Category — Howard Dean

I wonder if it is Dean or the Obamadhi? As weird as Hillary is, she is too normal to be in this news event.

Purported UFO video to be shown Friday

A video that purportedly shows a living, breathing space alien will be shown to the news media Friday in Denver. [snip]

In a statement, Peckman said “other related credible evidence” proving aliens exist will be shown at Friday’s news conference, too.

In 2003, Peckman authored an off-beat ballot initiative that would have required the city to implement stress-reduction techniques. The “Safety Through Peace” initiative failed, but garnered 32 percent of the vote.

Then there is this in the news:

Feds bust owners of Calif. medical marijuana shops

[snip]
Virgil Grant III, 41, and his wife, Psytra Grant, 33, were arrested Tuesday and appeared in court but neither entered pleas, said Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s office. [snip]

There probably is a connection and none to subtle either.

US braces for baby boom retirement wave

The first of the vast US baby boom generation goes into retirement in January, setting off a demographic tidal wave with wide-ranging economic, political and social implications. [snip]

The cost for government-funded social security and medical care for the boomers leaves a funding gap of between 40 and 76 trillion dollars for next 75 years, according to various estimates. [snip]

Leonard Steinhorn, an American University professor and author of “The Greater Generation: In Defense of the Baby Boom Legacy,” says the generation often wrongly maligned as latte-sipping Yuppies has transformed most of American society.

They sure fooled the rest of the world, didn’t they? Wasn’t the Bonfire of the Vanities their signature piece?

He wrote that boomers have led or sustained most of “the great citizen movements that have advanced American values and freedoms — the environmental movement, the consumer movement, the women’s movement, the civil rights movement, the diversity movement, the human rights movement, the openness in government movement.”

For the civil rights movement, they cannot have credit. They didn’t do that. As for the enviro and women’s movement they can have these, no one else wants credit for those debacles.

He told AFP he expects this transformation to continue as boomers age. “It’s not going to be a generation that’s going to go off to the golf courses and do nothing.”

Of course not, with tanning salons, fern bars and of course spinning classes, there will be no time for the golf course. Tossing  in the requisite nail wrap and the odd Botox shot gives quite a grueling day. How will they ever cope with that schedule?

He said boomers will push politics to a more progressive bent even though that has not yet happened because the more conservative over-60 generation still carries much weight in the electorate.

“Once younger voters begin to replace them, the socially conservative vote will dwindle,” he said. [snip]

The boomer generation is hardly monolithic. For the left side, Hillary is the guidon, so can you spell passé?

The time has come.  It’s lost.  What we’ve believed up until now about this enterprise, this risky mission, is tragically and desperately wrong.  We look into the eyes of our leaders and see nothing but a swarm of bats.  The morbid futility, the evil of burying repeated failure under lofty rhetoric, the fruitless planning, the incompetence on the ground.  The toxic ugliness spreading through the ranks can only lead to more loss of American prestige here and abroad.  The daily drain on American good will and the human cost are too great.

We hoped that simpletons could be transformed by fire into simple patriots, that a valid government would flourish.    We were wrong.  The cold figures of support for the mission, according to a June Gallup poll cited in Time magazine online (June 27th) have falled to 14%.  It’s the lowest level of support for….Congress….in 34 years, near the proximate end of the Vietnam War.   It’s hopeless.  Go home, House and Senate.  Serve the Republic.  Depart your places and howl into your pillows at home. 

 We long for heroes and we get Harry Reid, the rope man in every sepia tintype of Old West lynch mobs.  We long for the success and the distaff perspective of a powerful woman; a woman to confirm the first principles of feminism, and we we get Nancy Pelosi, the tooth-grinding Uber Grandma with a switchblade in her apron pocket.  We long for illumination, maybe a spark of brilliance, and we get the lightless Jack-o-Lantern head of Dick Durbin.  Kennedy, Kerry, Specter and Warner.  Warm doorstops.

 Spare us the blue blazer and cowpie hair of Trent Lott, the boy goon repugnance of Lindsey Graham, the horrifying post-mortem pallor of John McCain, the silver sharkskin suit and glistening pomade of Robert Byrd.  Send Schumer to Speaker’s Corner…in London.  Send Harkin and Hagel to sort cans from bottles.  The list is too long.  Start fresh.  Maybe without these shards of glass under the national saddle, we won’t be galloping off to nowhere every day.  And for laughs, give us a few days of Yosemite Howard Dean, a little shooting and shrieking for diversion.  Anything is better than this.

Journalists dole out cash to politicians (quietly)

News organizations diverge on handling of political activism by staff

BOSTON - A CNN reporter gave $500 to John Kerry’s campaign the same month he was embedded with the U.S. Army in Iraq. An assistant managing editor at Forbes magazine not only sent $2,000 to Republicans, but also volunteers as a director of an ExxonMobil-funded group that questions global warming. A junior editor at Dow Jones Newswires gave $1,036 to the liberal group MoveOn.org and keeps a blog listing “people I don’t like,” starting with George Bush, Pat Robertson, the Christian Coalition, the NRA and corporate America (”these are the people who are really in charge”). [snip]

But with polls showing the public losing faith in the ability of journalists to give the news straight up, some major newspapers and TV networks are clamping down. [snip]

But news organizations don’t agree on where to draw the ethical line. (Compare policies here.) [snip]

And some donors wield quiet influence behind the scenes, such as the wire editors at newspapers in Honolulu and Riverside, Calif., who decide which state, national and international news to publish. [snip]

Several of the donating journalists said they had no regrets, whatever the ethical concerns.

“Probably there should be a rule against it,” said New Yorker writer Mark Singer, who wrote the magazine’s profile of Howard Dean during the 2004 campaign, then gave $250 to America Coming Together and its get-out-the-vote campaign to defeat President Bush. [snip]

George Packer is The New Yorker’s man in Iraq.
The war correspondent for the magazine since 2003 and author of the acclaimed 2005 book “The Assassins’ Gate: America in Iraq,” Packer gave $750 to the Democratic National Committee in August 2004 and $250 to Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett, an anti-war Democrat who campaigned unsuccessfully for a seat in Congress from Ohio in 2006.

In addition to his reported pieces, Packer also writes commentary for the magazine, such as his June 11 piece ruing Bush’s “shallow, unreflective character.”

“My readers know my views on politics and politicians because I make no secret of them in my comments for The New Yorker and elsewhere,” Packer said. “If giving money to a politician prejudiced my ability to think and write honestly, I wouldn’t do it. Fortunately, it doesn’t.”

His colleague Judith Thurman wrote the New Yorker’s sympathetic profile of Teresa Heinz Kerry, published on Sept. 27, 2004. Ten days later, the Democratic National Committee recorded Thurman’s donation of $1,000. She did not return phone calls.

Their editor, Remnick, said that the magazine’s writers don’t do straight reporting. “Their opinions are out there,” Remnick said. “There’s nothing hidden.” So why not disclose campaign donations to readers? “Should every newspaper reporter divulge who they vote for?”

Besides, there’s the magazine’s famously rigorous editing. The last bulwark against bias’s slipping into The New Yorker is the copy department, whose chief editor, Ann Goldstein, gave $500 in October to MoveOn.org, which campaigns for Democrats and against President Bush. “That’s just me as a private citizen,” she said. As for whether donations are allowed, Goldstein said she hadn’t considered it. “I’ve never thought of myself as working for a news organization.”

The list: Journalists who wrote political checks
And their explanations, from ‘Yikes!’ to ‘They’re all in somebody’s pocket’

There are some rather circuitous answers in this group of folks. Not all have a firm grasp on the difference between reality and their view of it.

The Barack Obama buzz is so thick you could cut it with a knife as the media swarms all over its latest Democratic “rock star”.  But when you peel off the celebrity veneer, Obama is a left-wing liberal with limited qualifications.  Only John Kerry has a lower ACU rating among Democratic presidential candidates and a quick inspection of his record shows there isn’t a moderate or conservative bone in his body.

Obama’s record also shows very few real qualifications for our nation’s highest office.  There’s no indication of success as an executive decision maker, and he’s only a little over 2 years removed from being a state legislator.  Democrats complained about President Bush’s qualifications, but being the successful governor of our 2^nd largest state is a far cry from being just another Illinois legislator.

Ironically, Obama actually benefits from his limited record and experience.  Democrats believe it increases his electability because it’ll be easier to pretend he’s a moderate.  On the other hand, Hillary is already correctly perceived as a far left-wing candidate, and it’ll be an uphill battle to erase those perceptions in the general election.  The ’04 nomination hinged on electability concerns as Democratic voters abandoned their favorite candidate (Howard Dean) for a more electable candidate (John Kerry).  The ’08 nomination could hinge on the same factor.

Soon to be ex-Governor Mitt Romney has mapped out his campaign strategy for grabbing the GOP’s presidential nod in ‘08:

In an interview with The Examiner, Romney described himself as more conservative than Republican rivals McCain, R-Ariz., and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani on a variety of issues. “We’re in a different place on immigration; we’re in a different place on campaign reform; we’re in a different place on same–sex marriage; we’re in a different place on the president’s policy on interrogation of detainees,” Romney said.

Running as the conservative candidate is great a strategy.  The field of moderates is already crowded with both McCain and Giuliani preparing runs.  It’s a Howard Dean strategy focused on the conservative elements of the party except that Mitt won’t implode like Howard Dean.

Ahmadinejad welcomes them; he won’t be at the airport however.

TEHRAN, Iran — Shouting “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” thousands of Iranians have taken to the streets of Tehran to mark the anniversary of the 1979 U.S. Embassy takeover.

The protest comes as Iran continues massive war games that began ten days ago and have included the test-firing of new missiles.

The demonstrators, including war veterans and school children, have burned U.S. and Israeli flags outside the former embassy compound. Iran’s Parliament speaker invoked the current crisis over Iran’s nuclear program, declaring America hasn’t learned the lesson that “threats will not affect the Iranian nation.”

Militant students seized the compound 27 years ago Saturday, holding 52 American diplomats hostage for 444 days, letting them go the day Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president.

Iran invites Americans to visit the celebration with a $20 gift just for showing up. I’m surprised Howard Dean hasn’t booked the entire Democratic Party on this fantabulous spree. At $20 a pop, it is a great fund raising excursion. Call it the “Solidarity Junket” deprecating Reagan for showing up the Boiled Goober from Georgia.

At last, a missile technology receiving Pelosi’s wholehearted approval. Kerry can endorse a military more to his ideals. A fun time for all except for Unca Teddy! Certain strictures you know.

I didn’t see all of the debate last night but I did hear most of it on the radio as well as saw some video clips on the news. My overall impression is that the format sucked. A one minute response time for one candidate followed by only 30 seconds for rebuttal for the other 3 candidates was not enough time to dig into the issues and get past all the fluffy campaign slogans and usual sound bites. It was especially annoying when one candidate talked (or yelled) repeatedly during another candidate’s turn.

That of course brings me to Christy Mihos. I’ve listened to Christy Mihos many times on the Howie Carr show over the last few years and respected his take on the Big Dig and thought he got the shaft from Jane Swift. But after last nights debate I have lost all respect for him. He came across like Howard Dean on steroids. It is clear to me now that he is in this race to settle a score with the Mass GOP. He has no chance of winning but if his goal is to take out Healey, he might just be successful. That of course would be bad news for the rest of us. If he truly cared about this state, he would get out of this race and work to prevent a return to the Dukakis years. Instead he focused all of his energy on Healey and practically ignored Patrick.

Kerry Healey did as well as could be expected in these circumstances. She was composed, kept her cool and for the most part stayed on message. She is going to have to be more forceful though in future debates.

Deval Patrick was able to sit back and watch. He threw out things that sound great on paper like lowering property taxes but failed to say how he would accomplish that. It is extremely naive to assume that cities and towns would lower their property tax rates just because the state decided to send more money their way. It’s much more likely that the cities and towns would spend all of the money from both sources. After all, how often does a government voluntarily return money to the people? They always find a way to spend that money. Of all people, Deval Patrick should know that since he won’t commit to lowering the income tax to the voter approved rate of 5%.

As for Grace Ross, who really cares how she did?

The remaining debates should between the two candidates who actually have a chance of winning this race so that the voters can get a clear airing of the candidate’s views and make their choice. Heck, even the Boston Globe agrees with me on that point.

Last night’s gubernatorial debate succeeded in an odd contortion: It demonstrated both the value of including all the candidates on the ballot in at least one televised forum and also the argument for narrowing the field. Voters will definitely be best served if the next debate is for contenders only.

***

Although lively, this was a warm-up for a debate between the contenders. Mihos might qualify some day. But last night, only Healey and Patrick met that standard.

John Kerry’s timing is a bit off. We kill al-Zarqawi, seat a new Iraqi government, President Bush visits the Iraqi Prime Minister, and what does John Kerry want to do with our momentum?

Senator John F. Kerry is placing himself at the center of congressional action over the war in Iraq this week with a crisply worded resolution to require President Bush to withdraw almost all US troops by the end of this year.

Now is the time to turn our tails and run? Yes, the Iraqi’s are ultimately responsible for their fledgling democracy, and we want our soldiers back home as soon as possible. But conceding defeat with an artificial deadline is not an option.

Preaching the gospel of defeatism launched John Kerry’s political career during the Vietnam era and now he hopes it’ll launch him into the White House. Give him some credit though because at least we know where he stands. Gone are the days of flip-flopping Kerry saying things like, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”

What Kerry always failed to grasp is winning is the most important goal. He fought for defeat in Vietnam. He fought for defeat during the Cold War. And now he fights for defeat in Iraq. Imagine the chutpah of voting for the War in Iraq, but then refusing to fund it. Maybe one of these days he could put a little effort into helping us win.

“I do not agree that that is in the best interests” of the United States, Clinton said, drawing some jeers. When she left the stage, a small group of audience members began to chant, “Bring home the troops.” Later, when Kerry said that members of Congress must help set a course in Iraq, one attendee shouted, “Tell Hillary!”

Mrs. Clinton is cagey. Kerry thinks he stole a march on his rivals for the ’08 nomination by pushing this resolution, but don’t forget the Howard Dean lesson. Nobody was more rabidly anti-war than Howard Dean, but Democrats abandoned him. Ultimately, they didn’t see Dean drawing enough votes to win a national campaign.

They are running to be President of the United States and not just the apple of rabid anti-war Democrats’ eyes. Being a viable national candidate requires a broad appeal. Although liberals don’t see anything good in Iraq today, 2 ½ years is a long time, and Iraq could be vastly improved. Kerry placed a huge bet that Iraq remains mired in bloody sectarian strife, but what happens if that changes? Mrs. Clinton is wisely positioning herself to take advantage of either outcome, and she may be more electable because of it.

The Drudge Report has a story about Howard Dean and the DNC actively undermining Ray Nagin’s re-election campaign in New Orelans:

The DNC teams actively worked to defeat Nagin under the auspice of the committee’s voting rights program.

How ironic is this? Democrats are always accusing Republicans of voter fraud. They complain bitterly about phantom roadblocks and other “irregularities” in Ohio and Florida. The “evil” Karl Rove “fixed” those elections, but they are trying to defeat candidates from their own party under the auspices of “voter rights”.

If the DNC wanted Nagin defeated, it is awfully tempting to think the voters actually got it right in New Orleans. Additionally, if Democrats are not already concerned about Howard Dean’s leadership, this should raise a ton of red flags. If the Howard Dean lead DNC cannot defeat a candidate with Ray Nagin’s baggage, what hope does he have against Republicans? I guess that is what happens when you let MoveOn.org select your party chairman although I often wonder if Karl Rove didn’t select Dean.

Republicans vs. Democrats…isn’t this really what all these television talk shows are all about? What are the main differences today between these two? When I first voted at the ripe old age of 20 in 1980, I voted for a guy who was clearly a Republican..of course we are talking about the Gipper. Anyone who voted for him….and it was quite a lot….knew exactly what he stood for….strong military, pro-business, less government programs, lower taxes, horoscope readings and a very strange son. We all voted for him as nobody in their right mind wanted to watch 4 more years of Jimmy Carter. Ok..simple enough…Reagan defined what being a Republican was…who wouldn’t like all the things I mentioned? Other than a few that enjoyed long gas lines, Iran holding our hostages, and peanut farmers…not too many.

Today we see Hillary Clinton trying to mislead the public into believing she is a “tough conservative” on some issues, while George W. spends money on programs, etc like a drunken sailor at times. It’s just not as clear as it once was. Back in the 90’s Republicans had Newt Gingrich running the Capitol, and today they have someone named Dennis Hastert, who is taken as seriously as Speaker of the House as Paula Abdul is on American Idol…………..On the other side, the Democrats are lining up such heavyweights for the Oval office as Hillary Clinton, possibly John Kerry and Al Gore again (please spare us these debates…), and listening to that Ritalin deprived lunatic- Howard Dean running the party platform.

I realize I’m rambling here..but I guess my point is this………we just don’t have any true leadership. Not just on an individual basis, but even from a particular party platform either. We used to be able to look at the Democrats and say…ok..here we go…………more programs, less military, helping the needy, tax the rich, and rather than fight the bad guys–try and hold hands and “give peace a chance”. Republicans on the other hand were categorized as a bunch of selfish meanies that would fight at the drop of a hat, stop feeding the homeless, all were members of country clubs, drank martinis, and owned all the business and land. Neither of these two simple descriptions are textbook, but they sort of encompass what we saw through the media……today however…we see such a mix and combination of deception and leaning this way and that way—it’s hard to tell just what these individuals or the parties actually stand for.

That may sound simplistic, but it’s accurate.

As I’m driving home from work tonight I listen to Alan Colmes’s radio show. He has a segment where he’s talking to Dean in the 9th Ward of New Orleans whilst fixing up a man’s house for him. This in of itself is a noble pursuit. But then Dean has to go on talking about how if Clinton was in office New Orleans would be all fixed up already, and how we need a change in government in 2006 and 2008. Then he talks about his 9 states of emergency that he handled in Vermont. In my 6 years in Vermont, the only emergency I can remember (besides a crapload of snow every year that everyone expected) is flooding in Montpelier that lasted for several days. Not exactly Katrina, is it? Don’t hurt yourself patting your own back, Howard.

Then Colmes goes on talking about how we’re in a war that’s draining our own resources at home so much that New Orleans is still not fixed (which is so crazy I won’t even bother with that one). Dean then says that he’d rather not turn this horrible situation in New Orleans into a political fight. Excuse me? Did you just join the conversation? What were you doing less than a minute ago?

If I was a Democrat, I would be really pissed off if Howard Dean was the spokesman for my party. He says the wrong things just about 24 hours a day for any particular situation, and he sees everything in terms of political gain. He is just not a good person, and I will take great joy in watching him drag his party down.

I listen to talk radio. I read the blogs. I’m hip. I’m with it. But I just don’t understand why so many republicans are against John McCain for his assured 2008 presidential campaign. I see myself as a conservative on most issues, but most hardcore conservatives bristle at McCain in general. I’m thinking especially of Limbaugh and Hannity here.

The man takes the right side on most issues in my opinion, especially on national defense and abortion. His border security and anti-pork stances are sadly absent just about everywhere else in Washington. On the other hand, his campaign finance reform has proven to be a joke, and his role in the “Gang of 14” really pissed me off (though in the end I think that did more good than harm to the Republican agenda).

So though I appreciate both sides of the argument, I think the man’s pros far outweigh the cons. And at this point I don’t think the country is willing to elect another staunch conservative to the presidency. Too many independents are disgusted with Bush right now. Unless some major changes occur, and I’m not ruling that out since there’s more than 2 years until the election, I doubt any other Republican nominee except Giuliani could beat Hillary. Electability needs to be a factor in our vote for a nominee. Democrats realized they’d have no chance if Howard Dean was the nominee in 2004 and wised up at the right moment, though in the end all for naught.

I was originally supporting Giuliani for 2008, but I’m leaning toward McCain now due to his social stances and the vagueness concerning Giuliani’s possibility of running. I’m going to assume he won’t run for now since he has been so quiet on the issue, but hopefully I’ll be pleasantly surprised. My question is – why would McCain not be a good choice? I need a compelling argument to move far right toward Frist or Allen, and I leave that to those who would be willing to debate the matter. You never know, perhaps I’ll be swayed.

The Republican Party has always understood that like life, politics is not always fair. Tom DeLay became the ire of a vast left-wing conspiracy that was going to run him out of office no matter what he did. Feeling the heat, the GOP and DeLay did the right thing.

These elections give the GOP a chance to reconnect with the base and come back to the values that unite the party. Unfortunately, DeLay became symbolic of what was ripping us apart. It is no surprise that DeLay was the mastermind behind fair representation in the Texas re-districting process. Democrats and their allies in the media were unglued after that one.

But all not is gone for the GOP. With DeLay gone and Hastert on his way out, the American people are going to be looking at Democrats’ attempt to clean up their own culture of corruption. Will the left rid of Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid? I am certainly going to be asking that question next fall.

The NY Post fired both barrels at Howard Dean in this editorial from yesterday:

Not all the surrender monkeys live in France.

Take Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean — the sedition-mongering former governor of Vermont who once presumed to the presidency and who now is working overtime for a terrorist victory in Iraq.

Once the Democratic Party was led by men of vision and courage — men like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry S Truman and John F. Kennedy. All were partisan pols to the core, but they knew the dangers of totalitarianism and reflexively rose above petty place-seeking to inspire America in times of peril.

Today, the party has Dean — as petty a place-seeker as can be found on the planet, and devoid of anything even approaching vision and courage.

“[The] idea that we’re going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong,” he said Monday. “Bring the 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops home immediately. They don’t belong in a conflict like this anyway.”

Dean doesn’t know what he’s talking about, on several levels.

The National Guard and Reserves have been an integral part of the Army’s “total force” for a generation — there’s no bringing them home without collapsing the entire effort in Iraq.

Such an outcome, of course, would be much to Dr. Dean’s liking — because, again, it “is just plain wrong” to think “we’re going to win the war in Iraq.”

(Dean, of course, has never even been to Iraq — in stark contrast to Sen. Joe Lieberman, who’s been there four times in the last 17 months, most recently at Thanksgiving. Lieberman spoke on the subject yesterday, and excerpts of his remarks can be found on the preceding page.)

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman quite properly castigated Dean’s defeatist attitude — terming his prediction “outrageous.”

It “sends the wrong message to our troops, the enemy and the Iraqi people just 10 days before historic elections.”

That’s one way to put it.

We would have preferred a little less varnish on Mehlman’s message.

For what Dean did was send an unambiguous message of encouragement to America’s mortal enemies both in Iraq and elsewhere around the world.

Hang tough, Dean was telling al Qaeda: You may not be able to defeat the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, but we’re doing your work for you right here at home.

For sure, Dean’s words will be rattling around the Mideast for days — courtesy of al-Jazeera.

“Give’ em Hell” Harry Truman, for one, must be spinning in his grave, to see his party in the hands of the spiritual heir to George McGovern.