Category Archives: Republicans

This just in: Florida governor is straight

First of call, congratulations to Florida Gov. Charlie Crist on his engagement to single mother Carole Rome.  Sure, there are skeptics are wondering why all of the sudden Crist, who was married briefly in 1979, has found his true love.  I am sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the Republican is on the short list of potential running-mates for John McCain.

Rumors of his interest or lack thereof in women have dogged Crist for years. As the Orlando Weekly noted in 2006, every reporter in Florida heard the rumors. One staffer even admitted having sex with him which Crist denied.

Sure, Charlie’s a hot 50-year-old bachelor with well-coiffed silver hair and a fondness for nicely tailored suits. But he just survived a primary against a fundie who premised his whole campaign on the notion that Charlie doesn’t hate gay people (or abortion) enough. You’d think if Tom Gallagher had something to say, he would have said it. Instead, a week before the primary Crist denied that he had fathered a love child… We’d guess that every reporter in the state has heard them, but as yet no one’s produced any proof, much less a picture of Crist having a Brokeback encounter with the pool boy.

The same rumors dogged the former New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey who even  had rumors spread about him that he liked to go to strip clubs with his buddies to look at …women. I don’t know whether these rumors at Crist are true or enough but they would sure make another great example of Republican hypocracy if they were. ..Not there is anything wrong with that.

Leave a comment

Filed under Barack Obama, campaign 2008, John McCain, Presidential Election, Republicans

Hillary Clinton shouldn’t pop the champagne corks in PA yet

As expected, Hillary Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary.  It’s hardly a shock since she had the support of the state’s popular Gov. Ed Rendell and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter.

But Clinton supporters shouldn’t be rejoicing yet. As of 9:43 p.m., results from the suburbs of Philadelphia weren’t available. Obama should do well there, picking up plenty of supporters including my father whose vote was canceled out by my mother who backed Clinton.

Regardless, it certainly was a lively day in my home state.

“Throughout the day, turnout has appeared strong in most sections of Philadelphia and the suburbs,” according to the The Philadelphia Inquirer: “Election judges in many precincts said more voters had turned out to vote by noon than have normally shown up all day during a typical primary.”

Obama has been gaining ground in the Keystone State for weeks, chipping away at Clinton’s once-insurmountable 20-point lead. The Illinois senator surely didn’t help himself with the so-called “bitter” comment and the hoopla over his former pastor Jeremiah Wright.  Media pundits also criticized his performance in the recent televised debate in Philadelphia though I thought he held his own against a barrage of gotcha questions from the moderators.

From MSNBC:

Obama said Tuesday that he still expected to lose, but only narrowly, and his staff painted Clinton as an opponent on the ropes.

“They were so confident that their own Pennsylvania spokesman said Clinton would be ‘unbeatable’ in Pennsylvania,” the campaign said in a memo to reporters. “The Clinton campaign needs a blowout victory in Pennsylvania to get any closer to winning the nomination.”

Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s chief spokesman, maintained that the size of Clinton’s victory was immaterial. Targeting his pitch to the Democratic officeholders and other superdelegates who hold the balance of power at the party convention in Denver in August, he said a win was a win.

Not quite. Clinton needed an overwhelming victory in my home state in order for her campaign to have enough gas to last until the convention.  Even under the best of circumstances, winning in Pennsylvania gives her tank a few more gallons but is hardly a fill-up. Obama’s lead in pledged delegates is too large for New York senator to overcome.

Leave a comment

Filed under Barack Obama, Democrats, Presidential Election, Republicans

Will Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama join forces?

from TVCrazy.netfrom TVCrazy.netHillary Clinton has been coyly hinting that she might be interested in joining forces with Barack Obama, proving that she knows which way the wind blows.
The former first lady has been gaining ground since winning the closely watched contests in Texas and Ohio. She is in good shape to win the next big battleground in Pennsylvania where the state’s Gov. Ed Rendell and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter are supporting her. A poll from  bears this out.
The survey found that Clinton has erased the once-commanding lead that Obama held in most national polls following his 11 straight victories in February’s primaries and caucuses. Obama is the favored nominee among 45 percent of Democrats, compared with 44 percent for Clinton, according to the poll, which was based on telephone interviews with 1,215 registered voters March 5-6.

Of course, polls aren’t worth much a bucket of warm spit in this election. Time and time again, they’ve shown that people either lie to pollsters or that the survey takers ask the wrong questions at the wrong time.  People seem to like both Clinton and Obama for different reasons at different times. That sort of changing feeling is difficult to measure.

Democrats are deeply divided. Republicans are divided too but they have managed to coalesce around John McCain. But continuing to battle one another, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama only benefit the Republicans. It’s time for them to put their egos in neutral and do what’s best for the party and join forces.

3 Comments

Filed under Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Presidential Election, Republicans, Uncategorized

Why the Republicans should be thankful for John McCain

(Via Flickr)  Hatch 1921(Via Flickr) Hatch 1921As John McCain clinched the Republican nomination for president, the Arizona senator said he “never believed I was destined to be president.” Neither did many Republicans,but the party faithful should be thankful.

McCain is the best hope for the GOP to win the White House. Granted, that hope is fairly remote and odds are pretty good that the one-time Vietnam POW will get a whopping not seen since Barry Goldwater got creamed by Lyndon Johnson in 1964. But he is the only Republican that stands to a party to bring victory to a party lead by an extremely unpopular president who brought America into an extremely unpopular war.

The word “maverick” often is used to describe him. He is a very likable guy and has bucked his party from time to time. But Paul Krugman of the New York Times argues that’s a myth.

Mr. McCain’s reputation as a moderate may be based on his former opposition to the Bush tax cuts. In 2001 he declared, “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us.”

But now — at a time of huge budget deficits and an expensive war, when the case against tax cuts for the rich is even stronger — Mr. McCain is happy to shower benefits on the most fortunate. He recently voted to extend tax cuts on dividends and capital gains, an action that will worsen the budget deficit while mainly benefiting people with very high incomes.

When it comes to foreign policy, Mr. McCain was never moderate. During the 2000 campaign he called for a policy of “rogue state rollback,” anticipating the “Bush doctrine” of pre-emptive war unveiled two years later. Mr. McCain called for a systematic effort to overthrow nasty regimes even if they posed no imminent threat to the United States; he singled out Iraq, Libya and North Korea. Mr. McCain’s aggressive views on foreign policy, and his expressed willingness, almost eagerness, to commit U.S. ground forces overseas, explain why he, not George W. Bush, was the favored candidate of neoconservative pundits such as William Kristol of The Weekly Standard.

The Democrats are going to tie together McCain and Bush in ways the two rivals would never tolerate.  Bush is due to endorse him tomorrow. McCain isn’t hiding from Bush entirely telling his supporters that he didn’t need to “defend the decision to destroy Saddam Hussein’s regime.” He also spoke of looking forward and not back but you have to wonder how long that talk will last.

1 Comment

Filed under John McCain, Presidential Election, Republicans

Barack Obama trumps Hillary Clinton’s fundraising news

Leave it to Barack Obama to rain on Hillary Clinton’s parade.

The New York senator’s faltering campaign thought it would get some positive press when it “announced one of the best fundraising months of American political history, and the best of her campaign,” according to Politico. While the $35 million figure is indeed impressive, it pales in comparison with the more than $50 million that Obama reportedly raised.

Clinton is even trying to spin the fact the she had to lend her campaign $5 million of her own money.

From the Wall Street Journal:

“When people found out that we didn’t have the resources to compete, and I did put my own money in, it just set off a chain reaction across the country. Hundreds of thousands of people saying, ‘Wait a minute, we want this campaign to go on,'” Sen. Clinton said.

The 200,000 new donors in February is “nothing short of astounding,” said the campaign’s Internet chief, Peter Daou, on a conference call with the Sen. Clinton’s fund-raisers in which journalists were allowed to listen in but not to ask questions.

Imagine if Obama and Clinton joined forces.  These fund-raising figures would seem like chicken feed.  I don’t see how John McCain could compete.

2 Comments

Filed under Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Presidential Election, Republicans, Uncategorized

What’s motivating Ralph Nader to run again for president?

Neatnessdotcom (via Flickr)Neatnessdotcom (via Flickr)Like many Americans, I lost respect for Ralph Nader after his campaign in 2000 siphoned votes away from Al Gore and… well you know the rest. That’s why the prospect of a new Nader campaign is so unsettling. The last thing that Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton need is a force pushing the party more to the left.

But the AP is reporting that the one-time consumer advocate plans to announce on Sunday’s “Meet the Press” that he plans to throw his hat in the ring yet again. Why? Well, his web exploratory committee’s Web site, which is offering a DVD featuring Nader and singer Patty Smith for a $100 donation, offers the usual Naderite rhetoric.

Maybe we’re wrong
Maybe the Democrats and Republicans will nominate Presidential candidates this year who will stand up against the war profiteers, the nuclear industry, the credit card industry, the corporate criminals, big oil, and the drug and health insurance industries.
We doubt it.
But hope springs eternal….
But one person is ideally suited to lead this grassroots force – if he chooses to do so and runs as the citizens’ candidate for President in 2008.
And that one person is Ralph Nader.

Actually no. The world has changed quite a bit over the past eight years because of Nader’s earlier run for the White House, and mostly not for the good. Nader isn’t the agent of change in this election. He’s an impediment to it.

6 Comments

Filed under Barack Obama, Democrats, Presidential Election, Ralph Nader, Republicans

Hillary Clinton again fails to inspire

LLIMA (Via Flickr)LLIMA (Via Flickr)Hillary Clinton has tried being nasty to Barack Obama and that didn’t work. She tried the nice approach at tonight’s debate on CNN and that didn’t work either.

The New York senator still seems annoyed that she has to sell herself to the American people. She seems annoyed that the she hasn’t been crowned queen of the Democratic party. Clearly, she didn’t expect a serious challenge for the nomination let alone from a rival who until about a year ago few people outside of Illinois had even heard of. Instead, her campaign is going down the drain.

As Chris Cilliza of The Washington Post’s Fix Blog noted, “Tonight’s debate was the first of two such gatherings before the critical Ohio-Texas primaries on March 4. Clinton’s campaign has all-but-admitted that she must win both contests in order to remain a viable contender in the race and has pushed repeatedly for more debates between the two candidates — convinced that head-to-head matchups benefit the former first lady.”

The aides are wrong. Obama is improving as a debator and is coming across more and more presidential.

1 Comment

Filed under Barack Obama, Democrats, Presidential Election, Republicans