www.washingtonpost.com
Ford Hailed as 'Man of Integrity'
Former president to lie in state for public viewing at U.S. Capitol this weekend, state funeral set for Tuesday at Washington National Cathedral.
–Peter Baker and Michael Abramowitz 6:58 p.m. ET• Former President, 93, Dies at Home
MOST ASSUREDLY THE BULLSHIT IS RUNNING KNEE DEEP IN THE DC METRO AREA TONIGHT. OUR NATION'S CAPITOL HAS NOT SEEN THIS TYPE OF PROPAGANDA SINCE WE SPENT A WEEK MEMORIALIZING A PRESIDENT WHO ACCOMPLISHED ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN HIS TWO TERMS IN OFFICE BUT A TRILLION DOLLAR NATIONAL DEBT. PRESIDENT FORD DID "Whip Inflation Now", cured us from Swine Flu and freed Eastern Europe from Soviet domination. Not to mention, Representative Gerald R. Ford spearheaded the defense and vehemently supported the Warren Commission Report on the Assassination of President John Kennedy that 80% to 90% of the people of the United States of America, Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas believe to be a complete miscarriage of justice and an investigative travesty.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
The Three Cardinal Rules of Politics
I. Never take the Money.
If you take the money, the person that gave the money to you owns your political ass for the rest of your life. Whether the promise or the "quid pro quo" was a direct one, indirect, spoken, unspoken, implied or written, you have been purchased with a price whether it is the truth or a lie. This point leads us to rule number two.
II. Tell the truth.
Tell the truth because no one will ever believe what you are saying to them anyhow. That gives you two tremendous advantages. First, while you are moving in your truthful endeavor, the other person is wasting time trying to figure out what you said to them. Second, the truth is simple to remember. The lie is difficult to remember. You won't get caught up in a truth, and a truth will never allow a lie to slip out.
III. Keep your pants on at all times.
It is better to imagine what you would like to do, and control your vessel by yourself than to turn off your mind, to act on your primal instinct and to bend over and kiss your political ass good bye. Hell knows no fury like a woman's scorn, and only a gentlemen never kisses and tells, and there are no gentlemen in politics.
So, all you young politicians, go to confession, go back to school and augment the planet....
"Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of the world." Robert F. Kennedy, 1968.
If you take the money, the person that gave the money to you owns your political ass for the rest of your life. Whether the promise or the "quid pro quo" was a direct one, indirect, spoken, unspoken, implied or written, you have been purchased with a price whether it is the truth or a lie. This point leads us to rule number two.
II. Tell the truth.
Tell the truth because no one will ever believe what you are saying to them anyhow. That gives you two tremendous advantages. First, while you are moving in your truthful endeavor, the other person is wasting time trying to figure out what you said to them. Second, the truth is simple to remember. The lie is difficult to remember. You won't get caught up in a truth, and a truth will never allow a lie to slip out.
III. Keep your pants on at all times.
It is better to imagine what you would like to do, and control your vessel by yourself than to turn off your mind, to act on your primal instinct and to bend over and kiss your political ass good bye. Hell knows no fury like a woman's scorn, and only a gentlemen never kisses and tells, and there are no gentlemen in politics.
So, all you young politicians, go to confession, go back to school and augment the planet....
"Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of the world." Robert F. Kennedy, 1968.
Monday, December 18, 2006
MSNBC / Dan Abrams / NeoCons take the reigns?
The slant to the right at MSNBC is very apparent as Dan Abrams, the cousin of Eliot Abrams, one of the Vulcans, NeoCons, and what have you done lately in Iraq Mr. Rumsfeld?, ascended to the reigns.
Rita Cosby and her raspy voice went to oblivion. It sounds like a personal problem with someone?
Chris Matthews reared his ugly right wing head to make the story...your great!
Scarborough kept it up. Buchanan got a more prominent role better move to Idaho Pat!
And Tucker went from obscurity to became a beacon for news! .... without the bow tie!
AND IF IT WASN'T FOR THE LIBERAL KEITH OLBERMANN TO MAKE US SLIGHTLY REMEMBER THAT NEWS, SARCASM, AND MURROW CAN FEED OUR BRAINS WITH SOME KNOWLEDGE UNTIL BRITNEY AND HILTON INVADE THE SCREEN...NO ONE WOULD WATCH THE DAMN STATION MSNBC!
Keep it up Dan Abrams...the Right Wing news that scrolls across the bottom of the screen ain't working either. You'll win the middle, but you'll lose the war.
Rita Cosby and her raspy voice went to oblivion. It sounds like a personal problem with someone?
Chris Matthews reared his ugly right wing head to make the story...your great!
Scarborough kept it up. Buchanan got a more prominent role better move to Idaho Pat!
And Tucker went from obscurity to became a beacon for news! .... without the bow tie!
AND IF IT WASN'T FOR THE LIBERAL KEITH OLBERMANN TO MAKE US SLIGHTLY REMEMBER THAT NEWS, SARCASM, AND MURROW CAN FEED OUR BRAINS WITH SOME KNOWLEDGE UNTIL BRITNEY AND HILTON INVADE THE SCREEN...NO ONE WOULD WATCH THE DAMN STATION MSNBC!
Keep it up Dan Abrams...the Right Wing news that scrolls across the bottom of the screen ain't working either. You'll win the middle, but you'll lose the war.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Clinton-Rendell 08 = 271 Electoral Votes at the U.S. Presidency
The states are Vermont, Mass., R.I., CT, NY, NJ, PA, NJ, MD, Del, DC, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii & Florida = 271 electoral votes
These states equal 271 electoral votes, and will win the presidency for a ticket of Hillary Clinton and Ed Rendell. Now the closet has a ghost or two for Fast Eddie, but he will help to deliver PA and Florida with the money brokers nation & worldwide. Not a Republican stands a chance at beating this ticket. Mc Cain can't touch these guys unless he can gets Jeb Bush in the Number 2 spot. You might be able to throw in NH and Maine for Clinton and Fast Eddie if the Republicans nominate Frist or a more conservative candidate. At least we'll find out if that video really exists????
These states equal 271 electoral votes, and will win the presidency for a ticket of Hillary Clinton and Ed Rendell. Now the closet has a ghost or two for Fast Eddie, but he will help to deliver PA and Florida with the money brokers nation & worldwide. Not a Republican stands a chance at beating this ticket. Mc Cain can't touch these guys unless he can gets Jeb Bush in the Number 2 spot. You might be able to throw in NH and Maine for Clinton and Fast Eddie if the Republicans nominate Frist or a more conservative candidate. At least we'll find out if that video really exists????
The Coming New Deal
The Harbinger of the New Deal / The Coming New Deal
by Anthony E. DeFiore MUP, Bucks County Community College
originally posted April 17, 2005
Much thanks to and notable research by Zach Cope, Remo Di Lello, Ben Hollis, Bill Hudek,Josh Jones, Nicole Kesselman, Jessica Latady, Ryan Mulkeen and Jeremy Spiller.
A look at the Blue and Red States of the 2004 Presidential Election illustrates good news for the Democratic Party. There are eight strong political reasons why the White House will soon be in the hands of the Democratic Party or at least in the hands of economic and social moderates.A state-by-state review of the 2004 Presidential General Election affords the opportunity to make two definitive observations. First, George W. Bush won the election, but it was not by an overwhelming mandate. The vote was 51% to 48%. He won the election by 3.5+ million votes out of nearly 115 million votes* cast. While nearly 60%* of the electorate came to the polls, the increase in religious voters greatly determined the overall victory for the President due to the closer than usual outcomes in important states. These states were Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada. Additionally, larger victories in southern states can also be attributable to this reason. In these southern states, strong electoral support for the war in Iraq may have also played a contributing role due to the location of numerous military bases in the south and the high enlistment of southern citizens in the military. Specifically, in Arizona and Florida, all these points may be credited for the larger than usual victories for an incumbent Republican President. Nonetheless, in Arizona and Florida, economic/tax issues and Hurricanes may have carried the day. Finally, religious issues especially in the Hispanic communities of the south and southwest United States played a huge role in voting during the 2004 Presidential Election.
Second, while Democrats won many Blue States that they have carried in previous elections: Midwest States of the Rust Belt: Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, The Entire Northeast from Maine to Maryland, and The West: California, Oregon, Washington, they failed in 2004 to pick up the needed swing states that they counted on for victory. While Clinton 1992-96 & Gore 2000 carried states like (including but not all) Arkansas, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, Louisiana, and Montana*2, in addition to the regular Blue States, Kerry was not able to win one. Being a Patrician, New England, Liberal, "Yankee" and Catholic caused a major perception problem in one form or another in those states. "He just wasn’t one of us" could be heard among the electors there. When exit polls showed that moral issues and leadership were vastly more important than health care and intelligence, these issues may have played a decisive role. Kerry did gain in New Hampshire. This is an indication that the premise may be true because a perception problem in some states may be a perception advantage in others.The final outcome of the 2004 Presidential Election: Bush: 51%: 58,978,616 votes: 286 electoral votes. Kerry: 48%: 55,384,497 votes: 252 electoral votes. (Washington Post, 11/14/04). If 60,000 votes in Ohio changed to Kerry from Bush, the presidency would have changed political hands. That isn’t a lot of "ifs", but it ain’t chop liver either! *
While the media industry proclaimed the permanent Republican Majority for the United States Government, and Republicans voiced the "Mandate Victory", Democrats need only recall the presidential candidacy of Barry Goldwater in 1964 to find a shining light. After Goldwater defeated the liberal New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller for the nomination, he was summarily crushed by LBJ in an election landslide. Even so, less than 16 years later, Ronald Reagan was President with Richard Nixon & Gerald Ford in the 1970’s. Due to the Internet and the shrinking communication distances of the world, politics changes much more swiftly than it used to change. While conservatives reigned for eight to somewhat twelve years (Bush 41), Bill Clinton was elected narrowly from 1992 to 2000, and Carter was elected narrowly in 1976. Take heart Democrats. It isn’t a Red Country yet. The political pendulum swings to the Democrats via the South on a continual basis in American Politics.
The seven reasons for Democrats to see the light at the end of the political tunnel is much better than pundits and headlines indicate:
First, the seven reasons for the coming New Deal of the Democratic Party begin with an interesting election. Howard Dean becomes Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The concerns of Democrats could be heard nationwide and inside the beltway. Nonetheless, before the bridge alerts, consider the 2004 Dean Presidential Campaign and the man himself.Howard Dean and his "Deaniacs" raised a tremendous amount of money via the Internet. Joe Trippi and the entire campaign team for Dean raised large amounts of money for Howard Dean to run for President. Also, with the enthusiasm of the Dean Campaign, Democrats found a voice to ignite the 2004 Presidential Race that seemed to never end for some since the 2000 race. The Iraq War threw gas onto the still simmering 2000 race fire and made Democrats unafraid to challenge the President in the election. Dean truly galvanized the Democratic Party and became the spark for the 2004 Presidential Election. Surreptitious support by Republican Money or by Conservatives may have assisted Dean in the campaign. These accusations, however, need to be conclusively proved. Whether true or not, Howard Dean was a real political force in the 2004 Presidential Race. One must look at the potential of Howard Dean as leader of the Democratic National Committee as a major advantage for two reasons. One is that he will use the DNC Data Bank created by former chairman Terry Mc Auliffe to make the Internet churn out donations to the party for the upcoming midterm elections. Second, the reinvigoration of young Democratic voters and stalwarts of the Democratic Liberal Base of the party will make Dean a huge cheerleader with the ability to get on the television. This may be a double-edged sword. If Dean shows an ability to moderate on issues and not yell out any Democratic cheers on the stump, he will be a huge advantage to Democrats in 2008. Dean may be seen and not heard as he collects the fundraising money. However, knowing Dean’s personality and long-term political goals, his moderation is doubtful. Nonetheless, even if he doesn’t remain in the background, the Presidential Nominee for the Democrats in 2008 will look like a moderate next to him. That bodes well for Senator Clinton and Senator Kerry.
Second, while the Bush Campaign salivated at the chance to destroy Dean in November, 2004, which they would have done, it cannot be discounted that the blogs, meetup.com, and the youth movement for Dean did not set the tone for politics in the future. Joe Trippi’s recent book, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, excellently documents the continued emergence of Internet Campaigning.Unquestionably, The Internet will be a major factor in all up coming elections. It was the Dean 2004 campaign. Young voters equal the Internet. In 1992, a higher voter turnout of younger voters definitely helped Bill Clinton get elected. In 2004, the Internet also contributed and possibly delivered Wisconsin for Kerry in November, 2004. One need only look at the turn out and the Springsteen concert at the University of Wisconsin in Dane County to see that it may have been true. To see that a razor close victory for Gore (by a few thousand votes) in that state turned into a 12,000 vote victory for the patrician Kerry is suggestive that the Deaniacs were a strong influence in Wisconsin. During the Iraq War, with Tommy Thompson support, former Wisconsin Governor in 2000 and at that time, Secretary of Health & Human Services, and with numerous visits by the President to the outlying counties of Milwaukee just days before the election, it is certain that the young voters in Wisconsin had a marked influence in the states final tally. While other factors are always to be considered, what cannot be debated is the significant increase in turnout of voters in Dane County. Additionally, and much more stealth is the influence of the new "ideopolis" in American Politics. The new "ideopolis" will play a role in the future of our national elections. This concept is excellently created and put forth in the book The Emerging Democratic Majority by John Judis & Ruy Teixeira. Will the "ideopolis" concept emerge in the states of Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Virginia, Indiana, North Carolina and Arkansas to overcome the other political realities of these states that made them Red States in 2004? Will the argument be sound? The premise is valid, and the change may be forthcoming.While Karl Rove and Michael Barone claim that the "exurbs" will keep the Republicans in office for a long time, they should not count their victories until the votes are counted. "Exurbs" of the counties surrounding the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, have become very Democratic in recent years. In fact, the bastion of Republicans known as Montgomery County is now becoming the vote getting stronghold for Democrats. "Exurbers" want better schools, health care, open-minded and moderate elected leaders. These can be the calling cards for Democrats nationwide. The "exurbers" that Rove and Barone are referring to are the rural Americans located in the counties well removed from the "ideopolis". They haven’t grown in numbers. A look at Lancaster County outside Philadelphia proves that point. In fact, urban and suburban sprawl may come to dominate those areas in the near future. The "exurbs" may become the home to Democratic voters as found in Berks, Bucks, Delaware, Montgomery & Chester Counties near Philadelphia. Will this same phenomenon take place in Denver, Atlanta, Florida (Broward or Miami-Dade Counties), Cleveland, Indianapolis, Charlotte, Arlington, Maricopa County, AZ, Des Monies or St. Louis? Will the argument be sound? The premise is valid and the change may be forthcoming.
Third, the failed candidacies of Barry Goldwater (1964) forebode an emerging conservative movement in the United States that emboldened Wallace, killed Mc Govern, liked the southerner Carter for a while and basked in the Right Wing zealotry of Ronald Reagan in 1980. In the 1960’s, conservatives found their voice in Goldwater and Wallace. They mounted steam until 1980 saw them emerge to the forefront.Today, politics moves much faster than the days of the afternoon newspaper. The afternoon paper was taken over by the 4 and 5 pm news cast on TV, cable news 24/7 and soon the Internet immediate news update via your Internet use on your wristwatch. While Dean resembles Goldwater (kudos to Chris Matthews, Hardball), he may not be as far away as Goldwater’s conservatives were in 1964. The Dean faction of the Democratic Party may be on the verge of a New Deal in terms of Social Security backlash to Bush 43, Healthcare, Civil Liberties (Patriot Act backlash), post secondary education opportunities and women’s rights.
Fourth, America is not a theocracy. While there is no separation of church and state in the US, there are open-minded voters that fear people who tell them how to pray. The religious right has a large voting bloc in the United States. They supported Ronald Reagan strongly. They have supported Bush 43 very strongly. But many people may have voted for Bush 43, not because they want a theocracy in America, but they may want a more moderate view towards issues like gay marriage and abortion. The Democrats need to embrace this moderation. Also, religious Hispanic voters in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Nevada need to understand that Democrats mean moderation on gay marriages and abortion. That political stance on those issues may be like being "a little pregnant" for Democratic candidates. However, the strength of Democratic candidates in the aforementioned states during the 2000 and 2004 elections indicates that Hispanic voters will vote for Democrats (Salazar in Colo. 2004 Senate race), Women (Gov. Napolitano in Arizona) and (Gov. Richardson in New Mexico) Hispanic candidates. As long as Republicans can wrongly portray Democrats as gay loving, baby killing Atheists; the White House will be beyond the reach of the Democratic Party.Fourth, the fear of the religious right within the Republican Party is real. Moderate Republicans are mounting a comeback in the Republican ranks. This resurgence is due to the foreseeable political problems associated with the USA becoming a nation more of diverse, educated and moderate voters. A look at the Republican field for the 2008 Presidency is indicative of a moderation in the party. Moderate candidates include, in no order, McCain, Pataki, Guiliani, Hagel & Mitt Romney. Schwarzennagar may have designs on the White House, but the Constitution may be too formidable. The conservative candidates are Frist, Santorum, Gingrich, Brownback and Lamar Alexander. While all are good candidates, the conservatives may be more unpalatable to the American people than a moderate would be in 2008. New faces of the Republican Party appear to be their future instead of the older more established conservatives of the past. Perhaps the Republican’s may try to mix and match a Presidential and Vice Presidential ticket with a moderate or a conservative. Nonetheless, unless they can steal a blue state with a conservative (Santorum, PA) or moderate (Guiliani or Pataki, NY), they may need to turn to a moderate in perhaps the southwest or Midwest elements of their party. For Republicans, moderation may in turn alienate the conservative and religious south. It is a dicey political experiment that just may split the Republicans in 2008, and open the door for the Democrats.
Fifth, President Bush 43 will moderate his strong stands on abortion, gay marriage and race issues in his second term. He may first do this by publicly reaching across the aisle to Democrats in a show of political reasonableness. He has begun such a posture in Europe as well. Additionally, Bush 43 may moderate his stand on these issues privately in the backrooms of power politics. Publicly, he may attempt to stand firm on these issues. He may have no choice. If he moderates publicly, he may alienate his conservative and religious base. If he doesn’t proceed in a moderating manner, he may split the Republican Party in 2008 as well. That political decision may doom the 2008 Republican nominee. President Bush is in a very polarized situation politically. He may in fact be in a Catch 22.Additionally, in the second term, Bush 43 will be able to complete this move away from religion and race issues as he focuses the world and the country on foreign policy (Iraq, Iran, North Korea, terrorism & nukes). He will also be able to blame the Democrats if any judicial nominees don’t get passed the Senate. He will cite religious grounds as the reason for it. Also, if the Gay Marriage amendment fails, he will blame the Congress and specifically the Democrats.Moreover, Bush 43 will attempt to solidify his popularity with the population of the electorate that voted for him in 2004 based on the issue of amnesty for illegal aliens and moral issues (Catholic, Evangelical, Abortion & Gay Marriage). Nevertheless, for Bush 43, speaking Spanish is one thing, getting the support of Hispanic Voters is quite another. In this move to solidify himself politically with Hispanic Voters, Bush 43 will get major opposition from the conservatives in his party. They are very much against immigration to the United States by our southern neighbors. If conservatives push Hispanic Voters away on this issue while hoping that they will vote Republican on moral issues, this may not bode well for the Republican nominee in 2008.Nevertheless, President Bush may make some public initiatives toward fulfilling his spoken and unspoken promises to the religious right. They voted for him, and he may need to reward them. The religious right may in fact be satisfied with just having Bush 43 in the White House. They may be confident that if anything happens in the future, he will make the morally "right" decision as president. They go to sleep comfortably now on that reassurance. If Bush moderates in any way personally with any political decision, he may do a "read my lips, no new taxes" turn around with the religious voters of the Republican Party. In turn he will hurt the next nominee of his party in 2008.
Sixth, the terrorism issue is easy for Democrats. Fighting terrorism is an American Issue. Fighting terrorism is a two party issue. Democrats need to embrace fighting terror even more than the President. More public announcements on the defense of the nation against terrorism will make the Democratic Party look strong not weak. Nobody is against America in the fight on terrorism. Fighting Iraq is a different story. Democrats must make their position on terrorism clear every day in the media markets of the US. Voters in 2008 need to believe that patriotism and fighting terrorism are one in the same, and Republicans and Democrats stand together on that issue. Recently, Howard Dean debated this point with Richard Perle at Pacific University in a fervent speech. Dean was adamant on defending America against terrorism. He made it clear that Democrats will not allow Republicans to frame the debate that Democrats are weak on terrorism. Perhaps Dean has illustrated his public persona as national chair already!?
Seventh, while the Democratic Party adores the Clintons and would even go courting with John Kerry again, the Moderate Democrats hold the future of the party in their hands. Moderates make look politically to the middle but in reality, their issues, when they get into the White House, will be the same FDR initiatives of the New Deal (health care, jobs, benefits, social security, education, civil liberties and less theocracy on moral issues). Liberals will look like moderates if the US continues to have Bush 43 and the religious right calling all the shots in Washington.
As a nation, the United States looks forward to changing parties after eight years of one party leadership in the White House. But more importantly, unless there are tumultuous events in the country, the political change in the White House may be more gradual and moderate than extreme.The moderate Democrats include Bayh, Warner, Biden, Vilsak, Edwards, Clark and Richardson. Any combination of those individuals on a national ticket will be a great asset for Democrats to regain the White House. In the Democrats’ heart, they would love the Hillary & Bill show in reruns, but the country is hovering in the middle of the road politically right now. If the Republicans stay hard to the right, the left will look like the middle. Senator Clinton may in fact be the Democratic nominee as she stakes out moderate positions in the years before the 2008 run. If the Republicans turn to the middle, then the nation wins.The moderation of the Republicans will afford the potential for victory to any Democratic candidate mentioned earlier because the Republicans may very well split their party for 2008 with a moderating tone. Democrats split themselves in 1968 when conservative Democrats went to Wallace instead of Humphrey. In 1992 and 1996, many Republicans can point to Ross Perot as a similar type of candidate that cost Republicans the White House in those years. In both scenarios, the party with unification towards the moderate views of the nation will win the White House in 2008. The New Deal is coming again, but the real deal now is moderation for the Democrats. The New Deal will begin once Democrats regain the White House, and the nation will be ready for the initiatives that Democrats will put forth.
*: some numbers approximate: verification pending. It will not be a great variance.
*2: state victories vary between the 1992-2000 elections. The ability to carry thesestates is the significant point.
by Anthony E. DeFiore MUP, Bucks County Community College
originally posted April 17, 2005
Much thanks to and notable research by Zach Cope, Remo Di Lello, Ben Hollis, Bill Hudek,Josh Jones, Nicole Kesselman, Jessica Latady, Ryan Mulkeen and Jeremy Spiller.
A look at the Blue and Red States of the 2004 Presidential Election illustrates good news for the Democratic Party. There are eight strong political reasons why the White House will soon be in the hands of the Democratic Party or at least in the hands of economic and social moderates.A state-by-state review of the 2004 Presidential General Election affords the opportunity to make two definitive observations. First, George W. Bush won the election, but it was not by an overwhelming mandate. The vote was 51% to 48%. He won the election by 3.5+ million votes out of nearly 115 million votes* cast. While nearly 60%* of the electorate came to the polls, the increase in religious voters greatly determined the overall victory for the President due to the closer than usual outcomes in important states. These states were Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, New Mexico, Colorado and Nevada. Additionally, larger victories in southern states can also be attributable to this reason. In these southern states, strong electoral support for the war in Iraq may have also played a contributing role due to the location of numerous military bases in the south and the high enlistment of southern citizens in the military. Specifically, in Arizona and Florida, all these points may be credited for the larger than usual victories for an incumbent Republican President. Nonetheless, in Arizona and Florida, economic/tax issues and Hurricanes may have carried the day. Finally, religious issues especially in the Hispanic communities of the south and southwest United States played a huge role in voting during the 2004 Presidential Election.
Second, while Democrats won many Blue States that they have carried in previous elections: Midwest States of the Rust Belt: Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, The Entire Northeast from Maine to Maryland, and The West: California, Oregon, Washington, they failed in 2004 to pick up the needed swing states that they counted on for victory. While Clinton 1992-96 & Gore 2000 carried states like (including but not all) Arkansas, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, Louisiana, and Montana*2, in addition to the regular Blue States, Kerry was not able to win one. Being a Patrician, New England, Liberal, "Yankee" and Catholic caused a major perception problem in one form or another in those states. "He just wasn’t one of us" could be heard among the electors there. When exit polls showed that moral issues and leadership were vastly more important than health care and intelligence, these issues may have played a decisive role. Kerry did gain in New Hampshire. This is an indication that the premise may be true because a perception problem in some states may be a perception advantage in others.The final outcome of the 2004 Presidential Election: Bush: 51%: 58,978,616 votes: 286 electoral votes. Kerry: 48%: 55,384,497 votes: 252 electoral votes. (Washington Post, 11/14/04). If 60,000 votes in Ohio changed to Kerry from Bush, the presidency would have changed political hands. That isn’t a lot of "ifs", but it ain’t chop liver either! *
While the media industry proclaimed the permanent Republican Majority for the United States Government, and Republicans voiced the "Mandate Victory", Democrats need only recall the presidential candidacy of Barry Goldwater in 1964 to find a shining light. After Goldwater defeated the liberal New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller for the nomination, he was summarily crushed by LBJ in an election landslide. Even so, less than 16 years later, Ronald Reagan was President with Richard Nixon & Gerald Ford in the 1970’s. Due to the Internet and the shrinking communication distances of the world, politics changes much more swiftly than it used to change. While conservatives reigned for eight to somewhat twelve years (Bush 41), Bill Clinton was elected narrowly from 1992 to 2000, and Carter was elected narrowly in 1976. Take heart Democrats. It isn’t a Red Country yet. The political pendulum swings to the Democrats via the South on a continual basis in American Politics.
The seven reasons for Democrats to see the light at the end of the political tunnel is much better than pundits and headlines indicate:
First, the seven reasons for the coming New Deal of the Democratic Party begin with an interesting election. Howard Dean becomes Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The concerns of Democrats could be heard nationwide and inside the beltway. Nonetheless, before the bridge alerts, consider the 2004 Dean Presidential Campaign and the man himself.Howard Dean and his "Deaniacs" raised a tremendous amount of money via the Internet. Joe Trippi and the entire campaign team for Dean raised large amounts of money for Howard Dean to run for President. Also, with the enthusiasm of the Dean Campaign, Democrats found a voice to ignite the 2004 Presidential Race that seemed to never end for some since the 2000 race. The Iraq War threw gas onto the still simmering 2000 race fire and made Democrats unafraid to challenge the President in the election. Dean truly galvanized the Democratic Party and became the spark for the 2004 Presidential Election. Surreptitious support by Republican Money or by Conservatives may have assisted Dean in the campaign. These accusations, however, need to be conclusively proved. Whether true or not, Howard Dean was a real political force in the 2004 Presidential Race. One must look at the potential of Howard Dean as leader of the Democratic National Committee as a major advantage for two reasons. One is that he will use the DNC Data Bank created by former chairman Terry Mc Auliffe to make the Internet churn out donations to the party for the upcoming midterm elections. Second, the reinvigoration of young Democratic voters and stalwarts of the Democratic Liberal Base of the party will make Dean a huge cheerleader with the ability to get on the television. This may be a double-edged sword. If Dean shows an ability to moderate on issues and not yell out any Democratic cheers on the stump, he will be a huge advantage to Democrats in 2008. Dean may be seen and not heard as he collects the fundraising money. However, knowing Dean’s personality and long-term political goals, his moderation is doubtful. Nonetheless, even if he doesn’t remain in the background, the Presidential Nominee for the Democrats in 2008 will look like a moderate next to him. That bodes well for Senator Clinton and Senator Kerry.
Second, while the Bush Campaign salivated at the chance to destroy Dean in November, 2004, which they would have done, it cannot be discounted that the blogs, meetup.com, and the youth movement for Dean did not set the tone for politics in the future. Joe Trippi’s recent book, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, excellently documents the continued emergence of Internet Campaigning.Unquestionably, The Internet will be a major factor in all up coming elections. It was the Dean 2004 campaign. Young voters equal the Internet. In 1992, a higher voter turnout of younger voters definitely helped Bill Clinton get elected. In 2004, the Internet also contributed and possibly delivered Wisconsin for Kerry in November, 2004. One need only look at the turn out and the Springsteen concert at the University of Wisconsin in Dane County to see that it may have been true. To see that a razor close victory for Gore (by a few thousand votes) in that state turned into a 12,000 vote victory for the patrician Kerry is suggestive that the Deaniacs were a strong influence in Wisconsin. During the Iraq War, with Tommy Thompson support, former Wisconsin Governor in 2000 and at that time, Secretary of Health & Human Services, and with numerous visits by the President to the outlying counties of Milwaukee just days before the election, it is certain that the young voters in Wisconsin had a marked influence in the states final tally. While other factors are always to be considered, what cannot be debated is the significant increase in turnout of voters in Dane County. Additionally, and much more stealth is the influence of the new "ideopolis" in American Politics. The new "ideopolis" will play a role in the future of our national elections. This concept is excellently created and put forth in the book The Emerging Democratic Majority by John Judis & Ruy Teixeira. Will the "ideopolis" concept emerge in the states of Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Virginia, Indiana, North Carolina and Arkansas to overcome the other political realities of these states that made them Red States in 2004? Will the argument be sound? The premise is valid, and the change may be forthcoming.While Karl Rove and Michael Barone claim that the "exurbs" will keep the Republicans in office for a long time, they should not count their victories until the votes are counted. "Exurbs" of the counties surrounding the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, have become very Democratic in recent years. In fact, the bastion of Republicans known as Montgomery County is now becoming the vote getting stronghold for Democrats. "Exurbers" want better schools, health care, open-minded and moderate elected leaders. These can be the calling cards for Democrats nationwide. The "exurbers" that Rove and Barone are referring to are the rural Americans located in the counties well removed from the "ideopolis". They haven’t grown in numbers. A look at Lancaster County outside Philadelphia proves that point. In fact, urban and suburban sprawl may come to dominate those areas in the near future. The "exurbs" may become the home to Democratic voters as found in Berks, Bucks, Delaware, Montgomery & Chester Counties near Philadelphia. Will this same phenomenon take place in Denver, Atlanta, Florida (Broward or Miami-Dade Counties), Cleveland, Indianapolis, Charlotte, Arlington, Maricopa County, AZ, Des Monies or St. Louis? Will the argument be sound? The premise is valid and the change may be forthcoming.
Third, the failed candidacies of Barry Goldwater (1964) forebode an emerging conservative movement in the United States that emboldened Wallace, killed Mc Govern, liked the southerner Carter for a while and basked in the Right Wing zealotry of Ronald Reagan in 1980. In the 1960’s, conservatives found their voice in Goldwater and Wallace. They mounted steam until 1980 saw them emerge to the forefront.Today, politics moves much faster than the days of the afternoon newspaper. The afternoon paper was taken over by the 4 and 5 pm news cast on TV, cable news 24/7 and soon the Internet immediate news update via your Internet use on your wristwatch. While Dean resembles Goldwater (kudos to Chris Matthews, Hardball), he may not be as far away as Goldwater’s conservatives were in 1964. The Dean faction of the Democratic Party may be on the verge of a New Deal in terms of Social Security backlash to Bush 43, Healthcare, Civil Liberties (Patriot Act backlash), post secondary education opportunities and women’s rights.
Fourth, America is not a theocracy. While there is no separation of church and state in the US, there are open-minded voters that fear people who tell them how to pray. The religious right has a large voting bloc in the United States. They supported Ronald Reagan strongly. They have supported Bush 43 very strongly. But many people may have voted for Bush 43, not because they want a theocracy in America, but they may want a more moderate view towards issues like gay marriage and abortion. The Democrats need to embrace this moderation. Also, religious Hispanic voters in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Nevada need to understand that Democrats mean moderation on gay marriages and abortion. That political stance on those issues may be like being "a little pregnant" for Democratic candidates. However, the strength of Democratic candidates in the aforementioned states during the 2000 and 2004 elections indicates that Hispanic voters will vote for Democrats (Salazar in Colo. 2004 Senate race), Women (Gov. Napolitano in Arizona) and (Gov. Richardson in New Mexico) Hispanic candidates. As long as Republicans can wrongly portray Democrats as gay loving, baby killing Atheists; the White House will be beyond the reach of the Democratic Party.Fourth, the fear of the religious right within the Republican Party is real. Moderate Republicans are mounting a comeback in the Republican ranks. This resurgence is due to the foreseeable political problems associated with the USA becoming a nation more of diverse, educated and moderate voters. A look at the Republican field for the 2008 Presidency is indicative of a moderation in the party. Moderate candidates include, in no order, McCain, Pataki, Guiliani, Hagel & Mitt Romney. Schwarzennagar may have designs on the White House, but the Constitution may be too formidable. The conservative candidates are Frist, Santorum, Gingrich, Brownback and Lamar Alexander. While all are good candidates, the conservatives may be more unpalatable to the American people than a moderate would be in 2008. New faces of the Republican Party appear to be their future instead of the older more established conservatives of the past. Perhaps the Republican’s may try to mix and match a Presidential and Vice Presidential ticket with a moderate or a conservative. Nonetheless, unless they can steal a blue state with a conservative (Santorum, PA) or moderate (Guiliani or Pataki, NY), they may need to turn to a moderate in perhaps the southwest or Midwest elements of their party. For Republicans, moderation may in turn alienate the conservative and religious south. It is a dicey political experiment that just may split the Republicans in 2008, and open the door for the Democrats.
Fifth, President Bush 43 will moderate his strong stands on abortion, gay marriage and race issues in his second term. He may first do this by publicly reaching across the aisle to Democrats in a show of political reasonableness. He has begun such a posture in Europe as well. Additionally, Bush 43 may moderate his stand on these issues privately in the backrooms of power politics. Publicly, he may attempt to stand firm on these issues. He may have no choice. If he moderates publicly, he may alienate his conservative and religious base. If he doesn’t proceed in a moderating manner, he may split the Republican Party in 2008 as well. That political decision may doom the 2008 Republican nominee. President Bush is in a very polarized situation politically. He may in fact be in a Catch 22.Additionally, in the second term, Bush 43 will be able to complete this move away from religion and race issues as he focuses the world and the country on foreign policy (Iraq, Iran, North Korea, terrorism & nukes). He will also be able to blame the Democrats if any judicial nominees don’t get passed the Senate. He will cite religious grounds as the reason for it. Also, if the Gay Marriage amendment fails, he will blame the Congress and specifically the Democrats.Moreover, Bush 43 will attempt to solidify his popularity with the population of the electorate that voted for him in 2004 based on the issue of amnesty for illegal aliens and moral issues (Catholic, Evangelical, Abortion & Gay Marriage). Nevertheless, for Bush 43, speaking Spanish is one thing, getting the support of Hispanic Voters is quite another. In this move to solidify himself politically with Hispanic Voters, Bush 43 will get major opposition from the conservatives in his party. They are very much against immigration to the United States by our southern neighbors. If conservatives push Hispanic Voters away on this issue while hoping that they will vote Republican on moral issues, this may not bode well for the Republican nominee in 2008.Nevertheless, President Bush may make some public initiatives toward fulfilling his spoken and unspoken promises to the religious right. They voted for him, and he may need to reward them. The religious right may in fact be satisfied with just having Bush 43 in the White House. They may be confident that if anything happens in the future, he will make the morally "right" decision as president. They go to sleep comfortably now on that reassurance. If Bush moderates in any way personally with any political decision, he may do a "read my lips, no new taxes" turn around with the religious voters of the Republican Party. In turn he will hurt the next nominee of his party in 2008.
Sixth, the terrorism issue is easy for Democrats. Fighting terrorism is an American Issue. Fighting terrorism is a two party issue. Democrats need to embrace fighting terror even more than the President. More public announcements on the defense of the nation against terrorism will make the Democratic Party look strong not weak. Nobody is against America in the fight on terrorism. Fighting Iraq is a different story. Democrats must make their position on terrorism clear every day in the media markets of the US. Voters in 2008 need to believe that patriotism and fighting terrorism are one in the same, and Republicans and Democrats stand together on that issue. Recently, Howard Dean debated this point with Richard Perle at Pacific University in a fervent speech. Dean was adamant on defending America against terrorism. He made it clear that Democrats will not allow Republicans to frame the debate that Democrats are weak on terrorism. Perhaps Dean has illustrated his public persona as national chair already!?
Seventh, while the Democratic Party adores the Clintons and would even go courting with John Kerry again, the Moderate Democrats hold the future of the party in their hands. Moderates make look politically to the middle but in reality, their issues, when they get into the White House, will be the same FDR initiatives of the New Deal (health care, jobs, benefits, social security, education, civil liberties and less theocracy on moral issues). Liberals will look like moderates if the US continues to have Bush 43 and the religious right calling all the shots in Washington.
As a nation, the United States looks forward to changing parties after eight years of one party leadership in the White House. But more importantly, unless there are tumultuous events in the country, the political change in the White House may be more gradual and moderate than extreme.The moderate Democrats include Bayh, Warner, Biden, Vilsak, Edwards, Clark and Richardson. Any combination of those individuals on a national ticket will be a great asset for Democrats to regain the White House. In the Democrats’ heart, they would love the Hillary & Bill show in reruns, but the country is hovering in the middle of the road politically right now. If the Republicans stay hard to the right, the left will look like the middle. Senator Clinton may in fact be the Democratic nominee as she stakes out moderate positions in the years before the 2008 run. If the Republicans turn to the middle, then the nation wins.The moderation of the Republicans will afford the potential for victory to any Democratic candidate mentioned earlier because the Republicans may very well split their party for 2008 with a moderating tone. Democrats split themselves in 1968 when conservative Democrats went to Wallace instead of Humphrey. In 1992 and 1996, many Republicans can point to Ross Perot as a similar type of candidate that cost Republicans the White House in those years. In both scenarios, the party with unification towards the moderate views of the nation will win the White House in 2008. The New Deal is coming again, but the real deal now is moderation for the Democrats. The New Deal will begin once Democrats regain the White House, and the nation will be ready for the initiatives that Democrats will put forth.
*: some numbers approximate: verification pending. It will not be a great variance.
*2: state victories vary between the 1992-2000 elections. The ability to carry thesestates is the significant point.
Monday, November 13, 2006
No New Stadiums could mean a New Democratic Voter!
GREAT NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE BELOW / SEATTLE DEMOCRATIC VOTERS
The Emerging Democratic Majority witten by Ruy Teixiera and John Judis postulates definitively that the new growing cities of America will be "Ideopolis" centered on the global economy and the fast moving economies based on information or better yet "ideas". As these cities grow, citizens will flock there to jobs that are better paying, better schools, lifestyles, amenities of life and culture of living. No professional team will bilk its residents from its hardworking making ends meet workers to its millionaires for stadiums if the citizentry does not want it. This is not a new burgeoning city that will blindly follow its President into war.....and then re-elect him.....! The Midterm National Elections illustrate much more than a Democratic return to power. It exemplifies what Seattle has said to its basketball team. Build your own stadium or arena! We aren't blindly following a millionaire owner on his promise that he NEEDS a new arena to win a (WAR) championship just because he sez so! What are we Republican voters from the South voting to re-elect Bush!? NO, WE'RE FROM SEATTLE. WE VOTE DEMOCRAT! WE AIN'T PAYING TAXES FOR WAR OR ARENAS! WE'LL PAY FOR SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS! SO SEEYA SONICS! WE'LL KEEP THE MARINERS AND THE SEAHAWKS IN ONE STADIUM EACH FOR NOW!
November 13, 2006
As Sonics Pack to Leave Town, Seattle Shrugs
By JESSICA KOWAL
SEATTLE, Nov. 12 — Empowered by a wave of venture capital, a hiring boom and pride in its homegrown billionaires, this city has decided it no longer needs a mediocre professional basketball team to feel good about itself.
On Election Day, residents rebuffed their once-beloved Seattle SuperSonics, voting overwhelmingly for a ballot measure ending public subsidies for professional sports teams.
The owners, who bought the Sonics in October for $350 million from Howard Schultz, the founder of Starbucks, had warned that the team would leave unless the city provided a new arena.
The vote delighted Citizens for More Important Things, a group that, with the help of a statewide health care union, spent $60,000 to sponsor the initiative. Other cities “may be so desperate to lure tourists there that they have to overpay for an N.B.A. team,” said Chris Van Dyk, a founder of the group. “Seattle doesn’t have to lure anybody.”
Mr. Van Dyk’s priorities are schools, transportation projects and health care, and he openly disdains wealthy people who buy professional teams, pay huge salaries to players and then demand handouts. Owners who threaten to take their teams elsewhere, Mr. Van Dyk said, are no better than “the neighborhood crack cocaine dealer.”
Told of Mr. Van DykÂ’s comments, Clayton I. Bennett of Oklahoma City, chairman of the group that owns the Sonics, sighed.
Seattle “turned its back on the N.B.A.,” Mr. Bennett said in a telephone interview, and gave up its chance to build a “multipurpose” arena suitable for basketball, hockey and conventions.
“I’m not saying it’s the most important thing or the only thing, but I think professional sports are an important component to the overall economy and quality of life in any marketplace,” Mr. Bennett said. “It’s about flying the flag of the city nationally and globally.”
The vote last week guarantees that the Sonics will leave their current home, KeyArena, in 2010, he said. The team may move to the Seattle suburbs and plans to talk to the State Legislature about that in coming weeks, but most people here think Mr. Bennett and his partners will move the team to Oklahoma City.
Even without the Sonics, Seattle would still have professional baseball and football teams, the Mariners and the Seahawks.
Antistadium sentiment was also reflected in Sacramento, where voters rejected a sales tax increase to pay for a new arena for the Kings, the basketball team there.
Residents and elected officials here have gone back and forth on financing for sports facilities. In 1995, voters narrowly rejected a sales tax to finance a baseball stadium for the Mariners. But after the team had a record season, the Legislature decided that the public would pay for most of a new stadium, Safeco Field, which ultimately cost more than $500 million.
In 1997, Paul Allen, a founder of Microsoft and one of the cityÂ’s billionaires, sponsored a statewide campaign that persuaded voters to commit $300 million to replace the Kingdome for the Seahawks. In return, Mr. Allen bought the team and put $100 million into a new field.
Last season, the team went to the Super Bowl for the first time, and Mr. Allen credited boisterous fans for victories at Qwest Field.
Owners of professional teams have long argued that arenas and stadiums increase economic development, jobs and tourism. With some economists challenging that view, the owners have developed a new argument: that a team enhances a cityÂ’s social status, said David J. Olson, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Washington.
Seattle is not buying it.
“Citizens in Seattle look around and see Microsoft and Boeing doing fabulously, the Port of Seattle is booming and trade with China is going to define this city’s existence for the next 50 years,” Professor Olson said. “Seattle has said, We can be a big-league city, we can be an international city, without kowtowing to professional sports franchises.”
The Sonics were SeattleÂ’s first professional team and first love, especially after they won a National Basketball Association championship in 1979. But the teamÂ’s record, aside from a playoff run in 2004, has been middling for years.
KeyArena, the smallest of any N.B.A. team, was renovated in 1995 with $75 million from taxpayers.
Public sentiment turned against the Sonics last winter when Mr. Schultz, the Starbucks chairman, demanded that the state provide $200 million to refurbish the city-owned arena. The team would have contributed $18 million.
It did not help the Sonics that on the morning of last weekÂ’s vote, a local newspaper heralded a deal to build a privately financed headquarters for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation near the SonicsÂ’ home.
The foundation, which gives billions of dollars to improve global health and public education, has paid $50 million for the land, will build three office buildings and will pay $1.7 million for traffic improvements. The cityÂ’s main financial commitment is to build a $15.3 million parking garage, which it will own.
To many Sonics fans, the rejection of sports financing proves that old, laid-back Seattle has been crushed by elitist Prius-driving do-gooders.
To say there is “no cultural value” in the Sonics is “ludicrous,” said Paul Merrill, a 34-year-old stand-up comedian who was 7 when the Sonics won the championship. Yet even Mr. Merrill, who helps run Supersonicsoul, “the Sonics blog for the Sonics people,” finds it hard to justify public spending on a new arena, an attitude reflected in a joke he tells in his comedy routine.
As a big basketball fan, Mr. Merrill says, he should come up with 200 million reasons why the city should pay for a $200 million arena: Where else can he buy a $7 pretzel? And, sure, that money could build housing for the homeless, but can homeless people dunk?
The real punch line, Mr. Merrill said, is that even he can think of only seven “reasons” to keep the Sonics in Seattle.
The Emerging Democratic Majority witten by Ruy Teixiera and John Judis postulates definitively that the new growing cities of America will be "Ideopolis" centered on the global economy and the fast moving economies based on information or better yet "ideas". As these cities grow, citizens will flock there to jobs that are better paying, better schools, lifestyles, amenities of life and culture of living. No professional team will bilk its residents from its hardworking making ends meet workers to its millionaires for stadiums if the citizentry does not want it. This is not a new burgeoning city that will blindly follow its President into war.....and then re-elect him.....! The Midterm National Elections illustrate much more than a Democratic return to power. It exemplifies what Seattle has said to its basketball team. Build your own stadium or arena! We aren't blindly following a millionaire owner on his promise that he NEEDS a new arena to win a (WAR) championship just because he sez so! What are we Republican voters from the South voting to re-elect Bush!? NO, WE'RE FROM SEATTLE. WE VOTE DEMOCRAT! WE AIN'T PAYING TAXES FOR WAR OR ARENAS! WE'LL PAY FOR SCHOOLS AND HOSPITALS! SO SEEYA SONICS! WE'LL KEEP THE MARINERS AND THE SEAHAWKS IN ONE STADIUM EACH FOR NOW!
November 13, 2006
As Sonics Pack to Leave Town, Seattle Shrugs
By JESSICA KOWAL
SEATTLE, Nov. 12 — Empowered by a wave of venture capital, a hiring boom and pride in its homegrown billionaires, this city has decided it no longer needs a mediocre professional basketball team to feel good about itself.
On Election Day, residents rebuffed their once-beloved Seattle SuperSonics, voting overwhelmingly for a ballot measure ending public subsidies for professional sports teams.
The owners, who bought the Sonics in October for $350 million from Howard Schultz, the founder of Starbucks, had warned that the team would leave unless the city provided a new arena.
The vote delighted Citizens for More Important Things, a group that, with the help of a statewide health care union, spent $60,000 to sponsor the initiative. Other cities “may be so desperate to lure tourists there that they have to overpay for an N.B.A. team,” said Chris Van Dyk, a founder of the group. “Seattle doesn’t have to lure anybody.”
Mr. Van Dyk’s priorities are schools, transportation projects and health care, and he openly disdains wealthy people who buy professional teams, pay huge salaries to players and then demand handouts. Owners who threaten to take their teams elsewhere, Mr. Van Dyk said, are no better than “the neighborhood crack cocaine dealer.”
Told of Mr. Van DykÂ’s comments, Clayton I. Bennett of Oklahoma City, chairman of the group that owns the Sonics, sighed.
Seattle “turned its back on the N.B.A.,” Mr. Bennett said in a telephone interview, and gave up its chance to build a “multipurpose” arena suitable for basketball, hockey and conventions.
“I’m not saying it’s the most important thing or the only thing, but I think professional sports are an important component to the overall economy and quality of life in any marketplace,” Mr. Bennett said. “It’s about flying the flag of the city nationally and globally.”
The vote last week guarantees that the Sonics will leave their current home, KeyArena, in 2010, he said. The team may move to the Seattle suburbs and plans to talk to the State Legislature about that in coming weeks, but most people here think Mr. Bennett and his partners will move the team to Oklahoma City.
Even without the Sonics, Seattle would still have professional baseball and football teams, the Mariners and the Seahawks.
Antistadium sentiment was also reflected in Sacramento, where voters rejected a sales tax increase to pay for a new arena for the Kings, the basketball team there.
Residents and elected officials here have gone back and forth on financing for sports facilities. In 1995, voters narrowly rejected a sales tax to finance a baseball stadium for the Mariners. But after the team had a record season, the Legislature decided that the public would pay for most of a new stadium, Safeco Field, which ultimately cost more than $500 million.
In 1997, Paul Allen, a founder of Microsoft and one of the cityÂ’s billionaires, sponsored a statewide campaign that persuaded voters to commit $300 million to replace the Kingdome for the Seahawks. In return, Mr. Allen bought the team and put $100 million into a new field.
Last season, the team went to the Super Bowl for the first time, and Mr. Allen credited boisterous fans for victories at Qwest Field.
Owners of professional teams have long argued that arenas and stadiums increase economic development, jobs and tourism. With some economists challenging that view, the owners have developed a new argument: that a team enhances a cityÂ’s social status, said David J. Olson, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Washington.
Seattle is not buying it.
“Citizens in Seattle look around and see Microsoft and Boeing doing fabulously, the Port of Seattle is booming and trade with China is going to define this city’s existence for the next 50 years,” Professor Olson said. “Seattle has said, We can be a big-league city, we can be an international city, without kowtowing to professional sports franchises.”
The Sonics were SeattleÂ’s first professional team and first love, especially after they won a National Basketball Association championship in 1979. But the teamÂ’s record, aside from a playoff run in 2004, has been middling for years.
KeyArena, the smallest of any N.B.A. team, was renovated in 1995 with $75 million from taxpayers.
Public sentiment turned against the Sonics last winter when Mr. Schultz, the Starbucks chairman, demanded that the state provide $200 million to refurbish the city-owned arena. The team would have contributed $18 million.
It did not help the Sonics that on the morning of last weekÂ’s vote, a local newspaper heralded a deal to build a privately financed headquarters for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation near the SonicsÂ’ home.
The foundation, which gives billions of dollars to improve global health and public education, has paid $50 million for the land, will build three office buildings and will pay $1.7 million for traffic improvements. The cityÂ’s main financial commitment is to build a $15.3 million parking garage, which it will own.
To many Sonics fans, the rejection of sports financing proves that old, laid-back Seattle has been crushed by elitist Prius-driving do-gooders.
To say there is “no cultural value” in the Sonics is “ludicrous,” said Paul Merrill, a 34-year-old stand-up comedian who was 7 when the Sonics won the championship. Yet even Mr. Merrill, who helps run Supersonicsoul, “the Sonics blog for the Sonics people,” finds it hard to justify public spending on a new arena, an attitude reflected in a joke he tells in his comedy routine.
As a big basketball fan, Mr. Merrill says, he should come up with 200 million reasons why the city should pay for a $200 million arena: Where else can he buy a $7 pretzel? And, sure, that money could build housing for the homeless, but can homeless people dunk?
The real punch line, Mr. Merrill said, is that even he can think of only seven “reasons” to keep the Sonics in Seattle.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
"Our true enemy has yet to reveal himself"
This terrific post is not my own. I copied it from another blog, but the blogger was anonymous.The conspiracy theorist in me still ponders the true motives behind this fine mess and chessboard move, but I will say that it is walking like a duck. As I ponder my esoteric conjutations (; (For those who know)...
Please Read my novel Gen. Ex. at www.xlibris.com
"Under the right circumstances, a producer could make more money with a flop than with a hit."-- Accountant Leo Bloom, from "The Producers."
There are five stages of grief -- anger is the second, right after denial, and that's where the Republicans are at right now. The sudden ouster of the highly unpopular defense secretary Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, just hours after the GOP electoral bloodbath, has led to most angry Republican fingers pointing straight at Karl Rove & Co.:"The White House said keeping the majority was a priority, but they failed to do the one thing that could have made a difference," one House GOP leadership aide said Thursday. "For them to toss Rumsfeld one day after the election was a slap in the face to everyone who worked hard to protect the majority."Maybe it's just because the Democrats actually won something, but for the last few days, something has just not felt quite right about either Tuesday's election, or the White House's handling of the voting and the aftermath. We have no doubts that a majority of American voters wanted change on Election Day, and they wanted the Democrats to be the agent of that change. But we've also followed politics -- and the rise of George W. Bush and Karl Rove -- intensely these past six or seven years, and so beginning on Tuesday night, we were increasingly surprised at all the dogs that did not bark in the 2006 election -- dogs that raised quite a ruckus in the last three national elections.The exit polls that leaked out in the late afternoon ended up matching the final results almost exactly -- nothing like what happened in those other Bush-era elections. The razor-close races all broke late for the Democrats, unlike Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004...and when that happened, there were no major charges of fraud, no "Brooks Brothers Riot," and no demand for a recount. The last two losers -- Conrad Burns of Montana and George Allen of Virginia -- went quietly into the autumn night, despite relatively close vote tallies. There appear to be no other Rovian stunts, like calling in the GOP's chits with Joe Lieberman to get him to caucus with the Senate Republicans. And there was no October surprise, not in Iran and not back home.And we thought most of these things before Bush's makes-no-sense-at-all handling of the Rumsfeld matter. We don't think a pre-election firing of Rumsfeld would have changed many voters' mind, but what if had changed just 1 percent. Burns and Allen (heh) would be returning to the Senate, and the GOP would at least control one house. Likewise, a lot of nailbiters like Rep.-elect Patrick Murphy's win in Bucks County would have gone the other way if Rumsfeld had been canned a week sooner.All this is a long prelude to our thinking the unthinkable.Is Karl Rove even more of an evil genuis than we think? Did he and Bush just produce an election flop...on purpose?It sounds completely off-the-wall, and before this post is over we'll give some good reasons why they wouldn't do that. But we'll also give you a couple of good reasons why life could be better for the Bush White House and the future presidential ambitions of the GOP with the Dems running Congress.But any good conspiracy theory -- and even a whacked out one -- needs evidence, so here goes:
1. Here in Pennsylvania, why did the Bush-led Justice Department step up its investigation of vulnerable U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon just weeks before Election Day. Weldon had a tough challenge from Joe Sestak, but few pundits thought he would lose before Oct. 13, that unlucky Friday when word leaked out that the lobbying activities of Weldon's daughter was the subject of a federak probe. His fate was sealed three days later, when FBI agents raided the daughter's home and other locations, in plain view of a stunned news media.
2. How did it come to pass that the predatory sexual habits of Rep. Mark Foley -- which we now know was a closely held secret among GOP insiders for years -- suddenly leaked out to ABC's Brian Ross a month before the election. There is one political operative in this country who is notorious for using rumors or allegations of homosexuality or pedophilia to destroy his election rivals -- and that operative is Karl Rove. According to accounts of how the story broke, it was Republican staffers who leaked the emails to Ross and to other D.C. insiders on the summer of 2006.
3. Given that Bush's approval rating hovered in the 35 to 40 percent range thoughout the election season, why did the White House suddenly make the president more visible by having more press conferences -- and thus taking more hostile questions on Iraq and other unpleasant subjects -- than at any other time in his six-year presidency, including two in roughly one week during the October home stretch?
4. Despite voters' increasingly strong dislike of Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary was deliberately put in front of the cameras at a key time in the race, on Oct. 26, just 12 days before the election. His news conference was alternately awkward and combative; he said that "that anyone demanding deadlines for progress in Iraq should 'just back off,' because it is too difficult to predict when Iraqis will resume control of their country."
5. Likewise, given Bush's low popularity and approval ratings, why was he dispatched at the last minute to the closest races, when other Republicans thought that his presence did more harm than good? Bush appeared with Sen. Conrad Burns in Montana just five days before the election, and for Missouri Sen. Jim Talent the day after that; and made frequent visits on behalf of Virginia Sen. George Allen. All three lost by narrow margins. Tennesee's GOP candidate Bob Corker got the more popular Laura Bush instead...and won.
6. Just four days before the election, and with polls showing the Iraq war highly unpopular, you had these comments from Vice President Cheney: The Bush administration is determined to continue "full speed ahead" with its policy in Iraq, regardless of Tuesday's midterm elections, Vice President Cheney said Friday. Cheney said in an interview with ABC News that the administration is convinced that it is pursuing the right path in Iraq. "It may not be popular with the public. It doesn't matter, in the sense that we have to continue what we think is right," Cheney said. "That's exactly what we're doing. We're not running for office. We're doing what we think is right."
7. Then you had the whole Cheney-Rumsfeld fiasco. Bush went out of his way to praise the two men just five days prior to the election, knowing full well how unpopular they were: He said he valued Cheney's advice and judgment. "The good thing about Vice President Cheney's advice is, you don't read about it in the newspaper after he gives it," the president said. Bush credited Rumsfeld with overseeing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while overhauling the military. "I'm pleased with the progress we're making," the president said. He replied in the affirmative when asked if he wanted Rumsfeld and Cheney to stay with him until the end.
8. And of course Rove made a number of confoundingly bad decisions, dumping millions of dollars into Senate races that seemed hopeless for the Republicans -- and ultimately were -- in the solidly "blue" states of New Jersey and Maryland, where in hindsight a few dollars spent in the right ways might have salvaged the once-"red" Montana and Virginia.And that's on top of all the things that that the Rove-Cheney-Bush White House didn't do, as we mentioned in the outset -- recounts, massive voter intimidation, or -- as proven by those accurate exit polls -- even worse.
So why in the name of God would Bush and Rove want to produce a flop in 2006?Well, on the domestic front, there may actually be some advantages for Bush with a Democratic Congress. For one thing, they'll probably pass a favorite program of the president and his big-business buddies, the guest worker program for immigrants, since it was the conservatives in the House holding that up. The GOP was probably also ready to relent on the minimum wage, which was becoming a political albatross for them.The other stuff that Bush wouldn't like -- higher taxes on oil companies and the rich -- he can always veto, if his 49 senators (nine more than necessary) don't block a vote before it gets that far. He's already been promised by Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean that he won't be impeached. From what we've seen, Bush didn't like the Republican leaders in Congress (especially the ousted Tom DeLay) all that much anyway.But it really boils down to one word: Iraq.Everything we watched Bush do since Wednesday morning seems to be geared in one direction: Bringing Democrats to the table on Iraq. The problem for the Democrats is this: They came to office without a plan for Iraq. Bush doesn't seem to have one either. Nobody does, although James Baker and his friends are said to be working on one. But now whatever emerges from the coming discussions will not longer be the GOP plan. It will be the Bush/Democrats' plan. And we're afraid that the war planners are expecting things to get worse over there in 2007. Good politicians are able to ensure that when bad fallout is inevitable, that the blame can be shared. A GOP majority in Capitol Hill would have guaranteed that "the Republican war in Iraq" would dominate the 2008 presidential race, and that equation would hand the keys to the White House to the Democrats for sure. And Bush's patrons -- oilmen and the defense contractors -- need the White House a lot more than Congress, especially after the recent expansion of presidential powers. And now both parties will have a stake in Iraq, and the mostly likely in the coming fiasco there.So, does that make sense, or is it the most ridiculous theory ever? There are certainly holes. The GOP did spend millions on dirty tricks like robo-calls, although the impetus seemed to come from the individual campaigns more than the White House. There was the November surprise of the Saddam Hussein death sentence, although that carried much less of a wallop than when the scheme was first cooked up. It wasn't that long agp that Rove and others were talking of a "permanent Republican majority."Is Karl Rove not the evil genius we all thought he was, or is he brilliant beyond the reckoning power of us mere mortals? Whatever the strategery, the more we look at it, the more we think that Bush's difficult next two years may work out slightly better for him with a Democratic Congress.Like Sen. Arlen Specter was just saying in those Rick Santorum radio ads...think about it.
posted by Tony DeFiore at 6:48 PM 0 comments
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Please Read my novel Gen. Ex. at www.xlibris.com
"Under the right circumstances, a producer could make more money with a flop than with a hit."-- Accountant Leo Bloom, from "The Producers."
There are five stages of grief -- anger is the second, right after denial, and that's where the Republicans are at right now. The sudden ouster of the highly unpopular defense secretary Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, just hours after the GOP electoral bloodbath, has led to most angry Republican fingers pointing straight at Karl Rove & Co.:"The White House said keeping the majority was a priority, but they failed to do the one thing that could have made a difference," one House GOP leadership aide said Thursday. "For them to toss Rumsfeld one day after the election was a slap in the face to everyone who worked hard to protect the majority."Maybe it's just because the Democrats actually won something, but for the last few days, something has just not felt quite right about either Tuesday's election, or the White House's handling of the voting and the aftermath. We have no doubts that a majority of American voters wanted change on Election Day, and they wanted the Democrats to be the agent of that change. But we've also followed politics -- and the rise of George W. Bush and Karl Rove -- intensely these past six or seven years, and so beginning on Tuesday night, we were increasingly surprised at all the dogs that did not bark in the 2006 election -- dogs that raised quite a ruckus in the last three national elections.The exit polls that leaked out in the late afternoon ended up matching the final results almost exactly -- nothing like what happened in those other Bush-era elections. The razor-close races all broke late for the Democrats, unlike Florida in 2000 or Ohio in 2004...and when that happened, there were no major charges of fraud, no "Brooks Brothers Riot," and no demand for a recount. The last two losers -- Conrad Burns of Montana and George Allen of Virginia -- went quietly into the autumn night, despite relatively close vote tallies. There appear to be no other Rovian stunts, like calling in the GOP's chits with Joe Lieberman to get him to caucus with the Senate Republicans. And there was no October surprise, not in Iran and not back home.And we thought most of these things before Bush's makes-no-sense-at-all handling of the Rumsfeld matter. We don't think a pre-election firing of Rumsfeld would have changed many voters' mind, but what if had changed just 1 percent. Burns and Allen (heh) would be returning to the Senate, and the GOP would at least control one house. Likewise, a lot of nailbiters like Rep.-elect Patrick Murphy's win in Bucks County would have gone the other way if Rumsfeld had been canned a week sooner.All this is a long prelude to our thinking the unthinkable.Is Karl Rove even more of an evil genuis than we think? Did he and Bush just produce an election flop...on purpose?It sounds completely off-the-wall, and before this post is over we'll give some good reasons why they wouldn't do that. But we'll also give you a couple of good reasons why life could be better for the Bush White House and the future presidential ambitions of the GOP with the Dems running Congress.But any good conspiracy theory -- and even a whacked out one -- needs evidence, so here goes:
1. Here in Pennsylvania, why did the Bush-led Justice Department step up its investigation of vulnerable U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon just weeks before Election Day. Weldon had a tough challenge from Joe Sestak, but few pundits thought he would lose before Oct. 13, that unlucky Friday when word leaked out that the lobbying activities of Weldon's daughter was the subject of a federak probe. His fate was sealed three days later, when FBI agents raided the daughter's home and other locations, in plain view of a stunned news media.
2. How did it come to pass that the predatory sexual habits of Rep. Mark Foley -- which we now know was a closely held secret among GOP insiders for years -- suddenly leaked out to ABC's Brian Ross a month before the election. There is one political operative in this country who is notorious for using rumors or allegations of homosexuality or pedophilia to destroy his election rivals -- and that operative is Karl Rove. According to accounts of how the story broke, it was Republican staffers who leaked the emails to Ross and to other D.C. insiders on the summer of 2006.
3. Given that Bush's approval rating hovered in the 35 to 40 percent range thoughout the election season, why did the White House suddenly make the president more visible by having more press conferences -- and thus taking more hostile questions on Iraq and other unpleasant subjects -- than at any other time in his six-year presidency, including two in roughly one week during the October home stretch?
4. Despite voters' increasingly strong dislike of Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary was deliberately put in front of the cameras at a key time in the race, on Oct. 26, just 12 days before the election. His news conference was alternately awkward and combative; he said that "that anyone demanding deadlines for progress in Iraq should 'just back off,' because it is too difficult to predict when Iraqis will resume control of their country."
5. Likewise, given Bush's low popularity and approval ratings, why was he dispatched at the last minute to the closest races, when other Republicans thought that his presence did more harm than good? Bush appeared with Sen. Conrad Burns in Montana just five days before the election, and for Missouri Sen. Jim Talent the day after that; and made frequent visits on behalf of Virginia Sen. George Allen. All three lost by narrow margins. Tennesee's GOP candidate Bob Corker got the more popular Laura Bush instead...and won.
6. Just four days before the election, and with polls showing the Iraq war highly unpopular, you had these comments from Vice President Cheney: The Bush administration is determined to continue "full speed ahead" with its policy in Iraq, regardless of Tuesday's midterm elections, Vice President Cheney said Friday. Cheney said in an interview with ABC News that the administration is convinced that it is pursuing the right path in Iraq. "It may not be popular with the public. It doesn't matter, in the sense that we have to continue what we think is right," Cheney said. "That's exactly what we're doing. We're not running for office. We're doing what we think is right."
7. Then you had the whole Cheney-Rumsfeld fiasco. Bush went out of his way to praise the two men just five days prior to the election, knowing full well how unpopular they were: He said he valued Cheney's advice and judgment. "The good thing about Vice President Cheney's advice is, you don't read about it in the newspaper after he gives it," the president said. Bush credited Rumsfeld with overseeing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while overhauling the military. "I'm pleased with the progress we're making," the president said. He replied in the affirmative when asked if he wanted Rumsfeld and Cheney to stay with him until the end.
8. And of course Rove made a number of confoundingly bad decisions, dumping millions of dollars into Senate races that seemed hopeless for the Republicans -- and ultimately were -- in the solidly "blue" states of New Jersey and Maryland, where in hindsight a few dollars spent in the right ways might have salvaged the once-"red" Montana and Virginia.And that's on top of all the things that that the Rove-Cheney-Bush White House didn't do, as we mentioned in the outset -- recounts, massive voter intimidation, or -- as proven by those accurate exit polls -- even worse.
So why in the name of God would Bush and Rove want to produce a flop in 2006?Well, on the domestic front, there may actually be some advantages for Bush with a Democratic Congress. For one thing, they'll probably pass a favorite program of the president and his big-business buddies, the guest worker program for immigrants, since it was the conservatives in the House holding that up. The GOP was probably also ready to relent on the minimum wage, which was becoming a political albatross for them.The other stuff that Bush wouldn't like -- higher taxes on oil companies and the rich -- he can always veto, if his 49 senators (nine more than necessary) don't block a vote before it gets that far. He's already been promised by Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean that he won't be impeached. From what we've seen, Bush didn't like the Republican leaders in Congress (especially the ousted Tom DeLay) all that much anyway.But it really boils down to one word: Iraq.Everything we watched Bush do since Wednesday morning seems to be geared in one direction: Bringing Democrats to the table on Iraq. The problem for the Democrats is this: They came to office without a plan for Iraq. Bush doesn't seem to have one either. Nobody does, although James Baker and his friends are said to be working on one. But now whatever emerges from the coming discussions will not longer be the GOP plan. It will be the Bush/Democrats' plan. And we're afraid that the war planners are expecting things to get worse over there in 2007. Good politicians are able to ensure that when bad fallout is inevitable, that the blame can be shared. A GOP majority in Capitol Hill would have guaranteed that "the Republican war in Iraq" would dominate the 2008 presidential race, and that equation would hand the keys to the White House to the Democrats for sure. And Bush's patrons -- oilmen and the defense contractors -- need the White House a lot more than Congress, especially after the recent expansion of presidential powers. And now both parties will have a stake in Iraq, and the mostly likely in the coming fiasco there.So, does that make sense, or is it the most ridiculous theory ever? There are certainly holes. The GOP did spend millions on dirty tricks like robo-calls, although the impetus seemed to come from the individual campaigns more than the White House. There was the November surprise of the Saddam Hussein death sentence, although that carried much less of a wallop than when the scheme was first cooked up. It wasn't that long agp that Rove and others were talking of a "permanent Republican majority."Is Karl Rove not the evil genius we all thought he was, or is he brilliant beyond the reckoning power of us mere mortals? Whatever the strategery, the more we look at it, the more we think that Bush's difficult next two years may work out slightly better for him with a Democratic Congress.Like Sen. Arlen Specter was just saying in those Rick Santorum radio ads...think about it.
posted by Tony DeFiore at 6:48 PM 0 comments
Sunday, November 05, 2006
Karl Rove: Not The Architect but THE DEMOLITION MAN!
TO THE VICTOR BELONGS THE SPOILS & THE SUBPOENAS BE SIGNED & DELIVERED!
MSNBC.com
WP: Rove steadfast in the face of critics
President's strategist may be down after election but he's not out of a job
By Peter Baker
The Washington Post
Updated: 8:23 a.m. ET Nov 12, 2006
HATE, WEDGE ISSUES AND DIVIDE & CONQUER WORKS WITH H.S. ELECTIONS But, eventually Abraham Lincoln is correct!
WASHINGTON - For a man still climbing out of the rubble, Karl Rove seemed in his usual unflappable mood. He roamed around his windowless West Wing office decorated with four Abraham Lincoln portraits, joking with his staff, stuffing copies of "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey" into his bag and signing the last paperwork of the day.
The Architect, as President Bush once called him, has a theory for why the building fell down. "Get me the one-pager!" he cried out to an aide, who promptly delivered a single sheet of paper that had been updated almost hourly since the midterm elections with a series of statistics explaining that the "thumping" Bush took was not such a thumping after all.
The theory is this: The building's infrastructure was actually quite sound. It was bad luck and seasonal shifts in the winds that blew out the walls -- complacent candidates, an ill-timed Mark Foley page scandal and the predictable cycles of history. But the foundation is fine: "The Republican philosophy is alive and well and likely to reemerge in the majority in 2008."
The rest of Washington might think Tuesday's elections were a repudiation of Rove's brand of politics, but Rove does not. For years, he has been the center of hyperbolic attention -- called the genius, the electoral mastermind, the most powerful presidential adviser in a century, Bush's brain, the master of the dark arts of wedge politics, the Republican Moses leading conservatives out of the desert.
The mythology grew to such an outsized degree that when Rove insisted again and again during the campaign that Republicans would win despite the odds, fearful Democrats convinced themselves that he must have known something they did not and waited for an October surprise to spring. Rove encouraged that with supreme confidence. "You are entitled to your math, and I'm entitled to the math," he told a National Public Radio interviewer who suggested Democrats might win.
Jabs at RoveIt turns out that Rove is mortal after all, and not always so good at math. And his critics are crowing. If he tuned in to CNN or NPR last week, here's a sampling of what he would have heard about himself.
Richard Viguerie, the conservative direct-mail pioneer: "Clearly a loss for George Bush, Karl Rove."
Andrew Sullivan, the conservative writer: "Shows him not to be a genius, but to be a real failure as a political strategist."
Bill Maher, the political satirist: "Karl Rove has led this Republican Party down a hole."
David Gergen, ex-presidential adviser: "He went off to hardliners, and that left an awful lot of moderates . . . feeling alienated."
Even Bush seemed to be jabbing at Rove in the aftermath of the elections, which handed Congress back to the Democrats. At a news conference Wednesday, Bush was asked about his ongoing book-reading contest with Rove. "I'm losing," Bush said tartly. "I obviously was working harder in the campaign that he was."
But those who interpret that as anything more than an affectionate, if edgy, dig misunderstand the president's sense of humor and his relationship with his chief strategist, according to officials. Bush likes to needle Rove, even nicknaming him "Turd Blossom," but aides said he does not blame his adviser for the loss, and few believe Rove will lose his job. Instead, he will turn to figuring out a policy and political agenda that can salvage the last two years of the Bush presidency.
"From everything that I've heard, Karl will be around till the end," said Michael J. Gerson, a former White House adviser. "The reason is simple: People who view him as a campaign operative whose usefulness ends when the last vote is counted are wrong."
Asked about his plans, Rove fell back on his standard line: "I serve at the pleasure of the president with the agreement of my wife."
Allies argued that without Rove, the losses would have been worse. "He deserves a good bit of credit for victories and probably he would admit he should take a little blame for the failure," said Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.). "That does not make him any less of a strategic thinker because he had a loss. If I was taking advice outside of the box from anyone, he would probably be the first person I call."
Mary Matalin, an adviser to Vice President Cheney, said Rove is still "the Zen master of movement politics" but envious rivals are eager to gloat over a single defeat. "Karl has done a lot of things that he had to do that were necessary, and if you've been around that long you make enemies," she said. "They used to call it the green-eyed monster. It's the nature of the town."
Rove's theoryRove's brand of politics aims to sharpen differences with the opposition, energize the conservative base and micro-target voters to pick off selected parts of the other side's constituency. As he has in past elections, Rove designed a strategy to paint Democrats as weak on national security and terrorism, the "party of cut and run."
In an expansive interview last week, Rove said that strategy was working until the House page sex scandal involving ex-representative Foley (R-Fla.) put the Republican campaign "back on its heels," as he put it. "We were on a roll, and it stopped it," he said. "It revived all the stuff about Abramoff and added to it."
The various scandals surrounding convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and other ethics allegations, Rove said, had as much, if not more, to do with the defeat than the Iraq war. In Rove's analysis, 10 of the 28 House seats Republicans lost were sacrificed because of various scandals. Another six, he said, were lost because incumbents did not recognize and react quickly enough to the threat. That leaves 12 other seats lost, fewer than the 15 that Democrats needed to capture the House. So without corruption and complacency, he argued, Republicans could have kept control regardless of Bush's troubles and the war.
"It plays some role, but if Iraq is the determining factor and it is a dominant opinion, then in a blue state like Connecticut you should not have 60 percent of the voters vote for one of the candidates who said, 'Stay, fight and win,' " Rove said, referring to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's victory as an independent. "I don't deny that it's a factor, but it is hard to declare" that it is the overriding factor.
The "one-pager" outlines why, in his view, the losses were not particularly extraordinary and therefore not a repudiation of Bush: The loss of 28 House seats and six Senate seats is roughly comparable to losses suffered by the party in the White House in the sixth year of other presidencies and the same as the average wartime midterm. Moreover, it says, 23 races were decided by two percentage points or less, and it credits the "GOP Ground Game," the Rove-devised turnout machine. Overall, a shift of 77,611 votes would have kept the House in Republican hands.
Others point to different statistics -- voters nearly 2 to 1 casting ballots to express opposition to Bush; one in five conservatives voting for Democrats; fewer Hispanics, Catholics and evangelicals supporting Republicans; most voters favoring withdrawal of some or all U.S. troops from Iraq. Some dismiss Rove's historical comparisons as a rationalization for failure, especially since the gerrymandering of House districts has made it harder to oust incumbents than in past midterms.
Without referencing Rove specifically, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman called it a mistake to compare last week's defeat to past trends. "If we simply say there were historical problems we could not overcome, and that we did not have a chance to win, then we have a real problem," said Mehlman, a Rove protege. If Republicans recommit themselves to reform and smaller government, this election will be a "brief interruption in a generational effort to build a center-right majority.
Rove seconds that last thought and believes his turnout campaign actually beat the odds of history, ticking off a dozen races that were supposed to be closer. "What happened in all those? It may have been that the tactical work done by the White House, the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee had a big impact."
The lesson, he added, is that "if you're not complacent and you're prepared and you are driving and have a good game," you can win even in a tough political year. And so now it's back to the drawing board for the Architect.
Staff writer Jim VandeHei contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
MSNBC.com
WP: Rove steadfast in the face of critics
President's strategist may be down after election but he's not out of a job
By Peter Baker
The Washington Post
Updated: 8:23 a.m. ET Nov 12, 2006
HATE, WEDGE ISSUES AND DIVIDE & CONQUER WORKS WITH H.S. ELECTIONS But, eventually Abraham Lincoln is correct!
WASHINGTON - For a man still climbing out of the rubble, Karl Rove seemed in his usual unflappable mood. He roamed around his windowless West Wing office decorated with four Abraham Lincoln portraits, joking with his staff, stuffing copies of "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey" into his bag and signing the last paperwork of the day.
The Architect, as President Bush once called him, has a theory for why the building fell down. "Get me the one-pager!" he cried out to an aide, who promptly delivered a single sheet of paper that had been updated almost hourly since the midterm elections with a series of statistics explaining that the "thumping" Bush took was not such a thumping after all.
The theory is this: The building's infrastructure was actually quite sound. It was bad luck and seasonal shifts in the winds that blew out the walls -- complacent candidates, an ill-timed Mark Foley page scandal and the predictable cycles of history. But the foundation is fine: "The Republican philosophy is alive and well and likely to reemerge in the majority in 2008."
The rest of Washington might think Tuesday's elections were a repudiation of Rove's brand of politics, but Rove does not. For years, he has been the center of hyperbolic attention -- called the genius, the electoral mastermind, the most powerful presidential adviser in a century, Bush's brain, the master of the dark arts of wedge politics, the Republican Moses leading conservatives out of the desert.
The mythology grew to such an outsized degree that when Rove insisted again and again during the campaign that Republicans would win despite the odds, fearful Democrats convinced themselves that he must have known something they did not and waited for an October surprise to spring. Rove encouraged that with supreme confidence. "You are entitled to your math, and I'm entitled to the math," he told a National Public Radio interviewer who suggested Democrats might win.
Jabs at RoveIt turns out that Rove is mortal after all, and not always so good at math. And his critics are crowing. If he tuned in to CNN or NPR last week, here's a sampling of what he would have heard about himself.
Richard Viguerie, the conservative direct-mail pioneer: "Clearly a loss for George Bush, Karl Rove."
Andrew Sullivan, the conservative writer: "Shows him not to be a genius, but to be a real failure as a political strategist."
Bill Maher, the political satirist: "Karl Rove has led this Republican Party down a hole."
David Gergen, ex-presidential adviser: "He went off to hardliners, and that left an awful lot of moderates . . . feeling alienated."
Even Bush seemed to be jabbing at Rove in the aftermath of the elections, which handed Congress back to the Democrats. At a news conference Wednesday, Bush was asked about his ongoing book-reading contest with Rove. "I'm losing," Bush said tartly. "I obviously was working harder in the campaign that he was."
But those who interpret that as anything more than an affectionate, if edgy, dig misunderstand the president's sense of humor and his relationship with his chief strategist, according to officials. Bush likes to needle Rove, even nicknaming him "Turd Blossom," but aides said he does not blame his adviser for the loss, and few believe Rove will lose his job. Instead, he will turn to figuring out a policy and political agenda that can salvage the last two years of the Bush presidency.
"From everything that I've heard, Karl will be around till the end," said Michael J. Gerson, a former White House adviser. "The reason is simple: People who view him as a campaign operative whose usefulness ends when the last vote is counted are wrong."
Asked about his plans, Rove fell back on his standard line: "I serve at the pleasure of the president with the agreement of my wife."
Allies argued that without Rove, the losses would have been worse. "He deserves a good bit of credit for victories and probably he would admit he should take a little blame for the failure," said Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.). "That does not make him any less of a strategic thinker because he had a loss. If I was taking advice outside of the box from anyone, he would probably be the first person I call."
Mary Matalin, an adviser to Vice President Cheney, said Rove is still "the Zen master of movement politics" but envious rivals are eager to gloat over a single defeat. "Karl has done a lot of things that he had to do that were necessary, and if you've been around that long you make enemies," she said. "They used to call it the green-eyed monster. It's the nature of the town."
Rove's theoryRove's brand of politics aims to sharpen differences with the opposition, energize the conservative base and micro-target voters to pick off selected parts of the other side's constituency. As he has in past elections, Rove designed a strategy to paint Democrats as weak on national security and terrorism, the "party of cut and run."
In an expansive interview last week, Rove said that strategy was working until the House page sex scandal involving ex-representative Foley (R-Fla.) put the Republican campaign "back on its heels," as he put it. "We were on a roll, and it stopped it," he said. "It revived all the stuff about Abramoff and added to it."
The various scandals surrounding convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and other ethics allegations, Rove said, had as much, if not more, to do with the defeat than the Iraq war. In Rove's analysis, 10 of the 28 House seats Republicans lost were sacrificed because of various scandals. Another six, he said, were lost because incumbents did not recognize and react quickly enough to the threat. That leaves 12 other seats lost, fewer than the 15 that Democrats needed to capture the House. So without corruption and complacency, he argued, Republicans could have kept control regardless of Bush's troubles and the war.
"It plays some role, but if Iraq is the determining factor and it is a dominant opinion, then in a blue state like Connecticut you should not have 60 percent of the voters vote for one of the candidates who said, 'Stay, fight and win,' " Rove said, referring to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's victory as an independent. "I don't deny that it's a factor, but it is hard to declare" that it is the overriding factor.
The "one-pager" outlines why, in his view, the losses were not particularly extraordinary and therefore not a repudiation of Bush: The loss of 28 House seats and six Senate seats is roughly comparable to losses suffered by the party in the White House in the sixth year of other presidencies and the same as the average wartime midterm. Moreover, it says, 23 races were decided by two percentage points or less, and it credits the "GOP Ground Game," the Rove-devised turnout machine. Overall, a shift of 77,611 votes would have kept the House in Republican hands.
Others point to different statistics -- voters nearly 2 to 1 casting ballots to express opposition to Bush; one in five conservatives voting for Democrats; fewer Hispanics, Catholics and evangelicals supporting Republicans; most voters favoring withdrawal of some or all U.S. troops from Iraq. Some dismiss Rove's historical comparisons as a rationalization for failure, especially since the gerrymandering of House districts has made it harder to oust incumbents than in past midterms.
Without referencing Rove specifically, Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman called it a mistake to compare last week's defeat to past trends. "If we simply say there were historical problems we could not overcome, and that we did not have a chance to win, then we have a real problem," said Mehlman, a Rove protege. If Republicans recommit themselves to reform and smaller government, this election will be a "brief interruption in a generational effort to build a center-right majority.
Rove seconds that last thought and believes his turnout campaign actually beat the odds of history, ticking off a dozen races that were supposed to be closer. "What happened in all those? It may have been that the tactical work done by the White House, the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee had a big impact."
The lesson, he added, is that "if you're not complacent and you're prepared and you are driving and have a good game," you can win even in a tough political year. And so now it's back to the drawing board for the Architect.
Staff writer Jim VandeHei contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)