The Blue State

Funniest Political Moments of 2006

Politics is filled with ups and downs -- especially this year in particular.  During this roller coaster ride, there were some lighter moments -- the stuff that makes following politics completely worth it.  Bust out the popcorn, kick-back, relax, and enjoy.  Here are the 10 funniest political moments of 2006, starting with number 10 and counting down to number 1:

10) CNN cuts to Bush before he was ready.  It just comes down to bad communication, nonetheless funny.

9) Adam Carolla hangs up on Ann Coulter.  It happened in July on the Adam Carolla radio show.

8) Bill O'Reilly and David Letterman went at it.  The thoughtful one always wins.  This was from October.

7) President Bush fondles German Chancellor Merkel.  This was one of the many embarrassing episodes for Bush during the G8 Summit.

6) Tucker Carlson dances.  Cover your eyes everyone.  Good effort though.

5) Bush teases a reporter about his shades.  Little did Bush know that the reporter was blind.

4) Bush impressionist Frank Caliendo steals the show.  This is from the David Letterman Show back in February.

3) Bush talks to Blair at G8 Summit while the microphone was still on.  This was the second embarrassing moment for President Bush during the G8 Summit in July.  Now we can understand why Bush doesn't like diplomacy so much.

2) Ted Stevens on Net Neutrality.  This definitely tops them all.  Over the next five years, Net Neutrality will be a huge issue.  What better way to solve it than by putting a complete idiot in charge of regulating it.  Jon Stewart of the Daily Show reports (The scary part was that until the Republicans lost their majority, Ted Stevens was only three heart-beats away from the presidency).

1) Stephen Colbert makes fun of Bush at the White House Correspondents Dinner.  Colbert demonstrates why he is so masterful -- because the press didn't understand his jokes.  There are three parts to this:

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

If you thought that I left anything out, feel free to post anything you want.

The savviest of Democrats will vote first

If you are a Democrat worried that voters in early primary states will not vote for the most electable candidate, think again.  In reality, writes CQ analyst Craig Crawford, voters in Iowa and New Hampshire are more politically savvy than the typical Democratic voter:

Although early polls in key Democratic primary states show many votersbeing tempted toward such unconventional choices, the party faithfulwho traditionally make it to the ballot box in these low-turnoutnominating contests tend to be more politically savvy than the public and will probably weigh their personal preferences against the all-important question of whether a woman or a black — orboth — could actually win a general election. Electability will be theNo. 1 issue for Clinton and Obama to address in the primaries.

What worries me the most is the fact that Nevada voters are new to this process.  This is the earliest in the primary season that their caucus has ever been held.  Democrats chose to move Nevada up in the list because it is the second fastest growing state in the country, and the west has been under-represented in the early primary schedule.  Nevadans have a huge responsibility before them, and need to remember that their vote must be for a Democratic candidate that actually has a shot at winning the general election.

12/30/06: Morning Political Dispatch

Here are the miscellaneous political stories that are not worthy oftheir own posts.  Some of this political buzz is pretty random, yet hardto find.  I write a post like this once each day.

• Even though Saddam Hussein was executed last night, Osama bin Laden still remains at large.  A White House spokeswoman called the inability to capture Osama bin Laden as "a success that hasn't occurred yet."
• The execution of Saddam Hussein only makes him look like a martyr to Sunni insurgents, writes Robert Baer of Time Magazine.
• The co-defendants who were supposed to be executed with Saddam Hussein were not put to death.
  
• Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) is fed up with the Iraq war, the Republican Party and politics in general.  According to a source, Hagel will likely not run for the Republican presidential nomination, and even opt out of politics all together.
• Democratic presidential hopefuls Tom Vilsack (Gov-IA) and Bill Richardson (Gov-NM) are holding John McCain accountable for encouraging Bush to increase the U.S. occupation in Iraq.
• Senator Tim Johnson's (D-SD) condition is improving, according to the Wall Street Journal.  A doctor said that Johnson's "overall general medical condition has improved and he is gradually being weaned from the sedation.”  While recovering from his stroke, Johnson turned 60 years young.
• The New York Times reports that the Pentagon is asking for a record amount of war money -- $99.7 billion on top of the $70 billion that was already appropriated in September.

Sorry, but I don't see how the execution of one man justifies this war.  One evil, authoritarianism, was replaced by yet another evil, lawlessness.

12/30/06: Daily Political Clips with Breakfast

Here are your political clips for Wednesday, December 27, 2006. Remember, if you have trouble viewing any of the clips, please click onthe clip and it will take it to Youtube where you can watch it fromthat web site.

1) Fox News obsesses about John Kerry.  One of the Barber brothers sits in as guest host on Fox & Friends.

2) John Edwards discusses globalization on Hardball.

3) Fox News' coverage of Saddam's hanging.  As it happened.

4) Chris Matthews discusses Ford's opposition to the Iraq war.  From Hardball.

5) MSNBC anchor chokes on live television.  Maybe she was just sick of talking about Saddam Hussein.

6) Iraqi-Americans celebrate in the streets of Dearborn, MI.

More political clips tomorrow, and maybe later today.

Bush fast asleep when Saddam's execution happened

We went through all of this trouble to go into Iraq, remove Saddam and execute him; yet our own President -- the man responsible for this invasion -- did not even bother to stay awake when the execution took place.

George W. Bush claimed that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was a grave and gathering danger to United States security.  We unilaterally went in there and deposed his regime.  In 2003, once U.S. soldiers found Saddam Hussein, who was hiding in a hole near his hometown of Tikrit, Bush assured the American people that he would be brought to justice.  Almost 3,000 U.S. soldiers and at least 50,000 Iraqi civilians lost their lives, and almost a half-trillion dollars was spent during this conflict.

Yet, while this was so important for us to go to war, remove Saddam and execute him, President Bush was fast asleep when the execution took place:

Bush was informed by national security adviser Stephen Hadley around6:15 p.m. CST (0015 GMT) that the execution would take place in a fewhours and was asleep when it occurred, said White House spokesman ScottStanzel.

Forget the fact that the Duelfer Report proved Saddam Hussein was a diminishing threat, not a grave and gathering one.  Forget that Saddam Hussein did not posses weapons of mass destruction.  Forget that the American people were lied to over and over about this war.  Still, after all this Iraq hype, shouldn't the man behind the invasion at least garner up the motivation and energy to stay awake past his normal bed time?  Since he is in Texas, he would have had to fall asleep before 9 PM CT in order to miss the execution.  That means he probably got ready for bed in the 8 PM hour.  What President goes to bed that early?  Major world events are happening, and our President chooses to sleep.  This is like "My Pet Goat" all over again.

Saddam Hussein executed

Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has been executed by Iraqi officials, under the watch of U.S. officials:

Some Arab media, including Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya and the U.S.-financedAl-Hurrah, reported about an hour before daylight Saturday (about 10p.m. EST Friday) that Saddam had been executed. There was noconfirmation from the Iraqi government.

This comes just a few hours after a U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. denied a request from the lawyers of Saddam Hussein not to turn him over to Iraqi officials.

So what do we have in all?

• 2,988 U.S. soldiers dead
• At least 50,000 Iraqi civilians dead
• More than $400,000,000,000 money spent
• One dictator dead

Oh, sure, it was worth it.

Joe Lieberman backs the Bush troop increase

One last thing before the end of the day.  Joe Lieberman's op-ed in the Washington Post is worth reading.  He calls for an escalation surge of U.S. forces in Iraq (no surprise there).  Maybe it is just me, but he appears to also be backing an attack on Iran.

Even most alarming of all, he believes that al Qaeda and Iran are working together:

• "..a conscious strategy by al-Qaeda and Iran.."
• "If Iraq descends into full-scalecivil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda andIran."
• "..a premature U.S. exit from Iraq would be a victory for Iran and the groups it is supporting in the region."

Anyone that has studied the geopolitics of Islam (which he should have since he is a Senator) knows that Iran and al Qaeda oppose one another.  Iran is led by Shiites, and is providing support to al-Sadr.  Al Qaeda is a Sunni organization, which is backing the Sunni insurgents against al-Sadr.  This should be common knowledge for any policy-maker in Washington.

If the United States left Iraq, then Iran and Al-Qaeda would fight one another.  They would not join together in victory, as Lieberman likes to predict.  It's called a civil war!

John Edwards' bad luck

Maybe announcing in late-December was not so beneficial after all.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton appeared on the cover of Newsweek.  They definitely are the favorites, sucking time out of each news cycle.  Knowing full well that Obama and Clinton will get doused with attention in January when they make up their minds, John Edwards and his advisers thought that announcing in December was the best strategic move possible.  Nothing else would be going on in the news, pretty much guaranteeing Edwards the headline news story for the rest of the week.

Not so!  If you have been watching the television lately, John Edwards has not been getting the exposure he had hoped.  A few other stories came out of nowhere and got in the way:

• Death of President Gerald Ford, and five days of mourning
• Death of James Brown
• Rosie vs Trump
• Denver snow storm
• Imminent execution of Saddam Hussein

All of those stories, not to mention Bush's deliberation about troop levels, are just more viewer-friendly than John Edwards' major decision.  Edwards currently does have the advantage in Iowa and Nevada, since he has campaigned there for the last two years since the '04 Kerry-Edwards defeat.  However, January and February will be difficult months for Edwards, as Obama and Hillary are expected to make presidential announcements.  Can Edwards stay relevant?

Specter says part of Military Commissions Act unconstitutional

Senator Specter voted for the Military Commissions Act, and then opposes it now that it is cool to do so.

Of the many issues that Democrats say they want to address, the Military Commissions Act is definitely one of them.  Last month, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), a 2008 presidential candidate, announced his plan to unveil legislation that would repeal the entire Military Commissions Act, which was passed earlier this year.  Senator Leahy has submitted his own bill, which is very similar.  The dispute is over a certain section of the Military Commissions Act that suspends habeas corpus for anyone, including U.S. citizens, that the government declares an enemy combatant.

With the momentum swinging in the favor of the opposition, former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Arlen Specter (R-PA), a Republican, came out and admitted yesterday that the part of the Military Commissions Act that suspends habeas corpus is unconstitutional:

"I think the courts are going to declare that part of the legislationunconstitutional," Specter said in an interview this month.

What makes this quote jaw-dropping was the fact that Specter actually voted for the Military Commissions Act just a few months ago.  With the pressure gone after he lost he chairman position, as a result of the Democrats' victory in November, Specter has the luxury of flip-flopping changing his mind without worrying about being threatened by his own party.

The way I see it, it is convenient for spineless people when situations arise that don't require them to have one.  I can never remember Arlen Specter taking a strong position on anything.  He claims to be pro-choice, pro-environment and pro-minority rights -- yet he prevented the opposition in his committee from critically questioning two right-wing Supreme Court justices.  Sorry, but although he is a proud moderate Republican, that Senator needs to develop his own positions and stop going whichever way the political wind blows.

Obama's kind of foreign policy

What would our foreign policy be like under President Obama?

Likely Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has proved that he is a professional at framing ideas in a way that most Americans can easily understand.  But during an age when the United States is facing a tough foreign policy challenge, how would Barack Obama work to further U.S. interests across the world in a smart, pragmatic and ethical way?

According to a recent column in the New York Sun, Obama's foreign policy might focus too heavily on humanitarian intervention:

His statements and associations in foreign policy circles also suggesthe might, as president, be more willing to use force to intervene inhumanitarian crises than other presidents have.

In Colin Powell's autobiography, written during the mid-90s, the Vietnam Veteran warned against putting U.S. troops on the ground in the middle of a humanitarian crisis.  Unless you send in forces with a clear objective, a quick mission and a clearly defined exit strategy, it can backfire.

But as a former professor at Georgetown who worked on Bill Clinton's campaign said, Obama is very competent and, maybe unlike our current President, is a thorough thinker:

"I worked on the campaign of President Clinton, then-Governor Clinton,in 1992. I haven't seen anybody since with the same talent for beingformidably intelligent and being able to place complicated concepts insuch eloquent terms as Senator Obama has," Mr. Lake said. "I think acandidate like Obama only comes along once in a while."

Mr. Lake praised Mr. Obama for his conviction that America can be amoral leader abroad. "He believes America can be a positive force inworld, but we have to be tough-minded about it," Mr. Lake said.

In his book, Mr. Obama downplays the military threat posed by China."Our most complex military challenge will not be staying ahead of China(just as our biggest challenge with China may well be economic ratherthan military)," he writes. "More likely, that challenge will involveputting boots on the ground in the ungoverned or hostile regions whereterrorists thrive."

Obama definitely has the competence needed to make big decisions.  But competence alone does not guarantee a good foreign policy.  It will be nice to hear Mr. Obama elaborate about when he believes that U.S. forces should be used in combat situations.  In other words, Obama should consider the following questions:

• Under what circumstances should the United States act unilaterally?
• Under what circumstances should the United States act preventively?
• When is working through the UN Security Council not the best option?
• Are you a realist or an idealist (foreign policy-wise)
• Under what circumstances, if any, can war create peace?
• Under what circumstances should U.S. forces be used in a humanitarian crisis?
• Do sanctions usually lead to war?
• What is the longest amount of time that you would allow U.S. troops to remain in harm's way?
• What should the U.S. policy in the Middle East: democracy first, or stability first?