Telling Stories

The Most Adequate Representation of New York State's Senate

 

I don't think we need to elaborate . . .

Strange Quotes From Strange People

This would be funny if it wasn't true:

"If I'm corrupt, it's because I take care of my district"

That would be Rep. John Murtha (D-PA).  I thought he would say that if he's racist it's because he takes care of his district.  But I guess corruption is not as incendiary as racism.

From the "Oh Please, Please, PLEEEEZEEEEEE" Folder

This would be just great:

An influential conservative political action committee is pledging to support primary challengers to any Republican senator who supports President Obama's stimulus package — the latest public show of dissatisfaction from the right over the massive measure before Congress.

"The American people don’t want this trillion dollar political payoff that will just line the pockets of non-governmental organizations who supported [President] Obama in the election,” said Scott Wheeler, the executive director of The National Republican Trust PAC, an organization that calls for less government spending and lower taxes.

“Republican senators are on notice," Wheeler said. "If they support the stimulus package, we will make sure every voter in their state knows how they tried to further bankrupt voters in an already bad economy.”

Go ahead.  Find some "mainstream Republicans" to run against the only three Republicans U.S. Senators that have managed to get themselves reelected in New England and the Northern Mid-Atlantic, the bluest region of the U.S.  Hopefully, the "mainstream Republicans" can beat them and then it would become an all-too-easy three seat pick-up (with the possible exception of Spencer in PA).

If news like this doesn't convince you of how out of touch Republicans are, nothing will.

Bipartisanship, Republican Style

Via the NYTimes:

Republicans plan to test President Barack Obama’s commitment to bipartisanship as his $825 billion stimulus package heads to the floor of the House of Representatives this week, with the House Republican leader saying Sunday morning that many in his party will vote no unless there are significant changes to the plan.

It seems that the Republican's definition of bipartisanship is "you yield until I feel comfortable."  But it gets better:

While the plan can potentially pass the Democratic-dominated House without Republican support, it will continue to face opposition when it comes before the Senate, said Senator John McCain of Arizona, speaking on “Fox News Sunday.” At least two Republicans will need to approve the bill for a filibuster-proof majority vote of 60.

Senator McCain, who lost the presidential election to Mr. Obama in November, said that he planned to vote no unless the bill were changed.

“We need to make tax cuts permanent, and we need to make a commitment that there’ll be no new taxes,” Mr. McCain said. “We need to cut payroll taxes. We need to cut business taxes.”

John McCain?  Oh, you mean this John McCain:

As Wall Street's roller-coaster week unfolded, John McCain's views on the economy went through about as many gyrations as the Dow Jones industrial average. Brace your neck for a quick recap.

Monday: Speaking at a rally in Jacksonville, McCain declares that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." Coming as the Dow plunges more than 500 points and Lehman Bros. goes belly up, this makes McCain sound somewhat out of touch.

Tuesday: McCain explains that he meant to say American workers are fundamentally sound, and the economy itself is in "crisis." But, he adds, this crisis does not warrant bailing out insurance giant American International Group, which should be allowed to fail. McCain adviser Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO, unhelpfully opines that no one on either presidential ticket would be capable of running a company such as H-P.

Wednesday: After the government takes over AIG, McCain says the rescue was regrettable, but unavoidable.

Thursday: McCain, who over the years has described himself as a deregulator, recasts himself as a pro-regulation, anti-Wall Street populist. If he were president, he says, he'd fire Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox, a former Republican congressman confirmed by unanimous consent of the Senate in 2005.

Granted, McCain, who has been running more on the strength of his foreign policy credentials than on his economic expertise, is entitled to change his mind as new facts emerge. And granted, Democrat Barack Obama also has scant experience dealing with financial crises. At this point, though, it looks as if cleaning up the economic mess will be the next president's top priority. The Republican candidate's erratic performance this week was far from reassuring.

Emphasis added.  I don't think Obama won the election on a promise to take advise from John McCain on economic matters.

Blago and Burris

Unless you've been living in a cave for the last couple of weeks, I don't need to tell you what "Blago" did - allegedly - and who Burris is.  But, in a nutshell, here it is: Blago was caught on tape bragging about trying to "award" Obama's U.S. Senate seat . . . for some "consideration."  It appears that a mere "thank you very much" wouldn't do, and the feds say that he was - allegedly - out to get some cash out of it or maybe appoint himself.

After all this became public, Blago was all "what, me worry?" about this and nominated former Illinois AG Burris.  But the Dems in the U.S. Senate won't let Burris take his seat because it was Blago who did the appointing and not . . . someone else.

After being denied entry to the Senate chambers Tuesday, Roland Burris, the appointee of embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, indicated he's not giving up his fight for the seat once held by President-elect Barack Obama.

Followed by a swarm of reporters, Burris made his way through the Capitol and into the office of the secretary of the Senate on the first day of the 111th Congress.

The secretary of the Senate told Burris that his credentials were "not in order" and therefore he would not be allowed access to the floor.

Nancy Erickson, the Senate secretary, initially rejected Burris' appointment Monday because his certificate of appointment was missing the signature of Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White.

One of the Standing Rules of the Senate says that the secretary of state must sign the certificate of election along with the governor.

White has declined to sign the certificate, siding with some Senate Democrats who say Burris should not be seated because of the cloud over Blagojevich.

Emphasis added.

Listen, I know it doesn't look good.  But a couple of things must be said here: first, Blago hasn't been charged, much less convicted, of anything.  In fact, the feds have been granted three more months to indict Blago.

Joe Liebergone?

Remember him?  The Independent Democrat from Connecticut?  Well, after betting the house - or rather, his Senate seat - on a McCain win, Joe Lieberman's future lies to a large extent in the hands of Harry Reid.  Basically, I don't think Reid or anyone else will allow him to keep his Chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee.  Too big and influential for someone like Lieberman who seemed to go out of his way to belittle Obama during the campaign.

This is the quote I find most amusing:

A person with direct knowledge of the pair's meeting yesterday on Capitol Hill said Reid turned to Lieberman at one point and said, "I prefer to work this out" after Lieberman hinted he would "explore his options" with Republicans if he was stripped of the committee.

Emphasis added.  You mean he wants to "explore his options" with the same Republicans who are in the minority and will have about 43-44 seats?  What can they offer him?  And other than a temporary sense of accomplishment and perhaps some good publicity, what can Lieberman do for Republicans?  Nothing.  Besides, if I'm a Republican senator who has been towing the party line, do you think I'm going to let Mitch McConnell impose Lieberman in a position of influence ahead of me?  If you think the Republicans have a lot of back-biting going on right now, this would make it look like mere bickering.

Lieberman has no good options.  His best option is to try to get the best possible chairmanship from the Democrats and then live with it.  Unlike other rabid bloggers out there, I don't necessarily want him banished from the Democratic caucus.  You never know when you'll need that one extra vote.  But he will have to give his pound of flesh and atone for his actions.

Like Barbara Boxer once said, "elections have consequences."

Sometimes, Facts Are Your Worse Enemies (Or, "I wonder how this foot got stuck in my mouth")

This article simply speaks for itself:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and his top aides took credit for building a winning bailout coalition – hours before the vote failed and stocks tanked. 

The rush to claim he had engineered a victory now looks like a strategic blunder that will prolong the McCain’s campaign’s difficulty in finding a winning message on the economy. 

Shortly before the vote, McCain had bragged about his involvement and mocked Sen. Barack Obama for staying on the sidelines. 

“I've never been afraid of stepping in to solve problems for the American people, and I'm not going to stop now,” McCain told a rally in Columbus, Ohio. “Sen. Obama took a very different approach to the crisis our country faced. At first he didn't want to get involved. Then he was monitoring the situation.”

McCain, grinning, flashed a sarcastic thumbs up. 

“That's not leadership. That's watching from the sidelines,” he added to cheers and applause.

Heckuva job, Johnnie!!!  Heckuva job!!!

You Know McCain is in Trouble . . .

. . .  when not even the Wall Street Journal can throw him a bone for "postponing his campaign:"

Last we checked, the President of the United States was still George W. Bush, the Secretary of the Treasury was still Henry Paulson, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve was still Ben Bernanke, and Congress still had 533 members not running for President who are at least nominally competent to debate and pass legislation.

So count us as mystified by Senator John McCain's decision yesterday to suspend his campaign and call for a postponement in Friday's first Presidential debate so that he and Barack Obama can work out a consensus bill to stabilize the financial system. This is supposed to be evidence of leadership?

Emphasis added.  What can you add to that except, maybe, "ouch!"?  Oh, this

[T]his is not what the country expects from its Presidential candidates. The Administration and the Congress have a responsibility to negotiate legislation, and we can only hope it isn't carbuncled to a point that makes it impossible for Treasury to hold a decent mortgage-backed securities auction, or allow markets to clear. As Senators, Messrs. Obama and McCain also have a responsibility to give us their up-or-down verdict on the bill as it emerges. If they have specific differences or suggestions, they certainly have a large megaphone to broadcast them.

As candidates, however, they are not serving the public by hiding behind a fog of faux bipartisanship that obscures their core economic principles and their approach to governance in times of crisis. Far from being an issue that is above electoral politics, the financial panic is too serious not to have a serious discussion about. President Bush gave both candidates a hand last night by inviting them to a White House meeting on the legislation today, but this looks more like political theater than it does actual governing. Both candidates are angling to get some credit for being in on the deal, whatever it might be.

Emphasis added.  The thing is, however, that McCain is the only one doing the hiding in this case.

Which, of course, is now a non-issue, since, for better or worse, we have a bailout package.

I guess McCain is stuck with having to debate, after all.

Selective Memory

I nearly choked on my cinnamon roll this morning as I'm reading today's NY Times editorial:

What seems especially important right now is Mr. Kennedy’s ability to concede defeat gracefully and rearm himself for another good fight. That is a strength we hope Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton can emulate.

Emphasis added.  Are these people out of their mind?  Don't get me wrong.  I admire and respect many things about Ted Kennedy, though he's no idol of mine.  But of all the things to say about him they say that he conceded defeat gracefully?  Somebody should touch base with Jimmy Carter on that one.  From - of all places - the National Journal:

The last time a primary contest whittled down to two Democratic titans was in 1980, when Sen. Edward Kennedy and then-President Jimmy Carter dueled through a nine-month primary season -- which left the question of who would be the nominee in doubt until August.

Kennedy came into the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City with 1,225 delegates to Carter's 1,981 and 122 uncommitted. Kennedy's only chance to wrest the nomination from Carter, who had enough delegates to win, was to pass an "open rule" motion.

Joe Trippi was on the convention floor the evening of Aug. 11, 1980, marshalling the Kennedy delegations from Texas and Utah. He remembers the deciding vote as "the robot rule vote," which came after an hour-long debate that played out in front of a prime time television audience. The debate was over whether delegates should have to vote for the candidate they'd been pledged for, or have an "open" vote during which they could pick Kennedy or Carter.

Emphasis added.  If that's the NY Time's idea of "conceding gracefully," I don't want to know what their idea of not conceding gracefully is.  In essence, Kennedy tried to do in 1980 what many of the PUMAs want to do now with Clinton - only that she will have none of that.  Maybe more out of political savvy than virtue, but nonetheless, she won't do that.

Funny how the NY Times can overlook such an obvious detail.

From the "YES! Everything IS About ME!" File . . .

Via ABC News:

Sen. Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic presidential nominee if John Edwards had been caught in his lie about an extramarital affair and forced out of the race last year, insists a top Clinton campaign aide, making a charge that could exacerbate previously existing tensions between the camps of Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama.

It totally cracks me up that anyone would suggest that anyone from the Clinton camp, one of the most horribly mismanaged political campaigns in recent memory, pins the blame - or at least some of it - on the fact that Edwards didn't fess up about his affair until he absolutely, positively had to.

"I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee," former Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson told ABCNews.com.

Really?  You know what would have happened?  Here's the answer: nobody f***ing knows!  And nobody ever will.  Obama's organization during the primaries was nothing less than outstanding and, unlike Clinton, he wasn't bitching about how unfair the rules were after the primaries started.

But I guess this is typical of all of Clinton's staff: "if the primaries were winner-take-all I'd have more delegates" or "well, he has more delegates but more people voted for me" or "if those stupid caucuses weren't given so much importance" or "if I wasn't a woman" or "if I was black."

These people need to give it a rest.  They ran a lousy campaign, they mismanaged their money, they underestimated Obama, and didn't have any plan dealing with what to do after the first Super Tuesday if it was still a race.  And they had Bill Clinton, completely undisciplined, shooting from the hip just as often as shooting Hillary in her foot.

If you can't win with a bundle of money, the most popular former President currently living on your side, name recognition, and a formidable candidate, well, you deserve to lose.  Period.