Over the last two years, Democrats have called for the firing of both Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney. Republicans know that the two are a huge burden for their party as we inch closer to the November midterms. But if Bush did let them go, most political strategists admit that it would look like Bush was bowing to the wishes of the Democratic Party -- basically affirming his recent political weaknesses.
But if there ever were an excuse for Cheney to resign without making it look like a Democratic victory, :
ice President Dick Cheney will undergo routine tests Saturday to checkon repaired aneurysms on the backs of his knees and the condition of ahigh-tech pacemaker that was placed in his chest in June 2001.
Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride said the tests at George WashingtonUniversity Medical Center would include an electrocardiogram.
I am no Republican. But if I were a GOP strategist, I would have to admit that getting rid of Cheney and bringing in a fresh new vice president would generate excitement heading into November.
If this does indeed end up happening, then just know that I called it first! -------------------------------------------------------------- Other blogs writing about this issue: , , .
Republican candidate Tom Kean, especially considering that , has no choice but to to bring down his Democratic Senate opponent:
Republican Tom Kean Jr.'s campaign plans a "Swift Boat"-style filmaccusing his Democratic rival of involvement in a New Jerseymob-connected kickback scheme despite public records and statementsdisputing that claim.
Sen. Bob Menendez has talked about how he courageously testifiedagainst Union City, N.J., Mayor William V. Musto in a 1982 federaltrial that dealt with school construction, kickbacks and the Mob.
Musto was convicted and sentenced to seven years in prison. He died in February.
Kean contends that Menendez's portrayal of his role is inaccurate.Four former federal prosecutors who oversaw the case have said Menendezwas never involved in any wrongdoing.
Kean has it completely backward. It is like someone accusing Superman of being a supporter of Lex Luther. Menendez testified against corruption, not for it.
The :
A strategist said the film would be "very similar" in purpose tocommercials used to attack the military record of John Kerry during the2004 presidential race.
The Menendez Campaign is on their web site, saying that voters need to reject the "sleazy Swift Boat-style attacks the Republicans have brought to New Jersey."
This is similar to what the Republicans did to John Kerry in 2004. They know they can't win on the issues, so they wage an asymmetrical campaign that launches ad hominem attacks against any Democrat that stands on principle.
Please fend off these attacks. --------------------------------------------------------- Other blogs writing about this issue: , , , , , , , , .
Even though President Bush's poll numbers ticked up to 41% in the , Democrats are looking in decent shape just four months before the midterm elections:
Democrats held a formidable advantage, 49% to35%, when registered voters were asked which party they intended tosupport in fall congressional elections.
The survey's resultssuggested that an old challenge — the gender gap — could pose a renewedthreat to the Republican hold on Congress. Although men split aboutevenly when asked which party they planned to back for Congress inNovember, women preferred Democrats by nearly 2 to 1.
Not all registered voters are going to cast ballots though. Those who are the most passionate and upset usually show up to vote in the midterm elections. So which party is more passionate then? With all the anger over the war and high gas prices, I'd say that progressives are more fired up. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Other blogs writing about this issue: , , , .
The fact that warmer water causes more intense weather is not debatable. But at how unusually warm the Atlantic Ocean is at this time of year:
Meteorologists cautioned that no one should read too muchinto one storm. But the Atlantic Ocean is unusually warm forthis time of year, they said, creating excess moisture in theatmosphere that can swiftly build a powerful rainstorm.
Paul Epstein, associate director of Harvard MedicalSchool's Center for Health and the Global Environment, said theAtlantic is warming faster than scientists projected even adecade ago, and he expects such storms as the one seen thisweek from Virginia to New York to become common.
"Scientists and climatologists are looking at one anotherand we're just stunned because no one, even in the 1990s,projected the magnitude of the storms and degree of warming inthe Arctic that we are seeing," he said.
Epstein sees a clear pattern: rain has increased in theUnited States by 7 percent in three decades; heavy rain eventsof more than 2 inches a day are up 14 percent and stormsdumping more than 4 inches a day rose 20 percent.
So, no one in the scientific community is disputing that the earth is getting warmer. But what is in dispute is whether humans have contributed to it. President saying that humans have indeed contributed to it, making Republicans who are not onboard look out of touch with science. When CO2 levels rise, so does temperature. We have more CO2 in the atmosphere, proportionately speaking, than any other time before.
Look at the chart below:
Pay close attention to CO2 levels. Whenever CO2 levels go up, temperature follows almost immediately after (there is usually a between the two). Between 1800 and 2006, CO2 levels went from 280 Parts Per Million to 360 Parts Per Million -- that's a difference of 80 Parts Per Million. According to the chart, the last time that happened, it took 10,000 years for that same increase to occur. Compare that with the 206 years that it took this time around. And you're telling me we didn't play at least some role in the most recent increase?
Still not convinced? Let's zoom in and look at a chart that's even more recent:
The GOP have tried everything: the estate tax, gay marriage, flag burning, and gun safety locks. Still, nothing is exciting their base as we edge closer to the November election. So, with time running out and everything on the line, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will start rolling out the God-card. The Senate Republicans want to introduce an , which would force Evangelical conservatives to unite with their Republican lawmakers and the President on this issue, thereby increasing voter turnout this November. They want Democrats to go on record as killers of life -- as the GOP talking point usually goes. Under this strategy, funding for embryonic stem cell research would pass, and , which should help increase his approval among the pro-life crowd:
The bill passed the House last year and sponsors expect a broadbipartisan victory in the Senate, probably in July. However PresidentGeorge W. Bush has threatened to veto it.
The research would usestem cells derived from embryos leftover from fertility treatment butsome lawmakers who oppose abortion say the research is morallyunacceptable because it entails destruction of the embryos. Backers saythe research holds promise for numerous deadly or debilitating diseases.
Keep in mind that George W. Bush has since becoming president. It looks like his first veto, if this does happen, will be against science.
Back to the whole strategy aspect of it all. As far as fundraising goes, the Republicans need Bush's approval rating to be much higher. It is currently suffering because of depreciated support within the GOP base for some of his domestic policies. The more that conservative base voters support him, the more cash he can bring in for Congressional candidates running for reelection this November. So in order to get his rating up, he needs to appear like he is standing up for Evangelical Christians in this veto against embryonic stem cell research.
How do I know this? Being a political science and history student for the last four years, I have learned a lot about . And this one is so easy to sniff out. The Republicans are desperate during this election cycle. They are not going down without a fight -- even if that means smearing the Democrats more than they smeared John Kerry in 2004.
What can the Democrats do? Stand on principle and support embryonic stem cell research. Consistent with Al Gore's global warming theme, we want to be thought of as the pro-science political party. Everyone knows someone that has either died or suffered from cancer. This is not a winning issue for the Republican Party. That will not stop the GOP from trying. Like I said, being that Republicans are down in the polls, they are desperate.
There is a surprise on the immigration front. After word came down two weeks ago that Congress had pretty much shelved any opportunity before November of solving the immigration stalemate between the House and Senate, the two sides are now talking again, :
"I've really been rather encouraged about what's happened over the lastseveral days with regard to the issue of immigration," said HouseMajority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).
The plan being negotiated on would call for the "construction of triple-layer walls, deployment of surveillance aircraft and other means of tightening the border with Mexico." Two years later, the situation would then be evaluated and, if all went well, a quest worker program would be enacted.
But most Washington insiders will tell you that this is a big gamble. If the GOP start talking about this issue again and gets nothing done, they will find themselves in an even worse position with their base voters than just month ago. Every time Republicans talk about immigration, passionate feelings take hold within the conservative base, and those voters become even less tolerant of inaction.
I will give the GOP Congress credit for one thing: they are taking chances, something that Democratic strategists usually are too chicken to even consider. If this thing does not work out, even after talking about it to death once again, the GOP will have voter turnout problems this November. By not getting anything done, it would be like teasing their base. Really, who likes to be teased? Think of it as a baseball analogy. Losing a game 8 to 3 is one thing. But losing it 8 to 7 after the bullpen blew the lead can be worse. Sometimes good intentions coupled with good effort can lead to high expectations. If those expectations are not met, then everyone gets angry. That is the gamble that the GOP faces by revisiting this issue. Either they get their base revved up before November, or they anger them and millions of them stay home.
If an immigration compromise is made, expect the GOP to have a better shot at narrowly maintaining control of Congress. But if no immigration deal is reached, then say "good-bye" to the Republican majority this November. ---------------------------------------------------------- Other blogs writing about this issue: , , , , , , , .
It is very important that we understand Bush's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court ruling on military tribunals because it will likely result in the Executive and Legislative Branches ganging up against the Judicial Branch (that is if I interpreted Bush's words correctly). Here was :
"To the extent that there is latitude to work with the Congress todetermine whether or not the military tribunals will be an avenue inwhich to give people their day in court, we will do so," he said. "TheAmerican people need to know that the ruling, as I understand it, won'tcause killers to be put out on the street."
If you are thinking what I am thinking, this quote is quite contradictory. On one hand, the President is saying that this ruling will not cause terrorists to walk free -- so everything will be fine. Yet, on the other hand, he is also saying that because of this ruling he will force Congress to defy the Supreme Court and set up a law allowing military tribunals for so called "enemy combatants." In other words, what I am really asking is why does he want to pressure Congress to enact military tribunals if he admitted one sentence later that it won't hurt the United States if we don't have them? Interesting.
What this all boils down to is a likely fight that will erupt on Capitol Hill this July. Any Democrat that does not agree with military tribunals will be labeled as unpatriotic -- you know, the usual.
Ah, the stench of election season smears are in the air. Get ready. The "swift-boating" is about to begin. ------------------------------------------------------------ Other blogs writing about this issue: , , , , , , , .
I do not remember which network aired this clip. But I do remember watching it last year, and I thought to myself, "This would be a great thing to post." So after searching for it for an entire year, here it is. Get ready to laugh (It might take a second to load. If it does not load, to watch):
What this week reminds us all why we need a new House Speaker after November's midterm election:
Declaring that "loose lips" kill Americans, atop congressional Republican leader said on Wednesday the House ofRepresentatives will debate a resolution condemning the U.S. media forexposing details of secret intelligence programs.
Themove heaps more criticism on The New York Times and other newspapersthat reported last week on a secret program by the U.S. TreasuryDepartment that tracks private bank records.
"Whatwe're talking about is people who are leaking classified information.It's not news. It's classified information our government is using tofight terrorists," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, of Illinois.
First of all, "loose lips" do not kill Americans, loose-minded policies kill Americans. We have in a war that I would like to believe was fought to help protect our 1st Amendment right to move our lips freely.
Also, isn't it interesting that every Republican lawmaker and pundit is jumping at the New York Times? The Wall Street Journal reported the same thing. Oh wait, could it be that they are attacking the New York Times because it is liberal, and not attacking the Wall Street Journal because it is conservative? Gee, I wonder. If anything, loose lips put CIA agents like Valerie Plame in danger. Of course, that's an issue that Republicans don't want to talk about because, as usual, it's an ongoing investigation.
Recent Comments