Thursday,
February 10 2005
ELECTION NEWS & NOTES: Another afternoon edition
of news & notes:
- Al
Franken will not run to replace Mark Dayton in the United
States Senate. Too bad. Potential DFL candidates include activist
Buck Humphrey (grandson of Hubert), Minneapolis lawyer Mike
Ciresi, Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson, state Senator Steve
Kelley, former Congressman Bill Luther, Hennepin County Attorney
Amy Klobuchar, and former public development official Rebecca
Yanisch. Possible GOP candidates include former U.S. Sen Rod
Grams, U.S. Reps. Mark Kennedy and Gil Gutknecht, and Secretary
of State Mary Kiffmeyer.
-
Rep.
Jim Davis announced he will run for Governor of Florida
in 2006. Other Democrats likely to seek the nomination include
Lawton "Bud" Chiles, state Democratic Party chairman
Scott Maddox, and former state education commissioner Betty
Castor. Possible Republican candidates include Lt. Gov. Toni
Jennings, Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist and Florida
Chief Financial Officer Tom Gallagher.
- A
new
Quinnipiac poll confirms Hillary is in good shape to win
reelection, clearing the way for a 2008 bid for the Presidency.
Overall, New Yorkers are split (46-48) on whether Hillary should
run for President, though nearly 7 in 10 Democrats support the
idea.
- Speaking
of Hillary in '08, USA
Today/CNN/Gallup is out with a new poll showing 40% of Democrats
favor Hillary to be the nominee. John Kerry came in 2nd with
25% and John Edwards 3rd at 17%.
For
Republicans, the results were as follows: Rudy Giuliani 34%,
John McCain, 29%; Jeb Bush, 12%, Bill Frist of Tennessee, 6%.
- On
a related note, Quinnipiac
released a new poll today showing NY Governor George Pataki
with his lowest approval rating ever (34%). Even though 8 in
10 New Yorkers don't think Pataki should run for President in
2008, 45% say he is either "very likely" or "somewhat
likely" to win the nomination. Go figure.
-
T. Bevan 4:40 pm Link | Email
| Send
to a Friend
Wednesday,
February 9 2005
CHECHEN NUKE?: Let's
hope Moscow is right about this one:
"Officials
in Moscow scoff at claims Chechen gunmen have a nuclear device
to launch a terror attack. Russia’s foreign ministry rubbished
the theory on Tuesday dismissing allegations by Boris Berezovsky,
Russian billionaire in self-imposed London exile, that rebels
in the Caucasus have such weaponry."
For
those of you who missed it, Steve
Coll touched on a related subject in Washington Post on Sunday:
At
a conference on the future of al Qaeda sponsored by Los Alamos
National Laboratory last month, I posed a dark question to 60
or so nuclear weapons scientists and specialists on terrorism
and radical Islam: How many of them believed that the probability
of a nuclear fission bomb attack on U.S. soil during the next
several decades was negligible -- say, less than 5 percent?
At
issue was the Big One -- a Hiroshima-or-larger explosion that
could claim hundreds of thousands of American lives, as opposed
to an easier-to-mount but less lethal radiological attack. Amid
somber silence, three or four meek, iconoclastic hands went
up.
The
reality of the world we now live in is grim and deadly serious.
Those who don't think so, or who believe the threat of nuclear
terrorism is being exaggerrated by the Bush administration to
manipulate the public are worse than naive - they're flat out
dangerous.
FAITHFUL
BUT UNSTABLE: "These are despicable lies. These
are falsehoods," Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley said yesterday.
He was referring to
rumors circulated by a spokesman for the Maryland Insurance
Administration that O'Malley had cheated on his wife, but the
Mayor could just as easily have been referencing his
insane comment yesterday comparing President Bush's budget
to the attacks of September 11:
"Back
on September 11, terrorists attacked our metropolitan cores,
two of America's great cities. They did that because they knew
that was where they could do the most damage and weaken us the
most," O'Malley said. "Years later, we are given a
budget proposal by our commander in chief, the president of
the United States. And with a budget ax, he is attacking America's
cities. He is attacking our metropolitan core."
Those
present appeared to be a bit stunned by the comparison. Afterward,
one reporter asked O'Malley to explain his "inflammatory
rhetoric." D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams (D), who also
serves as president of the National League of Cities, said he
disagreed with "the harsh language that was used,"
though he declined to criticize O'Malley directly. Montgomery
County Executive Douglas M. Duncan (D) said O'Malley's remarks
"went way too far."
Jim
Geraghty points out this is the second time in less than a
year that O'Malley's mouth has gotten him into trouble on the
subject. Not the kind of behavior that inspires confidence, especially
coming from someone who wants to the be the chief executive of
the state of Maryland. - T. Bevan 1:40 pm Link
| Email | Send
to a Friend
Tuesday,
February 8 2005
HILLARY'S DUAL TRACK & 2008: It doesn't look as if
Hillary Clinton's recent
moves to the middle positioning herself for a Presidential
bid in 2008 is bothering New York Democrats very much. A new
Siena College poll (taken from January 31 - February 3) released
yesterday shows Clinton in a strong position to win reelection
in 2006. Her approval rating stands at 61%. In hypothetical match-ups
she crushes George Pataki (58-32) and easily beats Rudy Giluliani
(52-43).
If
Clinton does win reelection in 2006 (which she will barring some
unforeseen scandal) she will be the heavy favorite to be the Democrats'
nominee in 2008. That's not going to make for a very exciting
primary. On the other hand, if you thought this year's Presidential
race was divisive, wait until you see the polarization Hillary
creates in the general election. It will be more than worth the
price of admission.
So
it looks like most of the primary excitement will have to come
from the Republicans. Vice President Cheney
reiterated again this weekend that he will not run in '08.
There is still a chance Cheney will step aside (for health reasons,
of course) in mid-to-late 2006, giving Bush the opportunity to
choose an heir and create a nominal frontrunner for the nomination.
Either way, the fight for the GOP brass ring is going to be crowded
and contentious, with a number of suprises along the way.
- T.
Bevan 3:25 pm
Monday,
February 7 2005
ELECTION NEWS & NOTES: Republicans Bret Schundler
and Doug Forrester are tied with 22% each in the
latest poll on the New Jersey governor's race from the Star Ledger.
Forty one percent of GOP voters remain undecided. Both trail Democratic
hopeful Senator Jon Corzine by large margins.
In
Michigan, Republican Oakland County Sheriff Michael
Bouchard will challenge Democrat Debbie Stabenow for the U.S.
Senate. In general, Republicans
are cautiously optimistic about their chances in this race
as well as the gubernatorial contest.
In
Washington, Judge
John E. Bridges ruled on Friday that the Republican challenge
to the recent governor's election can continue.
In
Georgia, everyone
is waiting to see whether Ralph Reed is going to step up and
run for Lt. Governor in 2006. Some have already speculated
as to what it may mean.
In
Minnesota, Mike
Erlandson won't seek another term as the DFL party chairman.
At
the national level, the race for DNC chair is officially over
as Tim
Roemer dropped out today leaving Howard Dean all alone. Members
vote this weekend.
Last
but not least, we can report
one other piece of important political news occurring today.
- T. Bevan 3:45pm
TED
KENNEDY, FREEDOM FIGHTER: Ted
Kennedy was so excited about the first democratic elections in
Iraq in more than a half century he decided to try and undermine
them by giving a highly
publicized defeatist rant at Johns’ Hopkins School of
Advanced International Studies on January 27. Three days later
Kennedy's office put out this
wildly enthusiastic one paragraph statement saying the Senator
thought the Iraqi elections were "a good first step"
but "not a cure" and urging President Bush to hurry
up and "look beyond" the vote.
Given
that we've seen two other remarkable cases of democracy blossoming
around the world in the last six months, I wondered if Senator
Kennedy had greeted the historic events in Afghanistan and the
Ukraine with the same passion and enthusiasm with which he handled
Iraq. The answer, not surprisingly, is "yes."
On
October 8 of last year, one day before Afghans went to the polls,
Kennedy delivered this
statement on the floor of the United States Senate:
Afghanistan
still faces fundamental threats to the casting of ballots on
Saturday, let alone its long-term stability and prosperity.
Elections are vitally important to the process of rebuilding
a free country, but they are not a panacea for the myriad problems
that face the people in Afghanistan.
Sounds
pretty familiar. This time, however, it looks as if Senator Kennedy
didn't bother with congratulating the people of Afghanistan on
their historic achievement. Kennedy's
web site shows that he did find time to issue three statements
that weekend (October 9-10), but praising democracy in Afghanistan
wasn't among them. Nor does a Lexis-Nexis search for the month
of October turn up any trace of Senator Kennedy saying a single
thing (either positive or negative) about the Afghan elections.
It's as if they never happened.
But
surely the good Senator had something positive to say about Ukraine,
right? After all, the Orange Revolution was untainted by Bush's
hated militarism/imperialism/unilateralism and came off without
a shot being fired. Liberals (and conservatives) everywhere praised
the peaceful manner in which democracy triumphed in Ukraine.
Not
Kennedy. Starting with the time of the initial, fraudulent vote
in Ukraine (November 21) through the revote (December 26) through
the day Yuschenko was sworn in (January 23) I can't find a single
word uttered by Senator Kennedy on the matter. Nothing on Google,
nothing in Lexis-Nexis. Nothing on his web site and nothing in
the Congressional Record. If Kennedy has said something - anything
- about the historic events in Ukraine I can't find it.
Kennedy's indifference to the spread of freedom and his belief
that elections are quaint but not really important events are
two more reasons the Democrats are in real and mortal danger by
letting this man continue to be the face and voice of their party.
CAN'T
KILL THIS BILL: Richard
Benedetto shows that it's almost impossible to kill government
spending programs:
Bush
proposed eliminating 65 programs last year. All but one, a $14
million grant program for developing new information technologies,
survived. Most got a little less money than the year before;
a few got more.
This
year, Bush's budget targets 150 government programs to be either
eliminated or drastically reduced. Mike
Allen and Peter Baker report in this morning's Washington
Post that the early reaction from the Hill is predictable:
Some
congressional officials pronounced many of the proposed cuts
dead on arrival. One lawmaker involved in the negotiations said
that House and Senate leaders have told the White House that
no more than two dozen of the 150 proposals are likely to be
accepted, although Congress might agree to reductions in some
programs targeted for elimination.
Republicans
in the House and Senate need to assert their leadership and get
rid of as many useless spending programs as they can. Democrats
have complained for quite a while now that we're never asked to
make any sacrifices even though we're a nation at war. Now's our
chance. - T. Bevan 12:40 pm Link
| Email | Send
to a Friend
