Gee, it was nice of Fred Thompson to announce that he was going to announce his long-awaited official Republican
candidacy -- of course, surrendering his campaign virginity will come a day after the major, nationally-televised debate between his Republican rivals at the University of New Hampshire. That's New Hampshire, Fred, as in first-in-the-universe primary land. It's easy to see why this was a smart call --- he gets the benefit of buzz without having to do a darn thing. It's no wonder that NH GOP chief Fergus Cullen has gone bonkers in telling anyone who will listen that he's "disappointed" that Thompson was playing this game. Cullen told James Pindell at the Globe's Primary Source "They are clearly trying to avoid this specific event. Cullen was also blunt with my Herald colleague Adam Leech: Instead of dealing with the media and voter scrutinyof the debate, "He will be going on the Jay Leno show to trade jokes while other candidates are having a seriuous discussion about issues.” Can't wait to see Cullen and Thompson shake hands and exchange pleasantries for the camera some fine day in the primary future.

On the TV front, the good news for Thompson is that the TNT network will not remove "Law & Order" rerun episodes with his folksy Arthur Branch character spouting hayseed one-liners (did anyone really believe, even in TV fiction, that New Yorkers would elect an Arthur Branch as DA?).

INTERVIEW
I found my daily link at Blue Hampshire with blogger Mike Caufield's tough and informed dissection of a recent "presidential job interview" by Nex Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson in Keene. The interview issue was NAFTA and Richardson's role in passing it in 1993 -- but it was yet another example of why the voters in this state takes his vetting duties seriously.

PREVIEW
In Sunday's Out on a Limb column, I have an exclusive, fictional interview with a behind-the-scenes GOP strategist named Deep Source. We met in the bowels of a Portsmouth parking garage and she warned that "no one's safe in this election" -- and has evidence a major Democratic candidate is conspiring with aliens. No, not illegal workers from, say Mexico, but strangers from another galaxy.

Posted by Michael McCord at 10:33 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Here’s something to consider as we watch the candidates criss-cross first-in-the-universe primary land in the next few months: how American fraud and corruption in Iraq has led to the greatest theft of U.S. treasury loot in history.
Not just recent history but all American history. It would even make a Mafia don blush in admiration.
Last night, I read a story by Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone about the contracting Iraq gold rush (for members of loyal Bushie club only), massive fraud and out right theft of untold billions — while the Geroge Bush gang barely raised a legal eyebrow (and in fact punished whistle blowers).
Now it usually takes a lot that made my politically jaundiced blood boil but this one did, despite the fact that I’ve read dozens of stories about this corruption tale for a while. It also made me laugh like a village idiot and eventually made me wonder: wow, could it be even worse than our most cynical imaginations could ever imagine?
If Taibbi’s well-researched report about endemic and mostly sanctioned contracting corruption is but a tip of the iceberg (and he connects it to the larger Bush-inspired push to privatize every inch of government, including eventually in logical extension, the Congress and White House itself) then the foxes have not only cleaned out the henhouse but the entire farm as well.
My next question is: why aren’t campaigns talking about this specifically? I don’t mean just Democratic candidates but Republicans -- those self-appointed guardians of honesty, moral standards and taxpayers money -- as well. This is a con job worthy of Roman emperor that transcends partisan bickering. More importantly, this is another example of why the Iraq war and reconstruction has gone so badly — it was essentially outsourced and the incompetence was a side issue on the way to guaranteed riches. As Tabbai notes, it was the worst possible combination of unrestrained capitalism and administration-sponsored socialism for their cronies — with the bonus of no accountability.
In particular, why won’t Republicans (with the exception of Rod Paul) call Bush to task on this? What are they afraid of except a drop in campaign contributions from corrupt contractors?
Perhaps for all the candidates, the swindle is so massive, so fantastic that it’s become a dirty joke that none of them are willing to repeat. But the next time any candidate opens his mouth and talks about the guaranteed wonders of government privatization to save billions and billions, think again.

MORE MICHIGAN PRIMARY point-counter-point:
Richard Burr of the Detroit News has responded to my post yesterday which was a response to his post yesterday which was a continuation of our appearance together last week on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer to debate the primary schedule -- and why he thinks Michigan is more adorable than New Hampshire as a lead off primary state or even as a co-lead off partner. Burr makes a well-reasoned point about candidates needing to be tested in other states early in the process but his analogy (John Kerry as a flip-flopper) was not peculiar to him or Michigan or any small or large state. It was here after all that Kerry got himself in trouble for talking again and again about voting both for and against Iraq war funding. Or just recently in Iowa where Mitt Romney's interesting definition of public service for his sons was worthy of notice. You don't need to be in Michigan of Florida for candidates to unintentionally speak the truth.

Posted by Michael McCord at 11:57 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

When I appeared last week on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Richard Burr of The Detroit News was on to give the Michigan perspective about the increasingly wild early primary schedule scramble -- and why Michigan should take over our first-in-the-solar-system primary spot.

On his blog today, Burr called my defense of the NH primary reasonable but suggested again that the candidates aren't really dealing with specific issues that impact Michigan -- or in this case, the auto industry which is THE economic Godzilla there and, yes, in many other parts of the country. He also noted that NH has an axe to grind -- namely that we are pushing to increase federal clean air standards. We are but that doesn't mean we don't care about Michigan jobs. We also care about the quality of air we breathe which again makes my point -- this is a national issue being debated and discussed here.

Perhaps Michigan's specific concerns are not entirely on the national radar screen but as the Herald Sunday editorial of 8/26 noted (here), it's not because the candidates or we are dissing Michigan or any other state.

I hope Burr's thoughtful reply about NH's primary role will lead to a regional exchange of ideas and broaden the conversation here, there, and elsewhere.

I

Posted by Michael McCord at 03:37 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

What exactly did Hillary say, when did she say it and did she know exactly what she was saying? When the Democratic presidential hopeful said in a backyard gathering in Concord on Thursday, according to the AP reporter, that she believes that she would be the best candidate to handle a crisis, even a terrorist attack.
Well, no surprise there but she added some spice to the mix by talking about a rather harsh truth: namely the ability of the GOP establishment (especially our swaggering, historically-challenged and self-proclaimed “war president”) to take political advantage of a planned, expected, feared or actual terrorist attack.
“It’s a horrible prospect to ask yourself ’What if? What if?’ But if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world,” she said.
Well, there’s nothing like a backyard comment during primary season on a subject this taboo (political manipulation and terrorism) to get the hounds a howling wildly at the moon from all corners -- her Democratic rivals, those in the liberal blogosphere and those kindly souls at right-wing conspiracy central. (It’s guaranteed we will see those words in an attack ad sooner rather than later and repeated to no end -- first as a Dem primary version and then as a GOP-inspired Swift Boat operation.) “Frankly, I find it tasteless to discuss political implications when talking about a potential terrorist attack on the United States,” said fellow contender Sen. Chris Dodd.
Tasteless is a matter of perspective -- especially considering how the Bush gang has done precisely that time and again since 9/11. What Clinton did do, according to Naomi Wolf in a provocative piece on Huffington Post, was broach a subject most would like to avoid like the plague -- namely that this could very well be an ugly reality (especially if the terrorists succeed in another attack on our soil or elsewhere) that could have historical implications. Wolf provides solid historical evidence to support her argument that will also get people talking.

Kudos to Clinton for having the bravado to tackle the unspeakable -- which isn't to say that there wasn't any political calculation involved. Read Wolf's piece yourself at The terror talk taboo

Posted by Michael McCord at 01:00 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Leave it to Rudy Giuliani, the self-anointed saint of 9/11, to take campaign pandering to an informative level. Yesterday in Manchester, Giuliani unveiled his tax proposal which is in reality the political equivalent of "free breakfast, lunch and dinner for all." According to press reports, Saint Rudy promised to slash taxes and accused the Dems of having plans to raise $3 trillion in taxes. In other words, the tax and spend worshipping Democratic wolves are ready to knock down your door and empty your bank account. Rudy attacked Hillary Clinton for seeking a "common good" (through more and more government paid by more and bigger taxes) while the altruistic Republicans "believe in people."

Kathleen Strand, Clinton’s NH spokesperson didn’t wait long to respond to Rudy’s “believe in people” babble. "If he's attacking Senator Clinton for wanting to change President Bush's economic policies and his Iraq policy, he's right. She will," she said.

What Rudy might believe is that people are suckers by offering then a free pass to financial insanity. With most policies, the devil is in the details but Rudy makes it easy for the "people" by not bothering with any hint of details nor any logic beyond playing to the GOP base by promising them more of the same.

Rudy accuses Dems being silent co-conspirators with "Islamic fascists" (because they don't subscribe to his campaign rhetoric) and promises to stay on the terrorist offensive but offers no plan or vision except more of the same: and does he subscribe to $400 billion or more of deficit spending every year just to pay for staying on the offensive. Perhaps we should tax the Iraqi people or the rest of the world to pay the bill.

Rudy promises health care reform through the tax code and embracing a free-market approach to save the day. Of course how will Rudy pay for this trillion-dollar tax break that most health care experts believe is a massive boondoggle? He doesn’t say.

Ah, tax cuts. He promises to slash taxes, make permanent Bush’s tax cuts for those who don’t need it, and eliminate the inheritance tax. And how to balance the books? One solution, according to Michael Boskin, one of Ronald Reagan’s economic advisors who no advises is enhance “efficiency” (my favorite non-answer answer) to cut the Federal workforce by 25 percent to save…$21 billion annually. Or about two months worth of spending in the Iraq war. Of course, Boskin is an authority on…running up the largest federal budget deficits in history until the Bush gang took over.

To paraphrase Reagan (who said of the Soviet Union), when it comes to Rudy, don’t trust until you really verify the details that aren’t there.

Posted by Michael McCord at 11:31 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

According to a story today by Michael Scherer of Salon, an interesting campaign fact emerged from a recent poll in Iowa : Barack Obama. Yes that Obama, the Democratic presidential wannabe and first-term Senator from Illinois who’s advocating a “progressive agenda for change” (that’s what he said last Sunday in Portsmouth) who garnered seven percent of support in the poll (more than Mike Huckabee, John McCain and Sam Brownback combined).
Elephants for Obama?
This finding is odd to say the least (last I heard he’s not running as a Republican) but it sort of fits in with Obama’s general election campaign style of more often speaking more ill of the “system” in general than the GOP or George Bush in particular.
Now political criss-crossing is nothing new but so far this season I’ve heard people and tales of (1) one Democract going for Giuliani, (2) three Dems going for Ron Paul, (3) one Republican for Kucinich (now that’s odd), (4) and three Republicans for Obama (so far no cross overs I’ve heard of yet for Clinton and Edwards). And of course in New Hampshire, we saw in 2004, how Republicans turned en masse against then Gov. Craig Benson for Democratic consensus builder and businessman John Lynch.
Of course what this means for the primary is another matter altogether. Making relative nice with the Red state crowd may not be a top attribute in a heated Dem primary. In that category, there’s no doubt Hillary Clinton is leading the pack. Unlike Obama, Clinton has no problem occasionally speaking quite ill of Bush, Cheney and the rest of the gang. I’ve yet to see a crowd in NH that doesn’t mind those servings.
For more on Obama and the evolution of his campaign, see my Sunday “Out on a Limb” column in Herald Sunday or on seacoastonline.com.

PRIMARY DATE MUSINGS
NH State Rep. Jim Spaline sent me his thoughts about the latest priamry scheduling traffic jam (origginally posted on nhinsider.com)
New Hampshire’s Primary: January 8th, 2008?

Well, I think we’re getting close to having the date of the New Hampshire First-In-The-Nation Presidential Primary firmed up. Right now, I’m expecting it to be Tuesday, January 8th. At least I hope I’m in the correct year.
Throughout the years that I’ve worked on this cause -- dating back to even before the 1980 election cycle when Secretary of State Bill Gardner set his first primary date according to the state law -- I’ve learned that it’s an evolutionary process. Our “lead-off” position doesn’t happen automatically, and it needs a lot of maneuvering. We’ve given Bill Gardner the tools he has needed in the laws we have passed dating to 1975 and updated several times since -- but he’s the carpenter and he uses those tools very well.

The 2008 Presidential Election cycle has probably been his greatest challenge yet. During the past two years he and I have had the fun, if it can be said to be so, of meeting and talking dozens of times and many dozens of hours about the strategies to keep New Hampshire “...seven days or more...” ahead of any other primary. When the Democratic National Committee began its games a couple of years ago to set Nevada ahead of New Hampshire and in other ways dilute New Hampshire’s influence and relevance to the presidential selection process, both he and I said we’d be okay, that New Hampshire would indeed be first, and that the predictions of some pundits that we were about to lose our status were a lot off-base.
.
The past two weeks Bill has come under some criticism for a couple of his public positions on the actions of South Carolina and Michigan. I have too, since I’ve stood with him. He asked me to join him at a news conference when the South Carolina Republican Chair visited the State House to announce the date of January 19th for the Republican Party primary in his state. Bill thanked him for his visit here, and I said I was pleased South Carolina Republicans were at least setting their date, because it would encourage other states to firm up theirs - - especially Michigan, where Democrats in particular have threatened to withhold their date until New Hampshire sets ours, which would create quite a lot of confusion come November or December.
.
Our law does indeed guarantee New Hampshire’s lead-off position. Our position is not a gift from the political parties, and since 1975 never has been. However, some other states can play games with us. What needs to happen about this time in the cycle as we come close to the Fall months is knowing what the schedules of election events are in the other states. Then, and only then, can Bill Gardner set our date. That’s the way the process works.
.
Recently, Michigan Democrats and Republicans have been talking, with much disagreement, about a date of January 15th for their primaries or caucuses -- each party can decide whatever it wishes. Bill Gardner has cheered that discussion by saying that their selection of January 15th would be a last “piece of the puzzle.” I was quoted recently as saying that getting Michigan to firm up their date “sooner than later” would stop this game of checkers that some states have been playing, so that Michigan agreeing would be “a good thing for us.” I mean, at least we’d know when they’re doing it.
.
I’m not in favor of either South Carolina or Michigan moving earlier into January, whether the 19th or the 15th. But that’s not my decision. New Hampshire Democratic Chair Ray Buckley has rightly and powerfully used his voice in objecting to both, and he might be able to influence at least the Democrats in Michigan. But since the setting of our primary date is an evolutionary process, I know it’s important that we get our date set in September, or October if possible rather than wait until November or even December for our Secretary of State to do it. One year Bill Gardner had to wait until December 20th to set our date to offset other state events. He really needs to do it earlier than that this year.
.
So, my preference as a long-time defender of our first-in-the-nation status -- a “role” that many in our state have shared -- is that the pieces of the puzzle fit together, and that sooner than later all of the other states stop their checkers games. We’re going to win that game anyway, but it would be useful for all the candidates, their campaigns, the media, and certainly the voters to know when New Hampshire will hold our primary.
.
Right now, I would kind of like to see a schedule where Iowa holds the first caucuses on Saturday, January 5th, New Hampshire has the first “real” election with our primary on Tuesday, January 8th, followed by Michigan on Tuesday, January 15th, then Nevada and South Carolina on Saturday, January 19th, and lots of states holding their mega-primaries on Tuesday, January 29th and Tuesday, February 5th. That’s not the best of all worlds, but stretching out the primary and caucus season into earlier January does spread out the impact of the “front-loading” of January 29th and February 5th by giving some breathing room between major events for all the candidates, and it does what many of us here want to do: keeps New Hampshire first without having to go into December of 2007.
.
I would also like to see the voters of the District of Columbia given some equal rights in the American election process by having an early primary or caucus on our about the same date as our primary. It’s long overdue that they get an equal voice as their follow citizens.
.
My “bigger picture” concern is that we all then work toward making the 2012 presidential election cycle better, with Iowa having the first caucus, followed by New Hampshire with the first primary, then a series of rotating regional primaries beginning two weeks afterward stretching through April and May. If that sounds familiar, it’s a plan proposed a decade ago by the National Association of Secretaries of State and endorsed by the Jimmy Carter Election Commission two years ago.

Posted by Michael McCord at 11:57 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

After hearing for myself (through an earpiece) the gripes from editorial writers in Michigan and Arizona questioning the legitimacy of Iowa and New Hampshire as traditional primary lead off batters, I have to wonder...are you kidding me?
I refer to my appearance last night on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer in which your humble blogger was thrust into the position of being the defender (for a day) of our first-in-the-solar-system primary status in the wake of Michigan’s likely move of its primary to Jan. 15. My appearance through the magic of television was actually done in a cramped studio at Channel 9 in Manchester and it was quite a case of chaos in hiding. I had little background briefing, nor did I know the names of my fellow talking head experts. (If you happened to see it and wondered why I slipped into babbling U.S. Senate speak when I said “the gentleman from Arizona” and “the gentleman from Michigan” now you know why.) I couldn’t see what was happening on the screen and had to keep a semi-intelligent plastered face look on at all times because I never knew when the shot would turn to me — all while listening to everything through an earpiece.
Anyway, I muddled through and came away wondering if either of the “gentlemen” who were complaining about New Hampshire in particular (we are an inviting target) had even the slightest clue about what happens here on a quadrennial basis.
Yes, it’s often a circus but the people and the campaigns (and even the media hordes) take this electoral challenge of vetting the contenders from the pretenders seriously. The reality that I hoped I got across isn’t that the NH primary should be first because it has always been first but that it’s first for a reason — the candidates can come here and not pander (at least most of the time) about local issues and test out and discuss national themes. Everyone knows industrial meltdown in Michigan and immigration in Arizona are vital issues there and elsewhere. But the NH primary, for all its occasional silliness and faults (and even our hubris about its role), isn’t Romper Room. It’s a good place to deal with national issues because of the state’s ideological diversity and the ability for candidates to meet and greet and deal with the financial and organizational difficulties of campaigning without breaking the bank.
No wonder it annoys some states. They can’t offer what the state has already done for decades. And it’s nonsense that candidates are afraid to speak out the Iowa-NH tyranny — the reality is that if the candidates were so adverse to our charms and if the state hadn’t stepped up to the plate to do the job, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Posted by Michael McCord at 12:41 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Holy Cow! I am scheduled to appear tonight on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer (PBS, 6 p.m) to punditize about the squeeze on the New Hampshire primary from envious states such as Michigan (see earlier post today). Will blog later about the experience.

Posted by Michael McCord at 12:52 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Just how far will Michigan go to disrupt the presidential primary schedule?
All the way to mutually assured destruction if Michigan Sen. Carl Levin has his way to move the Michigan primaries into early January.
Call it a primary date game of chicken.
There’s no doubt in NH Secretary of State Bill Gardner’s mind that Levin is more than a little obsessed about derailing our first-in-the-solar-system primary status — after all he’s seen in person the depth of Levin’s longtime rancor (I’m being polite) at the influence of Iowa and New Hampshire. While talking to Gardner yesterday while working on a story, I asked him if Levin’s words and actions over the years we’re reflective of a “personal vendetta.” Gardner said “at least that” while recounting to me Levin’s fury while promising at various times to stop New Hampshire and Iowa from being leading the primary calendar.
“He threatened to do something outrageous,” Gardner told me about one encounter after the 2004 primary.
Gardner is watching what’s happening with Michigan carefully but seems rather calm about the storm of potential primary dates. After all, by state law, he has the last call so in a sense Levin can huff and puff all he wants but he won’t blow the house down.
Passionate NH primary defender and NH State Rep. Jum Splaine has this to say about Michigan’s primary date.
“This ‘checkers game’ should end sooner than later, so everyone including the campaigns and media know what the dates are,” he said. “Checkers games are won after the checkers of the other side are all gone. We’re going to win this one — we just need to have the dates set, whenever they are, of the other states — sooner than later would be nice.”
Who knows when sooner or later will be.
(Update)
Dem presidential hopeful Sen. Joe Biden was the first candidate to affirm his support for the current system in the wake of the latest spat.
“Powerful interests are trying to change the Democratic nomination for President into a game of Monopoly, replacing the retail politics of Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire with a process in which the only credential necessary to be President is to be the wealthiest candidate," Biden said in campaign press statement. "Under the current calendar, voters can regularly meet candidates in their homes, town halls and diners. This provides an almost one on one opportunity to hold candidates accountable for their ideas and records for solving the most pressing issues facing this country. The communities of Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire provide a diverse array of voters and a level playing field for candidates to compete in, as a lead up to the larger states which will decide who the next Democratic nominee will be for President.
"I call upon all of my fellow Democratic candidates to reaffirm their support for the retail role Iowa, Nevada and New Hampshire and publicly ask their supporters, such as Democratic Senate Leader Mark Schauer, and Governor Granholm to oppose any attempts to break the Democratic National Committee’s “calendar window” as Republicans did in Florida on behalf of Mitt Romney.”
Funny, how Biden didn't refer to Levin as one of those "powerful interests."

Posted by Michael McCord at 11:12 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Can former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee transform Iowa straw poll success (second place in a watered down GOP field) into serious viability on the first-in-the-solar-system primary stage? Maybe, maybe not but give the personable and quotable Huckabee preacherly credit for striking the right tone by talking about how the other man from Hope, Ark. (a former Arkansas Governor and President named Bill Clinton), despite their political differences, genuinely had a political gift for making connections. It’s a political trick of the trade that Huckabee would like to revive. He has caught on with one tactic -- trash the NH front runner. Hello, Mitt Romney, how does the latest bulls eye feel? And, if you’ve ever wondered how primary media darlings emerge from the pack, just watch how the pundit herd feeds off each other to create a “discovery.” The latest pundit fawning on Huckabee is a real-time case study on such media phenomenons.

Read more about the Huck factor by:
Blogger Chris Stewart, aka the Monday Morning Clacker: The Huck Media bandwagon
The Politico's Jonathan Martin: Huckabee's sharp political elbows

Posted by Michael McCord at 01:01 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

I hope Monday's daily link, a provocative OpEd piece that ran Sunday in the New York Times is being passed around the country -- specially between those against the war and those for it. It should be required reading coming as it does from five veterans of the 82nd Airborne who can hardly be considered cut and runners. They have served a vital public role: of telling the truth when the truth is in such short supply. One wonders if they will pay a price for such treachery against the Bush gang.

Daily link: The Iraq War as they saw it

Meanwhile, back on the primary trail, here are a few voices I heard yesterday while covering the Barack Obama event in Portsmouth (and kudos to whomever decided to hold the rally at One Harbourplace. The sun, clouds, pleasant summer temps, and harbor combination was a delight. It was by far the best place I’ve been to yet on the trail for a campaign stop.)

Chris Culver, a veteran elementary school teacher who lives in Portsmouth, is an undecided Democrat who told me she will definitely not vote for one candidate: Hillary Clinton. “Too much special interest money,” Culver told me a week after Clinton publicly said that special interests represent real people (and hopefully, real interests) as well. Culver said that she would like to see a woman president but “it’s more important to have someone with integrity than one’s gender or race.”

On the other hand, though she was impressed with Obama (“he’s impressive, thoughtful”) she remains undecided and determined to find a candidate who can talk intelligently and broadly about education -- and how poverty is real issue driving educational issues. In particular, Culver said the fall out from the ongoing No Child Left Behind debacle has created a “huge chasm of distrust between the public and public schools.”

While Obama pleased a lot of “leaners” (as in undecided leaning folks), one told me sotte voce that Obama had failed badly to make “the sale” to him for reasons never quite clearly explained (something about energy and robotic gestures). Which raises a style question that the campaign fights daily: Obama can be an acquired taste. He rarely hits the high notes his audience (mostly angry, Bush-loathing Dems) would like nor does he pander with artificially constructed guaranteed applause line pauses. He does meander and explain and treats his audience with an assumption of intelligence and good will. He’s cool in a red-hot environment. The voters will determine whether this is a winning virtue or not.

Posted by Michael McCord at 11:18 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Rudy Giuliani was understandably miffed in New Hampshire yesterday about having family issues dragged into the campaign (though the Vanity Fair hatchet job story about his third wife Judith does make for oddly sinful reading). If you really want to set him off, ask him what qualifies him to be a foreign policy visionary.
In today’s daily link, I’ve included Fred Kaplan’s insightful and unintentionally funny dissection of Rudy Giuliani’s not-so-bold nor very smart attempt to be a foreign policy wizard. I read the Foreign Affairs piece in question in a quest to understand just what the hell qualifies Rudy as a self-appointed foreign policy maven. I was also looking for a reason to take Rudy seriously as an actual President as opposed to a candidate. He may remain a formidable candidate but if Rudy was aiming for street cred, he failed: in this case the emperor’s foreign policy clothes are as frightening as they are invisible.
The Orwellian title (“Toward a Realistic Peace”) was followed by a recitation of painfully obvious right-wing fearful talking points and revisionist history (one great howl is that Vietnam was actually won before we lost it). It’s hard to believe that this prattle represents either a quick or inquiring mind. This is George W. Bush without the mangled aphorisms, analogies and syntax.
See this amazing triumph of intellectual bankruptcy for yourself:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/...toward-a-realistic-peace.html

Posted by Michael McCord at 10:15 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

On my daily link, there's a fascinating post by Glenn Greenwald of Salon challenging the optimistic perspective on Iraq by Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution. It seems that O'Hanlon's recent trip to Iraq could best be described as a military dog and pony show -- and the OpEd piece he wrote for the NY Times that caused such a stir earlier this month which said the war could be won was based less on facts on the ground than ideals in the mind.

And now closer to primary home: It seems those ever imaginative folks sending out GOP talking points across the Republican universe have hit upon an oldie but goodie theme -- when it comes to health care, scream “Socialized Medicine” (like those annoying French, who spend less than we do and offer more services to more people, and the obviously hapless Canadians who haven’t gotten the message about the overall utopia of our current system) and never clarify or apologize.
It’s like deja vu, a replay of the onslaught launched against President Clinton’s health care reform attempt in 1993-94.

Continue reading "Policy truth and distortions" »

Posted by Michael McCord at 10:31 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

JUNKYARD DOG -- John and Elizabeth Edwards are making plans for a major bus excursion through the state next week to whip up enthusiasm for his campaign. The big news on the Dem front today is that Edwards’ has a junkyard dog defending his turf: his wife Elizabeth. Check out this interview in The Progressive magazine in which Edwards lets it all hang out with broadsides against Obama (among other things, he’s a thief of their progressive language) and Clinton (for being, well, Clinton we guess).
See www.progressive.org/mag_intv0807

Continue reading "Primarily random observations..." »

Posted by Michael McCord at 01:39 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

You have to admire a grass-roots political organization for its creativity when it comes up with the following awards: "Most Likely to Have a Barak Obama Poster in their Bedroom" or, perhaps even more original, " Most Likely to Limo an Illegal across the Border."

The timing for renewed GOP fratricide is perfect. Fresh off the phony Iowa Straw Poll -- which found Mitt Romney trying to prove his meaningless victory was more than a venture capitalist buy-out and Tommy Thompson saying thanks for the memories -- a self-identified conservative group called We the People for President is offering disillusioned conservatives the chance to scream away with an on-line web site chronicling the wandering herd of that “Republican in Name Only” species.
Here’s the entertaining and slightly overwrought press release I received today (when it comes to political drama queens, ‘persecuted’ conservatives take the prize). Please note the targeted RINOS below: they include GOP presidenital hopefuls John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Romney -- and U.S. Senators Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Olympia Snowe of Maine. These folks have some tough credentials to live up (or down) to.

PRESS RELEASE
Top “Republicans In Name Only” are on notice, as conservatives across the country will cast their vote for Republican politicians most deserving of a RINO award at: www.RepublicansInNameOnly.com.

After losing Congress in the 2006 election, and the Party possibly facing the loss of the White House in 2008, conservatives are less than enthusiastic about their representatives and potential Presidential Candidates in the upcoming elections. Fed up with excessive spending, amnesty for illegal aliens, and weak positions on family values and abortion, Conservatives across the country are frustrated that their voices have fallen on deaf ears. Until now.

We the People for Presidenthas created a website, www.RepublicansInNameOnly.com, for conservatives to vote for their favorite RINOs (Republican in Name Only) who have abandoned certain core beliefs of conservatism, and will bestow upon them a “RINO Award”. The Top RINO Awards are the first of their kind, where We The People across America, ourselves, will determine who receives an actual RINO award.

Unable to check a “You Blew It” box at the voting booth, frustrated conservatives can now simply click on their favorite RINO to cast their vote, sending a message to top Republicans that the RINO is now an endangered species.

This is an opportunity for We the People’s voices to be heard. No public figure has the courage to call attention to the Republican Party, which has been conspicuously negligent in rooting out entrenched politicians, for their liberal positions on issues. The RINO awards are designed to highlight specific and crucial conservative issues that a Republican politician has abandoned. Issues such as abortion, political corruption, illegal immigration, over-spending and lack of defending the core conservative values that tug at the hearts of the conservative base, many of whom are considering staying home in future elections.

These core conservative issues are what separate the elephant from the rhino; that is, true Conservatives from liberal Republicans.

Votes from across America will be tallied and a top RINOs will be periodically announced for their stance on specifics issues. RINO winners will be presented with a beautiful gold rhinoceros, adding a special touch to their plush homes or offices. While America votes, Republican officials who have ignored their base will be on alert, as votes are tabulated instantly. Voters are able to immediately see their votes count and watch the competition unfold on their computer screen.

In the spirit of free speech, voters also have the cathartic opportunity to post their comments addressing why they have selected their favorite RINO, as well as the opportunity to nominate other RINOs. For example, some voters have suggested awarding RINOs to Presidential Candidate Rudy Giuliani for his stance on abortion and Senator John McCain for his vote on amnesty.

Americans also have the chance to vote for special titles to award the contenders, such as "Most Likely to Have a Barak Obama Poster in their Bedroom" or "Most Likely to Limo an Illegal across the Border."

The current nominees are Senator Jon Kyl (AZ), Senator and Presidential Candidate John McCain (AZ), Senator Mel Martinez (FL), Senator Larry Craig (ID), Senator Richard Lugar (IN), Senator Olympia Snowe (ME), Senator Trent Lott (MS), Senator Chuck Hagel (NE), Senator Judd Gregg (NH), Senator Arlen Spector (PA), Senator Lindsey Graham (SC), Senator Bob Bennett (UT), Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (CA), Presidential Candidate Rudy Giuliani and Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney.

Voters can log onto www.RepublicansInNameOnly.com to cast their votes.

Posted by Michael McCord at 02:54 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

A McGovern is on the trail stumping for Hillary Clinton ...no, not McGovern (George) the decent, thoughtful, anti-war (Vietnam, that is) Democrat who was served up like a sacrificial lamb against Richard Nixon in the 1972 election (though Hillary Clinton was a volunteer for that campaign, organizing voters in, of all places, Texas. Talk about a thankless job.)
I’m speaking about Massachusetts Congressman Jim McGovern who was in Portsmouth Thursday campaigning for Hillary Clinton.

Continue reading "'I want my country back'" »

Posted by Michael McCord at 01:28 PM| Permalink | Comments (1)

Hey, it’s a rainy Wednesday morning here in first-in-the-universe primary land and I could be writing about last night’s semi-spirited Dem debate in Chicago or how I stayed up late to watch Barry Bond hit record-breaking home run #756 or about Gov. Bill Richardson (fresh from Chicago, coffee cup in hand) visiting the Portsmouth Herald (more on that in another post) BUT, I need to return to yet another episode of my favorite campaign soap opera -- how Republicans Sen. Sam Brownback and former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney really really don’t like each other. Brothers, where is the charity?

Continue reading "Brownback loves Romney, Chapter 31: Once a Flipper..." »

Posted by Michael McCord at 10:31 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)

(with updated post below)
Watch out for potential thunderbolts between John Edwards and Hillary Clinton in the latest Democratic debate tonight in Chicago.

What started out as a mild-mannered policy announcement about trade and worker’s rights yesterday became an opportunity for John Edwards to take his populist campaign to the next level -- and take a swipe at the Bill/Hillary Clinton revue in the process

Continue reading "Edwards: Take your NAFTA and shove it..." »

Posted by Michael McCord at 12:28 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

This isn’t easy to admit, but I did tape and later watched the faux GOP debate which showed the Republicans as equally uninspiring as Democrats in these episodes of political sleep inducement. For what it’s worth here a few observations of the obvious:
1) John McCain did his best George W. Bush imitation when he responded to GOP renegade Ron Paul’s assertion that the rationales for the Iraq war were wrong, wrong, and wrong -- and it’s led to the current quagmire of can’t leave and can’t stay.

Continue reading "Six years ago today..." »

Posted by Michael McCord at 12:23 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

I caught up with Portsmouth Mayor and Democratic senatorial candidate Steve Marchand in, of all places, Chicago today where he was making a one-day stop at the DailyKos bloggers convention.
Marchand made what he told me was “long day” trip to Chicago and back to make contacts and broaden his “political tactics” while hanging out with hundreds of the most influential political liberal and progressive bloggers in the country.

Continue reading "Report from the blogosphere" »

Posted by Michael McCord at 03:08 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

While working on a story yesterday about Sen. Barack Obama’s speech in Washington, D.C. outlining his anti-terror programs, I had a brief but illuminating conversation with Tony Lake, who served as President Bill Clinton’s National Security Advisor from 1993-1997.
Perhaps tellingly, or perhaps not, Lake has become a foreign policy advisor for Obama — the first time, he told me, he’s become involved in a political campaign advisor since helping Clinton in 1992.

Continue reading "'It depends on the experience'" »

Posted by Michael McCord at 12:45 PM| Permalink | Comments (0)

Click on my link of the day (or below) for an interesting take on the GOP’s Hillary obsession...the article by Michael Sherer in today’s Salon captures the essence of the GOP nightmare scenario and the innovative way they use it as a campaign hair raiser (the return of Frankenstein or Godzilla) and a smart marketing tool to raise money and scare the vaunted GOP base into fearful action.

Continue reading "Clinton: Source of GOP nightmares?" »

Posted by Michael McCord at 10:53 AM| Permalink | Comments (0)