Terry McAuliffe, his position as Democratic National Chairman a little more secure now that Governor Dean is out of the way, threatened the state of New Hampshire yesterday. He said that New Hampshire's status as the traditional first-in-the-nation primary state depended on how it voted in November. Of course for the Democrats the first primary state franchise is also a racial issue.
Michigan's Senator Carl Levin and Pennsylvania's Governor Ed Rendell played the race card when they noted that their states were more diverse than New Hampshire so their states deserved the first-in-the-nation primary state designation. It looks to me like New Hampshire is going to be out of luck in 2008 because McAuliffe has probably made a backroom deal with Michigan or Pennsylvania.
New Hampshire's four electoral votes went to President Bush in 2000. With those votes Gore would have won the election. Without Ralph Nader on the ballot Gore would have probably won New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes.
The Daily Kos blog is having a contest to see who can guess how the Democratic Primary is going to end up.
Go on over and participate. There is a prize!!!
Having read the Tawana Brawley Story I have little respect for Reverend Al. Most people, however, have never heard of Tawana Brawley. If they watched the New Hampshire debates last night they could have seen for themselves why this man should never be elected to any responsible office let alone the Presidency. Andrew Sullivan writes about it this way:
"But I have to say Jennings' question to Al Sharpton about whom he'd appoint to the Federal Reserve was inspired. Sharpton flailed in ways you rarely see a politician flail. It was a remarkable, rhetorical stiletto wound. And oh so gentle."
The good Reverend was not wounded by Jennings but by himself during this sad exchange.
SHARPTON: I think, first of all, we must have a person at the Monetary Fund that is concerned about growth of all, not setting standards that would, in my judgment, protect some and not elevate those that cannot, in my view, expand and come to the levels of development and the levels of where we need to be.
I think part of my problem with how we're operating at this point is that the IMF and the policies that are emanating there do not lead to the expansion that is necessary for our country and our global village to rise to levels that underdeveloped countries and those businesses in this country can have the development policies necessary.
JENNINGS: Forgive me, Reverend Sharpton, but the question was actually about the Federal Reserve Board.
SHARPTON: I thought you said IMF, I'm sorry.
JENNINGS: No, I'm sorry, sir. And what you'd be looking for in a chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.
SHARPTON: Oh, in the Federal Reserve Board, I would be looking for someone that would set standards in this country, in terms of our banking, our -- in how government regulates the Federal Reserve as we see it under Greenspan, that we would not be protecting the big businesses; we would not be protecting banking interests in a way that would not, in my judgment, lead toward mass employment, mass development and mass production.
I think that -- would I replace Greenspan, probably. Do I have a name? No.
I would have immediately dropped out of the campaign if I had answered a question in that manner.
If General Clark cannot confront people like Michael Moore how can we expect him as president to stand up to anyone? Michael Moore, a fat, unkept slob of a film maker, called President Bush a deserter in public in General Clark's presence. General Clark, a military veteran with over 30 years service, should known the definition of a deserter well enough to politely tell Michael Moore that his comment was way out of line. But he didn't, then in the New Hampshire debate last night when Peter Jennings asked him why he didn't. General Clark nervously waffled and embarassingly muttered something about free speech and not knowing the facts. Then he says this: " -- he's not the only person who's said that." virtually endorsing Michael Moore's statement. Incredible. The man is obviously afraid of Michael Moore. No wonder he (was) retired from the army.
Here is the exchange from the debate last night:
"HUME: Peter, you're next.
JENNINGS: I get General Clark and Senator Edwards this time.
General Clark, a lot of people say they don't you well, so this is really a simple question about knowing a man by his friends. The other day you had a rally here, and one of the men who stood up to endorse you is the controversial filmmaker Michael Moore. You said you were delighted with him.
At one point, Mr. Moore said, in front of you, that President Bush -- he's saying he'd like to see you, the general, and President Bush, who he called a "deserter."
Now, that's a reckless charge not supported by the facts. And I was curious to know why you didn't contradict him, and whether or not you think it would've been a better example of ethical behavior to have done so.
CLARK: Well, I think Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this.
CLARK: I don't know whether this is supported by the facts or not. I've never looked at it. I've seen this charge bandied about a lot.
But to me it wasn't material. This election is going to be about the future, Peter. And what we have to do is pull this country together. And I am delighted to have the support of a man like Michael Moore, of a great American leader like Senator George McGovern, and of people from Texas like Charlie Stenholm and former Secretary of the Navy John Dalton.
We've got support from across the breadth of the Democratic Party, because I believe this party is united in wanting to change the leadership in Washington. We're going to run an election campaign that's about the future. We're going to hold the president accountable for what he did in office and failed to do, and we're going to compare who's got the best vision for America.
JENNINGS: Let me ask you something you mentioned, then, because since this question and answer in which you and Mr. Moore was involved in, you've had a chance to look at the facts.
Do you still feel comfortable with the fact that someone should be standing up in your presence and calling the president of the United States a deserter?
CLARK: To be honest with you, I did not look at the facts, Peter. You know, that's Michael Moore's opinion. He's entitled to say that. I've seen -- he's not the only person who's said that. I've not followed up on those facts. And frankly, it's not relevant to me and why I'm in this campaign.
JENNINGS: OK, thank you, sir. "
I would have liked to see a shot of Jenning's face at that moment. And I bet Senator George McGovern, Charlie Stenholm and former Secretary of the Navy John Dalton just loved being included in the same sentence as Michael Moore.
Update: Discussion of President Bush's military service here on FactCheck.
In an effort to reaffirm the left's obsession with Hilter, MoveOn, an organization that claims to be a grass roots organization that aims to bring people back into the democratic process, recognized another Bush-is-Hitler ad as one of the best ads in its recent contest. Wide spread protests led to the ad's removal from the list of finalists. Here is the script for the ad:
Script 1: GRAPHIC: Nazi Flags In A Parade GRAPHIC: Hitler HITLER: (Speaking In German) CHYRON: A NATION WARPED BY LIES GRAPHIC: German Troops Marching GRAPHIC: Hitler In Car In Parade GRAPHIC: German Troops Marching CHYRON: LIES FUEL FEAR GRAPHIC: German Tanks CHYRON: FEAR FUELS AGGRESSION GRAPHIC: German Artillery Firing GRAPHIC: German Planes Dropping Bombs GRAPHIC: German Tanks Firing CHYRON: INVASION GRAPHIC: German Tanks Rolling Down Street CHYRON: OCCUPATION GRAPHIC: Hitler With Hand Raised BACKGROUND: Sig Heil! Sig Heil! CHYRON: WHAT WERE WAR CRIMES IN 1945 GRAPHIC: President Bush With Hand Raised At Inauguration BACKGROUND: Sig Heil! Sig Heil! CHYRON: IS FOREIGN POLICY IN 2003 CHYRON: SPONSORED BY MOVEON.ORG
From the Drudge Report:
Jack Rosen, president of the American Jewish Congress, writes in Monday's WALL STREET JOURNAL: "MoveOn.org informed potential ad makers that 'we're not going to post anything that would be inappropriate for television.' Two of the ads posted on the group's Web site compared Adolf Hitler to George W. Bush. One ad morphed an image of Hitler into President Bush and says that, '1945's war crimes' are '2003's foreign policy.'" Rosen says MoveOn.org is "using the memory of that genocide as a political prop. Their comparison diminishes the reality of what happened, and their actions cheapen the memory of a horrific crime. It also does a terrible disservice to this country at a perilous time, when we need to examine the dangers we face with clarity and purpose." Leadership is "about confronting threats to freedom everywhere. President Bush has shown that leadership in Iraq, and our troops have liberated a people who were oppressed by another murderous dictator. MoveOn.org compares this liberation to the Holocaust. It deploys a picture of Hitler to vilify President Bush. Comparing the commander-in-chief of a democratic nation to the murderous tyrant Hitler is not only historically specious, it is morally outrageous. Comparing an American president, any American president, to Hitler is an outrage. The MoveOn.org ad was inexcusable. Political figures such as Al Gore, who have associated themselves with MoveOn.org, have a special responsibility to condemn these ads; donors to the group such as George Soros have the same responsibility. They owe it not just to the memory of the millions who died in the Holocaust. They owe it also as a simple matter of decency."
It is obvious that MoveOn.Org is not what it purports to be. It is nothing but another Bash Bush organization hiding behind the guise of being a bipartisan grassroots organization with noble, worthwhile ideals. The Bush-Hitler ads MoveOn, with the help of its panel of anti-war/anti-bush people, are just an example of the type of vicious, divisive propaganda that this organization is preparing for the election. The organization receives major monetary support from George Soros who is giving millions of dollars to Democratic causes like MoveOn.Org to try to defeat President Bush's reelection bid.
Kevin Drum while praising to the high heavens Wes Clark's tax plan shows how liberals typically regard other people's money:
The super rich have seen their pay increase by over 5x in the past couple of decades while their marginal tax rates have decreased by about 50%. Surely someone whose income has gone up from $1 million to $5 million can afford to give back a bit of that? This is a case we ought to be able to make.
"Give back"? Cutting someone's tax cut doesn't "give" them anything. They are getting to keep what was already theirs. Liberals regard your money as the government's so when the government "gives" it back to you by reducing your rate rate you should be puckering up and giving them a big wet kiss.
And the super rich were not the only ones to have seen their pay increase. In the past 20 years, my pay increased 4x. I am hardly among the super rich. Class warfare is alive and kicking. The Clark plan is just another battle in the war. The weathiest 1% among us, a term Al Gore must have whiningly said 5 million times, pay the bulk of income taxes now. The 'innovative' Clark plan will force them to pay it all. Pandering politics at its best. Divisive and unfair. That doesn't matter though does it? Liberals lap up class warfare crap like this.
This plan is what is considered fair by people like Clark. One group pays for everything. I would bet that if he took me to dinner every night and I insisted that he always pay for it because he made more money than I did, I would soon hear him ask me if that was fair.