Early Results

In New Hampshire, there are these two small towns that have the quaint custom of conducting their voting at midnight, so that their small vote totals have some national media attention. Well, here's some attention to the results from Dixville Notch and Hart's Location (combined):

GOP
McCain 10 (43.4%)
Huckabee 5 (21.7%)
Paul 4 (17.4%)
Romney 3 (13.0%)
Giuliani 1 (4.3%)

Dem
Obama 16 (69.6%)
Clinton 3 (13.0%)
Edwards 3 (13.0%)
Richardson 1 (4.3%)

FWIW...

Rocket Man

(crossposted to the Scoreheads group)

So, Roger Clemens filed suit against his alleged steroid injector.Frankly, I'm amazed.The case was filed in Texas state court, and I admit to knowing NOTHING about Texas civil procedure. However, I'm assuming they have a rule similar to the federal one where, prior to discovery, in a motion to dismiss, the court assumes that everything the plaintiff alleges is true. If those allegations state a claim, the case proceeds, and goes into discovery.THAT is where things get interesting.

Discovery involves production of documents, interrogatories (written questions) and depositions (interviews with a court reporter present), both under oath. While there are limits of course, the scope of questions that can be asked in discovery is far more broad than what could be asked/introduced at trial. I am somewhat stunned that Clemens is willing to go under oath for such a far-reaching inquiry, when many stones can be turned over (He may also try to "out-lawyer" him, given that Clemens has millions and a trainer--doesn't.)

Substantively, under Supreme Court precedent, Clemens as a public figure has to prove "actual malice." For ordinary folks like us, we can sue just for falsity, even if the defendant had thoroughly researched the matter and made a mistake. For public figures, to promote open discussion under the 1st Amendment, they have to show actual knowledge of the falsity or a "reckless disregard" for the truth.

It will be interesting!

It's the end of the (Clinton) world as we know it...

SO--

Did either/or Iowa or what happens tomorrow end the "Clinton era?"

When the wingnuts turn on themselves

It's awfully fun to watch...

So, tonight the GOP is having another debate in New Hampshire, this time on the right wing propaganda network known as Fox News. For this debate, despite polling ahead of some of his competitors (including Hollywood Fred), Ron Paul has been put on the sidelines, and his supporters are fighting mad. Check out these posts on a story at FoxNews's website about the debate:

"I have been an avid supporter and fan of Fox News. If Fox News is to be Fair and Balanced then why have I heard that Ron Paul has been excluded from the NH roundtable discussion. I am interested in hearing his repsonses in comparison to the other candidates.
You report, We Decide!!"

"I will not be watching since this will be a farce. I will no longer be watching any fox news programs as fox has showed they can not be trusted with honest news. Ron Paul should be in the forum!"

"Fox,

You don’t know how dissapointed many, many of your fans are for your exclusion of Paul and Hunter from Sunday’s debate.
You have left us looking for your replacement in the “fair and balanced” arena.

Shad Hutnyak
Spring Creek, Nevada"

"FOX NEWS CHANNEL IS NOW OFF MY WATCHING LIST..UNFAIR AND UNBALANCED. HOPE THEIR RATINGS GO IN THE TANK."

Ahhh, blessed Schadenfreude.

Always a bridesmaid...

I heard an interesting rumor tonight, via . He posited that Edwards is trying to cast this as a two-person race (Obama-Edwards), and then said something surprising. The rumor is that Edwards might consider a veep run, round 2, with Obama.

When you think about it, it makes some sense. Edwards is still a young guy politically speaking, and could easily run on his own after being vice-president. However, if he doesn't, and doesn't get the nomination, his political career is practically over (approaching Harold Stassen territory then.)

Intriguing...thoughts?

Back from Nawlins

Great city to visit - bring an appetite, money, and your walking shoes. Oh, and some willingness to ignore the idiots (like the woman working at the World War II museum - great museum, btw - who was ranting about how Bill Clinton sold the national soul to the Chinese after he fooled around with Monica).

Thoughts:

1) I cannot say I'm saddened by Obama's performance Thursday night and the resulting Obamania surge in New Hampshire. As I said, I like Edwards a bit more, but I do really like Obama, and he's not Hillary.

2) I find it absurd that Hillary is touting her "35 years" of experience. She hasn't been in politics anywhere near that long - that dates back to her graduating law school. Essentially all that says is that she's older than Obama, who was 11 years old 35 years ago. Big whoop.

3) Schmidlap pointed out that Hillary had a big lead in the InTrade trading a few days ago. The worm has now turned, with Hillary at 38.0 to win (down from 75 in October and 69 on Jan 1) and Obama at 61.0 to win (up from about 21 on Jan 1). I have no idea what any of that means.

4) There has been a back-and-forth on the whole "hope" thing that Obama has been doing, with Hillary's supporters essentially treating it as wishful thinking. Obama, I think, has defended the idea pretty well, and it's what seems to be catching people's attention - working for something better, and people seem to be inspired by it. If he can continue to attract young voters the way he did in Iowa, that would be huge not just for his campaign, but for politics, where the Democrats haven't seen a real influx of new young voters since Kennedy.

I don't heart Huckabee

I have previously BEGGED the GOP to nominate a freak like Mike Huckabee. Besides being a freak, however, Huckabee is just a miserable bastard. Apparently being a Baptist minister doesn't stop him from lying about his record or protecting his cretinous son who hung a dog.

Then the hypocritical bastard calls this press conference to say he won't run this "attack ad" (which he did run) and shows the ad that he "won't run" to the assembled media knowing they will cover it completely.

One attack was that Romney had no executions in Mass as governor. Hello, Gov. Fruitcake? Massachusetts has no death penalty!! Romney actually introduced a failed measure to restore it. And a minister saying it's wrong not to have killed more people??

He is scum.

Last night

Well, well, well...

The aura of inevitability and invincibility around HRC is gone, gone, gone.

What will Fox News do with Rudy crappin' out and perhaps no Hillary to run against?

Can you imagine anything that would shine a brighter light on the grotesque creature that is the modern-day GOP than a black man running against a fundie freak?

Smoking preference?

So, it's the first business day of our new statewide smoking ban. At work, they chased the smokers out into the office parking lot, and all the restaurants, bars, and basically every public place (with a few excepted) are now non-smoking.

I'm conflicted. Of course, as a non-smoker, I love it in fact (never liked smoking anything, even the the college experiments with various smoking "herbs"). I also recognize the police power, we accept liquor licensing and restrictions on various things that are otherwise legal in public places.

There is that libertarian streak in me that would prefer the government not do this, and the market would not (no sports bar would voluntarily go N/S)

SO--I will just enjoy being conflicted....?

The last full year of Bushdom

Doesn't it just seem like it's time for him to be gone?

Happy New Year, one and all.

I apologize for my absence. Besides making merry, I lost about a week with this year's version of the flu. It's a big one, it's a bad one. I don't know anything about flu shots, but if it's not too late--get one.

The rumor mill on Mike Bloomberg is heating up, and I hear that Chuck Hagel can't wait to be his veep. I'd almost bet that whoever "wins" the GOP nomination, sad sack lot that they are, will be hurt more than the Dems.

He can outspend either nominee without putting a big dent in the family fortune, and can get on the ballot in every state. he also just might prompt a real debate on the electoral college.

Happy New Year

I'm off to New Orleans for a few days (I'll be back on the 5th), so I'll miss Iowa (sigh), and I won't be here to celebrate when the Illini upset USC tomorrow. Everyone have a safe and enjoyable holiday, and I'll see you in '08.

If I lived in Iowa...

who would I caucus for on Thursday?

Let me start by saying that I really like the caucus process. I attended the precinct and county caucuses in Washington in 2004, and it's a more interesting form of democracy than voting. It requires more significant participation, and your actions are public, and challengable, so you have to be better able to defend your position, and be willing to think through other options if your first candidate doesn't get the requisite percentage of support (sort of like Instant Runoff Voting). The drawback is that it requires voters to be able to commit to being at the caucus location for 2-3 hours on election night, it requires voters to be willing to step out from behind the curtain and make their support for a particular candidate public, and it requires a certain confidence in yourself to be able to speak in a public setting and advocate for your candidate, popular or not, which is very difficult for many people.

That being said, if I were there Thursday night, what would I do?

Here's who I would not caucus for -

Mike Gravel - He is an outsider (being out of government for a long time), is strong on getting out of Iraq, but is not nearly ready to be president.

Dennis Kucinich - Every time I take one of these "Who matches best with you" political questionnaires, I find that I match up best with Kucinich. He's the most liberal of the candidates running, and I appreciate that. So why wouldn't I support him? The best way I can put it is from a friend of mine, who said "Kucinich, when he is given a chance to speak on something that isn't his passion comes off terrific - the moment it is something he cares deeply about, I want to back away slowly." I think Kucinich's passion would prevent him from working well with anyone who doesn't agree with him 100%, and we already have a president like that. Our government never works well when one branch digs its heels in that far.

Joe Biden - Joe Biden is a plagiarist. No matter what he says, or whether or not I agree with him, that's my lasting view of the man.

Chris Dodd - I love Dodd's passion for and support of the Constitution. I want to see him as a leading voice to get rid of the MCA and to restore the Bill of Rights. But I think that's best done in the Senate, which needs his leadership. I am not looking for an entrenched political figure in this election, because I can't stand the way things are done, and that's a big mark against Dodd. I think he's too close to too much of the "establishment" to make some of the radical changes we desperately need.

Bill Richardson - I really want to like Richardson, but every time I see him speak, he (1) puts me to sleep and (2) makes good points, but makes them awkwardly and unclearly.

Hillary Clinton - I've written about Hillary before. Most of her political opinions are reasonable, and I don't think she'd be a horrible president. I do think that she says what she thinks people want to hear (who else changes from being a Cubs fan to being a Yankees fan?), and I think that she is too much in the hold of Democratic lobbyists, etc, as an arm of the DLC. A 2nd Clinton presidency would be a heck of a lot better than any of the GOP candidates, but it wouldn't break the ties to the corporate world that our political process we desperately need.

We're now down to Barack Obama and John Edwards. I like both of them, for different reasons.

I've seen Obama in person twice, and he has impressed me each time with his intelligence, his thoughtfulness, and his ability to talk knowledgeably about issues important to all sorts of people. I do believe that he really wants to raise the level of discourse in politics, and he connects strongly with the part of me that likes politics and wants government to be a place where great ideas are talked about in great conversations. He was right about Iraq in 2002, and his record on opposing Bush's foreign policy is as strong as anyone running (save Kucinich). He's a relative newcomer to the DC system, which I see as a strength. What I worry about is that he may be too much of an idealist. Obama wants to reach out to Republicans and business and lobbyists and bring them into a real, adult, vital conversation about issues that are truly important to our country, and while I love that in principle, I'm afraid that he would be the only one at the table interested in and willing to actually engage in that conversation.

I liked Edwards a lot in 2004 - I supported Dean, but was somewhat excited to vote Democratic not because of Kerry, but because of Edwards. I think Edwards speaks well to the core ideals of liberalism - helping the sick and the young and the weak, and using our shared strength to help those who need help. He has been honest about his wrong vote on Iraq 5 years ago, and his stance since then has been consistent and clear. Edwards talks a lot about fighting against the corporate influence which has done such harm to our country, and he has taken an important first step by accepting matching public funds, which restricts the kinds of fundraising he can do. There are some in the netroots who think this is a horrible mistake, since he'll have less money than the Republican candidate, but the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC all have money that will be used in the general election, so I'm not as worried about that. I don't know if he can really advance progress on some serious issues without the lobbyists causing all sorts of havoc and buying the hell out of other people involved in the process, but I think it's worth a try.

Throughout this process, Edwards and Obama have been 1/1A for me, and I've gone back and forth between them. I would gladly support either of them in the general election, but, all things considered, if I was going to be caucusing on Thursday, I'd support ...

John Edwards.

I couldn't have said it better myself

I was getting all set to write a post about the Democratic race. It was going to be a different post than the GOP ones, because while I have my preferences, which I'll get to, there are a whole passel of candidates that would be a staggering improvement over anything the GOP has to offer. Even Hillary, who annoys the crap out of me (and who I've stated that I wouldn't vote for in the past...although who knows what would happen in that voting booth in November) is still light years further into reality than anyone with an (R) next to their name. Then I came across this post by AnnArborBlue (we'll forgive AAB's collegiate allegiances this time) on Daily Kos:

Why You Should Vote for Whoever You Want
by AnnArborBlue
Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 06:41:16 PM PST

Because none of the Democratic candidates suck. No. really. Despite what you've heard from various people around this place lately, none of the "Democrats" is really a Republican, none of them are Bush-lite, and none of them killed your mother and then hid her body. That evil, centrist Hillary Clinton has a Progressive Punch Score of 91%, good for 16th in the whole senate. And that noted hater of labor, Barack Obama, has excellent ratings from labor organizations. Joe Biden, despite an unfortunate tendency to open mouth and insert foot, has been the best critic of the Republican field. Dennis Kucinich, for all of his quirks, is the most uncompromisingly liberal voice in the race. Chris Dodd has been the loudest voice in the whole field on civil liberties issues. And John Edwards, well, read pretty much any diary on this site to find out why people like John Edwards.

AAB then goes on to address what, to me, has been one of the most frustrating part about reading some of the blogs about candidates:

I'll be frank, if you are incapable of recognizing that every candidate on the Democratic side shares the same core principles, and that every candidate on the Republican side opposes them (or at least pretends to), then you're a part of the problem. If you can't separate "I like candidate X" from "I must hate candidate Y", then you're a part of the problem. If you truly believe that someone is a bad Democrat for supporting a different candidate in the primaries, then you're a part of the problem. And frankly, the rest of us find your self-righteousness, really, really dull. We've spent 7 years now dealing with a leader who has total conviction and zealous certainty in everything he believes, and who demonizes anyone who thinks differently. And it's sucked a lot.

If you think "Candidate x is the best choice for America" means "candidate X is the only choice for America, and anyone who disagrees with me must be destroyed (or just annoyed for 6 hours on the internet)", then it's time for you to grow up. Because there's going to be a nominee, and the chances are it won't be your candidate. That's something you're going to have to get past, or, God Jed, I don't even want to know you.

I totally understand thinking that one candidate or another is really your favorite, and you truly believe that they are the best choice to lead this country to a better place. But thinking that means that every other (or really any other) Democratic candidate would lead us further into the hell that the Chimp and the Shooter are creating is self-defeating. I don't know who's going to get the nomination. I don't have the same excitement about Hillary that I do about Obama or Edwards, but how can you realistically compare Hillary to Rudy, or Mitt, or the Huckster, and not see the differences?

Can't we all just get along?

Holiday Greetings

I will do a couple year-end posts by 12/31 (including the promised one about the Democratic primary), but for now, I'll just wish everyone whose out there on the roads safe travels and Happy Holidays (one has to be careful when one fights the war on Christmas).

The Huckabee Monster--It's Alive!

We see something very interesting happening on the Right with the emergence of Mike Huckabee. The Grover Norquist crowd, the tax-cutting corporatists, are scared to death of the Rev. Huckabee, and it is fascinating to watch. For example, Peggy Noonan writes in the paper once known as the Wall Street Journal that

there is a sense in Iowa now that faith has been heightened as a determining factor in how to vote, that such things as executive ability, professional history, temperament, character, political philosophy and professed stands are secondary, tertiary. But they are not, and cannot be. They are central. Things seem to be getting out of kilter, with the emphasis shifting too far. The great question: Does it make Mr. Huckabee, does it seal his rise, that he has acted in such a manner? Or does it damage him? Republicans on the ground in Iowa and elsewhere will decide that. And in the deciding they may be deciding more than one man's future. They may be deciding if Republicans are becoming a different kind of party. I wonder if our old friend Ronald Reagan could rise in this party, this environment.

Let's consider the words uttered above by Reagan's former speechwriter.

Establishment Republicans are terrified that a fundamentalist might actually get their party's nomination. Since Reagan's days, they have courted the evangelical with smoke and mirrors, with empty promises and bombastic rhetoric. Corporate Republicans have told the red staters that they stand with them, while they outsource their jobs, ignore their schools and infrastructure, promote corporate superfarms over their small holdings, and send large numbers of their sons to die in the desert.

Of course the country club Republicans don't care about abortion. If it becomes illegal, and one of theirs needs such services, Skull and Bones brothers or foreign clinics are able to lend a hand. Vouchers or school prayer? Not a concern at Andover or Lake Forest Academy. Immigration? Why, who tends the lawns in their gated communities.

So for a quarter-century, corporate Republicans have promised to save the babies and to help Jesus stop boys from kissing, while doing nothing but cut taxes and gut the government. Now, after energizing and mobilizing this bizarre base, they seemed shocked when one of them strives for the reins of power and actually believes in the things you shallowly used as talking points.

But Peggy, and others of your ilk, why are you surprised? In Frankenstein-like fashion, you stitched this unholy monster together and breathed life into it. You wanted it, you nurtured it, you needed it, and yes, like Dr. Frankenstein, you are ultimately responsible for it. It is yours, it is you.

Couldn't happen to a nicer party.

Senior al Qaeda terrorist, or...

The Washington Post reports today on Abu Zubaida, the `al Qaeda operative' subjected to torture in the case of the missing CIA tapes. According to the WP,

FBI agents and analysts say he is largely a loudmouthed and mentally troubled hotelier whose credibility dropped as the CIA subjected him to a simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding and to other "enhanced interrogation" measures.

Isn't that special? He's your local crazy innkeeper.

Sent

It won't matter, but I thought I'd drop a few lines about the FISA bill and Harry Reid's desire to do what the Liar in Chief wants, instead of supporting the Constitution and protecting Americans.

Senator Durbin (and Obama),

Harry Reid is betraying America. Support Chris Dodd's filibuster, and help prevent the telecom companies from getting amnesty for shredding the Constitution.

Senator Reid,

Why are you betraying America? The telecom companies do not deserve amnesty if they violated the Constitution. George Bush is in the pocket of business and hates Americans, why do you?

Senator Dodd,

Thank you for the filibuster.

How to tell your ideological spectrum is a little out of whack

There's a story online about how some GOP folk want another debate in Iowa, because the one this week with the Des Moines Register left a bad taste in their mouths - they were forced to talk about education and domestic issues, and didn't get enough time talking about fear and hate with the war in Iraq and the war on brown people with immigration.

In the comments to the story, someone going by the moniker "Mr. Law" wrote:
With FoxNews' blatant pro-liberal bias (as in open support for Rudy Giuliani), it's not surprising Governor Romney didn't want to have yet another FoxNews debate which catered to, and was probably organized in cooperation with, Rudolph Giuliani's campaign. That said, after Governor Romney's masterful performance at the "last" Republican debate prior to the Iowa caucus, I can see how the Huckster would want a do-over. http://www.huckabeefacts.com/

Mr. Law thinks that Fox has a blatant pro-liberal bias because they support Giuliani (which they do). Well, Mr. Law, I've got some questions for you. If your idea of a liberal is Rudy Giuliani, what's your idea of a moderate? Pat Buchanan? A conservative? Mussolini? Where does Hillary (a moderate in most ways) fit? Socialism? I can't even imagine where you'd put Kucinich.

Let me suggest that when America's Mare is the left end of your ideological spectrum, you might need to do some adjusting. There are therapists all over who can help you with that problem.

Karma's a Bitch

I've been saving this one. Back in 2005, pitcher Andy Pettite decided to get preachy on Pat Robertson's website:

“Every time I took the mound, in any of those games and every game, I just ask the Lord to give me the strength to go out there, protect me and just to help me to compete. I don’t want to ever do anything to jeopardize my testimony for Him, and I ask him to be with me in that...if you’re praying to the Lord, like you need to be, spending time with Him, you’re going to stay in the game a lot longer and you’re going be a lot stronger than other people that aren’t...

Well, he was asking someone for strength, and getting help from someone to stay in the game, but as today's Mitchell Report shows, it wasn't the Lord--it was someone with a hypodermic. Karma is indeed a bitch.

Please, please, please, can we run against Mike Huckabee???

Unfortunately for the Huckster, a rise in the polls means a rise in press attention, and it doesn't take long to find out that 1) he really is a miserable bastard of a human being and 2) he's a great big freak.

I would LOVE to see him as the GOP nominee. In a presidential debate not geared to the mouthbreathers, he can't talk like this

we stalked antelope all morning long and never got really close to one to get a shot. And finally, at about 12:30 in the afternoon, there was one across a ridge-I'm not making this up-the trajectory was upward, it is across, up on a hill. And it looked pretty decent, but it was about 250 yards away. Now, that's just, on my best day, within my range, maybe. But with a stiff wind, snow-and one of the rules of the One-Shot Antelope Hunt is that you cannot use any artificial devices; you can't lean on, you know, a car or the hood of a truck or anything other your own body. And so that kind of complicates the process and makes it a little more challenging. But it was one of those moments where I finally decided: "You know, we only get one shot. If you miss, your hunt is over. If you hit, and you take the animal, then your hunt your is over as well." And I decided that one way or the other, this hunt is about to be over, because I can't stand any more of this cold. And somehow, by the
grace of God, when I squeezed the trigger, my Weatherby .300 Mag, which has got to be the greatest gun, I think, ever made in the form of a rifle-for my sake in hunting, I've never squeezed the trigger and not gotten something-did its work, and somehow the angels took that bullet and went right to the antelope, and my hunt was over in a wonderful way...

Please????