Northman's Fury

Maybe we should have a few "reminder" attacks.

Not actually a new storyline for the right, though Newt's speech is a little more convincing. Still, this point almost makes me laugh.

Gingrich then recommended splitting the FBI into a domestic crime unit, which would respect civil liberties, and a "small but very aggressive anti-terrorism agency" with "extraordinary ability to eavesdrop."

"I think that your liberties in a domestic setting are paramount," Gingrich explained. "I would rather risk crime than risk losing my civil liberties. But I would not rather risk a nuclear weapon. ... I think the greatest danger to our liberty is to actually have the country end up in the kind of attack that would lead us to favor a dictatorship for security."

Which is a fancy way of saying we should give the government all the powers of a police state, (but only for a "small" number, we promise!), in the hopes it will prevent the kind of attack that would make us choose to be ruled by a police state who would use the threat of such attacks to usurp all of these kinds of powers.

Odd that the Republicans are in such trouble these days, isn't it?

The good news is that the Democrats have finally figured out how to choose candidates willing to fight to be elected.

The bad news is that they've decided to fight each other:

Supporters of Barack Obama’s presidential bid are planning to demonstrate outside the Saturday meeting in Washington where Democratic officials are slated to debate the seating of the Florida and Michigan delegations at the party’s summer convention.

The move comes days after backers of Hillary Clinton’s White House run announced plans to converge on the Washington, D.C. hotel where members of the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee are meeting.

“Hillary Clinton's supporters are going to be bussing in protestors for the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting, so it's critical that we show up for the counter-protest,” wrote on organizer in a post on the Daily Kos Web site Tuesday morning.

. . .

Earlier this month, Clinton told a group of bloggers who support her candidacy that she encouraged efforts to lobby the committee.

“I thank you for zeroing in on the May 31 meeting. There will be a lot of activity around that meeting,” she said on a conference call, adding that it was “important your voices are heard” by DNC members.

Nice to see Hillary promote the tactics that cost Democrats the Florida recount in 2000.

In an eerie echo of the “Brooks Brothers riot” depicted in the HBO movie, when shouting Bush operatives and Republican congressional staffers who had been dispatched to Florida managed to shut down the Miami-Dade County recount, CNN reported on Thursday that Clinton supporters “are planning to swarm the capital in a little over a week to pressure Democratic Party leaders as they gather to decide the fate of the Florida and Michigan delegations.” In 2000, the candidate most willing to deploy principles and trash them, according to the tactical needs of the moment, was awarded the prize. In 2008, maybe not

Now with the Kossaks involved, maybe we won't have to wait until the convention in August for the rioting.

'My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it,'[link]

Much as I hate to defend Clinton these days, it is probable that from the previous times she has referenced the RFK assassination that it is probably more focused on the June part and just worded incredibly badly in this instance, but the reference to a political assassination is still a poor one, and the Clinton campaign used to know that.

Today, in Dover, Francine Torge, a former John Edwards supporter, said this while introducing Mrs. Clinton: “Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F. Kennedy. But he was assassinated. And Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one who actually” passed the civil rights legislation.

The comment, an apparent reference to Senator Barack Obama, is particularly striking given documented fears among blacks that Mr. Obama will be assassinated if elected.

Phil Singer, a Clinton spokesman said: “We were not aware that this person was going to make those comments and disapprove of them completely. They were totally inappropriate.”

Well, at least the campaign did.

Mrs. Clinton’s expression did not change noticeably when Ms. Torge made the comment.

In any case, I believe the statement was more of a gaffe and forgivable to a degree, but my problem really starts with her not-exactly-an-apology.

"Earlier today I was discussing the Democratic primary history, and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns that both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged in California in June 1992 and 1968 and I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June," Clinton said.

"That's a historic fact. The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator [Edward] Kennedy and I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that, whatsoever. My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live up to, and I'm honored to hold Senator [Robert] Kennedy's seat in the United States Senate from the state of New York and have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family."

I'm sure the Kennedy clan, reeling from the sad news of their current patriarch's medical condition, wasn't entirely amused with the reference, but that really isn't the family Clinton needs to apologize to. Somehow she seems to have missed the whole reason this was a stupid comment. It isn't because she was referencing some traumatic period from the past, it is because she was referencing the assassination of a presidential candidate as a reason for her remaining in a contest against a man about whom there has been a steady if muted drumbeat of stories speculating on just such a fate befalling the man most likely to become America's first African-American President.

Hillary's failure to even acknowledge that her gaffe may have been a little traumatic for the Obama's is the measure of just how low she's fallen. The hole she needs to dig herself out of just got a lot deeper.

Pretty much everyone should be well aware that Iraq War spending hasn’t exactly been a model of accounting discipline. Still, it’s nice to be reminded of the sheer scale of the incompetence.

A Pentagon audit of $8.2 billion in American taxpayer money spent by the United States Army on contractors in Iraq has found that almost none of the payments followed federal rules and that in some cases, contracts worth millions of dollars were paid for despite little or no record of what, if anything, was received.

The audit also found a sometimes stunning lack of accountability in the way the United States military spent some $1.8 billion in seized or frozen Iraqi assets, which in the early phases of the conflict were often doled out in stacks or pallets of cash. The audit was released Thursday in tandem with a Congressional hearing on the payments.

This is apparently in addition to the nearly nine billion in cash the US flew in on pallets earlier during the conflict. And I love the examples they give at the end of the article.

Examples of the paperwork for some of those payments, displayed at the hearing, depict a system that became accustomed to making huge payments on the fly, with little oversight or attention to detail. In one instance, a United States Treasury check for $5,674,075.00 was written to pay a company called Al Kasid Specialized Vehicles Trading Company in Baghdad for items that a voucher does not even describe.

In another case, $6,268,320.07 went to the contractor Combat Support Associates with even less explanation. And a scrawl on another piece of paper says only that $8 million had been paid out as “Funds for the Benefit of the Iraqi People.”

But perhaps the masterpiece of elliptic paperwork is the document identified at the top as a “Public Voucher for Purchases and Services Other Than Personal.” It indicates that $320.8 million went for “Iraqi Salary Payment,” with no explanation of what the Iraqis were paid to do.

Whatever it was, the document suggests, each of those Iraqis was handsomely compensated. Under the “quantity” column is the number 1,000, presumably indicating the number of people who were to be paid — to the tune of $320,800 apiece — if the paperwork is to be trusted.

I can’t know for sure, of course, but I’m willing to bet that a fair number of those examples were passed around the office for people’s amusement at the sheer ridiculous incompetence they show with taxpayers’ money.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that fraud was prevalent, but it does mean that any fraud that did take place will be almost impossible to track down and prove.

It also means that the Pentagon will be reluctant to prosecute any fraud it does track down, since such a serious lack of oversight makes the Pentagon itself at least partially culpable for any such actions. After all, under such circumstances, even a relatively honest person would be likely to take advantage of the system.

Controls, the saying goes, are there to keep honest people honest. Without them, nearly everyone strays, and the fact that oversight and spending controls have been allowed to lapse in just about every government function is one of the most pervasive legacies the Bush administration is going to leave the American people.

Really, it's the only way I can explain how Hillary and her crew were able to claim yesterday that the fight over seating the Florida delegation is like, among other things:

Florida 2000
The Civil Rights Movement
Women's Suffrage
and Zimbabwe

I don't envy them the hangover they are likely to have when they finally sober up. It also turns out that making the Florida primary results count as is may in an actual fact be a felony.

Florida election law (Chapter 104.0515) states that “No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any other person for the purpose of causing such other person to vote for, or not vote for, any candidate for any office at any general, special, or primary election....”

Coerce is largely defined, “to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, esp. without regard for individual desire or volition.”

This Florida election statute makes it clear that if The Democratic Party chooses to use the results of Florida's January primary to determine delegates assigned to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, ignoring it's public edict that results would not count, high-ranking party members will be in violation of Florida election law. The crime is a third degree felony in this case.

If January's election results are used to select delegates, a Florida prosecutor could make a case that The Democratic Party officials used their “authority” to advise voters that their presidential votes would not count, without regard for the voters' “volition,” defined as the exercise of their personal choice. It could then be determined that the party intentionally caused some voters to not vote.

All across Florida, there are residents who admit that their decision to not vote for a presidential candidate in January was directly affected by The Democratic Party stating that the vote was meaningless. Several state newspapers have quoted people who fit this example.

Unlikely to happen of course, but important to remember that only the truly delusional could consider what happened in Florida was a fair vote.

The Weekly Standard has decided that the reason Obama drew such a big crowd in Portland was because of his opening act. That's an attack so weak a newborn would be giggling from the impact.

In bipartisan stupidity, the House has passed a bill to sue OPEC for high oil prices. I'm sure facing the potential cost of a lawsuit will convince the oil-producing nations of the world to immediately drop their prices.

Since the Clinton campaign keeps harping on about ensuring that Florida and Michigan are counted, (which is pretty rich given that in order to claim the popular vote lead they have to toss out the results of four states that held caucuses), I thought I'd do a bit of calculation on what that might mean for the overall count.

At present, there are 3,253 pledged delegates, which makes 1,627 the number needed to have a majority of them. Going into tonight, Obama has 1,612, meaning he only needs to pick up 15 from the 103 available in order to claim an absolute majority, which is what Obama plans to do tonight since he can get that many if he breaks 30% in Kentucky alone.

The Clinton camp, on the other hand, wants the delegates from Florida and Michigan seated, which adds another 313 pledged delegates to the mix or another 157 needed for Obama to get the majority. The rules committee is meeting on May 31, and I believe it is likely they will come up with some agreement to seat the delegations.

Under the Clintons' preferred scenario, which has about the same likelihood as my marrying Michelle Trachtenberg, the results of the two unsanctioned primary will stand as is, giving Clinton 163 delegates to Obama's 61 since he gets zero from Michigan. That adds 96 delegates to the 15 above before he can claim a majority. Obama's lead going into tonight is 168.

Under a somewhat more realistic scenario, Obama picks up the 26 Florida delegates that would have went to his supporter Edwards, and gets the uncommitted delegates from Michigan, which should number around 51. That bumps his total up to 138, and means he needs a mere 19 more for the majority.

Further, since the rules committee are still likely to impose some kind of punishment on the two states, it is probable that their delegates will be given half-votes as happened on the Republican side. That makes Obama’s maximum possible deficit 48 delegates, and under the more realistic scenario, only 10.

Roland Martin has figured out a way to get the campaign back on track.

Since it is clear that our nation is paralyzed and so not able to close our borders, feed the homeless, develop businesses in the inner cities and save people from having their homes taken by foreclosure due to ruthless mortgage companies, all because some folks don't wear a flag lapel pin, we need to lead a national movement to demand that Congress and the states make requiring officeholders to wear a flag lapel pin the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

See, if it is so important, then take it all the way. Don't make it optional. Don't leave it up to someone to choose to wear a flag lapel pin. Let's really show those politicians that nothing is more important to us than seeing them with the U.S. flag on our chest.

I heartily endorse this completely ridiculous idea.

Turns out old Karl has a couple of maps showing that Hillary would be a better candidate than Obama in the fall against McCain. Outside of the nutcases at No Quarter, who have totally lost the ability for rational thought at this point, (Quite unfortunate really. They used to be a decent blog on foreign affairs.), who in their right mind that calls themselves a Democrat would take Karl Rove's word on who the Democrats should pick as their candidate?

Hillary Clinton defended her reasoning for staying in the presidential race Monday afternoon by pointing out that Karl Rove's analysis shows her to be the strongest candidate against John McCain in November.

Aaahhhh . . . well then . . . um . . .

Man, I can't wait for this to be over.

But it's gotta be nice to have an advantage for once,

To confront the Obama juggernaut, Senator John McCain, whose fund-raising has badly trailed that of his Democratic counterparts, is leaning on the Republican National Committee. Mr. McCain’s efforts to raise money suffered a blow this weekend when a key fund-raiser, Tom Loeffler, resigned because of a new campaign policy on conflicts of interest.

Mr. McCain is likely to depend upon the party, which finished April with an impressive $40 million in the bank and has significantly higher contribution limits, to an unprecedented degree to power his campaign, Republican officials said.

To that end, Republican officials said they were enlisting President Bush, a formidable fund-raiser who has raised more than $36 million this year for Republican candidates and committees, for three events on Mr. McCain’s behalf. They will appear together at a fund-raiser in Phoenix on May 27, and the next day the president will take part in a luncheon with Mitt Romney in Salt Lake City and then an exclusive dinner at Mr. Romney’s vacation home in Park City, Utah.

Since donors can write cheques up to $70,000 for the committees compared to the $2,300 max to the candidate, McCain obviously hopes the Republicans wealthy donors can compensate for Obama's massive haul from smaller donors. Of course, the GOP has other problems to deal with besides the presidential race.

The number of Republicans leaving Congress will cost the GOP millions of dollars in party-building funds for the fall congressional elections, campaign-finance records show.

Of the 32 Republicans who have resigned or announced plans to retire, 26 have political action committees known as leadership PACs — which members of Congress typically use to make donations to colleagues facing tough campaigns. Those 26 PACs raised $17 million in the last campaign cycle, but only $5.3 million for this election, a USA TODAY analysis of the latest campaign reports filed in March and April shows.

There is little evidence that fundraising will pick up: Five current or former members of Congress, including former senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, have closed down their PACs. Others, including Sen. Pete Domenici of New Mexico, have sharply curtailed their fundraising activity.

2008 is truly shaping up to be a blowout year for the Democrats.

Say whatever else you will about Obama, but the man knows how to bring out the crowds.

Some 75,000 people flocked to Portland’s waterfront Sunday to watch Barack Obama speak, making it the biggest rally the campaign has held to date. Thousands stood on the lawn, dozens watched from boats and from the bridge stretching across the Willamette River. A few kayakers held their paddles and tried to keep their kayaks straight as they watched the candidate, who stood on a makeshift platform.

Wild.

Yesterday, I posted over at the Newshoggers that Bush's "appeasement" attack was actually a good thing, since it was an opportunity to see Bush and McCain echoing one another. Even better though, is watching Obama's response.



Nice to see a Democrat who knows how to hit back.

The smell of the general election must be in the air, because McCain seems to be coming under a bit more scrutiny. The latest is a good contrast given all the hype about "appeasement" from Bush and McCain yesterday. You see, apparently McCain was for dealing with Hamas before he thought there would be political advantage in smearing Obama over it.

[Rubin] asked: “Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"

McCain answered: “They’re the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it’s a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.”

The Moderate Voice has the video as well.

More important to me is the very reasonableness of McCain’s position, particularly tow years ago just after Hamas won the Palestinian elections. Hamas showed more than a few indications of being willing to focus on governing the occupied territories and not antagonizing Israel with attacks. Engagement at that point would have shown whether or not Hamas was seriously turning over a new leaf or if they would return to form. If the latter, the willingness to engage would have clearly put the blame on Hamas for any resumption of violence.

Instead, the West, led by the US, boycotted the government whose election was a result of their own insistence on holding such elections. Fatah was armed and encouraged to retake power in a coup, and Gaza turned into a massive prison camp.

Even now, with a somewhat abortive attempt by the Bush administration to try and get some sort of peace deal hammered through before he leaves office, freezing out Hamas simply won’t work. Any deal worked out by Fatah won’t be seen as legitimate by many Palestinians, and as a result, Hamas still has veto power over any agreement.

Ultimately, the 2006 McCain was right. One way or another, Hamas needs to be dealt with and Fatah isn’t giving the people peace, security, or democracy. The true tragedy of the “silly season” is that it would likely be damaging for any of the candidates for president to admit that.