Intern story

This one will go down in the history books as another case of Drudge printing unsubstantiated allegations.

Kerry story still not yet real

Even Newsmax.com has refused to run with the Kerry/intern story...

At this point, I'm inclined to believe that it's simply not true.

Ed Gillespie: Are you kidding me?

I hate to ridicule someone's appearance...


...unless they're a Republican

Kerry on Imus today

Well there is nothing to report, so there is nothing to talk about," he told MSNBC television. "There's nothing there. There's no story."

More on that last post

I don't think it's true. I have a hard time believing what Matt Drudge has to say - but if it is, my comments stand.

If it's true

If the allegations against John Kerry are true, he owes it to the Democratic Party to drop out of the race RIGHT NOW. We wasted the 90s defending Bill Clinton against charges of sexual impropriety instead of defending Democratic policy. If Kerry wants to drag our party down that road again, then to hell with him. He's lost my vote.

Then again, this is all hypothetical. If it's not true (and there's a good chance it isn't), then I withdraw my complaint.

Here it is

Just in case you haven't seen it yet, here's the Drudge Report:

CAMPAIGN DRAMA ROCKS DEMOCRATS: KERRY FIGHTS OFF MEDIA PROBE OF RECENT ALLEGED INFIDELITY, RIVALS PREDICT RUIN

**World Exclusive**
**Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT**

A frantic behind-the-scenes drama is unfolding around Sen. John Kerry and his quest to lockup the Democratic nomination for president, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

Intrigue surrounds a woman who recently fled the country, reportedly at the prodding of Kerry, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

A serious investigation of the woman and the nature of her relationship with Sen. John Kerry has been underway at TIME magazine, ABC NEWS, the WASHINGTON POST, THE HILL and the ASSOCIATED PRESS, where the woman in question once worked.

MORE

A close friend of the woman first approached a reporter late last year claiming fantastic stories -- stories that now threaten to turn the race for the presidency on its head!

In an off-the-record conversation with a dozen reporters earlier this week, General Wesley Clark plainly stated: "Kerry will implode over an intern issue." [Three reporters in attendance confirm Clark made the startling comments.]

The Kerry commotion is why Howard Dean has turned increasingly aggressive against Kerry in recent days, and is the key reason why Dean reversed his decision to drop out of the race after Wisconsin, top campaign sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

Developing...

This could be big...

Cocaine making a comeback

Expect the cocaine issue to make a comeback. Why would the White House refuse to release Bush's medical records at the guard? My guess is that Howard Dean isn't the only Presidential candidate who passed up Vietnam for snow.

Dean endorses Edwards

Every so often I read something that makes my heart beat a bit faster.

Dean told CBS News in an interview that will air Wednesday night that he believes Edwards would be the better candidate in the general election, even though Kerry has the advantage right now.

"My fear is that he actually won't be the strongest Democratic candidate," Dean told the network.

This is unbelievable and could signify a major shift of votes from Dean to Edwards, thereby making Edwards a serious contender for the nomination.

Say what you will about Dean - he has a huge swaft of loyal supporters around the country.

Of course, if he continues to make outrageous statements like this one, then John Kerry is in serious trouble with his base:

In an interview with The Associated Press, Dean urged voters in Wisconsin's primary to stand up against Kerry and other Washington insiders who he said are trying to derail his candidacy. He said he would support the Democratic nominee, but Kerry would be the "lesser of two evils" in a race against President Bush.


Lesser of two evils??? He "supports" the Democrat, then refers to him as "evil". Dean is a nut. He and his supporters are sounding more and more like Ralph Nader every day.

President endorses constitutional amendment

The President came out today in support of a radical constitutional amendment banning both gay marriages AND benefits for gay couples.

A very stupid political move - but one that I'm sure his God commanded him to make. Can't argue with God - even if he's being intolerant.

Say what you want about the gay marriage debate, but the debate over benefits for gay couples is a debate between the hateful and the tolerant. Bush just took the side of the hateful.

Kerry's electability

It's time to return to this issue, since there is still a bit of time...I guess.

Here are a few articles:

Jonathan Chait (The Deanophobe)

Michael Grunwold (of TNR) takes a look at John Kerry's close reelection 1996.

Noem Scheiber's etc. blog

Will Saletan's column.

Of course, all of these columns carry an implicit endorsement of Edwards that each journalist fails to admit...

When will the Kerry electability bubble burst? Probably shortly after he wins the nomination and the Republicans start attacking him...

Is it too late to burst it? Probably. John Edwards probably can't win the votes he needs anywhere outside of the South (where, one on one with Kerry, he'd win every time).

We'll just have to hope that the animatronic Abe Lincoln can somehow move to the center between now and November...

How some rationalize Iraq

For many Americans, humanitarian concerns serve as a sufficient justification for the war. Present them with the argument, "Why don't we liberate every iliberal society? Why just Iraq?" and they respond, "Because of circumstances, we had a chance to fight this war of choice." Throw some budget numbers at these people, and they respond, "A couple hundred billion dollars is a good investment if it helps transform and Democratize the Arab world." Present them with evidence of that Bush misled to convince the nation to go to war, and they dismiss it as unimportant - the ends justify the means.

These are the hardest people to sway, and their war support remains steadfast. They base it on a calculation: Is Iraq significantly better today than it was during Saddam's reign (especially during the worst years of war, turmoil, and mass political executions)? The answer to that question is very subjective. A car bomb explodes every few days. The murder rate is high. The streets are dangerous at night. But is it worse than under Saddam? The pro-war people (Liberals and Conservative alike) still don't believe so.

They're living in a fantasy land, of course. I don't know many people who don't think Iraq will break out into a civil war in the near future, or at least continue to be plagued by a Sunni-terrorist insurgency that prevents the fledgling state from truly Democratizing. Fear and chaos are not seeds that sprout into a healthy pluralistic society.

Worst campaign analysis I've ever read

This NY Times article comes close to the worst campaign analysis I've ever read. Adam Nagourney needs to be fired.

Does this idiot seriously think that Edwards and Dean want to stay in the race until the convention? Only nut jobs like Jesse Jackson and Jerry Brown do that...

Clark Death Watch

Today's Campaign Journal (Ryan Lizza) starts the Clark Death Watch.

If Clark leaves the race, where does his 10% base of support go? It may actually split equally between the other three candidates. Dean gets the anti-war crowd, Kerry gets the veterans, and Edwards gets the Southerners.

If Edwards remains in the race until Super Tuesday, this Southern support will be important. He should run pretty competitively against John Kerry in the South, perhaps beating him. It all depends upon Dean, however. Dean's support IS NOT going to flow fluidly to Kerry (should he drop out after Wisconsin). Dean folks believe that Kerry stole Iowa from them through dirty tactics. Edwards, who has run a clean campaign so far, seems like the logical next step for Deaniacs. Edwards' rhetoric would naturally appeal to Dean's more liberal supporters ("Let's fight poverty!").

With Clark's southern support and Dean's large national base of about 20%, Edwards could conceivably compete with Kerry on Super Tuesday. But Dean and Clark need to pull out of the race - and soon - and the media needs to start taking Edward's chances more seriously. Right now Kerry is benefiting from quite a bit of soft bandwagon support from people who simply want to vote for the likely winner. If the media starts portraying this as a competitive race, then Kerry loses that soft support (and they move into the undecided camp). Depending on what Dean/Clark decide, Super Tuesday will be at least moderately competitive.

Exit polls in VA/Tenn

Here are the noon exit polls.

Tennessee
Kerry 46
Edwards 28
Clark 15
Dean 7

Virginia

Kerry 48
Edwards 25
Clark 11
Dean 8

Goodbye, Clark.

Preemption policy radicalized

This Slate piece demonstrates how Bush's Meet the Press appearance further radicalized our already radical policy of preemption.

When the President came up with the policy, it was designed to strike regimes that possessed chemical/biological/nuclear weapons and possibly sought to use them in the future. Now the policy calls for an attack on any regime that seeks these weapons. Or is the policy to attack countries that intend to seek weapons? It's hard to tell, because of the difficulty in parsing the President's words for meaning.

Is this possible?

From Daily Kos:

First:

Aides to Wesley Clark and John Edwards say they expect their candidates to lose Tuesday's Virginia and Tennessee primaries. But Clark and Edwards have promised to forge ahead despite Kerry's advantage. They're hoping for a February 17 showdown in Wisconsin. Howard Dean has said he must win Wisconsin to stay in the race.

Second:

Monday, Dean changed his mind. He addressed a crowd of about 300 people at UWGB, repeating how important Wisconsin's votes are to his future. But after his speech, in a one-on-one interview with Action 2 News reporter Sarah Thomsen, Dean said he will not give up even if he loses here a week from Tuesday.

So,

No one is getting out, Kerry is getting less than 50% of the delegates... even if Kerry continues his plurality wins, if no one gets out (and why should they, given the internet funding) we'll have a brokered convention. If one of the other candidate starts to catch hold (ala Reagan in 1976), we could have a contested brokered primary.


I don't think it is. Can anyone really see two or all there of these candidates staying in the race until the convention? It would take an arrangement between two of them to accomplish that, which is highly unlikely. Which two would join together? Dean and Clark? Clark and Edwards? Dean and Edwards? None of those tickets sound particularly attractive.

Kucinich

I received this email today from a friend:

The Kucinich vote is increasing exponentially! He's practically doubling his
vote every week! At this rate he'll be the frontrunner by March! And
Dictator for Life by November!

DATE STATE KUCINICH VOTE
1/19 Iowa 1.30 %
1/27 New Hampshire 1.42 %
2/3 North Dakota 2.93 %
2/3 New Mexico 5.55 %
2/7 Washington 8.19 %
2/8 Maine 15.71 %
2/10 Virginia ?

And more negative reviews:

TNR's etc. blog

Andrew Sullivan's scathing column over at TNR (subscription required)

Some conservatives complaining about the performance

TNR's Iraq'd blog

More Bush Meet the Press reviews:

Peggy Noonan (read it, it's actually critical...she was a speechwriter after all)
Of course, she lost me when she said that "Bush is as bright as John Kerry, just as Ronald Reagan was as bright as Walter Mondale". I think she meant, "Bush is to John Kerry as Ronald Reagan is to Walter Mondale."

More Talking Points Memo

Bob Herbert

Iowa Political Stock Market

The market now has Kerry as a 9-1 favorite to get the nomination. In a head to head matchup with Bush, it's about even.

Tossup states

After the nominee is selected, pundits are going to shift into electoral analysis mode. Here are some predictions:

Battleground states that went to Gore last time:
Iowa, New Mexico (unless Richardson is on the ticket), Pennsylvania (probably won't even be close)

Battleground states that went to Bush last time:
Arizona, Nevada, New Hampshire, Missouri, Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana (if Bayh is on the ticket)

As you can see, the Democrats have little to lose and plenty to gain because of the new electoral makeup. Sure, they've lost a few votes from population shifts towards the South, but hardly enough to counterbalance this advantage. George Bush will be forced to run the table on the battleground states to win reelection. The Democrats can lose several of these and still win.

Yikes

I posted 57 times in my blog this week (counting this one). Perhaps I'll cut back a bit.

The nutballs are out

There was a protest in Boston today. Excellent. Everything is going according to my plan.

Critiques of Bush's performance...

Here's a list of critiques of Bush's performance for those who are hungry for them:

William Saletan - Bush vs Reality

Center for American Progress Media Report

It's not just about Bush going AWOL (Daily Kos)

Talking Points Memo

I'll add some more as I find them...it's not very difficult.

Bush is a moron - and his Meet the Press performance proves it!

I finally got a chance to sit through the Meet the Press interview. Having already read the transcript twice, I was able to just focus on Bush's rhetorical performance. Here are my impressions:

1. I was impressed by his good spirits/affable mannerisms. He seemed truly at ease throughout the interview, and that surprised me considering that he seemed to have a stick up his ass during the Diane Sawyer interview. He mostly avoided his signature deer in the headlights look. I can see how many people (most of whom failed to finish grades K-12) might find this simple man endearing.

2. He came off like a doofus. No other way to describe it. He didn't seem to understand the meanings of many of the questions. Often politicians dodge or weave around questions - Bush stumbled around them as if he was altogether impervious to their meanings (this isn't to say he didn't do his share of question dodging).

3. This guy can't put whole sentences together. That would be fine if he had been born with stuttering problem, but he wasn't.

Here's a letter that conservative Andrew Sullivan published on his website:

EMAIL OF THE DAY: "I happened to be in favor of the war in Iraq. I also think you've selected a quotable piece of the President's interview in which he tried to defend his actions in taking the country to war, even in the absence of evidence that Iraq possessed WMD at the time the war was launched. That said, I sense that you did not watch the President's full interview on Meet the Press. It was the single worst performance by an elected official on that show that I've ever seen. The President was inarticulate in the extreme; he avoided answering almost every semi-difficult question, repeatedly asking permission to "step back" as a way to provide a canned statement about how he's had to make tough decisions during times of war (i.e., don't second guess any decision I made regarding Iraq); and he often seemed to fail to grasp the meaning of various questions, pausing awkwardly for long periods of time before giving non-responsive answers. Not exactly the type of performance that breeds confidence in your commander in chief. On the issue of the huge debt/deficit, he simply noted that the economy was heading into a recession when he started, that his tax cut was responsible for improving the economy, and he seemed to try to blame Congress for a failure of political will when it comes to spending, as if he'd sent Congress a plan for balancing the budget. It was utter nonsense."

The reader is correct. I've only seen clips and will try and see the whole thing later. Of course, most people will only see the clips as well, so maybe the whole impression won't matter. But the impression I get from readers who saw the whole thing is that Bush seemed completely out of his depth. Even on Fox News, the juxtaposition of Bush's folksy chatter and Kerry's booming voice must have the White House worried.

Even conservative columnists like Sullivan are beginning to turn against Bush. Much of it has to do with simple intellectual pride. It hurts one's pride when a fool is the national spokesman for their ideology. I have a few conservative friends who like Bush's tax cutting but find him to be an idiot, and it's not an unreasonable position, I suppose. Surely there are coherent arguments for slashing taxes or invading Iraq, but Bush is unable, do to mental incompetence, to express them.

Bush - clueless or a liar?

Here are some graphs that illustrate Bush's fiscal incompetence and his false statements regarding Clinton's discretionary spending...

A lie from Bush

MR. RUSSERT: Would you authorize the release of everything to settle this? (the AWOL flap)
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, absolutely. We did so in 2000, by the way.

No, he didn't...

No tax cuts until the budget is balanced?

Russert: That's a very important point. Every president since the Civil War who has gone to war has raised taxes, not cut them.

President Bush: Yeah.

Russert: Raised to pay for it. Why not say, I will not cut taxes any more until we have balanced the budget? If our situation is so precious and delicate because of the war, why do you keep cutting taxes and draining money from the treasury?

President Bush: Well, because I believe that the best way to stimulate economic growth is to let people keep more of their own money. And I believe that if you raise taxes as the economy is beginning to recover from really tough times, you will slow down economic growth. You will make it harder.

See, I'm more worried about the fellow looking for the job. That's what I'm worried about. I want people working. I want people to find work. And so, when we stimulate the economy, it's more likely that person is going to find work. And the best way to stimulate the economy is not to raise taxes but to hold the low taxes down.

Russert: How about no more tax cuts until the budget is balanced?

President Bush: Well, that's a hypothetical question which I can't answer to you because I don't know how strong the economy is going to be.

I mean, the President must keep all options on the table, but I do know that raising the child lowering the child credit thereby raising taxes on working families does not make sense when the economy is recovering, and that's exactly what some of them are calling for up on Capitol Hill. They want to raise taxes of the families with children, they want to increase the marriage penalty. They want to get rid of those taxes on small businesses that are encouraging the stimulation of new job creation, and I'm not going to have any of it.

Tough question dodged!

Russert: Before we take a break, now that we have determined there are probably not these stockpiles of weapons that we had thought, and the primary rationale for the war had been to disarm Saddam Hussein, Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Defense Secretary, said that you had settled on weapons of mass destruction as an issue we could agree on, but there were three. “One was the weapons of mass destruction, the second is the support for terrorism, and third is Saddam's criminal treatment of his Iraqi people.”

He said the “third one by itself is a reason to help Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did.”

President Bush: Um hmm.

Russert: Now looking back, in your mind, is it worth the loss of 530 American lives and 3,000 injuries and woundings simply to remove Saddam Hussein, even though there were no weapons of mass destruction?

President Bush: Every life is precious. Every person that is willing to sacrifice for this country deserves our praise, and yes.

Russert: But

President Bush: Let me finish.

Russert: Please.

President Bush: It's essential that I explain this properly to the parents of those who lost their lives.

Saddam Hussein was dangerous, and I’m not gonna leave him in power and trust a madman. He's a dangerous man. He had the ability to make weapons at the very minimum.

For the parents of the soldiers who have fallen who are listening, David Kay, the weapons inspector, came back and said, “In many ways Iraq was more dangerous than we thought.” It's we are in a war against these terrorists who will bring great harm to America, and I've asked these young ones to sacrifice for that.

A free Iraq will change the world. It's historic times. A free Iraq will make it easier for other children in our own country to grow up in a safer world because in the Middle East is where you find the hatred and violence that enables the enemy to recruit its killers.

And, Tim, as you can tell, I've got a foreign policy that is one that believes America has a responsibility in this world to lead, a responsibility to lead in the war against terror, a responsibility to speak clearly about the threats that we all face, a responsibility to promote freedom, to free people from the clutches of barbaric people such as Saddam Hussein who tortured, mutilated there were mass graves that we have found a responsibility to fight AIDS, the pandemic of AIDS, and to feed the hungry. We have a responsibility. To me that is history's call to America. I accept the call and will continue to lead in that direction.

Bush admits that Wolfowitz's #1 and #2 are both false - so we're left with #3. And then he dodges the question.

Bush the incurable optimist

Russert: If the Iraqis choose, however, an Islamic extremist regime, would you accept that, and would that be better for the United States than Saddam Hussein?

President Bush: They're not going to develop that. And the reason I can say that is because I'm very aware of this basic law they're writing. They're not going to develop that because right here in the Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al Hakim, people from different parts of the country that have made the firm commitment, that they want a constitution eventually written that recognizes minority rights and freedom of religion.

I remember speaking to Mr. al Hakim here, who is a fellow who has lost 63 family members during the Saddam reign. His brother was one of the people that was assassinated early on in this past year. I expected to see a very bitter person. If 63 members of your family had been killed by a group of people, you would be a little bitter. He obviously was concerned, but he I said, you know, I'm a Methodist, what are my chances of success in your country and your vision? And he said, it's going to be a free society where you can worship freely. This is a Shiia fellow.

And my only point to you is these people are committed to a pluralistic society. And it's not going to be easy. The road to democracy is bumpy. It's bumpy particularly because these are folks that have been terrorized, tortured, brutalized by Saddam Hussein.

These people are committed to a pluralistic society? Right.

A somewhat tough question...

Russert: Mr. President, the Director of the CIA said that his briefings had qualifiers and caveats, but when you spoke to the country, you said "there is no doubt." When Vice President Cheney spoke to the country, he said "there is no doubt." Secretary Powell, "no doubt." Secretary Rumsfeld, "no doubt, we know where the weapons are." You said, quote, "The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.” “Saddam Hussein is a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible."

You gave the clear sense that this was an immediate threat that must be dealt with.

President Bush: I think, if I might remind you that in my language I called it a grave and gathering threat, but I don't want to get into word contests. But what I do want to share with you is my sentiment at the time. There was no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a danger to America. [CROSSTALK]

Russert: In what way?

President Bush: Well, because he had the capacity to have a weapon, make a weapon. We thought he had weapons. The international community thought he had weapons. But he had the capacity to make a weapon and then let that weapon fall into the hands of a shadowy terrorist network.

It's important for people to understand the context in which I made a decision here in the Oval Office. I'm dealing with a world in which we have gotten struck by terrorists with airplanes, and we get intelligence saying that there is, you know, we want to harm America. And the worst nightmare scenario for any president is to realize that these kind of terrorist networks had the capacity to arm up with some of these deadly weapons, and then strike us.

And the President of the United States’ most solemn responsibility is to keep this country secure. And the man was a threat, and we dealt with him, and we dealt with him because we cannot hope for the best. We can't say, Let's don't deal with Saddam Hussein. Let's hope he changes his stripes, or let's trust in the goodwill of Saddam Hussein. Let's let us, kind of, try to contain him. Containment doesn't work with a man who is a madman.

And remember, Tim, he had used weapons against his own people.

Russert: But can you launch a preemptive war without iron clad, absolute intelligence that he had weapons of mass destruction?

President Bush: Let me take a step back for a second and there is no such thing necessarily in a dictatorial regime of iron clad absolutely solid evidence. The evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he had a weapon.

Russert: But it may have been wrong.

President Bush: Well, but what wasn't wrong was the fact that he had the ability to make a weapon. That wasn't right.

Russert: This is an important point because when you say that he has biological and chemical weapons and unmanned aerial vehicles

President Bush: Which he had.

Russert: and they could come and attack the United States, you are saying to the American people: we have to deal now with a man who has these things.

President Bush: That's exactly what I said.

Russert: And if that's not the case, do you believe if you had gone to the Congress and said he should be removed because he's a threat to his people but I'm not sure he has weapons of mass destruction, Congress would authorize war?

President Bush: I went to Congress with the same intelligence Congress saw the same intelligence I had, and they looked at exactly what I looked at, and they made an informed judgment based upon the information that I had. The same information, by the way, that my predecessor had. And all of us, you know, made this judgment that Saddam Hussein needed to be removed.

Some important snipets

Here's one:

Russert: Let me turn to Iraq. And this is the whole idea of what you based your decision to go to war on.

President Bush: Sure, sure.

Russert: The night you took the country to war, March 17th, you said this: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

President Bush: Right.

Russert: That apparently is not the case.

President Bush: Correct.

Throughout this interview, the President admits (over and over) that Saddam DID NOT have weapons. He just had the capacity to make weapons (a questionable assertion in itself).

More later...

Meet the Press

Here's a link to the transcript. I'm reading through it right now. I wish I could find a video feed that works...

That's right - I don't wake up at 9am on a Sunday.

update: My God, this man is hard to read in transcript form...