraising for the first quarter.   Mitt was the big winner with $23MM raised, while McCain only banked about $12.5MM.  McCain status as the establishment candidate is seriously in doubt when he raises only half of the amount of the fourth place candidate and now that he consistently polling behind Rudy Guiliani. 

Needless to say, I am no fan of John McCain anymore.  I've got no more use for this guy. 

No reinvention of Newt

Newt Gingrich is working hard to position himself as the GOP non-candidate that can swoop in late in the year and rescue the party from a disastrous presidential candidate selection.  The way he sees it, none of the front runners can meet the needs of the core conservatives.  McCain is just a slimy politician that will say anything to get elected.  Rudy is a crossdresser, soft on social issues and a three-time married man (divorcing twice would put into question one's "family values").  Romney is a Mormon and has reversed his liberal social stance to run for president.  Even new non-candidate Fred Thompson has his problems with the Christian Right when James Dobson labels him a non-Christian.

So Newt's plan is to let the front runners slug it out with each other, and when the are all good and bloodied, come swooping in with his name recognition and time away from DC that wipe away the images of his past sins, and brandish his conservative credentials to walk his way to the nomination. 

Here is the problem with that scenario.  It only takes one or two stories like this to jog the memories of the American public and remind them why Newt is such a nimrod.  Newt has gone on record for the abolition of bi-lingual education.  Repeating that same trite, fear-based, GOP talking point that real Americans only speak English and that foreigners come in here demanding that the government serve them without them making the appropriate sacrifice to become Americans (their culture and language).  He also, and not by accident, uses the printing of ballots  to make his case.  Forget that if the GOP had their way, all elections would be done electronically with zero paper trail so I am not sure what they would be printing but provisional ballots that usually end up getting tossed anyway. 

Of course not providing a citizen a ballot they can understand would be akin to disenfranchisement.  But come to think of it, I believe it is  a core tenet of the GOP to disenfranchise as many voters as possible that aren't white, wealthy or social conservatives.  This way when they count the votes and a majority of them are for the GOP the claims of mandate have some statistics to back them up.  It is easier to get that mandate when the largest part of the population that aren't voting would never be served by the ideals of the GOP. 

It will be nice watching Newt go down in flames.  A couple more of these stories will start the descent, but when he finally announces and is sitting in the first presidential debate, I am anxious to see how Newt answers this question:

"Mr Gingrich, you are undoubted conservative with the support of the Christian Right for your tireless effort to advance the agenda of social conservatism.  Many of your supporters will look no farther than your role as Speaker in the impeachment of Bill Clinton for getting a hummer in the oval office.  How do you reconcile that fact with this one?  During the impeachment of Bill Clinton for his extra marital affair, you sir, were also engaged in one yourself.  You have two minutes to respond." 

What ever his response is, there is only one appropriate label for him --- Hypocrite.

I'm finished with this guy.