|
|
|
 |
|
Freedom of speech set free on YouTube
Monday, March 19, 2007
posted by Karen Hanretty at 10:47 AM |
HEADLINE: San Francisco Chronicle, Sunday, March 18, 2007
Political video smackdown
'Hillary 1984': Unauthorized Internet ad for Obama converts Apple Computer's '84 Super Bowl spot into a generational howl against Clinton's presidential bid
What I love most about this ad isn't that it goes to heart of what Hillary Clinton really is: yesterday's relic.
What I love most about this ad is that it demonstrates that the mind of man, his creativity and his rebellion against the status quo are too great and too powerful to be tamed by the insidiousness of the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002 that "reformed" campaign finance laws in America by limiting free speech.
Bravo to whomever created this masterpiece. We are free men and women first, Americans second.
|
|
|
The Elephant In The Room
Thursday, March 8, 2007
posted by Karen Hanretty at 12:17 PM |
Today's post comes compliments of a source whose identity I will not reveal -- unless, of course, federal prosecutors come beating down my door. In that case, it's entirely likely I'll cave to the pressure.
The topic is Lewis "Scooter" Libby and his guilty verdict, handed down by 12 jurors, which could, but probably won't, land him in jail.
Why the anonymity? Because not many Republicans want to be on the record stating publicly that Libby got what he had coming. You lie under oath, you accept the consequences. (Republicans know those talking points well -- or at least they did until the Libby verdict.)
I present to you, The Elephant In The Room, by Anonymous.
Everyone is talking about the Scooter Libby verdict. Was he guilty? Should the President pardon him? What does this mean for the administration? Everyone is comparing this case to the Iran-Contra Affair, where six officials were pardoned by President Bush. But, no one is comparing it to the case that it should be compared to.
Let's look at the facts: Scooter Libby wasn't tried for blowing Valerie Plame's cover. In fact, the leak of Plame's identity wasn't even a crime. She wasn't protected under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Even Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has admitted as much. The person who destroyed Ms. Plame's career is not Karl Rove or Scooter Libby or Vice President Cheney -- it's her husband Joe Wilson. There wasn't a newspaper reporter or television network that he wasn't willing talk to about his wife's job. This was a politically motivated charge and everyone knows it.
So, if no crime was committed against Valerie Plame and the investigation was sparked by a political charade, then why did Patrick Fitzgerald pursue charges against Libby? Because in the course of the investigation, he felt Libby lied. And the law requires that you tell the truth, regardless of the merits of the underlying investigation. In fact, without that one little rule, our judicial system falls apart.
And this whole story reminds me of another case. A politically motivated investigation, where a high official, in fact the highest official, lied to investigators and to a grand jury. He even admitted that he lied -- he went on national television and told everyone in the entire country that he lied.
And Senator Harry Reid and all of the other Democratic Senators who are now screaming at the President not to pardon Scooter Libby for lying, pardoned President Clinton for lying, when they voted to acquit him in the Senate. There is no difference. But, no one is talking about it.
|
|
|
John McCain: He's just not that into you
Saturday, March 3, 2007
posted by Karen Hanretty at 9:07 AM |
There will be much discussion and debate on the Sunday political shows tomorrow about the Conservative Political Action Conference [CPAC] taking place in Washington, D.C. and the fact that U.S. Senator John McCain chose to skip the event, while his primary opponent, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, chose to attend.
McCain's refusal to speak to hundreds of conservative activists, opinion leaders and bloggers was a real slap in the face. But it's not difficult to understand, though I guarantee you the George Stephanopouloses, Tim Russerts and Chris Wallaces of Sunday talk will analysze it at length.
To save you the time (and predictability), I took a summary off the Barnes and Noble website of the pop culture book "He's Just Not That Into You," and changed a few pronouns. I think B&N's summary of the book serves as a good explaination of why McCain didn't accept the invitation to spend the weekend with conservatives:
Everyone can use a daily wake-up call.
Now in bite-size mantras, the abridged empathetic wit and wisdom of the number one New York Times bestseller, He's Just Not That Into You, will recharge and inspire your [voting] outlook one wake-up call at a time.
For ages [conservatives] have come together over coffee, cocktails, or late-night phone chats to analyze the puzzling behavior of [John McCain]. [Karen Hanretty] is here to say that -- despite good intentions -- you're wasting your time. [McCain] is not complicated, although [he'd] like you to think [he is]. And there are no mixed messages.
The truth may be, He's just not that into you.
He's Just Not That Into You -- based on a popular episode of Sex and the City -- educates otherwise smart [conservatives] on how to tell when a [candidate] just doesn't like them enough, so they can stop wasting time making excuses for a dead-end relationship. This book knows you're a beautiful, smart, funny [Republican] who deserves better.
|
|
|
Thursday, March 1, 2007
posted by Karen Hanretty at 4:59 PM |
Pussycat Alert (Vol. 1, Issue 2)
Newsflash: Governor Schwarzenegger and Speaker Nunez (it's been suggested I start referring to him as Speaker Supplicant ... update on that one later) both take a hit of the catnip and continue their courtship -- pussycat style.
Here's a statement released this afternoon (after my post below at 2:22 PM) by the Speaker's chief spokesman (and cat lover), Steve Maviglio:
"The speaker's comments about the Governor's recent trip to Washington, D.C. were made as part of a lengthy discussion about attempts to increase California's share of the federal budget. The Speaker suggested he would have taken a different approach to woo Congressional leaders from a stylistic point of view. The Speaker is extremely supportive of the Governor's attempts to win more federal funds for the state, and he has worked closely with him for the past two years to do just that.
"The Speaker and the Governor continue to have a great working relationship as well as a deep respect for each other. It would be extremely unfortunate if a series of quotes in response to questions about Senator Feinstein, the Governor, and their styles would be used to characterize any conflict or disagreements between them." (Emphasis added)
It's almost as if the Speaker's office was TRYING to initiate another Pussycat Alert with this statement.
You may be asking yourself, why does this statement from the Speaker's Deputy Chief of Staff constitute a Pussycat Alert? There are no members of opposite political parties fighting with each other over post-partisanship. (See below for FAQ's about Alerts)
Don’t be so naive. I'll bet you a bowl of Friskies there was more than one angry alley cat in the governor's office who didn't like the Speaker's criticism of Schwarzenegger's post-partisan politics in Washington, D.C.
Now who's supplicating?
FAQs
Q. What's a Pussycat Alert, and does it require that I throw my underwear at Tom Jones?
A. Rest your pitching arm and keep your tightey-whiteys to yourself for this one. A Pussycat Alert will be invoked in the event of a Post-Partisan cat fight between two or more members of opposing political parties.
Q. Are there any special precautions I should take in the event of Pussycat Alert?
A. Not really.
Q. Are Pussycat Alerts influenced by the confluence of CO2 emissions from SUV caravans and Maria Shriver going to the Central Valley to sign poor people up for food stamps?
A. Honestly, I have no idea how to answer that question. I recommend you take the tinfoil off your head and step away from the window. Now.
|
|
|
For $500 and a free trip to Hawaii, answer the question, "What is post-partisanship?"
posted by Karen Hanretty at 11:14 AM |
** MUST READ MAJOR UPDATE POSTED BELOW -- 2:20 PM Pacific **
If former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich were forced at gunpoint to describe what Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's new "philosophy" of Post-Partisanship is about, it might sound something like this:
"Nothing will take more poison out of the system than requiring the candidates to be in the same room with partisans from both sides, because you cannot biologically be as vicious and as nasty as the current system if you're face to face," Gingrich said. "And if you can be, then you're pathological and you're disqualified." (Stephen Spruiell quoting Gingrich in National Review Online, 3/1/07)
Unfortunately, some conservative Republicans in California don't quite get it. Post-partisanship, that is.
They (and by "they" I mean Assemblyman Bob Dutton from that paradise down south known as San Bernardino) got the answer to the question wrong when they (and by "they" I mean Dutton and Democratic Sacramento Senator Darrell Steinberg) proposed this:
Legislation announced Wednesday would provide a tax-free, long-term investment account to every baby born in California, regardless of the parents' financial or immigration status.
...
The proposed account, called Kids Investment and Development Savings, or KIDS, is meant to grow until the child turns 18 and could withdraw the money for a house, education, vocational training or to roll over into a retirement account. (Sacramento Bee, 3/1/07)
But don't worry Bob, you're not the only person to misunderstand post-partisanship. Even really smart reporters from Washington, D.C. who appear every weekday on Fox News don't quite get it.
But beyond that, whether it's called post-partisanship or just old-fashioned bipartisanship, what Schwarzenegger is selling philosophically is what every poll indicates the public wants - an end to partisan combat and attention to problem solving. (Morton Kondracke, Roll Call, 3/1/07)
So what is post-partisanship? Well, as one very smart policy wonk who, probably knows a thing or two about philosophy, put it to me, to understand post-partisanship, you only need to consider it as "buy-partisanship."
And at 500 bucks a kid, I'd say he nailed the answer.
** UPDATE: MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT **
I'm issuing the first ever (let's hope there's more to come) ... Pussycat Alert!
FAQs
Q. What's a Pussycat Alert, and does it require that I throw my underwear at Tom Jones?
A. Rest your pitching arm and keep your tightey-whiteys to yourself for this one. A Pussycat Alert will be invoked in the event of a Post-Partisan cat fight between two or more members of opposing political parties.
Q. Are there any special precautions I should take in the event of Pussycat Alert?
A. Not really.
Q. Are Pussycat Alerts influenced by the confluence of CO2 emissions from SUV
caravans and Maria Shriver going to the Central Valley to sign poor people up
for food stamps?
A. Honestly, I have no idea how to answer that question. I recommend you take the tinfoil off your head and step away from the window. Now.
And now, ladies and gentlemen, here it is, the first ever ... PUSSYCAT ALERT!
Hot off the AP news wire, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D) engaged in a cat fight today with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) over the meaning of Post-Partisanship. While the Governor did not directly scratch back at the Speaker, the Guv's spokesman let his claws out.
Assembly speaker critiques Schwarzenegger's Washington tour
ERICA WERNER
Associated Press
Nunez also commented skeptically about Schwarzenegger's newfound advocacy for what the governor calls "post-partisan" politics. While in Washington, Schwarzenegger repeated the phrase he coined earlier this year, referring to himself as a governor who accepts ideas from all sides.
"What he's talking about sounds good theoretically. I think in practical terms the way I read it is it's just semantics. Post-partisanship -- what does that mean? I don't know. It's some word he made up," Nunez said.
"But I think he has a claim, in some ways, to that new term because last year we got a lot of things done. But you know we did it because we reached across the party aisle ... Remember, everything we got done were Democratic issues." [MEOW!]
[The governor's spokesman] defended Schwarzenegger's use of the term.
"Post-partisanship is a simple idea. It means putting the needs of constituents above the needs of a political party," he said. "Speaker Nunez is a perfect example. He compromised on every single major issue last year despite the concerns of the liberal wing of his party and those who didn't want him working with Governor Schwarzenegger because it was an election year."
Quick! Get Nunez to the emergency room and have that man tested for cat-scratch fever.
|
|
|
A little righteous indignation from a "Crusty Old White Chick"
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
posted by Karen Hanretty at 9:12 PM |
Robin and I don't normally do point-counter point on this blog, but I want to address something she wrote about the GOP Presidential lineup.
"Before I delve into my observations from today, I'd like to point out that the Democratic field represents a cross-section of America, with young and old, men and a woman, and people of ethnically diverse backgrounds.
"But the Republican casting call for a President was answered with, well, all crusty old white dudes (C.O.W.D.) I have nothing against C.O.W.D, and am, in fact related to plenty of lovable ones. But perhaps it is time, 43 Presidential C.O.W.D. later, to at least entertain the idea that our country has evolved enough over the past two Centuries to allow candidates for President that reflect our nation's growing diversity."
I'm going to ignore the fact that our nation isn't that much more diverse today than it was in 1990. The percentage of women and blacks and Asians is roughly the same. Actually, there are ever-so-slightly fewer blacks reported in the census data today than in 1990. The most difference is among the Hispanic/Latino commuity. Their numbers have increased from about 9% of the population to about 14%. But since "growing diversity" in liberal lingo may reflect the increase in sex-change operations in San Francisco and gender identity meltdowns in Manhattan, I don't want to get bogged down in the numbers.
Back in 1994 the media coined the term, "Angry White Males" to refer to men who voted Republican in the midterm election, led by Newt Gingrich, to take control of the House of Representatives for GOP. I took offense at the term then, and I take offense at the term "Crusty Old White Dude" today. It's derogatory, and I'm tired of the double standard applied by liberals and the media.
C.O.W.D., as Robin calls it, does not refer to John Edwards, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich or Tom Vilsak -- all Caucasian men running for President on the Democratic ticket. Nor does C.O.W.D. refer to the millions of white, working-class men who belong to labor unions. And you can bet the farm that C.O.W.D. does not now, never has, nor ever will for all eternity refer to Bill Clinton. The term probably applied to Virginia Senator and decorated war veteran Jim Webb when he was a registered Republican, but now that he's a sworn enemy of George W. Bush with a "D" after his name, the curse has been lifted.
It's true, there are no former First Ladies running on the GOP ticket this year. Nancy Reagan and Barbara Bush must've been too busy with other things. And let's be honest, if Hillary Clinton were any other woman in politics, and not the wife of Bill, she would NOT be a serious candidate today.
And no, the GOP cannot boast a young, inexperienced half-African/half-Kansas man as a serious candidate. You see, in the Republican Party, when a black GOP candidate runs for office -- a man like Michael Steele, for instance, who ran for U.S. Senate in Maryland last year -- Democrats throw Oreo cookies at him, meaning he's black on the outside and white on the inside. (Yes, they literally throw Oreo cookies.) Steele was one of the finest Senate candidates in the country last year. He lost to a white Democrat, not to be confused with a C.O.W.D.
There was a lot of talk in GOP circles about Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice running for President. But let's face it, even if she had, she wouldn't have met the criteria of liberals or the media as either black enough or woman enough. Hell, they probably would have labeled Condi a C.O.W.D. because she STILL supports Pres. Bush, never marched in an E.R.A. parade, and never had the honor of being publicly humiliated in front of the nation by a cheating husband. (Honestly, given this set of facts, I don't know how she can check the "female" box on all those government forms federal employees have to fill out.)
Is John McCain, a decorated war hero who was tortured for five years in a prisoner of war camp aging and white? Yes. Crusty? I'll leave that up to you to decide. Is he a "dude?" He most certainly is not. And not one man running on the Democratic ticket is half the man that John McCain is.
The Democratic ticket might represent small patches of America, but not a cross-section. Speaking as a Crusty Old White Chick, Hillary Clinton damn well doesn't represent me. I'm not writing this blog today because I'm "the wife of..."
|
|
|
An Inconsequential Candidate Forum
posted by Karen Hanretty at 7:52 PM |
Today's Democratic candidate forum in Carson City, Nevada (that's Ne-Va-Duh, not Ne-Vahhh-Duh) turned out to be a big dud. And I would hold the exact same opinion if the forum had been stocked with GOP candidates.
The Des Moines Register reported this morning the forum is "considered a key national event." To which I would respond: Hardly.
Nothing key in politics is exclusively aired on C-SPAN or an internet webcast, which was the case with today's event. Nor do key national events take place at Noon pacific time.
Few other thoughts...
The forum was sponsored by the nation's largest government employee labor union, American Federation of State and County Municipal Employees, which made the mistake in 2003 of throwing Howard Dean an early endorsement in the primary race for president (of the United States). I doubt they're going to make the same mistake this go-around.
Despite the conventional wisdom of the East Coast media elite that Barack Obama made a big mistake today by skipping out on the forum, I'd say his campaign team made the right decision. There's an entire year before the Nevada Democratic Caucuses for Obama to campaign in Nevada. No one will even remember the Feb. 21, 2007 forum six months from now.
Obama chose to spend today in Iowa, while his colleagues campaigned in Nevada. What's the important difference between Nevada and Iowa, you ask? No, the answer is not legalized prostitution. According to US Census Bureau stats, Iowa is 91.5% White, Non-Hispanic. By comparison, Nevada is 60% White, Non-Hispanic and 23.5% Hispanic/Latino. So ask yourself, where does the first serious African-American Presidential candidate need to spend time campaigning? If you said Iowa, you win this round. Feel free to snub your nose at the Des Moines Register.
|
|
|
Robbing Small Businesses to Pay for Illegal Workers
posted by Karen Hanretty at 11:50 AM |
A capitol insider asked me the other week if I think anything will come this year of Governor Schwarzenegger's $12 billion health care proposal to provide health insurance to 6.5 million uninsured people in California.
My answer: Nope. The reason? Once voters realize what the governor's health care proposal does, who it insures, and who picks up the tab, popular opinion will turn southward.
In today's Opinion Journal, a daily email sent to subscribers by the Wall Street Journal, John Fund reports that Datamar, a polling firm in San Diego, "shows sinking support for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's dramatic plan to tax employers, doctors and hospitals to create a universal health care plan. Despite claims by Team Arnold that over 70% of Californians back his approach, the Datamar poll showed a much closer result. The plan is currently favored by only 47% to 37% and the party breakdown in support will make it difficult for Governor Schwarzenegger to attract support from legislators in his own Republican Party. Democrats back Arnold's health care initiative by a solid 60% to 25%, but his fellow Republicans vote thumbs down by 58% to 32%."
Here's the real poison pill buried in Gov. Schwarzenegger's costly proposal that I believe will anger the public.
The governor's plan is estimated at about $12 billon to cover 6.5 million uninsured in the state. According to the California Health Care Foundation, there are 2.5 million uninsured illegal immigrants in California.
So that means that roughly a third of the $12 billion – or $4 billion – that Schwarzenegger wants to spend on health care would go to people who crossed the U.S. border into California illegally.
Here's something else to consider about that number. The $12 billion isn't being paid by taxpayers on the whole, it's being paid for mostly by businesses (including small businesses with as few as 10 employees) through a payroll tax. In other words, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to tax law-abiding California businesses, which are prohibited by law from hiring illegal workers, to pay for the health care of people who broke the rules to get here.
Worst case scenario: You work for a small business owner with 10 or 12 employees who doesn't currently pay for the cost of health insurance. The legislature adopts a version of the governor's proposal, requiring businesses with as few as 10 employees to either pay for their employees' health insurance or pay a 4% payroll tax into a government pool. As a result, the employer lays you off to cover the expense of the new government mandate. You're now unemployed so that your boss can cover the cost of insuring someone who isn't a citizen of the United States.
I don't think that's the solution to rising health care costs that most citizens in California consider acceptable.
|
|
|
"His Excellency: George Washington"
Monday, February 19, 2007
posted by Karen Hanretty at 2:56 PM |
I have a book recommendation for you, which I suppose is apropos of this, President's Day.
Reading a presidential biography always sounds good to me, in theory. Fact is, most biographies are quite lengthy, and I've the attention span to sit and read for about 60 minutes (and only then under the best circumstances).
"His Excellency: George Washington" by Joseph Ellis is the most readable presidential biographyI've ever picked up -- possibly because it's under 300 pages.
In the preface, Ellis writes of his subject:
"It seems to me that Benjamin Franklin was wiser than Washington; Alexander Hamilton was more brilliant; John Adams was better read; Thomas Jefferson was more intellectually sophisticated; James Madison was more politically astute. Yet each and all of thee prominent figures acknowledged that Washington was their unquestioned superior. Within the gallery of greats so often mythologized and capitalized as Founding Fathers, Washington was recognized as primus inter pares, the Foundingest Father of them all. Why was that? In the pages that follow I have looked for an answer, which lies buried within the folds of the most ambitious, determined, and potent personality of an age not lacking for worthy rivals. How he became that way, and what he did with it, is the story I try to tell."
It is particularly interesting to read this biography of the nation's first commander in chief, who suffered many military failures on the path to American independence, in light of today's political and military struggles.
I take particular note of Washington's references to "the justice of our Cause," as well as to a phrase Ellis uses more than once when he writes of Washington's desire to "stay the course."
Sound familiar?
If President Bush looks to George Washington for inspiration, don't expect the 43rd President to throw in the towel any time soon. Washington was a man of great perseverance and conviction.
|
|
|
Is Romney Major Enough to Join the Debate?
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
posted by Karen Hanretty at 4:49 PM |
The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation issued a press release today announcing the first GOP Presidential debate of the year.
"Mrs. Ronald Reagan will invite the major GOP Presidential candidates to the Reagan Library for a presidential debate on May 3, 2007. The Reagan Library Foundation has confirmed MSNBC cable as the television partner and THE POLITICO as the internet partner for this historic event."
The operative word in this release is "major." The release doesn't say which candidates will participate, only that they will be considered "major."
Why am I making a point of this? Because former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who formally announced yesterday he is running for President on the GOP ticket, only gets single digit support in all the major polls. In fact, the Real Clear Politics poll average for Romney is a mere 6.3%.
Both the Rassmussen and the ABC News/Washington Post polls last month put him at 9%. This month's USA Today/Gallup poll has him at 5%.
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (the man who shut down government and spurred the impeachment of Pres. Bill Clinton, in case you forgot) polls better than Romney, though he hasn't actually formed an exploratory committee or announced his intention to run for president. (More on that later.)
I've contended all year to Republican audiences that Romney is a serious candidate for president. He not only has an impressive record as governor of Massachusetts but also as the guy who fixed the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics (there were problems with bribery and a $359 million deficit before he came on board).
Romney has significant fundraising ability, and he's an articulate politician. He could conceivably be the conservative alternative in the absence of former Senator George Allen, whose presidential candidacy self-destructed last year when he was caught on video calling his campaign opponent's volunteer a Macaca, which is a monkey. (It is also used as an ethnic slur in Europe, though I seriously doubt the Virginia senator is all that familiar with anything European, much less their ethnic slurs.)
Allen was the candidate most acceptable to socially conservative Republicans last year. His absence in the presidential campaign leaves a wide hole for another conservative to fill. I thought Romney would be that candidate. But the lack of attention he is generating causes me to question just how "major" he is.
If he gets an invitation from Nancy to participate in the May debate, I guess we'll know he's a contender.
|
|
|
Sunni and Shia, sitting in a tree...
Monday, February 12, 2007
posted by Karen Hanretty at 6:07 PM |
This line, from Barack Obama's speech in Illinois to announce he's a candidate for President of the United States, is simply exasperating...
"Letting the Iraqis know that we will not be there forever is our last, best hope to pressure the Sunni and Shia to come to the table and find peace."
PEACE?!
I will be a six foot tall Victoria's Secret model before the Sunni and Shia find peace.
No one in their right mind has set peace as a goal in Iraq.
Stability at best. But peace?
C'mon...there's platitudes and then there's platitudes.
(For the record, I am 5 foot, 4 1/2 inches tall.)
|
|
|
Rudy's Seven-Minute Speech
posted by Karen Hanretty at 9:11 AM |
New West Notes blogger Bill Bradley edited about 50 minutes of video of Rudy Giuliani's speech this past Saturday, delivered in Sacramento, into seven minutes and 48 seconds (and that includes audience applause). In other words, he turned Saturday's ramblings into a stump speech, fitting for a presidential candidate.
You can view it here.
|
|
|
Death by a Thousand Cutting Remarks
posted by Karen Hanretty at 7:17 AM |
There will be a great temptation by political talking heads (who live for the partisan fight) and by the media (who live to report the partisan fight) to begin matching "R" presidential candidates versus "D" presidential candidates long before the primary elections of 2007 tally their first votes.
Barack Obama vs. Rudy Giuliani
John McCain vs. Hillary Clinton
John Edwards, Version 2008 vs. John Edwards, Version 2004 I am more interested in the battles taking shape in each of the two political parties and will try to keep my focus on the actual campaigns now underwary rather than speculate about hypothetical match-ups that are, once again, a year away. So forget the tedium of premature polling. There are no predetermined winners. There's plenty of time for candidates get caught on video making embarrassing remarks, plenty of time for townhall forums to trip up candidates, plenty of time for Rudy Giuliani to divorce and remarry, plenty of time for Bill Clinton to get caught with his pants down. Now, some friendly advice to my dear Republicans: you need to stop having anxiety attacks over which candidate can beat Hillary Clinton in 2008. The field is wide open. Why, Barack Obama has only just begun his campaign of Death by a Thousand Cutting Remarks against Hillary. It's so delicious. Here's a taste from The Politico: Egged on by an enthusiastic Iowa crowd, Barack Obama took perhaps his most direct shot at Hillary Clinton of the campaign season, echoing and mocking her signature phrase. "I'm in it" he began, then echoed members of the audience in a Waterloo gymnasium: "To win it." Then he quieted the crowd. "Hold on" he said. "Yes I want to win. But I'm in it to transform the country." The exchange with the overflow crowd in his final event of the day Sunday crystallized an unspoken theme of his announcement speech: Contrasts with Hillary Clinton. In this case, he seemed to diminish her declaration that she was "in it to win," a line with which she kicked off her campaign last month. The unspoken contast was between Clinton's presumed ambition, and perhaps her generation's self-involvement; and Obama's attempt to transform his own campaign for President into a broader movement.
|
|
|
America's Mayor "Wishes" You'd Vote for Him for President
Saturday, February 10, 2007
posted by Karen Hanretty at 5:25 PM |
With today's much heralded announcement by Senator Barack Obama that he's running for President and the somewhat ambiguous announcement today by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani that he 'wishes' you'd vote for him for President, the great race is on.
Of course, unlike the 1965 comedy/adventure/musical movie, The Great Race, directed by legendary Blake Edwards, there will be no pie or sword fights in the race for President of the United States. Nor will there be as many laughs. But the 2008 presidential primary campaign is sure to be entertaining and full of surprises - in that I-can't-believe-he/she-said-that sort of way.
This afternoon, at the Hyatt Regency in downtown Sacramento, I watched former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani give a really long, rather rambling speech to about 700 mostly conservative Republicans at the state party's semi-annual convention.
In case you were wondering, Rudy (has there ever been a campaign where we called most of the candidates solely by their first names?) is totally in support of freedom, the future and optimism. Which settles, well, nothing. I rather anticipated that he would be in favor of freedom, the future and optimism.
Interestingly, and perhaps, disappointingly, the man who declared, "I like straight talk" was full of platitudes in his nearly 50 minute speech today.
One of the basic rules of effective communications is repeat, repeat, repeat. It's why candidates develop what's referred to as a stump speech. It allows the candidate to reinforce the same key points with each new audience. Rudy will need to tighten up that 50 minute stump speech of his if he wants to make an impact.
While the media and generic polling put America's Mayor as the lead candidate for the Republican Party nomination, I think he has a long way to go before he convinces a majority of conservative voters - because that's who turns out to vote in primary elections - that he is the man to lead the nation and the party for the next four to eight years.
Yes, he showed extraordinary leadership in the horrifying aftermath of the World Trade Center bombings. But so did President George W. Bush. It was, in fact, Bush's finest hour - the point at which he was most confident, articulate and reassuring to a nation in need of a leader. However, more than three years later is he one of the most unpopular U.S. Presidents in our nation's history with little chance of recovering before he boards Air Force One for one last trip to his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
Therefore, there must be more to Rudy Giuliani as a candidate for President of the United States than 9/11.
And there is more. A great deal more. The theme of "accountability" comes to mind.
His speech today, however, did not embrace all that he has to offer. It was disconnected and at times uncomfortable. He does not speak of what it means to be a Republican with any sense of natural ease.
For all his emphasis today about the war on terror, a theme he repeatedly went back to either because it's a theme he's most comfortable with or because he thinks it offers the audience the red meat they crave - I found it particularly interesting that he didn't once reference radical Islam or in any way identify America's enemy in the war on terror other than with the generic term, "terrorists."
Yes, Rudy Giuliani received a great deal of applause today at the California Republican Party and more than one standing ovation. His was probably the most inspiring and hopeful speech the audience has heard from a Republican in a long time.
Keep in mind this audience's disappointment with Governor Schwarzenegger, who less than 72 hours after being sworn into office in January proposed a universal health care plan with a $12 billion price tag that includes tax increases on small business, hospitals and doctors.
Adding insult to injury is the utterly lackluster GOP leadership in Washington, which is without focus or conviction and increasingly divided over how to procede in the Iraq war.
The race has started. Rudy needs to get his game on. He can start by putting an end to the ambiguity.
It was suggested to me this evening that the mayor's speech was intentionally vague as he attempts to speak in broad themes from the 30,000 foot level. I would suggest there are a lot of clouds between 30,000 feet and ground level. Rudy Giuliani's positions on some critical issues got lost in the fog today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
