I got into a big debate the other day with a Howard Dean fan about the merits of his presidential campaign. I think because he saw that I'm a white, tech-savvy, moderate-to-liberal east-coaster, he assumed I'm a Dean supporter. Once he became aware of my skepticism about the good doctor, he asked me to give him one good reason Dean shouldn't get the nomination.
The first thing that came to mind was Dean's incessant flip-flopping on a variety of issues. (This is not to say there aren't other reasons; it's just the first thing I thought of.)
Dean's fan acknowledged that a few of his candidate's policy positions have "evolved" over time, but rejected the notion that Dean is a serial flip-flopper. At a minimum, he said, Dean is no worse than any of the other Dem candidates.
My challenger had a point, at least about Dean's rivals. All presidential candidates waffle and flip-flop sometimes. It's been this way for as long as we've had presidential campaigns as candidates need to make the adjustment from representing a state or a district to appealing to an entire nation.
The current field of Dems has some candidates who've offered a few doozies. When Dick Gephardt first came to Congress, for example, he said that "life begins at conception" and proposed a constitutional amendment to ban all abortions. Now Gephardt is ardently pro-choice.
John Kerry said in 1992 that affirmative action "has kept America thinking in racial terms," and lamented "the costs" the policy has had on the country. Today, however, Kerry considers himself as a champion of affirmative action.
Carol Mosley Braun said in 1998 that she'd never run for public office again, yet she's a presidential candidate now.
Dennis Kucinich had a dramatic conversation before entering the presidential race on the issue of reproductive rights. As Common Dreams reported, "Twice in the past three years, NARAL gave him a rating of 'zero.'" As recently as 2001, Kucinich agreed with a Bush proposal to withhold international family-planning funds from international organizations that even discuss abortions. In 1999 and 2000, Kucinich agreed with the Right to Life Committee on 19 of 20 votes. Now Kucinich, perhaps the campaign's most liberal candidate, says that he is definitely "pro-choice."
(And don't even get me started of George W. Bush, whose entire presidency has been one huge flip-flop. Remember the candidate in 2000 who bragged about a foreign policy driven by "humility," who emphasized "compassion," who boasted of bringing Democrats and Republicans together, and ran on a platform of a balanced the budget and a robust job market?)
Yet, despite these examples, I would argue that Howard Dean has flip-flopped more times, on more issues, than any of the Dems running for president. It's a continuing problem that may ultimately come back to haunt his campaign. In fact, it's so bad I decided to make a list.
I'm not talking about Dean's mistakes or apologies. I don't care that Dean mysteriously called Latin America "the most important hemisphere in American history" last week. It's easy to overlook the fact that Dean, when asked last month if he supported gay marriage, said, "I never thought about that very much." It may not matter that Dean said Saddam Hussein's fall from power is "probably a good thing" earlier this summer. No one will remember that he falsely accused John Edwards of avoiding talk of his support of the Iraq war before an anti-war Dem audience in California.
I mean straight up, direct examples of Dean holding one position and then deciding he believes the opposite shortly thereafter. It's happened often enough the last couple of months for me to create...The Carpetbagger Report's Top 10 Howard Dean flip-flops (in no particular order).
1. North Korea
In January, Dean said on CBS' Face the Nation that he approved of Bush's policy towards North Korea and agreed with the president that the approach will be successful.
"I concur with most of the president's policy on North Korea," Dean said, to the surprise of many Democrats and supporters who had criticized Bush's approach. "We have substantial differences on Iraq, but I like the idea and I believe in the idea of multilaterals. And the president's pursuing a policy in cooperation with the Chinese, the Russians, the South Koreans and the Japanese, which we ought to see bear fruition."
Just one month later, Dean flip-flopped without explanation, describing Bush's North Korea policy as "incoherent, inconsistent and dangerously disengaged."
2. Social Security retirement age
At a candidate forum hosted by the AFL-CIO in August, Dean faced criticism from Kucinich for considering moving the Social Security retirement age. Dean responded forcefully that he wanted to "tell everybody that I have never favored Social Security retirement at the age of 70, nor do I favor one of 68."
In 1995, Dean praised then-Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.) for recommending changing the retirement age to 70. At the time, Dean said, "I believe that Sen. Packwood is on exactly the right track." A month later, Dean said "moving the retirement age to 70" was a way to help reduce the deficit and balance the budget.
Far more recently, in June 2003, Dean said on Meet the Press, "I would also entertain taking the retirement age up to 68."
3. Public Financing and Campaign Spending Limits
In March, Dean promised to raise a fuss if any of the other candidates decided to abandon spending limits and skip public financing.
"It will be a huge issue," Dean said in March. "I think most Democrats believe in campaign finance reform.... [I've] always been committed to this. Campaign finance reform is just something I believe in." As recently as June 7, Dean wrote to the Federal Election Commission that he will abide by spending limits in the primaries.
Last month, Dean said his campaign was "exploring" the possibility of opting out of the public financing system because of his success in raising money and his desire to spend more in the primaries than his opponents. He said he "didn't remember" making earlier promises to the contrary and said his campaign was free to "change our mind."
(Actually, Dean's flip-flopped on this issue twice. In addition to the recent conversion as a presidential candidate, Dean also did a reverse on spending limits while governor of Vermont. In 1997, Dean helped create a system whereby statewide candidates would agree to a spending cap and participate in public financing. At the time, Dean vowed that the bill would "change the way campaigns are run" in Vermont. When it came time for Dean to run for re-election in 2000 under the campaign finance system he helped create, Dean rejected public financing and exceeded the spending cap by 300 percent.)
4. U.S. trade standards
In August, Dean told the Washington Post that China and other countries could get trade deals with the United States only if they adopted "the same labor laws and labor standards and environmental standards" as the United States. When a reporter from Slate asked if he meant just general "standards" or "American standards," Dean insisted that he would demand that other countries adopt the exact same labor, environmental, health, and safety standards as the United States.
Last week in the DNC debate in Albuquerque, Dean shifted gears and said he doesn't believe that our trading partners have to adopt "American labor standards," saying that international standards would work.
5. U.S. policy on the Cuban trade embargo
Dean, up until fairly recently, was one of many politicians from both parties open to easing trade restrictions with Castro's Cuba. He admitted as much in response to a question from a reporter last month, saying, "If you would have asked me six months ago, I would have said we should begin to ease the embargo in return for human-rights concessions."
According to an Aug. 26 article in the Miami Herald, Dean has "shifted his views" on Cuban trade now that he has "surged to the top of the race" for the Dem nomination. Dean said he believes the U.S. can't ease Cuban embargo restrictions "right now" because "Castro has just locked up a huge number of human-rights activists and put them in prison and [held] show trials."
6. "Regime change" in Iraq
In March, before the U.S. invaded Iraq, Dean sounded a lot like Bush on the possible war, suggesting that disarming Saddam Hussein, with or without the United Nations, should be America's priority.
According to an interview with Salon's Jake Tapper, when Dean was asked to clarify his Iraq position, Dean said that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.
When the U.N. chose not to enforce its resolutions, Bush followed Dean's position and launched a unilateral action against Iraq.
Since then, Dean has held himself out as someone who has opposed the war all along.
7. Death penalty
In 1992, Dean said, "I don't support the death penalty for two reasons. One, you might have the wrong guy, and two, the state is like a parent. Parents who smoke cigarettes can't really tell their children not to smoke and be taken seriously. If a state tells you not to murder people, a state shouldn't be in the business of taking people's lives."
In 1997, his position was beginning to "evolve," but he insisted, "I truly don't believe it's a deterrent."
In June 2003, however, Dean had abandoned his earlier beliefs. He said, "As governor, I came to believe that the death penalty would be a just punishment for certain, especially heinous crimes, such as the murder of a child or the murder of a police officer."
8. Repealing Bush's tax cuts
A year ago, Dean started out saying he'd repeal all of Bush's tax cuts. Asked about how he'd pay for increased spending in health care and education, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported, Dean "doesn't hem or haw" when answering the question. "'By getting rid of the President's tax cut,' Dean says. Not freezing it, mind you -- getting rid of it. All $1.7 trillion worth."
Then Dean began to equivocate. In July 2002, Dean said on Meet the Press, "[T]here's a few little things I wouldn't repeal. There are some retirement investment pieces I wouldn't repeal, although I would have to add some so that lower-income workers could help pay for their retirement, not just people like me."
Dean's position changed a little more in March, saying his tax policy would be to "repeal the president's tax cuts for people that make more than $300,000, with a few exceptions."
In May, Dean came full circle, saying that he's back to wanting to repeal "all" of the Bush tax cuts.
9. Troop deployment in Iraq
In June, Dean said on Meet the Press, "We need more troops in Afghanistan. We need more troops in Iraq now."
In August, Dean said U.S. troops need to stay in Iraq. "It's a matter of national security," Dean said. "If we leave and we don't get a democracy in Iraq, the result is very significant danger to the United States."
In last week's debate in Albuquerque, Dean completely reversed course, saying, "We need more troops. They're going to be foreign troops, not more American troops, as they should have been in the first place. Ours need to come home."
10. Civil liberties in a post-9/11 America
Shortly after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, while Dean was still governor of Vermont, he suggested a "reevaluation" of civil liberties in America.
Specifically, Dean said he believed that the attacks and their aftermath would "require a reevaluation of the importance of some of our specific civil liberties. I think there are going to be debates about what can be said where, what can be printed where, what kind of freedom of movement people have and whether it's OK for a policeman to ask for your ID just because you're walking down the street."
More importantly, Dean said he didn't have a position on whether these steps would be good or bad. When asked if the Bill of Rights would have to be trimmed, Dean said, "I haven't gotten that far yet."
In March 2003, Dean told The Nation's David Cord that he believes "portions" of the USA Patriot Act "overreach," but added, "I haven't condemned Congress for passing" the legislation.
On August 19, however, Dean accused Ashcroft of taking advantage "of the climate of fear and adopted a series of anti-terror tactics that go far beyond protecting our country and erode the rights of average Americans." He added that the U.S. should "roll back" the USA Patriot Act.
I'm not reporting all of this to help Karl Rove and the Republicans, so spare me your emails. The truth is the bad guys already know all of this. I'd hazard a guess that Rove has dozens of college students locked up in the basement of the OEOB, sleeping on cots, and spending their waking hours chronicling every word every Dem candidate utters. Rove and the RNC don't need The Carpetbagger Report; they have an extensive research operation that blows my little blog away.
The point, rather, is for those of us who want a new president in 2005. Rove may know all about Dean's flip-flops -- he's probably already started crafting the TV ads -- but it's Dem voters who seem unaware of the good doctor's policy problems. We need to consider whether this is a problem before we vote for our nominee. Do Dean's flip-flops mean that he lacks conviction? A problem with discipline? These are questions that Dems should consider before we settle on our choice as a party.
Just as importantly, should Dean get the nomination, we need to know what the GOP will be using against our presidential pick once the election season heats up next year. Hiding public truths in the hopes that the GOP won't notice isn't an effective plan for success.
Continue reading "The Captain, Unedited: Thoughts on the SOTU Speech" »
Continue reading "Kerry, The FBI, and The Phoenix Project: The Whitewash Continues" »
Continue reading "Was Kerry In Iraq In 1991 For Cease-Fire Accord?" »
Continue reading "CQ Radio Scoop: Fred Thompson Statement" »
Ed Morrissey has blogged at Captain's Quarters since 2003, and has a daily radio show at BlogTalkRadio, where he serves as Political Director. Called "Captain Ed" by his readers, Ed is a father and grandfather living in the Twin Cities area of Minnesota, a native Californian who moved to the North Star State because of the weather.
Florida Strategy Part Of Larger Giuliani Failure
Charles Hill talked to the Yale Daily News about the disappointing finish he experienced as a member of Rudy Giuliani's team, Hill, one of the policy stars Rudy attracted for his advisory boards in the presidential primary campaign, agrees with the conventional wisdom that the Florida strategy was a mistake. However, he argues convincingly that it was a secondary strategic error:
The candidate’s focus on Florida — at the expense of campaigning in the early primaries — was a mistake, Hill said in an interview with the News on Friday. But it was also part of a larger failure on the part of Giuliani’s communications staff to engage the media and, through them, the American public, Hill said.Hill pointed to a foreign-policy speech Giuliani gave in September as emblematic of the campaign’s inability to draw attention to its candidate.
“Giuliani gave a speech in London that was a very serious and impressive speech,” Hill said. “It got very good press in London, and got no press here at all. Things that were done were not reported very well, and that, I think, was the fault of the communications team itself.”
These two problems, combined with debate formats that “trivialized and demeaned” and “swallowed … any attempt to stand out,” Hill said, left Giuliani with almost no public exposure.
“When the media was gearing up and becoming totally focused on the early primaries, they gave Giuliani almost zero coverage because he wasn’t a factor,” he said.
Giuliani needed to give that speech in the US if he expected the media here to cover it; that was a mistake that could easily have been rectified. Otherwise, though, Hill diagnoses the problem accurately. The campaign's strategists never appeared to care whether Rudy got national media attention. He remained in Florida and turned into a sideshow as Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and finally John McCain provided themes and story arcs that they could use.
Hill blames the communication team for the failure. As someone who worked with the communications team on a regular basis, I don't agree. They tried to work as assertively and professionally as possible to get the campaign message out to the traditional and New Media outlets, but the candidate himself didn't extend much effort. While McCain held weekly blogger calls through bust and flush, and Huckabee worked magic in interviews, and even the more corporate Romney reached out to talk radio especially, we just didn't see enough of Rudy, especially in the final weeks of the campaign.
And that was a shame, because Rudy's best asset has always been Rudy. Having Hill and Steve Forbes and other high-wattage surrogates were initially impressive, Rudy didn't appear to realize that he was the real attraction of the campaign. No one could have energized the campaign and found support like the candidate himself, but he left his best asset on the bench.
The Way Primaries Work
We seem to have people who still misunderstand the primary system, both in our CapQ community and in the national political movements on the Right. Over the last couple of weeks, we have had grand ultimatums from a couple of factions which have demanded a particular type of nominee, or else the faction leaders claim they will depart the Republican Party. A few commenters have asserted the same ultimatum in the comments on this blog. It shows a lack of understanding not just of the primary process but also in how to build the necessary political coalitions that result in agendas getting addressed.
First, primaries serve as a testing mechanism for the various factions that make up the major political parties. Each faction gets a chance to convince a standard-bearer to run for President (as well as Senator, Governor at the state level, and so on). Primary campaigns allow these groups to make their best argument to the people with whom they are most closely aligned. The primary elections themselves test for the support within the party for the factions as well as the candidates themselves. It shows which group can pull together the largest political coalition, the strongest constituency within the party, as well as the most successful candidate for a general election.
It's a good process. If someone cannot win primaries among political allies, they're certain to lose general elections against political opponents. It allows the major political parties to produce the most successful candidate so that the entire alliance has a good chance to affect public policy.
However, it relies on all of the members of that alliance to act responsibly, both during and after the primary process. Those groups that want a certain kind of candidate to win the primary election need to find that candidate and support them in the primaries. They need to make the case to the party that their candidate makes the best national case for election. If they can't do that, or if their candidate does not succeed, then they need to honor their alliance and go with the candidate which does succeed -- because to do otherwise makes them unreliable partners on whom the party should never rely.
Let's take a look at a particular example. Richard Viguerie sent an e-mail last week that stated in part:
As you may know, I was part of a group of over 40 conservative leaders who met recently and resolved not to vote for Republican candidates who are pro-abortion.We will present the petition to the members of the Republican National Committee, the President and Republican members of Congress, media and blogs, and many other Republican leaders. It will be a powerful warning to those in a position of influence that, if the GOP turns against unborn children, a significant portion of its base will not vote for Republican candidates.
That, frankly, is absurd. The RNC, the President, and members of Congress do not select the party's nominee. The Republican voters in each state do that. What good does a petition do? Why doesn't Viguerie simply put all of that effort into actually supporting a candidate, rather than issue petitions aimed at people who have nothing to do with this process? Is Viguerie demanding an appointed candidate, one that comes from a smoke-filled back room rather than an honest primary process?
Along with the splintering rhetoric from James Dobson and others, it shows an immaturity and a complete rejection of the primary process. It's a form of extortion; select a candidate despite the voters' own preferences, or they walk out of the party. If the party nominates someone who cannot win a majority among their own voters without the threat of extortion, what chance do they have in the general election? None.
The silliness extends to the general election. On the radio shows I do, I hear the same refrain I heard in 2006 -- "We'll stay home and teach the party a lesson." What lesson -- that its allies are completely unreliable? That those who claim to speak for a majority would rather marginalize themselves and the rest of the agenda on the Right rather than accept the conclusion of the party's own voters in the primaries? That's not democracy, it's petulance. All elections are cost-benefit choices, at all levels. If people can't understand that much, they have no business leading any kind of political movement.
Support your primary candidate passionately and with positive assertions of their policy stands. Once the primaries are over, do some intelligent and mature cost-benefit analysis instead of indulging in hurt feelings and childishness. That goes especially for those who came out of Salt Lake with dire warnings about third-party efforts if they don't get the candidate they want, especially since none of them appeared prepared to offer a specific candidate in the first place.
UPDATE: Shaun Mullen doesn't like the caucus process, as he explains at The Moderate Voice. I'm not terribly enamored of caucuses as opposed to primary elections, either, and I think Shaun confuses the two a little in this post. It's a good read nonetheless.
Federal Charges Against Hillary Fundraiser
Norman Hsu's life just got a lot more complicated. Earlier today, federal prosecutors in New York announced that the filing of criminal charges against Hsu, who still has yet to serve a three-year term for fraud first imposed in 1992:
Hsu was charged with orchestrating a $60 million "Ponzi Scheme" and engaging in widespread campaign finance violations. ...Hsu has been a key Democratic Party fundraiser in recent years, donating large amounts including to the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Federal authorities investigated Hsu's business dealings as prominent Democrats have been scrambling to return his campaign donations. Clinton has said she will return $850,000 the convicted scam artist had helped raise for her presidential campaign.
Hsu is in custody on an outstanding fraud warrant in California. Reports surfaced this summer raising questions if Hsu was illegally funneling money into campaigns through third parties.
The complaint shows that the feds mean business. They have constructed a case that purports the theft of "tens of millions of dollars" in what may be the biggest private con exposed in the US. As Joel Rosenman has already revealed, the con game relied on investor greed and lack of any diligence in convincing people that they could gain large returns over a short term by participating in loans. The initial investments showed a large return, and only after Hsu set the hook did he abscond with the big investments.
The payoff? $60 million. That makes his $2 million in political contributions look like chump change -- or perhaps insurance.
After all, where did Hsu send his political money? He supported Attorneys General in New York and California, where he had built financial bases. Hsu stuffed former AG Eliot Spitzer's coffers when Spitzer ran for Governor of New York. He became a Hillraiser, pouring contributions through all sorts of people of modest means. The complaint also specifically alleges that Hsu pressured his victims to donate large amounts of money in order to remain in what turned out to be a Ponzi scheme, meaning he was able to launder his fraudulent profits through them to Democratic candidates and organizations.
Victim-1 is almost certainly Joel Rosenman, who has already acknowledged giving Hsu $40 million. It turns out that Hsu gave him $40 million in post-dated checks -- but the account only had $83,000 left in it. Victim-3 has yet to come forward, but apparently has lost $20 million in the bridge-loan scheme. All victims got pressured into political donations directed to Hsu's favored candidates and organizations.
Don't forget that Norman Hsu has $6 million in his checking account as of his latest capture. We know where at least some of the money went.
With a federal prosecution looming on the horizon, one that could put him in prison for life, it will be interesting to see whether Hsu starts singing. Someone staked him for his initial confidence games, and for some purpose. Will Hsu crack?
Californians Willing To Forego Winner-Take-All
A proposed referendum to replace the current winner-take-all system in California for presidential elections has a strong plurality in favor, according to a Field poll. Voters asked whether they support allocating Electoral College votes on a proportional basis agreed 47%-35% that the current system should be jettisoned -- and Democrats were as likely to support it as oppose it. (via Memeorandum)
At Heading Right, I look at the two ways in which Field pollsters posed this question. The results will surprise readers who might have assumed that heavily-Democratic California would consider this proposition. California may benefit from this new allocation -- and it may be the next political wave that starts at the Golden State's shore.
CQ Radio Scoop: Fred Thompson Statement
In an exclusive scoop at BlogTalkRadio, Fred Thompson will make a statement at 3:30 pm CT today through an additional show for CQ Radio. Be sure to listen live, or catch the podcast that will follow.
If you want to embed the player on your own site for this show, go to the extended entry and copy the code there. Just replace the () characters with the open-close brackets normally used for HTML scripts!
UPDATE: Here's the link to my show, where I played the statement twice -- and if you want to stream it separately, you can do that here.
Floridians Had No Problems Voting
According to a post-election Quinnipiac poll, Floridians reported no problems casting votes in this year's election and overwhelmingly had confidence that their votes were counted properly:
Most Florida voters had no problem casting a ballot on Election Day and many say they are confident their vote was counted correctly, a poll shows.More than nine in 10 respondents said they had no problems, other than having to wait in long lines, according to the Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday.
Voters felt strong confidence in the results, with 75% saying they had very or somewhat confident their votes were counted properly. Predictably, this broke out along partisan lines. Only 5% of Republicans expressed a lack of confidence -- but 42% of Democrats felt uneasy about whether their ballot received proper handling. Since all ballots look exactly the same and both parties vote at the same booths, the only explanation for this discrepancy has to be the four-year campaign by Democrats to undermine public confidence in voting whenever and wherever they lost. They've managed to dispirit Democrats, and if they continue their whining, may kill their turnout altogether.
Ed Rendell Puts The Anal In Analysis
Jim Geraghty at the Kerry Spot points out an example of Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell's brilliance on the Paula Zahn show last night. In discussing the results of the presidential election, the Democrat offered this jaw-dropping analysis (emphasis mine):
ZAHN: The president also relied on inside-the-beltway talent. Was the difference Karl Rove and he just had a better strategy? It's not like the president didn't rely on people who live in that neck of the woods.RENDELL: Yes, although I think the Republicans do a much better job of listening to the grassroots, of listening to the constituents, of listening to people from all different geographic areas, and we don't.
Now, look, I'm not going to wring my hands over this election. If 9/11 had never happened, John Kerry would be president-elect today. I have no doubt about that.
Wow -- what a breakthrough in political analysis! If only history hadn't happened, John Kerry would be president! Rendell fails to mention that the Democrats had actually been informed of the 9/11 attacks. Supposedly, if they thought this event might affect the election, they could have developed policies that would help voters trust that Kerry would actually stand up to the terrorists and their apologists.
You know, it's just a thought. But then, I don't have Ed Rendell's legendary analytic skills.
Here's more of Ed Rendell's political insight:
* If the Republicans had hired better burglars in 1972, Spiro Agnew would have become President in 1976.
* If Teheran didn't exist, Jimmy Carter would have been re-elected to the presidency despite not having been elected in the first place.
* If Ronald Reagan had actually gotten the lead for Casablanca, Fred MacMurray would have become President in the 1980s, ushering in the Golden Age Of Sweaters.
* If George H.W. Bush hadn't tried so hard to push hearing-impaired voters to the polls ("read my lips"), Bill Clinton would still have been pursuing tawdry affairs from female subordinates. He just would have done it in the executive offices of a law firm, where that kind of thing belongs.
* If Al Gore had actually created the Internet, John Kerry wouldn't have had a chance to run for President until 2008.
* If Ed Rendell had anything interesting to say, he wouldn't be appearing on the Paula Zahn show.
Kerry Flip-Flops On Concession
For those who argued that an official recount demand from the Ohio Democratic Party did not implicate John Kerry by association, the Kerry campaign removed all doubt by joining in a legal fight to require all counties in Ohio to abide by the recount demands:
Sen. John F. Kerry's presidential campaign asked an Ohio judge yesterday to allow it to join a legal fight there over whether election officials in one county may sit out the state's impending recount.A pair of third-party presidential candidates, who said that reports of problems at the polls on Election Day are not being addressed, are forcing the Buckeye State to recount its entire presidential vote. But David A. Yost, a lawyer for Delaware County, just outside Columbus, won a temporary restraining order last week blocking any recount there. He told the Columbus Dispatch that a second count would be a poor use of county resources. President Bush won the mostly Republican area handily, unofficial results show.
Lawyers for the Kerry campaign asked to join Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb, Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik and the National Voting Rights Institute in the fight to force the county to participate in the recount. "If there's going to be a recount in Ohio, we don't want it to exclude Delaware County or any other county that might decide to follow Delaware County's lead," Kerry lawyer Dan Hoffheimer said. "It should be a full, fair and accurate recount."
I notice that they're not asking for "full, fair, and accurate" recounts in states such as Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania, where the margin of Kerry's victories were much smaller than Bush's in Ohio. This leaves no doubt that Kerry intends on setting himself up as the frontrunner in 2008 by attempting to delegitimize Bush's victory in the media. You can expect the Kerry campaign to support the recount requests by Badnarik and Cobb in New Mexico and Nevada as well.
Miami Herald Unravels Florida Paranoia
CNN reports that the Miami Herald investigated the latest "stolen election" theories regarding Florida in 2004, specifically that fraud occurred in Democratic counties that wound up going for George Bush overwhelmingly over John Kerry. The Herald's recount of ballots from these counties will disappoint the tinfoil-hat brigade on the Left that remain convinced that Kerry really won Florida:
A newspaper's review of ballots cast in three north Florida counties where registered Democrats far outnumber Republicans showed just what officials reported: The counties' voters did on Election Day as they often do, voting for a Republican for president.The Miami Herald review goes against Internet-fed rumors questioning whether there was a conspiracy against Sen. John Kerry in those counties. ...
Reporters for the newspaper went over more than 17,000 optical scan ballots cast in three rural counties mentioned by doubters: Suwannee, Lafayette and Union. All three are overwhelmingly Democratic in registration, but chose President Bush.
No one has requested an official recount of the ballots in any Florida county, but the Herald got permission from the county registrars to review the ballots themselves. In all three counties, they found at most a couple of dozen ballots that had been discarded due to the optical-scan systems' inability to read them, although the Herald felt that in some cases the voter intent could still be determined. The vote counts only changed a few votes in either direction, making clear that the results announced by Florida reflected the actual intent of the voters there.
Perhaps this will be enough to silence the Roswell faction of the Left regarding stolen elections, although I doubt that. It should, however, convince the rest of America that these people are delusional and somewhat dangerous to follow. They seem intent on undermining confidence in the electoral process either from a form of mental illness which makes them unable to recognize reality, or out of Machiavellian ambition to delegitimize American democracy. In either case, we need to make sure they remain marginalized.
They'll Be Coming Around Soon Enough Now
Even the diehard Bush haters may be regaining their senses. Jonathan Chait lashes out at the Democrats rather than George Bush for not only losing this election but setting themselves up to lose the next one as well. Chait goes after the three Democrats sucking up the political oxygen thus far regarding the next election -- Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry. Chait sees disaster in each and all three:
This week's topic is Candidates Who Obviously Covet the 2008 Democratic Nomination and Who Must Be Stopped at All Costs From Obtaining It. ... As we speak, Deaniacs are reconstituting in their yoga studios and organic juice bars, plotting in their benevolent, cheerful but fundamentally misguided way to make Dean the leader of the Democratic Party.Why would this be such a disaster? Because, remember, the Dean campaign advanced two novel theories about national politics. The first was that Democrats paid too much attention to winning over the center. What they really needed to do was mobilize the base by nominating a candidate like Dean who'd fire up liberals. This turned out to be doubly wrong.
Chait advises against the Dean candidacy for the DNC chair for all the reasons Republicans have secretly wished for his victory. The Democrats have had four years of unprecedented setbacks at the hands of Terry McAuliffe, whose complicity in turning them from the party of Scoop Jackson to a front for International ANSWER cannot be dismissed. McAuliffe discarded any notion of a coherent vision to instead run the Democrats as the automatic gainsay of the Republicans -- whatever the GOP was for, he was against, and vice versa.
To a large degree, the Democrats still have not realized this. Instead of analyzing their defeats honestly and engaging in some introspection, they have instead blamed everyone but themselves for the campaigns they've run and the candidates they've nominated. A Dean chairmanship promises more of the same. It's not just that Dean only motivates the base, as Chait correctly points out; the entire notion of a Dean chairmanship continues to extend the self-delusion of the Democrats into believing they were cheated out of their majority status, rather than ineptly discarding it. Picking the candidate with the most embarrassing primary stumble in recent memory clearly demonstrates their denial.
Chait also goes after Hillary Clinton and John Kerry with equal vitriol, although I think he underestimates Hillary. Kerry, of course, is another example of the same denial that makes Howard Dean attractive to Democrats. Chait sums up John Kerry as a presidential candidate in probably his most memorable salvo in recent memory:
In a previous column I compared Kerry's contribution to his own campaign to an anchor's contribution to a boat race. In retrospect, I seem to have given him far too much credit.
Chait probably doesn't give the Democrats enough credit here, however. It's true that Kerry has publicly stated that he's keeping his options open for 2008, but that doesn't mean that the party will nominate him again. It might be hard for them to turn him down, but I think that even the Democrats recognize that Kerry exuded zero attraction outside of Beantown, and in 2008 Bush hatred won't be a factor, unless Jeb runs for President.
Chait dismisses Hillary as a moderate in liberal clothing who will wind up emulating Dean by alienating the middle for the fringe. I think she's a bit more savvy than that, plus she'll have Bill around to remind everyone of the trailer-park Camelot that they created in the 1990s. It could be enough, depending on the next four years, to sway some moderates back to the Democrats. She's already staking out a conservative position on illegal immigration, triangulating in the best tradition of her husband on one of the red-meat issues for the GOP base.
However, Chait nails Hillary on one point that a nationwide campaign will make perfectly clear in short order: she has none of her husband's charisma. She can be pleasant while in safe environments, but in a partisan arena she reverts quickly back to her dour, wonkish personality. Her hard edge and sour temperament may play reasonably well in New York, although Chait reminds us that she gave back six points of Gore's vote to Rick Lazio in 2000, but in a national campaign ... well, she's certainly no Bill Clinton.
Chait has some wise words for Democrats in the Los Angeles Times today, and perhaps a few Democrats will heed them. If a Bush-hater like Jonathan Chait can start making sense, maybe the rest of the party is ready to turn the corner too.
UPDATE: Xrlq notes that Clinton's opponent was Rick Lazio, not Fazio. I've updated the post.
The Victim Party Continues Its March From Reality
The Democratic Party continues its crusade for victimhood and the further poisoning of the political environment, asking for a recount of the presidential election in Ohio while making wishy-washy allegations of fraud:
The Ohio Democratic Party announced this week that it is supporting a third-party-led effort to force the battleground state to recount its presidential vote.The organization, whose decision is expected to give more legitimacy to the recount push, complained that Ohio voters faced long lines at the polls Nov. 2, that some voting machines malfunctioned and that some absentee ballots were never delivered.
If that's the basis for their request, then someone needs to explain how recounting the ballots that were cast addresses any of those concerns. It's a further attempt by the Democrats to make Ohio the new Florida, giving them an extension on the martyrdom on which they've based their entire political strategy for the past four years.
Bush won the popular vote in Ohio by 136,000 votes in an election where Republicans turned out in slightly greater percentage than Democrats. With that margin of victory, the odds of any irregularity in the count making even a noticeable dent in Bush's lead approach infinity. And yet here we have the Democrats again, claiming again that an election has been stolen from them, simply because they cannot face the fact that they nominated a lousy candidate who, again, ran a lousy campaign. Their next step will be to file suit to keep Ohio's Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell from certifying the results, a replay of Florida 2000.
If the Democrats think that they can build party support by turning the Buckeye State into the poster child for their victimology, perhaps they should look at their prototype again. They narrowly lost Florida in 2000 (a result confirmed by every recount done after the election), but after four years of holding the Sunshine State up as their Holy Land of martyrdom, they lost it by five points this year and coughed up a critical seat in the Senate. If they want to besmirch Ohio's reputation for the conduct of elections, they may well regret it in 2008. And if they want to turn every election they lose over to the lawyers, the Democrats had better get used to being in the minority for a very long time.
UPDATE: For those who claim, as DSB does in the comments, that the Kerry campaign has nothing to do with this, please try reading the article:
The Kerry campaign said it intends to monitor the proceedings for irregularities. "We didn't ask for it," said Dan Hoffheimer, the campaign's legal counsel. "But since it's apparently going to happen, we want to make sure it gets done right."
Besides, I didn't argue that the Kerry campaign was descending into victimological madness -- I said the Democratic Party was doing so. In fact, until this update, I didn't even mention the Kerry campaign in this post -- but isn't Kerry a Democrat? And if he opposed the recount nuttiness, why is the remnant of his campaign jumping into it?
Kerry To Share The Wealth
Under a great deal of pressure since the DNC discovered his hoarded campaign funds, John Kerry has agreed to give a substantial portion of it to the DNC in order to fund party-building efforts in the next two years:
Under friendly fire, Sen. John Kerry likely will donate a substantial portion of his excess presidential campaign cash to help elect Democratic candidates in 2005 and 2006, advisers said Thursday.Party leaders, including some of Kerry's top campaign aides, said this week they were surprised and angry to learn that he had more than $15 million in accounts from the Democratic primaries. They demanded to know why the money wasn't spent to help Kerry defeat President Bush or to aid congressional candidates.
There were no easy answers to those questions, officials close to Kerry acknowledged Thursday, but they sought to assure Democrats in a series of telephone calls that the four-term Massachusetts senator was sharing his political wealth.
Kerry's advisors pointed out that they gave the DNC $32 million during the primaries, but that still doesn't explain away the money that sat unused while Kerry rolled towards the convention. (Yesterday's AP report that Kerry left $15 million in the bank from his federal funds was apparently in error, as the AP has since changed the story.) It also doesn't explain why Kerry sat on the cash and watched as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee borrowed $10 million for races in Texas, where redistricting left them at a distinct disadvantage. Even if Kerry spends the money on Congressional races in 2006, the damage is done; the incumbents in the new districts will have the advantage over new challengers.
Some of Kerry's campaign staff expressed their surprise and dismay over the revelations on his leftover funds. Some Democrats questioned why, if Kerry had $45 million ready to use at the close of the convention, why he didn't just opt out of public financing altogether. He only gained $30 million by opting in, an amount he could easily have raised in the final 60 days leading up to the election. That move would have saved him from being subject to spending limitations and would have forced George Bush to do the same.
All in all, the incompetence of the Kerry campaign reveals itself more and more each day.
Only Prosecution Will Stop It
Ohio has discovered two verified cases of voter fraud, a husband and wife who voted by absentee ballot and then voted again at the polls, claiming their ballots had been lost. They also have identified at least 18 other possible cases of intentional double-voting. The AP reports that Buckeye State election officials have yet to decide how to handle the case:
Prosecutors were trying to determine Wednesday whether charges should be filed against a couple in Madison County accused of voting twice. In addition, Summit County election workers investigated possible double votes found under 18 names. ...The couple who voted twice in Madison County cast absentee ballots in October, then voted in person on Election Day, county elections director Gloria Herrel said. The couple said election workers told them their absentee votes were lost, prosecutor Steve Pronai said.
In Summit county, typically the votes were made by absentee ballot or in person, and then a second vote was cast with a provisional ballot in another precinct, elections director Bryan Williams said.
Under Ohio law, people who vote twice could be charged with election fraud, falsification or illegal voting, according the Secretary of State's Office. The maximum penalty for the most severe charge is 18 months in prison.
I fail to see the conundrum here. We have been debating about ensuring the validity of our elections for four years now, after the Florida debacle that gripped the nation for five weeks, throwing the presidential election in doubt. Double voting is fraud. If Ohio wants to discourage people from committing voter fraud, then it has to aggressively prosecute those cases which give them clear evidence of the crime.
If we intend on having clean elections, we have to punish those who attempt to circumvent the controls. Even Afghanistan knows that, and they've had one free election in their entire history. If there are no negative consequences for cheating, within a few election cycles we'll be electing the most efficient crooks instead of the best candidates.
Democrats Tee Off On Kerry
Earlier today I wrote about the $45 million John Kerry left in his primary election fund instead of spending it on his election or other Democratic races. The AP now reports that Kerry also left an additional $15 million unspent from his federal general-election funds, and his fellow Democrats are now demanding to know why:
Democratic Party leaders said Wednesday they want to know why Sen. John Kerry ended his presidential campaign with more than $15 million in the bank, money that could have helped Democratic candidates across the country. ..."Democrats are questioning why he sat on so much money that could have helped him defeat George Bush or helped down-ballot races, many of which could have gone our way with a few more million dollars," said Donna Brazile, campaign manager for Al Gore's 2000 presidential race.
Brazile is a member of the 400-plus member Democratic National Committee, which meets early next year to pick a new party chairman. One high-ranking member of the DNC, speaking on condition of anonymity, said word of Kerry's nest egg has stirred anger on the committee and could hurt his chances of putting an ally in the chairmanship.
After a record fundraising effort, Kerry left more than $60 million on the table, or roughly a dollar for every vote that George Bush won in the election. $45 million had to be spent before the convention, but Kerry could have passed it on to fellow Democrats, especially in Senate races. He had plenty of time in which to do that, as the books closed on primary funding at the end of July when he accepted the nomination. While his fellow Democrats struggled to raise funds -- in part because many donors focused on the presidential race -- Kerry kept it all to himself.
At least with the primary funds, he could claim the excuse that spending it on himself was illegal. The $15 million in federal funding represents 20% of the entire budget for the general election. How in the world could John Kerry leave 20% of his funds in the bank while he pulled advertising from state after state in the final days of the campaign? Democrats will demand answers from Kerry -- and they're unlikely to sit still for the kind of wishy-washy answers he gave the American electorate in the campaign.
Put frankly, Kerry's hoarding of the money makes him look like a selfish bastard, and a rather stupid one at that.
Kerry's Ebenezer Scrooge impersonation is not the only issue with which his fellow Democrats are dissatisfied. A Democratic activist that sank $6 million into efforts to turn out the Hispanic vote declared that Kerry never tried to help:
"John Kerry did not compete adequately for Hispanic votes, period," said Simon Rosenberg, founder and president of the centrist New Democrat Network, a political organization independent of the national Democratic Party. "If we don't reverse the gains that President Bush made, we can forget our hope of being a majority party again." ...Among Rosenberg's complaints were the Kerry campaign and the DNC lacked a national strategy for Hispanics and did not spend enough money on advertising or enough time campaigning in Hispanic communities and did not employ enough people on the get-out-the-vote effort.
That understates the problem that Kerry presented for Hispanic voters. When Kerry affected their voting at all, he turned the heavily Catholic demographic off by claiming to believe in life at conception while explaining his support for partial-birth abortion. His wife, meanwhile, traveled to New Mexico and insulted the Hispanics whose families go back centuries by lumping them together with illegal immigrants. Perhaps Kerry tried a bit too hard for his own good. At any rate, Rosenberg managed to come up $6 million more than Kerry.
Kerry has made some noise about running for President again in 2008. I'd say he'll be lucky to run for re-election to the Senate.
Kerry Can't Stop Hoarding Money
The AP (in the Boston Herald) profiles John Kerry in today's edition in his return to the Senate after losing the presidential election two weeks ago. The story focuses on Kerry's equivocating on a possible Presidential run in 2008, but the real blockbuster isn't Kerry's unrealistic notions of a do-over but the $45 million he never spent during this last election cycle:
Sen. John Kerry, who has $45 million left from his record-breaking Democratic campaign, hinted on Tuesday that he may try again for the presidency.On his first workday back in the Senate since losing his White House bid, Kerry remained far from the spotlight, granting interviews to hometown reporters and joining the depleted corps of Democrats as they elected the party's new Senate leaders.
The news of the $45M nest egg surely has to dismay his supporters, especially with the less-rational of them claiming that the race was so close. The money comes from his primary-season campaign fundraising, not the public money for the general election. That, supposedly, was money Kerry didn't have in June and July to get his message out, and by the time August rolled around (after the nomination), he couldn't legally spend it. How smart was that?
Democrats should ask for an accounting from the Kerry campaign. Even if Kerry couldn't spend the money, he could have transferred some or all of it to other Democratic campaigns around the country, most notably in the Senate. A few million dollars may have made a difference in places like South Dakota, where his own Minority Leader lost by just two percentage points over the GOP challenger. Other Senate races could have been rescued by some assistance from the Democratic frontrunner. Why didn't he use it instead of hoarding it?
Contrast that to the extensive party-building efforts of the GOP standardbearer; Kerry's selfish money handling guarantees that no one will trust him with the next nomination. His campaign rolled from one disaster to the next, and if he keeps talking about running again, four years is an awfully long time to get a Freedom of Information Act request processed for the rest of his military and FBI records. It also gives him another four years to add to his mountainous record of flip-flops. In fact, he already started in this interview (emphasis mine):
In his first extensive interview since his Nov. 2 defeat, Kerry was asked by the Fox News affiliate in Boston about running again in 2008 and reminded the questioner that Ohio is still counting votes from 2004.He then said, "It is so premature to be thinking about something that far down the road. What I've said is I'm not opening any doors, I'm not shutting any doors." Kerry added, "If there's a next time, we'll do a better job. We'll see."
What is that supposed to mean? That he conceded before he didn't? Ohio announced yesterday that 81% of the 155,000 provisional ballots were valid, meaning that around 125,000 would be counted. Even if Kerry won every single one of them, he still loses by 11,000 votes. Casting doubt on the legitimacy of the election now does nothing but feed the conspiracy theorists and far-left lunatics that turned off half of America the first time around.
John Kerry should be satisfied to still have a Senate seat left and take some time to smell the Franklins. He earned it; he found a way to take it with him into political death.
Captain's Quarters features an authoritative blogroll, listing many websites that feature the top political thinking on the Internet. In order to make the list easier to navigate, it has been divided into a number of sections.
Click on the section title to expand the list.