Dick Morris Gets in His Licks…

Remember Dick Morris?  The political consultant with the squeaky voice who worked with Bill Clinton to create the triangulation concept that helped Clinton win reelection in 1996?  The same guy who got a little too big for his britches and was removed from the Clinton universe?

Well, he is writing for the Rasmussen Reports, and the boy is getting a little back for himself!

I am a relatively late convert to reading the Rasmussen Reports, and have found they are good stuff.  But I cannot get over how much Morris enjoys putting the spurs to the Clintons!  A full list of his articles can be found here, and I will leave the full reading to you, but just to give you the flavor…

From December 8, 2007 on how Bill Clinton is hurting Hillary:

Bill’s high ratings are largely due to his nonpolitical activities in recent years…But when he gets down and dirty, defending his own record, rebutting attacks on Hillary or excoriating the media or his wife’s opponents, he acts very political and brings down the very ratings that made his intervention seem useful in the first place.

From December 15, 2007, on Hillary’s focusing on experience:

The decision that Hillary should run as the candidate of experience was an enormous blunder. In a Democratic electorate that’s in the party precisely because it so intensely dislikes things as they are and wants change, experience is the wrong virtue to stress.

From January 5, 2008, on Hillary in Iowa:

But what of Hillary? She’s down but she’s not out. Hillary Clinton, in the first really contested election of her own political career, lost dismally– outclassed, outdrawn, and outpolled by Barack Obama.

From January 5, 2008, on Hillary’s vision :

Fleetwood Mac would roll over in their musical graves if they could hear how the Hillary campaign has gotten into a time warp, obsessing with the 90s while a new political generation demands a focus on tomorrow…Suddenly, the Clintons have become old before our eyes. They are, as if by magic, now part of the past, no longer inevitable in the future. It took Obama and Huckabee to put them there, but they have become the couple that can’t stop thinking about yesterday.

I know that he who laughs last laughs best, but Morris is going after them with the bloodlust of an axe murderer with a score to settle…

Having said all this, Morris better hope Hillary does lose…because if she wins, won’t be no room at the inn for Dick Morris for at least four more years!

UPDATE:

Despite Brother Morris proselytizing about how Bill hurts Hillary, one factor offered up as contributing to her NH win is his “fairy tale” speech attacking Obama on how he presents his Iraq record.  It may be stepping away from his statesmanship personna, but apparently it was quite effective!

WaPo hits on Democratic Candidates Biggest Fear

Today the WaPo editorial page did something unusual-it criticitized the Democratic Party.

In an editorial titled “See No Good, the question posed is “Why do the Democratic candidates refuse to acknowledge progress in Iraq?”

The editorial notes:

…it’s indisputable that the surge has drastically reduced violence. Attacks have fallen by more than 60 percent, al-Qaeda has been dealt a major blow, and the threat of sectarian civil war that seemed imminent a year ago has receded. The monthly total of U.S. fatalities in December was the second-lowest of the war.

But what of this? Silence from the Democratic presidential candidates.

I think the editorialist answered the question in his first paragraph:

All of them vehemently opposed the troop increase when President Bush proposed it a year ago; both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama introduced legislation to reverse it.

The fact is that things do seem to be improving in Iraq, and the changing circumstances create the opportunity for new solutions. The problem is that constituencies that vote in the Democratic primaries are in no mood to even listen to facts that suggest anything other than the US experiencing abject failure in Iraq, and the candidates running for the nomination do not want to lose the war an a tool to turn out their voters.

As the Post goes on to note, recognizing the success of the surge:

…would involve a willingness by the candidates to reconsider their long-standing plans to carry out a rapid withdrawal of remaining U.S. forces in Iraq as soon as they become president — a step that would almost certainly reverse the progress that has been made.

Only one thing was more disturbing than the failure to recognize the success of the surge:

Even more disturbing was the refusal of the Democrats to adjust their policies to the changed situation. Ms. Clinton said she didn’t “see any reason why [U.S. troops] should remain beyond, you know, today” and outlined a withdrawal plan premised on a defeat comparable to Vietnam (”We have to figure out what we’re going to do with the 100,000-plus American civilians who are there” and “all the Iraqis who sided with us. . . . Are we going to leave them?”). Mr. Obama stuck to his plan for “a phased redeployment”; if his scheme of a year ago had been followed, almost all American troops would be out by this March.

In keeping with the inflexibility of thought that has driven her campaign to the precipice of electoral failure, Hillary C. has “refused to retract a statement she made in September, when she said it would require “a suspension of disbelief” to believe that the surge was working.”

The WaPo editorial does not go into the obvious…it is in the Democrats best interests politically to cast the Iraq effort as a failure.  A failed GOP foreign policy an electoral plus for the eventual nominee.  The unwillingness by the Democratic candidates to note this is also politically based.  The Daily Kos and Cindy Sheehan’s of the world all vote in the Democractic primaries.  Suggestions that there are successes abroad is tantamount to a gold plated invitation to these voters to go elsewhere in the Democratic primaries.

Are things perfect overseas?  No…but circumstances have changed, potentially creating a new landscape for decision making.

Not that the Demo’s have noticed:

Even more disturbing was the refusal of the Democrats to adjust their policies to the changed situation. Ms. Clinton said she didn’t “see any reason why [U.S. troops] should remain beyond, you know, today” and outlined a withdrawal plan premised on a defeat comparable to Vietnam (”We have to figure out what we’re going to do with the 100,000-plus American civilians who are there” and “all the Iraqis who sided with us. . . . Are we going to leave them?”). Mr. Obama stuck to his plan for “a phased redeployment”; if his scheme of a year ago had been followed, almost all American troops would be out by this March.

There is a long way to go, and much to be done.  The Bush administration has much to answer for in the initiation, prosecution, and administration of the war effort.  The potential Democratic nominees are right to challenge the administration, But, as the WaPo says:

…any U.S. policy ought to be aimed at consolidating the gains of the past year and ensuring that neither al-Qaeda nor sectarian war make a comeback. So far, the Democratic candidates have refused even to consider that challenge.

Why?  Because noting even minimal success in Iraq will enrage their constituencies, and endanger their chance at the nomination.

It is time the leading candidates stop analyzing the facts they with they had and start analyzing reality.  It is time the leading candidates stop thinking like partisans and start acting like statesmen.

Harsh analysis?  Perhaps…but given the concise analysis the suddenly prescient WaPo offers, it seems more than merited.

Dear Burke Connection-The Cooch Won!

I have held off on writing this.  I hoped they would get with the program.

But sometimes the media falls down on their job and lets their prejudices to known they have to be called on it.

The legislature goes into session in two days…and the Burke Connection has not run a story on The Cooch beating The Hoot for the State Senate in Va-37….and I think that is just trashy, tacky, and wrong.

Perhaps this is no surprise-The Connection papers endorsed Hoot, and in the most glowing terms.  But after election day, while large articles were devoted to victories by democrats in General Assembly, Board of Supervisor, and School Board elections…no love for the Cooch.  He got a sidebar type article-sort of like you see used for community announcements-that noted he won by 92 votes and that Oleszek would ask for a recount.

We know that, because if you go to the connection newspapers main site, and click on the link for the Burke Connection, you can still find, as of 1700 hours on 1.7.2008, an article posted on 12.13.2007 titled 37th District Recount Set for Next Week. This journalistic gem includes the observation by the reporter that:

OLESZEK has good reason to be optimistic about what a recount might have in store for her. Del. Jim Scott (D-56) initially lost his first House of Delegates race by 16 votes in November 1991 but then ended up winning by one vote after the absentee ballots were re-checked a month later in December, Scott said.

That is not spin from the Hoot campaign, that is reporting offered by the Connection staff.

Try searching on articles about “Cuccinelli”…nothing except the “upcoming” recount.

Ridiculous. Silly. Unspeakable.

Now, as of last week there is a link to an article dated 1.2.2008 that is a year in review piece. Buried deep in this piece is the observation…:

“I am working on rebuilding the party locally. … on recruiting more people and finding more activists,” said Sen. Ken Cuccinelli (R-37), who is the only Republican senator from Fairfax and won his reelection by 101 votes.

…and that is it! That is all they have to say that indicates Cuccinelli won.

No coverage of the recount, no article on Cuccinelli winning, nothing on the reaction of the losing campaign.

Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

At least the Washington Post runs full articles on the political campaigns in its geographic areas- no matter how much they dislike the candidate, and in proportion to wins by candidates they like.

The Burke Connection has failed in its responsibility to report the news, and in doing so has revealed its extreme partisanship.

The whole team, from the editors to the folks that deliver the paper, should be ashamed. This inaction will serve to taint its political coverage for a long time to come.

BTW, just to be sure, I checked with the Cuccinelli campaign…and they confirmed they have seen nothing beyond sidebar reports just after election day that reports on the Cooch winning.  I didn’t contact The Hoot to ask her if she had seen any articles announcing with finality she lost.  It just didn’t seem right.

Sign Wars, Everywhere Sign Wars…!

I have been on the road most of today…Scouting for Food, Soccer game, and then off to Manassas on an errand for my father.  That means Burke Centre Parkway to Braddock to VA 28 to Manassas, and then back.

Have you ever seen Bill Murray as Nick Winters, lounge singer?:

 

As I saw the roads covered in signs, all I could imagine was Nick Winters singing a little different tune:

Sign wars, everywhere sign wars, nothing but sign wars for you
Road blight, obstructing your sight, an expensive trench fight, for you.

There…are too many signs for me to read
While driving down this highway

Ignore them and get safely home
Or I will never see election day!

OH! Sign wars, everywhere sign wars, nothing but sign wars for you
[repeat to hearts content]

There are so many signs, too many signs, an impossible number of signs to read.

Having been inundated with signs covering two counties worth of consitutional officers, three Senate districts, three delegate districts, and who knows how many school board elections, I can report a few facts and a few opinions.

The Democrats stole a march on the GOP in Fairfax County. The median of lower Burke Centre Parkway and the Fairfax County Pkwy is lousy with Hoot signs.

Clever idea of the day-John Frey, GOP candidate for reelection as Fairfax Clerk of the Court, put his signs on the edges of the Fairfax County Parkway. While they are less numerous, they are all clearly visible, unobstructed, and far more easy to read than the signs in the median.

The number of yards with signs touting Jackson Miller and Chuck Colgan seems to be increasing.

Best Signs: In a field of signs that are primarily blue on white, white on blue, blue background, or less distinct background, Jackson Miller and Hoot are clear winners.  The red background in their signs make the signs much easier to pick out in an extremely crowded field.

Worst Sign: Rex Simmons.  White Background, Bluish lettering.  Middle half of sing has Simmons for Delegate.  bottom quarter of sign devoted to his web URL, upper left hand corner has light blue , barely identifiable map of Virginia with words “for delegate” over top the map.  Word “Rex” in upper right hand corner.  Difficult to read, too much going on, probably great to hang on a wall at a campaign event, but not good for a road sign.

Worst Sign, special reason: I saw several large Colgan signs up, white lettering on blue background, with the words “Re-elect” in an italicized font on the left of the sign, and then in big letters “Senator Colgan”, forming the message “re-elect Senator Colgan”

I didn’t like it, perhaps because it wasted so much space but also because the whole “Senator Colgan” thing seemed too formal for someone who is always coming across as pleasant and relaxed.  Something like Re-elect/ Chuck Colgan/State Senate, each on a separate line, with varying font, would make the candidate seem a little more personable with the use of the nickname while allowing for a bigger and more visible sign.

That’s my report from the road…nothing left but to let Nick Winters sing you home…

Sign wars, everywhere sign wars, nothing but sign wars for you

Plotkin & Davis-Where Lies the Stupidity?

The folks at RK have a story up via the DPVAthat says that DC political journalist Mark Plotkin claims that Tom Davis told him that Virginia is “1/3 Northern Virginia, and the rest is Alabama”.

Naturally the DPVA is playing this up.  I can only wonder how the folks in Hampton Roads and Richmond like that description.

My question goes off in a different direction.  Is Mark Plotkin really so stupid to make up a story like this, or is Tom Davis really so stupid as to say something like this on OR off the record to a journalist whose antipathy toward the GOP is well known?  I mean, you heard the guy has a desire to run statewide.

Probably…Davis is well known for favoring more latitude for DC city government-a cause Plotkin pushes at every moment-so he may well have said something to him in an unguarded moment…which leads us back to my original question.

Either way, I imagine there will be few conversations or interviews between Mark Plotkin and Tom Davis for some time to come…

Ruminations-Clarence Thomas is Bright but not Smart

One of the benefits of tripping down your front steps and getting laid up for a couple of days with a sprained ankle is the chance to ruminate on life its ownself…and I have come to the conclusion that while Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas must be a bright man, he is not very smart.

Justice Thomas has recently released an autobiography, with a large general focus on what he sees as racism in America today. He also attacks many who have done him wrong, especially Anita Hill, who as you may recall played a not-so-small role in his confirmation hearings.

Many will hail the book as great; others will disparage it. All I can say is: what was he thinking?

I consider it in general to be a bad idea for Supreme Court justices to publish books while they are on the bench. It reeks of grandstanding in a branch of the government which is supposed to free of politics and partisanship…and you may insert your Gore v. Bush comments below.

This could be the greatest book of the 21st century, and it will still offer critics a chance to snipe and undermine his position on the court, which is frequently seen as little more than being a catspaw for Scalia. The fact that it isn’t and is more than a little self-indulgent makes it an even greater target.

More to the point, it reopens the whole matter of the Anita Hill testimony…and that in no shape of form can help him.

This sort of reminds me of the late Senator William Scott of Virginia, who was branded by a counterculture magazine of being the dumbest man in the US Senate.  When asked if he would sue for libel, Scott said replied no.  His reason? “What if I lose?”

Thomas is in the same situation.  No dummy ever made it to the US Supreme Court, and by all accounts Clarence Thomas is bright man who has overcome numerous obstacles to reach public prominence.  But there will always be questions stemming from his confirmation hearings, questions that are brighter, saucier, and more risque than the questions he poses about racism in our society.  Any book he writes that touches on his confirmation hearings will bring these matters, once safely interred in the past, back to lurid focus in the present.

Why do it?  Why dredge up this kind of stuff?  He is sure to create even more doubts than there were back in the day, and that will not help his reputation or place in history one bit.  If you doubt me, read here and then tell me that Thomas is helping himself with this book.

You have to be bright to make the Supremes…but Thomas and his self-indulgent book show one does not have to be smart.

WaPo called on Coverage Hypocrisy

The complete lack of disinterest and journalistic  ethics by the Wapo in the Allen-Webb campaign is noted in today’s WaPo LTE section. Scott Michael of Arlington notes that last June Democratic Senator and announced candidate for president Joe Biden said:

“You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts [in Delaware] unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.”

Michael then contrasts the near non-coverage of that moment with the Post coverage of the Virginia Senate Campaign:

“The contrast with constant coverage of former senator George Allen’s “macaca” incident is glaring. The absence of an aggressive opponent in a critical near-term election campaign may explain The Post’s non-coverage of Biden’s June remarks, but it hardly justifies this paper’s starkly disparate treatment of Allen.”

Indeed.