It's as if Eliot Engel showed up yesterday just to give BP CEO Tony Hayward a Bronx beating for the Gulf oil spill.
It's doubtful Engel will ever be verbally shaking down Barack Obama.
No doubt, Hayward is wearing the "kick me" sign President Obama finally gave him this week -- and deserves every bit of the grilling he gets on the floor of Congress.
But listen closely to how Congressman Engel, an 11-term incumbent, ignores Hayward's apology and answers to Engel's questions.
"I believe we need to await the results of multiple investigations before we draw conclusions," said Hayward.
"I want to get to the bottom of this, more than anyone. I want to learn the lessons. I want to ensure that we can learn the lessons and that the industry can learn the lessons."
Engel keeps attacking and refuses to acknowledge Hayward's statements, claiming that the BP CEO was evading
"We are conducting a full and comprehensive investigation," Hayward answered. "It involves a team of more than 50 people. We have shared the results of that investigation, as they become available with this committee and we will continue to do that".
At one point, Engel demands an apology -- and asks if Hayward can admit that decisions were made by BP that were wrong.
Hayward apologized.
"I am very very sorry that this accident ocurred, very sorry. I deeply regret it. I deeply regret it for very many reason and I do beieve that it is right to investiate it fully and draw the right conclusions."
After Hayward reminds Engel that one of the investigations is being conducted by the White House, Engel reminds Hayward of his obligations as a CEO.
"But you're the CEO. Shouldn't you not set the tone for the investigation?
Shouldn't Obama?
If only Engel placed the same obligations on President Barack Obama.
Both Business Week and Bloomberg had the same quote by Engel on Obama's speech about the Gulf spill.
The White House and Democratic allies rejected the comparison. And Representative Eliot Engel, a Democrat from New York, said Obama was likely mindful of that criticism when he faced the press yesterday.
The president “probably wanted to just catch up with it and say, ‘Look, I take full responsibility,’ because otherwise his political enemies are attacking him for not doing anything,” Engel said.
"It's really an insult for you to come to this committee and evade questions," Engel said. "Can't you just admit there were decisions made that were wrong? Can't you just say 'I'm sorry'? I, like everyone else here, and everyone in America, is thoroughly disgusted."
There was no shortage of apologies from Hayward, but that wasn't enough for Engel.
"I think you're stalling," the Congressman said. "I think you're insulting our intelligence, and I resent it."
Bloomberg emphasized the importance of stopping the leaking oil, rather than attacking everyone associated with it.
"The administration's failure to take impressive action after the spill dinged its reputation for competence. The president's failure to turn things around Tuesday night with a speech damaged his reputation as a man whose rhetorical powers are such that he can turn things around with a speech. He lessened his own mystique."
Noonan pulled no punches, though neither did the usual suspects in the liberal elite media.
Reaction among his usual supporters was, in the words of Time's Mark Halperin, "fierce, unforeseen disappointment." Dan Froomkin of the Huffington Post called the speech "profoundly underwhelming," a "feeble call to action." Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich called the speech "vapid." Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times said the president looked "awkward and robotic." MSNBC's Keith Olbermann famously said "It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days." Chris Matthews scored "a lot of meritocracy, a lot of blue ribbon talk." Mr. Olbermann, on Mr. Obama's well-written peroration: "It's nice but, again, how? Where was the 'how' in this speech when the nation is crying out for 'how'?"
By the time Tony Hayward showed up on the floor of Congress, Congress was barking for answers.
But after too many days (60 days and counting), Congress is as angry at Barack Obama as the BP CEO.
Representative Eliot Engel, a New York Democrat, told Mr. Hayward “it’s really an insult” that he keeps saying that he has to wait for the conclusion of an investigation to answer any detailed questions. Mr. Hayward said that the company is conducting “a full and comprehensive investigation, it involves a team of more than 50 people.”
Mr. Engel complained that BP’s investigation seemed to be taking much too long and said “You’re really insulting our intelligence, with respect,” by not explaining now what went wrong.
Mr. Engel finished by saying “Mr. Hayward, let me just say with all due respect: I, like everyone else here, and everyone else in America, [am] thoroughly disgusted. I think you’re stalling, I think you’re insulting our intelligence and I really resent it.”
It is an insult that Hayward had no answer.
It's as much if an insult that the Democrats in control of Congress took so long to have this hearing, waiting for Obama to act and deflecting the President's failures to act without holding themselves responsible.
60 days and 118 million gallons of oil later, there is no forgiving BP's neglect and failures.
What answers did Barack Obama give the nation this week? Nada.
The exasperation being felt now is as much the fault of the White House and Congress -- and Congress is controlled by Barack Obama's party.
The Democrats have no choice. Obama is no longer leading the country, let alone his own party.
Democrats are covering for themselves for November's elections. It was no surprise that the more liberal House members were particularly ravenous.
Liberal Democrats like Eliot Engel exist in uber-Obama safe districts, 56 points ahead against McCain in the 17th Congressional District.
Yet Engel throws out sound bytes, like political grenades. Admittedly, there's no denying the need for America to hear their representatives in Congress expressing this kind of Gestalt rage. Engel was only saying what America wants to say to Tony Hayward.
But Engel chose not to problem-solve at the hearing -- nor did Republican Joe Barton.
Both men chose to vent, scapegoat, hound and search for blame.
What solutions came of either man's approach to the problem?
From the far left to the far right, America is polarized on energy -- but so is our President. The result has been policies -- starting with the White House administration of William Jefferson Clinton -- that appeased environmentalists by pushing the oil rigs ridiculously too far out into the Gulf ... and at a price.
The Deepwater controversy is as much about a payoff in policy as ill-intentions. Follow the money.
Congressman Joe Barton also expressed what America is feeling but Joe Barton wasn't allowed his own dissent.
His apology for what he termed a "shakedown" of BP by the Obama administration was misguided -- but how many Americans truly believe that $20 million will be spent entirely on cleaning up the Gulf?
How many Americians believe that the Federal government is the best entity to allocate those funds?
The other pity of Barton’s sympathy act is that it obscures the fact that he has a legitimate complaint about the escrow account. Dan McLaughlin points me to this Journal op-ed which sums things up nicely:
[A] government-administered fund more or less guarantees a more politicized payment process. The escrow administrator will be chosen by the White House, and as such would be influenced by the Administration’s political goals. Those goals would include payments to those harmed by the Administration’s own six-month deep water drilling ban. That reckless policy will soon put thousands of Gulf Coast residents out of work, but the White House knows that BP isn’t liable under current law for those claims. The escrow account is an attempt to tap BP’s funds by other means to pay the costs of Mr. Obama’s own policy blunder.
That point should be made by the GOP — but not at a hearing devoted to BP’s malfeasance, as even Tony Hayward himself seems to understand. In fact, per the Daily Caller piece linked above, Barton’s now issued a written statement specifically apologizing for calling the escrow account a “shakedown.” Thus does a fair knock on the White House evaporate because it was delivered in a tin-eared fashion. Let’s hope the story ends here, please.
Instead, Barton was pressured by Republicans to apologize for his apology.
"Boy, you guys really give this guy a break that is beyond...They'd have been working on impeachment of Bush by now. If Bush were the president and handled it this way, there'd be like a movement to throw him out of office." "Just try to be fair."
Mika Brzezinski asks Giuliani "What would you do?"
"I know exactly what I would have done. The first thing I would have done is to bring in outside experts who knew as much or more about this than BP because I wouldn't trust just BP to run it for me. I wouldn't want my fate, the fate of my people, the fate of the southern part of this country in the hands of BP. I would have gone and I'd have called up the people you're talking about, the people I talked about the other night. Are there people that are better than BP, I would have asked. The answer is "yes." Are there people that are far better than BP? Yes. Is BP good at this? No. Then give me the people that are the best. After all, I'm the President of the United States or the Mayor of New York City. You can get anything you want. Give me the people that are the best. I want them here-- He hasn't called any of these people. Not a single one. Go ask them. He has not talked to them, he doesn't like them, he doesn't trust them. He's gone to academics because that's what he trusts."
Does this sound too much like Rudy running for president?
"Earth to president: Come on down. He's been hammered relentlessly for not being engaged, but he's still not into the details of the prevention and cleanup."
"The wound-tight, travel-light Obama has a distaste for the adversarial and the random. But if you stick too rigidly to a No Drama rule in the White House, you risk keeping reality at bay. Presidencies are always about crisis management."
Dowd noted "it was important to offend and slap back the deceptive malefactors at BP."
Yet President Obama seems overwhelmed by the job, frozen and not grasping its intricacies.
... Now he tells us he thinks that if he somehow gets people to think about him and how much he's thinking about what he thinks they think he should be thinking about, his job is done.
Which raises only two questions: First, if the requirements of his job are so modest, why is he still having trouble meeting them? Second, couldn't all this cogitation be done at a cost of less than $3.5 trillion a year?
The joke that most members of the news media get is being missed by the ever-important prince of hope and change.
The President of the United States has historically been a position of drama. Parts are played. Image is made or broken, with regularity, with an understanding that conflict allows any inhabitant of the Oval Office an opportunity for reversal of fortune. Thus, the inspiration of a moment or a challenge -- in a word or decision -- can re-shape everything for the next day's news cycle.
And America potentially can wake up feeling good again, or at least believe something is getting done.
Whether the task is ceremonial or effective, the practical and dramatic implications of "the job" have as much to do with inspiring America as President Obama's job is to get something practical done.
Dowd observed that Obama is catching criticism from everyone, at the moment.
"Republican senators who had a contentious lunch with the president last week described him as whiny, thin-skinned and in over his head, and was extreme Democratic angst at the White House’s dilatory and deferential attitude on the spill."
We can only joke about what his daughter Malia innocently asked, except it really isn't funny.
Obama is coming across as someone who doesn't have the slightest clue how to plug that hole of leaking oil in the Gulf of Mexico -- or any hole.
America relies on the White House at least coming across as knowing what to do during a crisis.
This was how Bush deconstructed his own administration, how Clinton failed us and how the modern era of Presidents has left American hearts and minds lacking. Only Ronald Reagan had a hold on those moments, What began to fall apart for Richard Nixon during Watergate, actually what first deconstructed during Lyndon Johnson's administration as he failed to grapple properly with Vietnam, has a new pupil.
But this is not the time for on the job training, Mr. President.
Dowd ravaged the President.
"Obama and top aides who believe in his divinity make a mistake to dismiss complaints of his aloofness as Washington white noise. He treats the press as a nuisance rather than examining his own inability to encapsulate Americans’ feelings."
Barack Obama wants to be in Chicago.
America's minds are in the Gulf. Our hearts are in Afghanistan, especially this Memorial Day. Our hands reach into our pockets for extra dollars we don't have -- and our eyes are on the next election.
It's unfair to profile terrorists, to assume by race or religion who our enemies might be ...
... But the cocky expression and youth portrays an entirely different problem.
There's no fear.
Forget for a moment about his ethnic or religious background. Terrorism knows no boundaries or identity, as the anarchists in London and New York demonstrated over a hundred years ago.
The Muslim population does not have a monopoly on blowing up people. Political opportunists and demagoguery feed such violence. Some call it freedom fighting in other countries. Others call it revolution. How long before the veil of religion comes off and fascist dictators arrive to play to the mob?
The problem is that there is no fear on the part of our enemies.
At some point, how will New York react when a bomb goes off every other day as it has for decades in Europe and the Middle East?
Faisal Shahzad.
He's not the first terrorist. He won't be the last.
We're a terrorist target. We would have been more of a target if the terror trials were held in New York City. Close to home, White Plains has hosted a terror trial in the Federal courthouse.
The threat is with us everyday.
We're at war. It's almost as if part of America is in emotional denial. We're at war. The terrorists want to blow up a lot more than an SUV. There are the bridges, airports and transportation corridors throughout the tri-state area that can be crippled in an instant by a stick of dynamite.
The real ethical question is why, in an era of increased threats to the safety of Americans, have the liberals in Congress and President Barack Obama continued to make believe we are not at war.
They will be bomb the restaurants, as they do in Paris. They will blow up taxis, as the do in the Middle East with regularity. They will explode nuclear devices and they will find a way to destroy a U.S. city before this pathetic class warfare is done. They will kill children, families, millions of Americans as if humanity does not matter.
I happen to believe this is not over religion. This is over economics, a fight with the third world and the "have nots" that is drawing the blind alliance of fools searching for political glory in the name of Allah. Next comes the Russian terrorists and the Chinese terrorists and perhaps again the Irish terrorists and the terrorists of the African continent and the communists and the fascists misleading them.
Whether or not Shahzad was connected to a militant jihadist Pakistani network, “he is not a lone wolf,’’ argues M. Zuhdi Jasser, president and founder of American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a group that promotes the separation of religion and state. “The ideas that drove him to act did not hatch in his own mind. We ignore to our own detriment the common ideology, the common malignant virus of the slippery slope of political Islam that takes over these Muslims. When are we going to wake up as a nation?’’
It's fascism.
Meanwhile, Vennochi noted how liberals continue to make believe there is not a terrorist threat.
It was likely a “lone wolf’’ operation, suggested Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, or, as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg speculated, “somebody with a political agenda who doesn’t like the health care bill or something.’’ Janet Napolitano, secretary of Homeland Security, said it was being treated as a “potential terrorist attack’’ but it could be a “one-off’’ or isolated incident.
It happened in the late 1920's and 1930's in Europe, with Italy and Germany. It crushed and starved Eastern Europe and the Balkans. Its totalitarian face froze Russia and China in an economic and social limbo for three generations.
We have been here before.
Our supposed leaders would rather blame the tea parties.
We're at war and world economics is about to make it a lot more difficult to contain the rage of those without ...
... They're just looking for someone to blame.
It seems as though our elected officials are as willing to copout and scapegoat the blame on Western Civilization too.
A recent Pew study found that 61 percent of Americans say it is “a good idea for the government to more strictly regulate the way major financial companies do business.” Even the tea party activists can’t provide much cover. The Wall Street bailouts of 2008 were one of the galvanizing causes of the movement.
Obama played to the panic too, spinning about "highly leveraged, loosely monitored gambling in our financial system" -- blaming everything from the Fall of Western Civilization to the demise of Main Street on Wall Street.
Now that President Barack Obama's poll numbers are flushing farther downward following the procedural passage of the health care bill and him signing it into law, the media elite has again declared Republicans the bad guys.
Republicans, Conservatives and Tea Party members alike have been branded the prodigals.
The worst missive comes from New York Times columnist Bob Herbert, who characterized the Tea Party and GOP as having An Absence of Class.
"We can’t allow ourselves to remain silent as foaming-at-the-mouth protesters scream the vilest of epithets at members of Congress — epithets that The Times will not allow me to repeat here.
It is 2010, which means it is way past time for decent Americans to rise up against this kind of garbage, to fight it aggressively wherever it appears. And it is time for every American of good will to hold the Republican Party accountable for its role in tolerating, shielding and encouraging foul, mean-spirited and bigoted behavior in its ranks and among its strongest supporters."
Hardly the reality, this is coming from The Times -- and so it is liberal gospel this week.
"Tea Party candidates -- if they were to jump into congressional races -- would draw enough support from Republicans to tip the balance to Democrats, according to a Quinnipiac University poll conducted March 16-21."
So The New York Times continues to be out of touch with America. The poll numbers on Congress, President Obama and tea party enthusiasm prove it.
"... There are elements of the bill, particularly in regulating insurers, that could well prove broadly popular, and it could be years before anyone knows whether the legislation will have big effects on health care quality and the nation’s fiscal condition. Indeed, most Americans with insurance are unlikely to see any immediate change in their coverage, and several Republicans warned that the party could pay a price for that."
It won't be 2014 before anyone notices what the control-freak legislation has done to insurance.
In the meantime, our taxes are going up.
The head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, offered a similar argument. “When this bill goes into effect, and none of the things Republicans warned about begin to happen — none of the death panels, none of the government takeover, none of the socialism — Republicans will have no credibility,” Mr. Menendez said.
The New York Times onslaught this week had a series of articles and editorials bathing themselves in a liberal flourish.
As for the rest of CPAC's Presidential Straw Pall, Sarah Palin only managed 7%. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, a social liberal, wasn't far behind with 6%. Indiana Congressman Mike Pence, 5%. Newt Gingrich only 4%. Mike Huckabee, a disappointing 4%. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (what's up in Indiana?), Rick Santorum and South Dakota Senator John Thune were tied with 2%. Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour (who used to fare well in such straw polls) trailed the pack with 1%.
Considering that Other (5%) and Undecided (6%) combined for 11 percent, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney were the only two names that looked remotely competitive among conservatives.
All 50 states, including DC, were represented in the voting. 48 percent were students, 54% between 18-25.
On fiscal issues, the TOP PRIORITY of Republicans in Congress was polled to be: cutting federal spending at 58%, reducing the federal debt at 23% and cutting federal taxes at 15%.
Republicans have at least seven congressional districts in New York that they should target aggressively in 2010, including two seats where John McCain beat Barack Obama in 2008.
With only 3-4 point margins of victory by Democrats in 2008, districts 24, 23, 20, 19 and 1 can be taken by Republican candidates.
The only problem is that the NRCC has upgraded only one of them to contender status, Randy Altschuler, a Republican challengers to Democrat Tim Bishop in District 1.
Hotline reported the NRCC upgrading 28 candidates nationwide to either "Contender" or "On The Radar" but passed on upgrading Nan Hayworth in the Hudson Valley's highly competitive 19th against Democrat John Hall (she stays "on the radar"). Also missing the cut were Doug Hoffman in the 23rd, who narrowly lost to Bill Owens in a three way race in a district where Barack Obama only received 52 percent of the vote.
Strangely ignored though not going away is Christopher Cox (the son of State GOP Chairman Ed Cox) who has launched a formidable campaign against Tim Bishop in District 1, so out of the gate the NRCC already finds itself mired in a GOP primary. The NRCC put George Demos "on the radar" and something tells me this race on the eastern end of Long Island is getting a lot of volunteers this summer.
In two other districts, the 29th in Western New York and the 13th on Staten Island and a portion of Brooklyn, John McCain won. With Republican Mike Grimm in the 13th reported to be closing in on $300,000 or more in fundraising, it seems particularly baffling why the NRCC is missing this race where Republicans had ruled for nearly 30 years. Grimm should be a contender, though maybe the NRCC is afraid of another primary.
As for the 19th, a sure winner for the right Republican, Nan Hayworth is boasting of over $500,000 raised (over $350,000 in personal loans to her committee) but Republican insiders have suggested that no amount of money can buy a populist edge in this distinctly conservative tea party district.
Apparently, the NRCC agrees that Hayworth is missing something but so is most of New York's Republican establishment if they can't win back these seats.
Update on this post: We spoke too soon. NRCC now has "on the radar" candidate in the 29th, 24th and two in the 13th -- but News Copy believes most of them are contenders.
Obama blamed President Bush but Ed Morrissey noted that Democrats how Congress held the purse strings:
"In three years, they increased annual federal spending by $900 billion, while the admittedly profligate and irresponsible Republican Congresses under George Bush increased annual federal spending by $800 billion — in six years. And during the last three years before taking office as President, Obama served in the Senate that passed those bills, and he voted for every Democratic budget put in front of him."
The president presented the $787-billion economic stimulus package as a success story. However, just 35% of voters believe the stimulus plan has helped the economy, while 31% believe it hurt. At this time, 39% are concerned the government will do too little to deal with the economy while 49% fear it will do too much.
"Obama Voted for, or Signed Into Law, Every Blessed Penny of 2009's Spending"
The details followed:
"... The 2009 budget was almost exclusively approved by Democrats, with "Yeas" coming from current President then Sen. Obama, his current Vice President then Sen. Joe Biden, his current Chief of Staff then Rep. Rahm Emanuel, and his current Secretary of State then Sen. Hillary Clinton."
Obama voted to authorize $3.1 trillion in federal outlays along with a projected $400 billion deficit. Obama voted for TARP, all $700 billion of the Troubled Assets Relief Program. The newly sworn-in President didn't veto $787 billion stimulus bill that passed in February 2009.
Second thoughts on Obama's State of the Union address.
Come to think of it, I had no first thoughts. I saw it. I endured Obama-speak last night.
I know Glenn Beck told everyone not to see it. I only beared with the dishonest rhetoric to get some idea what the Democrats will do next.
Obama spun the jobs and cut spending mantra well enough -- but he was too smooth and preachy.
This was Barack Obama trying to be Cool Hand Luke, making believe he was a "new" populist Blue Dog Democrat. It didn't work.
Here was a President of the United States who was really pretending to be a reformer (or maybe Bill Clinton).
It was a good performance, maybe even a good speech but it went flat when he begged for healthcare legislation ("Let's get it done").
"I found the Republican response by Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell to be wooden ... and as cocky as Obama. Worse, the applause and setting seemed canned and staged"
There were glimmers of true reform name dropped throughout the Obama's speech but close analysis proved it all paper thin. There's no reality to Barack Obama, only spin. The problem is that he can still fool people and there was plenty in his delivery -- his cocky body language -- that pretends too well to imagine all is well.
My biggest problem with the speech came after Obama was finished, a moment where the GOP should have capitalized. Though it was steeped with substance, I found the Republican response by Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell to be wooden ... and as cocky as Obama. Worse, the applause and setting seemed canned and staged.
Political commentators from both side of the aisle came up with more critical analysis on CNN yet FOX seemed more consumed with just saying it was a bad speech. If you're a Sarah Palin fan, her post-address analysis seemed stage struck and empty of any substance. She looked unprepared and without any immediacy. There were pregnant pauses (think "deer in the headlights") where the only suspense was waiting for any words out of her mouth.
I don't believe the Republicans seized the moment. Then again, maybe the Democrats will do all the work for them.
Polls on healthcare vary as much as 20 percent, depending on the question and the pollster.
Obama and the Democratic agenda took a beating in Massachusetts special election, though it is being grudgingly acknowledged. The Washington Post wrote it off to voter anger -- rather than an informed opposition to policy.
Nothing changes with the liberal fourth estate. Liberals in the media and government don't want to admit there is valid opposition to their liberal agenda.
Obama's radioactivity continues, however, and the polls show that too.
"Fifty-nine percent (59%) say given the country’s current economic situation, the Obama administration should wait on health care reform until the economy improves. That’s a 10-point increase from March of last year. Thirty-three percent (33%) still say the White House should move forward with health care reform."
Another trend is being sustained though.
"Sixty-one percent (61%) of Democrats say the Obama administration should keep pushing health care reform. Eighty-four percent (84%) of GOP voters and 63% of unaffiliateds think the White House should wait until the economy gets better."
The reality check has not hit Democrats or they refuse as a voting block to discern that has gone wrong with the economy or Congress.
"Americans’ views of health reform generally track with their politics: Most Democrats (64%) support the proposals on Capitol Hill, while an even larger majority of Republicans (76%) oppose them. The middle ground is left to independents, with 41 percent in favor and 43 percent opposed– even as a narrow majority (52%) backs the general idea that it is more important than ever to take on health reform now"
Kaiser's poll asserts that opinions on healthcare change as voters are informed. Fair enough. But with one poll saying 63% want healthcare benched and another poll measuring only 43 percent opposed, it might be more a question of priorities than opposition.
In polling, the wrong question is worth a thousand words of misinformation -- but there is a valid difference between those opposing healthcare and those wanting to put it on hold.
The Washington Post poll found 52 percent of those who voted for Scott Brown said Obama was not a factor.
In what could be in time a true stepping stone to the White House, New York's junior U.S. Senator is being suggested as a possible Secretary of State in the Obama administration.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?
Undoubtedly, this changes everything for the former First Lady.
Clinton was asked Monday night by CNN if she would consider taking a post in the Obama administration.
"I am happy being a senator from New York, I love this state and this city. I am looking at the long list of things I have to catch up on and do. But I want to be a good partner and I want to do everything I can to make sure his agenda is going to be successful," Clinton said.
In eight years, Clinton would be the cat's meow of the Democratic Party and as seasoned in foreign policy as any U.S. President.
What it does for New York is open a U.S. Senate seat, with that appointment made by Governor David Paterson.
U.S. Senator Nita Lowey?
U.S. Senator Tom Suozzi?
Both had been previously mentioned as possible replacements for Clinton, if she had ascended to the presidency.
"There's increasing chatter in political circles that the Obama camp is not overly happy with the usual suspects for secretary of state these days and that the field might be expanding somewhat beyond Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.), Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and maybe former Democratic senator Sam Nunn of Georgia."
"While this remains a long shot at best, tapping Clinton to replace Rice would do more than simply revive interest in Dick Morris' off-the-wall 2005 book, "Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race." If Obama were somehow to give the top Cabinet post to his rival for the 2008 Democratic nomination, it would be, well, Lincolnesque. In assembling a Cabinet, Lincoln practiced a politics of "malice towards none" by naming William Seward, once the favorite for the 1860 Republican nomination, as his secretary of state."
It would almost certainly turn Hillary Clinton into the frontrunner among Democrats in 2016, under multiple scenarios.
This is more an anti-endorsement of McCain than a true endorsement of Obama.
Also, Powell slams the GOP hard ... and perhaps that's a deserved slam on certain points ... but did he have to vent his spleen on the one Republican who isn't part of that wretched cabal?
... Or, at least, as News Copy observed yesterday, getting closer.
"While we don’t know the impact of the last debate, the polling indicates that McCain has been able to close the gap with Obama markedly in the past week. Realclearpolitics.com lists six polls with a field date ending on 10-13. Their average gave Obama a margin of 8.3%. There are seven subsequent surveys with a field date ending on 10-16 and their average is an Obama lead of 5.1. The seven polls whose field date ended on the 16th only include one night of post debate polling (usually of a three night sample)."
Morris mused that the situation should clarify itself as the next few days of polling comes in.
News Copy is watching Ohio, Virginia and Florida. Missouri too. But, if there's an election to be won, our bet is that Pennsylvania could hold the biggest surprise.
Here's a news story out of Central PA that sketches out the remotely possible reversal of fortune for Obama, though most are feeling blue.
Fox News/Rasmussen Reports polling this week in Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia shows what they characterized as "a very stable race" -- though the "underlying dynamic" strongly favors Barack Obama over John McCain.
Obama holds a narrow advantage ranging from two to five percentage points in four of the five states and is tied with McCain in North Carolina. Keep in mind that all five of these states were carried by George W. Bush in Election 2004.
Virginia could be the "big hurt" in this election (and it serves the RNC right if they didn't correct the mistakes they made in George Allen's fiasco of a U.S. Senate race).
FOX/Rasmussion has measured that Florida is tightening (as is Ohio).
In Florida, it’s Obama 51%, McCain 46%. That’s a bit closer than last week when Obama enjoyed a seven-percentage point lead. But, as recently as mid-September, McCain had been leading by five. This is the second straight week that Obama has been over the 50% mark in Florida. McCain has not topped 47% in any of the last three Florida Fox News/Rasmussen Reports polls.
Cheer up, Karol. It might be closer than we all think.
"There was a point in my life when I started palling around with a pretty ugly crowd.... that's right... I've been a member of the United States Senate."
"I can't shake that feeling that some people here are pulling for me," McCain said, turning to the far side of the stage. "I'm delighted to see you here tonight, Hillary."
The annual roast, which raised $3.9 million last night to help underprivileged children, is dedicated to the memory of former Democratic New York Gov. Al Smith, the first Catholic to win the presidential nomination of a major political party, who lost to Republican Herbert Hoover in 1928, 444 electoral votes to 87.
"Yes, it's true, that this morning I dismissed my entire team of senior advisers," he said. "All of their positions will now be held by a man named Joe the plumber."
In the self-deprecation department, McCain noted that Joe had just "recently signed a very lucrative contract with a wealthy couple to handle all the work on all seven of their houses."
And should the market improve, McCain predicted that at the "first sign of recovery [Obama] will suspend his campaign and fly immediately to Washington to address this crisis."
He also recalled that Oprah had called Obama "The One" -- something his own campaign also picked up.
"Being a friend and colleague of Barack, I just called him 'that one,'" McCain said.
"He doesn't mind at all. In fact, he even has a pet name for me -- 'George Bush.'"
OBAMA: I’ll just make a quick comment about vouchers in D.C. Senator McCain’s absolutely right: The D.C. school system is in terrible shape, and it has been for a very long time. And we’ve got a wonderful new superintendent there who’s working very hard with the young mayor there to try…
MCCAIN: Who supports vouchers.
OBAMA: … who initiated — actually, supports charters.
MCCAIN: She supports vouchers, also
Her name is Michelle Rhee and she does apparently support vouchers, with reservations.
With all the hot button political talk on education, it's good to see some agreement (almost) by both sides of the aisle on schools.
Joe Wurzelbacher, an Ohio man looking to buy a plumbing business is interviewing Presidential candidates -- and he seems to like the less-tax, more-money-in-your-pocket approach of John McCain than the steal-from-the-rich/give-to-the-poor socialism of Barack Obama.
"You were going to put him in a higher tax bracket which was going to increase his taxes, which was going to cause him not to be able to employ people, which Joe was trying to realize the American dream," McCain said.
"Both candidates' plans are in line with their parties' orthodoxy and their own prior initiatives. Sen. McCain is relying largely on traditional Republican tax cuts. Sen. Obama uses a big government stick -- a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures for banks receiving assistance through the federal rescue plan -- and traditional Democratic talk of keeping jobs in the U.S."
Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal also reported today that the market slump has not been slowed -- and loss of fiscal confidence threatens to make matters worse.
McCain sounded like a Republican. Obama sounded like a liberal Democrat.
"Nobody likes taxes," Sen. Obama said in an exchange early in the debate. "But ultimately we've got to pay for the core investments" necessary for the economy.
"If nobody likes taxes, let's not raise anybody's, OK?" Sen. McCain retorted with a laugh.
I can even agree that Republicans are dumb. But Democrats are dumber, and this "none of the above" sort of thinking is political scorched earth.
" ... Over the past few decades, the Republican Party has driven away people who live in cities, in highly educated regions and on the coasts. This expulsion has had many causes. But the big one is this: Republican political tacticians decided to mobilize their coalition with a form of social class warfare. Democrats kept nominating coastal pointy-heads like Michael Dukakis so Republicans attacked coastal pointy-heads."
Democrats are still nominating urbane pointy heads.
What's driving people away are higher taxes implemented by Democrats. People are voting with their feet, moving away or not voting at all. It may take time before the voter angst is re-focused but it won't be on Republicans.
Maybe this smatters of self-loathing on my own part but a lot of those "highly educated regions and on the coasts" (and academia) are self-entitled elistist lemmings whose politically correct voting patterns have taxed themselves into oblivion.
Like the suburbs of New York City; Westchester County and Long Island, Connecticut and New Jersey.
Yeah. Right here.
We did this to ourselves, not the Republican Party and not middle america.
Why can't the media stop copping out the class war on the GOP -- and take some responsibility for this delusional Greenspan-esque spiral sucking us down?
Silicon Valley, northern Virginia, the suburbs outside of New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Raleigh-Durham. The West Coast and the Northeast are "mostly gone" because those liberal elitist sections of the universe were out of touch governmentally -- and won't that be clear in the coming days as California's default ($7 billion!!!) is front page news.
By Friday afternoon, Reuters had reported the rate dropping by half -- apparently signaling a thaw in the credit freeze -- but there's no clarity whether this is the end of the beginning or the beginning of the end. It was the worst week ever for the Dow.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average swung violently throughout the session. The Dow suffered a sharp selloff of nearly 700 points early in the session to fall briefly below 8000 for the first time in more than five years. It heaved briefly into positive territory two times, before ending the day down 128 points, or 1.5%, at 8451.19.
The DOW industrial average suffered a loss of 1874 points or 18.2% over the past week, handily above the 16.7% loss from October 1932, and the 13.2% decline completed on Oct. 23, 1987, the week that started with Black Monday.
Politics has been pushed to the side, upstaged by economic realities and its fueling unstable reactions from voters and politicians alike.
Tough week to be a candidate, for sure, and New York's politicians weren't helped by Mike Bloomberg's term limits troubles and the usual budget sniping between bureaucrats. The people are looking for a target. They need/want/demand someone to vent their rage upon. President Bush spoke to the country today -- after an initial positive flurry on Wall Street -- and markets nearly tanked again.
Amid this all stands Obama, an unproven cult of personality whose associations with Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, ACORN and the usual suspects in Congress (and Chicago) make him seem too shady. The liberals are accusing Republicans of preying to hate, misplaced anger.
When a man told him he was “scared” of an Obama presidency, Mr. McCain replied, “I want to be president of the United States and obviously I do not want Senator Obama to be, but I have to tell you — I have to tell you — he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States.” The crowd booed loudly at Mr. McCain’s response.
This is different.
With a little over three weeks left before a nation votes, that rage could be headed anywhere.
Right now, it's aimed at George Bush and the GOP. It's a dangerous mix of panic and opportunism -- and it's time for Obama to stop fanning the flames of the Dow's drop.
Many millions of American households are gingerly opening envelopes containing reports of the third-quarter losses in their 401(k) and other retirement accounts -- telling each household its portion of the nearly $2 trillion that Americans' accounts have recently shed. In this context, the McCain-Palin campaign's attempt to get Americans to focus on Obama's Chicago associations seems surreal -- or, as a British politician once said about criticism he was receiving, "like being savaged by a dead sheep."
Andrew Romano of Newsweek is having too much fun at Stumper.
Romano's forecasting a 269-269 tie among the electoral vote in this national election.
He's calling it "The Apocalypse" -- and he explains that the 12th Ammendment of the Constitution is a little more complicated than a simple roll call vote in the House of Representatives.
"Given that Democrats are expected to expand their current 235-199 majority by 12 to 16 seats, you'd expect Obama to win in a walk, right? Not quite. Giving individual members one vote each would skew the results toward big states like California and New York, so the House doesn't allow it. Instead, each state gets one vote, regardless of its population; to win a state's vote, a candidate must win the votes of a majority of its representatives. My home state of New Jersey, for example, has 13 congressmen; if seven vote for Obama and six for McCain, Obama pockets the Garden State's sole vote."
"The situation was made worse by the perception that the GOP (the Bush administration) was both presiding over a financial meltdown and obstructing efforts to deal with it (House Republicans). Republicans lost both ways. If you disliked the bailout, you were angry the Bush administration--and if you thought the bailout necessary, you were angry at the House Republicans. All in all, it was a bad three weeks for the Bush administration and congressional Republicans--and the Republican presidential ticket suffered."
The House passed the bailout 263-171 -- but it's still the economy, stupid.
Before the debate between Palin and Biden, News Copy's numbers crunchers started sifting through the poll data from Siena College's most recent survey.
This is one instance where the numbers are worse than the spin.
Our focus is more out of the suburbs, where I'm hearing from local and regional races depending on the vote from the soccer moms (and the same wage earners about to be hammered by more layoffs on Wall Street). In other words, "It's the economy, stupid" -- and it's not good around here. In addition to now officially being the highest taxed county in the country, the fiscal sinkhole is only a commuter train ride away.
Obama leads McCain 58-36 percent. That's not unusual for New York State but the numbers in the suburbs aren't pretty.
Obama is ahead 60-31 percent in the sleepy suburbs. That's Long Island and Westchester, areas that have slipped from being Republican strongholds to bases of power for the Democrats in less than 20 years.
On "Revitalizing the Economy" -- 30 percent of New Yorkers think McCain would be effective and only 37 percent in the suburbs. Half of suburban voters rated Obama higher and 57 percent statewide.
That means the bleeding on the economy, politically and perception-wise, is happening right here in Westchester County. And Republicans are getting it right between the eyes, even though Democrats control the County and State governments (who should be held responsible for picking people's pockets).
On the bailout being on people's minds "a great deal" -- nearly 70 percent of suburbanites admitted to "paying attention" (63 percent statewide).
Sarah Palin?
The numbers were painful.
53 percent unfavorables among independent voters. 55 percent unfavorables, women. 58 unfavorables, 55+ age group.
56 percent unfavorables in the suburbs. Biden had 56 percent FAVORABLES in the same areas.
So the majority of the highest taxed county in America is voting for two liberal "tax and spend" Democrats ...
Liz Benjamin of The Daily News was kind enough to post the cross tabulations on that newspaper's blog The Daily Politics. The "cross tabs" indicate a familiar story for Republicans in New York. But Palin and McCain are not resonating with suburban voters and Palin is not resonating with women in this state.
By the way, Palin's still getting good spin from the "talking heads" at this late hour (except George Stefanapolis, whose calling Biden the winner) ...
Obama's ahead, 58-32 percent, and McCain's support since September has slipped.
In New York, at least, the political wolf is at the door for Republicans. Nothing new -- but it's getting worse for the GOP ... MUCH worse. It's the suburban vote and numbers outside New York City that should have local/regional Republican campaigns nervous.
Palin's effectiveness in New York might be on the ropes tonight.
This ad must have been the result of a brain storming session where some very abstract free association was taking place. Or they maybe they really just wanted to find a warm fuzzy way to call Obama a hypocrite.
Or maybe a very blunt "October surprise" is coming. The "Who's Barack Obama?" is the tip off.
Andrew Romano of Newsweek is having too much fun at Stumper.
Recent Comments