Here's one key part of the statement from Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's response the other night:
During Katrina, I visited Sheriff Harry Lee, a Democrat and a good friend of mine. When I walked into his makeshift office I'd never seen him so angry.
TPM goes after both his office's (multiple) response(s) to questions about whether he was there, which are reported by Ben Smith at Politico, as well as Smith's reporting of their responses.
Short version, Jindal's office essentially confirms that he wasn't exactly there at the time while eventually maintaining that it is still consistent with the story he told. I point to the highlighted section, which pretty explicitly states "During Katrina." Not "Shortly after Katrina." Smith gets ripped into for offering their analysis (that's it's just fine) without further commentary and letting it stand.
The level of stupid amongst Republican "leaders" has seemingly been permanently raised a few notches since August 29, 2008. That's the day Sarah Palin was introduced by John McCain as his running mate, for those who don't recall.
The only hope for the Republican's may be that Constitutional Amendment that allows Arnold Schwarzenegger to run. Of course, he might have a hard time picking up California for them at this point, but still. ;)
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.
George Will has long be a columnist I trusted to use proper data and facts. I have long disagreed with many of his inferences from said facts but rarely have I questioned the underlying data. I am not going to go into too much detail on this post. I covered most of the points in this post which criticized his first "global cooling" column.
He has now written a second column decrying the attacks on this first column. My own critique of the new column will center on a longstanding hatred of picking apart quotations to prove your point.
Concerning those predictions, the New York Times was -- as it is today in a contrary crusade -- a megaphone for the alarmed, as when (May 21, 1975) it reported that "a major cooling of the climate" was "widely considered inevitable" because it was "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."
I realize column inches are valuable things in a newspaper but his use of this article was something I had previously questioned. They were from an article (as opposed to an opinion column) by Walter Sullivan. It is clear that Sullivan wrote the article using quotes from both cooling and warming advocates. Nevertheless, Mr. Will simply recycles his previous "chopped up" use of the quote and moves on as if it is immutable fact whose use hasn't been questioned by myself or others.
The controversy more specifically centers on two other claims, only one of which Mr. Will acknowledges. His use of the data from a respected climate research center at the University of Illinois and claiming that "according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade." He claims the the University of Illinois data is the only point of controversy.
In both cases the "inferences" and assertions made by Will have been disputed. U of I has actually said that it's conclusions were misinterpreted. The U.N. Data is used improperly as well as explained here. Will actually tries to make the argument that his interpretation of their own data is more accurate than their own. This, despite the fact that they don't dispute the data, only how it was interpreted. Sheesh. George Will, Climatologist.
Good posts on this subject are here at TPM and here by Chris Mooney.
There are ideas I hold dear, too. One of them is that Sarah Palin is unfit for any national office. Nevertheless, the amount of things I didn't write about last fall far outweighed that which I did write about. I wasn't going to perpetuate all of that nasty, unsubstantiated crap. Of course, there was enough nasty, substantiated crap, so that made it somewhat easier. Is it really this important to them to believe that they aren't the cause of the end of civilization? (At least before they themselves die.)
As a result of all of this it is obvious that it will now take more time to read George Will's columns. The reason is that I can no longer rely on the accuracy of the underlying facts and data he uses for his arguments. Welcome to the new age of journalism.
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.
For those who haven't heard, today the Rocky Mountain News published it's final edition, 55 days short of it's 150th anniversary. If you have twenty minutes to spare, watch this video documenting the last month of life of this great paper from the announcement that Scripps was going to spend a month trying to find a buyer through yesterday:
After 149 years and 311 days, the Rocky Mountain News published its final edition on February 27, 2009.
Somehow, someway someone needs to come up with a business model that keeps these great papers in business. The loss of local coverage is horrendus every time one of these papers shutters. Best wishes to the staff of the Rocky. We all hope you'll land on your feet.
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.
I haven't been speaking much of foreign affairs outside of Iraq in the past year but I cannot let the death of Ivan Cameron pass without comment. Ivan was the the six year old son of British Conservative Party Leader David Cameron and his wife Samantha.
Ivan suffered from severe progressive neurological conditions including epilepsy and cerebral palsy. Mr. and Mrs. Cameron have allowed the press into their family's home quite a bit since he became leader of the Conservative Party. That, despite some early criticism, has served to educate Britons about Ivan, the conditions Ivan suffered from, what it takes to for parents to raise a child with such needs and the man who wants someday to lead Great Britain.
Children with Ivan's condition rarely survive childhood but Ivan's sudden death on Thursday morning still came as a shock to the Camerons as well as all of Great Britain.
We can only offer the Camerons our condolences and prayers in this time of need.
Though rivals, I think it was rather classy of Prime Minister Gordon Brown to cancel Prime Minister's Questions yesterday in light of this tradgedy. He has himself lost a child so he, no doubt, understands better what the Camerons are going through than some of us can. Here are his words in Parliament yesterday:
Rest in peace, Little Ivan.
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.
Senator Charles Schumer today came out firing at Governor Bobby Jindal, et al. over the idea of rejecting only part of the stimulus money for their states. Specifically, what our dear potential Republican 2012 nominee wants to reject, is an expansion of unemployment benefits to certain part-time workers who get laid off.
It amounts to a little more than 1% of what the State of Louisiana is slated to get from the stimulus. His 'problem': That the effect isn't temporary. In other words when the government stimulus money runs out his state will still have to cover this expanded pool of workers without extra money from the government. Solution (for him): Don't expand it in the first place. Screw 'em.
Today Senator Chuck's office released a letter he sent to Peter Orszag, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. It essentially says that the Governor's of the states have no such option to decline portions of the stimulus package. They must either accept or reject it in full.
Video:
Now I like Chuck. I grew up in the tri-state area of NYC and followed his career in the House and marvelled at his defeat of Senator Pothole (Al D'Amato). But this is playing with fire. It could play right into the Republican's hands.
The Republican's spent a good deal of the 80's and early 90's trying to bash the Democratic Congresses upside the head because of "unfunded mandates." It's one of the things that helped them make inroads in the south as well as they did. Hell, I don't really like "unfunded mandates". That is exactly how Bobby and the boys and girls (I see ya Sarah!) are gonna play this.
Up until here, it's been all about the idiocy of a Governor, who may possibly want the presidency in 2012, trying to make political points with his base by refusing to accept about 1% of the stimulus package slated for his state. Now, it may well become how the big spending Democrats in Washington are trying to force the states to spend more not only now, but in the future.
That's not really a message we want playing on the nightly news. The one about the Governor who wants to reject a measly 1% of his states stimulus package that will go to the poorest of his constituents; that's the message we want. The one that makes him look like a self serving, grandstanding meany; that's the one we want.
We do not want to make him the poster boy for how the state's are getting screwed by the Federal government ramming spending requirements down their throats without ongoing funding for those requirements.
In other words, you just made his message more relevant Chuck. Congratulations.
President Obama, presumably, is going to stay way the heck out of the way on this one. Listening to him yesterday speaking to the National Governor's Association, he sounded like he didn't want to hear any crap about rejecting the package by states when their constituents need the money. He was sympathetic to the idea that there might be some things in there that some governors didn't want. In other words, exactly the opposite message Chuck is giving. (Hey Chuck, it was on C-Span. Guess you didn't catch it.)
Now, there are apparently avenues for governors to explore, for example: having legislatures pass legislation that automatically contracts the unemployment pool back to normal when the federal funding runs out. Sensible answers.
We may not hear them now because there is a s#!t storm brewing about this now. Now it becomes a pissing contest. Our only hope is that, when President Obama does weigh in, he does so in a way that makes the combatants look like fools for starting the pissing contest to begin with. If that means Sen. Chuck Schumer gets egg on his face along with Gov. Jindal, so be it.
It could have been just this stuff:
The words that would stick there are, "Let's be honest about it, they'd probably be stupid not to take it.." That's what everybody would have heard. On every interview. Not the justification that follows from Sen. Orrin Hatch. The "they'd proably be stupid" part. Now, we may lose that.
I don't think this was a well thought out play. Sorry Chuck.
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.
A week or so ago, Utah's Republican Governor Jon Huntsman surprised and shocked people by announcing his support of civil unions. No reason he had to. Just did. In a state that opposes that idea 70-30%.
Now, at the time the speculation was that he was positioning himself nationally. He has no intention of running for a third term as Governor of Utah. He is considered a contender for the Republican nomination. But open support of civil unions? Wow.
Now, he has come out, in an interview in the Washington Times, and called the Republican congressional leadership "inconsequential."
"I have not met them. I don't listen or read whatever it is they say because it is inconsequential - completely."
Now if that isn't a shot across the bow I don't know what is. Just dismissing Sen. Mitch McConnell and Rep. John Boehner out of hand? Whoa! Wonder how he feels about Michael Steele? The Washington Times also posted video of the interview:
Now that is one scary guy. I don't mean George W. Bush, Vice President Dark Lord or Sarah Palin scary. I mean, if he were to be nominated, he might actually attract votes kind of scary. Imagine, a Republican that wants to have a results oriented message for the voters. A Republican who wants to identify and fulfill the needs of the voters. It's terrifying!
Fortunately for us, I don't think it's going to happen. In 2012, at least. The way things are playing out thus far, it still appears that the Republican Party hasn't fallen far enough to understand that it's the right wing nutjobbies that are the problem with their brand, not the solution. Thus, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal grandstanding about how he will reject about 2% of the stimulus package coming his state's way. Exactly the sort of empty rhetoric Huntsman talks about in his interview. But it's what the "right" wants at the moment.
Huntsman will position himself as the leader of the party if he plays his cards right but not until after 2012. I fully expect the GOP to fall flat on it's collective face in it's rush to the right in both 2010 and 2012. They'll blame 2010 on Obama's popularity and how lucky he was that the recession is starting to lift. It will take a Jindal, Tim Pawlenty or Sarah Palin running on a hard right platform and losing badly in 2012 for them to finally start dismissing the idea that they aren't "right" enough.
In other words, I expect 2012 to be kind of like Ford/Reagan in 1976 but in reverse. Oops! We went too far to the right!
If they're smart, they'll learn the lesson sooner and maybe Huntsman will have a real shot in 2012. He resembles, in some ways, the John McCain I might have voted for in 2000 without the 'maverick'. (Although the civil union thing belies that.) That is worrisome to those who want a Dem in the Oval Office. I don't think the Republicans will be smart enough to do it in 2012 but 2016? He's obviously drawing a line in the sand with Jindal. (And not the wishy washy Mitt Romney kind either.)
While I would generally much prefer a Democrat to a Republican in the White House, I could live with what I've seen so far of this Republican. Therein lies the danger. I have seen plenty of political blowups and flameouts in presidential races in just the last 3 years. So who knows what may be 3 or so years down the road? But if this guy is still hanging around at that point, I think it would be best if President Obama kept his eyes open to this Governor if he wants to get a second term.
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.
Despite what Alan Keyes would have you believe and despite what Senator Richard Shelby (R-formerly D-AL) might have you infer, President Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.
Factcheck has all the information right here. They even have a copy of his birth announcement.
This is enough for me. If any U.S. Congressman or Senator had an objection to his eligibility, it should have been made when the electoral votes were opened by Dick Cheney in the Senate last month. Seeing as not even the blowhardiest of the blowhards did this, I don't see why any of them would cast aspersions upon the Presidents' birthplace now.
As far as the argument that Andrew Sullivan makes, that that President Obama should "give the press every conceivable piece of evidence at his disposal to clear up even paranoid conspiracy theories about his birth and eligibility to be president." First, I think he's given more than enough. Second, we are chasing rainbows if you seriously think we are going to change the minds of the conspiracy theorists. They will bend whatever truths are thrown at them to fit their own dearly held beliefs. It is best, having proven a position and debunked theirs, to leave them to their frustration.
I hope that this is the last I speak of this. If we get "live time machine coverage" of the birth of Barack Hussein Obama, conspiracy theorists will still claim he was born somewhere outside of the United States. Those who have the time to waste engaging their circular arguments, well, good for you. Otherwise, we have a great many more matters deserving of our time. Let's focus on those matters.
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.
Some of you, perhaps, remember Sen. Jim Bunning's (D-KY) last campaign in 2004 against Dan Mongiardo. It was full of more missteps than a drunk at a Yosemite geyser field.
He said Mongiardo looked "like one of Saddam Hussein's sons."
He was criticized for use of a teleprompter during a televised debate in which he appeared via satellite from RNC headquarters rather than in person.
He even told a reporter, ""Let me explain something: I don't watch the national news, and I don't read the paper. I haven't done that for the last six weeks. I watch Fox News to get my information."
Fox News is his only source? What? The regular news part or does he just watch Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity?
There's more, but you get the idea. For those reasons (and the worry it might get worse in 2010), and the fact that he is a horrible fundraiser who only has $150,000 in his reelection warchest, the RNSC has allegedly been hoping that he retires.
Fat chance. He has repeatedly said he would run for reelection and it now appears he has started his campaign. By being overly happy about his own prognosis of the condition of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
During a wide-ranging 30-minute speech on Saturday at the Hardin County Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner, Bunning said he supports conservative judges "and that's going to be in place very shortly because Ruth Bader Ginsburg … has cancer."
"Bad cancer. The kind that you don't get better from," he told a crowd of about 100 at the old State Theater.
"Even though she was operated on, usually, nine months is the longest that anybody would live after (being diagnosed) with pancreatic cancer," he said.
Now, if you are going to say something along those lines, that's the type of thing most people would be expected to be said in a small private setting. Not a public speech. Not having the full quote from the start, courtesy of the newspaper, one can only speculate on the context of that first sentence. It sounds far too much like he's happy about the situation though.
As much as Jim Bunning hates Ruth Bader Ginsberg, I can guarantee you I hate Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas at least as much. Nevertheless, I would not be hoping for them to die soon. (I wouldn't mind at all if they were to retire, but that is something that neither seems to be close to.)
We'll see if the Democratic nominee is again Dan Mongiardo, now the Lt. Gov. He holds some positions I am not really comfortable with. Regardless of who the opponent is, it would likely behoove the Republicans to either talk Bunning down from standing for reelection, or finding a credible person to challenge him. If he's starting this stuff this early, it should be quite a show a year from now. If this is the start of Bunning campaigning, the Senate GOP better be happy with their ability to filibuster this sessions because it isn't going to be there in the next Congress.
Needless to say, I believe that Senator Bunning owes Justice Ginsberg an apology, at the least for so flippantly, and politically, discussing so serious health matter of a Justice of the Supreme Court. I doubt it will be forthcoming.
Meanwhile, let me take a moment to wish Justice Ginsberg well in her battle with cancer. The prognosis is much better than the Senator made it out to be, although with pancreatic cancer that can be a very relative statement. Here is hoping that she gets better and serves as long as she wants to on the Supreme Court.
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.
Here's one key part of the statement from Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's response the other night:
