Ah, there's a joke that makes its own gravy. The NYTimes is reporting is that noted Blagoevich critic Jesse Jackson Junior is in fact "Candidate 5," the person that Blagoevich tried to get to pay to play for the Senate seat in question (great graphic on the scam here). Jackson as the hopeful in question makes a lot of sense: the two have a history and it's not a happy one. So if Blagoevich was to appoint Jackson to the Senate position, Blagoevich would undoubtedly want him to pay. And who would relish throwing Blagoevich under the bus more than Jackson? Nobody.
Jackson has taken some liberties with the language. Here's a quote: “It is impossible for someone on my behalf to have a conversation that would suggest any type of quid pro quo or any payments or offers,” Mr. Jackson said in comments broadcast by ABC News. “An impossibility to an absolute certainty.” First off, it's not impossible. It's quite possible. Maybe even probable. Secondly, what's the difference between an impossibility and an absolute certainty? That's right, everything is now in play.
Just wait until we get confirmation on who the other four (or more) hopefuls are. I wonder what they would have had to pay?
12.10.2008
Blagoevich Ahoyevich
Sure, someone with the name "Chapman Rackaway" probably shouldn't be making fun of someone else's name, but Rod Blagoevich sounds like a lung condition so I'm going to go with it.
But it's also important to understand this guy. Illinois politics has been corrupt for longer than I can remember. Blagoevich is an example of how, just when we think we've got a handle on corruption, it's still there. Big Richard Daley would certainly be proud at all of Blagoevich's 'honest graft.'
The worst example from the Politico article about Illinois corruption is here: "The scandal involving Otto Kerner Jr., for example, only came to light because one of the participants deducted the value of bribes paid in the 1960s--to win freeway exits and other favorable treatment for her horsetrack—in her income tax returns. The logic was that the payments were simply a part of doing business in Illinois. By the time the payments for services rendered came to light in the 1970s, Kerner was a federal judge and resigned in the scandal." So corruption is so pervasive it's part of doing business in Illinois.
I don't even need to mention it, but since Obama's invited me to be skeptical I will be. How can a guy come up through this system (four governors indicted in the last forty years) and not get some of that value system imbued in him? I think Obama needs to take a very clear and hard-line stance on Blagoevich to ensure that he's not endorsing that sort of dirty politics.
But it's also important to understand this guy. Illinois politics has been corrupt for longer than I can remember. Blagoevich is an example of how, just when we think we've got a handle on corruption, it's still there. Big Richard Daley would certainly be proud at all of Blagoevich's 'honest graft.'
The worst example from the Politico article about Illinois corruption is here: "The scandal involving Otto Kerner Jr., for example, only came to light because one of the participants deducted the value of bribes paid in the 1960s--to win freeway exits and other favorable treatment for her horsetrack—in her income tax returns. The logic was that the payments were simply a part of doing business in Illinois. By the time the payments for services rendered came to light in the 1970s, Kerner was a federal judge and resigned in the scandal." So corruption is so pervasive it's part of doing business in Illinois.
I don't even need to mention it, but since Obama's invited me to be skeptical I will be. How can a guy come up through this system (four governors indicted in the last forty years) and not get some of that value system imbued in him? I think Obama needs to take a very clear and hard-line stance on Blagoevich to ensure that he's not endorsing that sort of dirty politics.
8.28.2007
Speculative!
One of my great peeves with the mainstream press is their love of the speculative piece. This New York Times article is a prime example. The article is a reaction piece to Karl Rove's recent statement that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee for President in 2008.
On its own, that's a story. But the meat of the story, though, is about the reaction to it on behalf of John Edwards' peripatetic campaign manager Joe Trippi. Now the focus of the story shifts to whether Rove was trying to sabotage Mrs. Clinton or trying to ensure she would be the nominee by rallying Democrats around her.
However, there's no other substance to the story. We don't know Rove's motivation, nor do we know if his words matter enough to Democrats to move them one way or another. So really, what's the point?
On its own, that's a story. But the meat of the story, though, is about the reaction to it on behalf of John Edwards' peripatetic campaign manager Joe Trippi. Now the focus of the story shifts to whether Rove was trying to sabotage Mrs. Clinton or trying to ensure she would be the nominee by rallying Democrats around her.
However, there's no other substance to the story. We don't know Rove's motivation, nor do we know if his words matter enough to Democrats to move them one way or another. So really, what's the point?
8.24.2007
Internal Partisan Blogger Wars
What a mess this could turn out to be. The Politico reports here that OpenLeft.com is actively trying to encourage primary challengers against what the blog's operator calls "Bush Dog" Democrats. Apparently "Bush Dogs" are Democrats in Congress who sided with President Bush on Iraq.
The blogosphere defintely has the potential to shape the political agenda, but I'm not convinced this is the healthiest way to do so. This blogger is basically stepping into the role of a party committee. By encouraging candidates to run and then committing resources (publicity in this case instead of money) to them, the blog becomes a quasi-party. But if everyone can do this, suddenly the party fractures into a million self-interested hacks and no candidate can possibly have a mandate from his or her partisans.
The other factor of concern here is that these "Bush Dog" Democrats tend to be sincere moderates in sincerely moderate districts. The kind of districts that would vote Republican in November if the Democratic nominee's agenda went too far to the left. Dangerous for the Democrats, very dangerous.
The blogosphere defintely has the potential to shape the political agenda, but I'm not convinced this is the healthiest way to do so. This blogger is basically stepping into the role of a party committee. By encouraging candidates to run and then committing resources (publicity in this case instead of money) to them, the blog becomes a quasi-party. But if everyone can do this, suddenly the party fractures into a million self-interested hacks and no candidate can possibly have a mandate from his or her partisans.
The other factor of concern here is that these "Bush Dog" Democrats tend to be sincere moderates in sincerely moderate districts. The kind of districts that would vote Republican in November if the Democratic nominee's agenda went too far to the left. Dangerous for the Democrats, very dangerous.
8.21.2007
Thompson's Eleventh Hour
Fred Thompson is the default leader in the GOP race for the presidency, that much is clear. No other candidate can unite the Republicans as Thompson can, and no other candidate from the party can even compete with the Democrats running right now. Thompson is the only candidate who can overcome the GOP's Charisma Gap.
But the only problem is . . . Thompson hasn't officially announced his candidacy yet. Primaries are just about six months away, meaning that filing deadlines in a number of states will hit in October. So Thompson has to raise money, but also get signatures on petitions. As this Washington Post article states, Thompson's expected September announcement leaves him precious little time to get signatures.
So as Thompson has wanted to avoid scrutiny and play above the political game, his non-candidacy is starting to become a liability. Thompson needs to announce or back off if the GOP has any chance in 2008.
But the only problem is . . . Thompson hasn't officially announced his candidacy yet. Primaries are just about six months away, meaning that filing deadlines in a number of states will hit in October. So Thompson has to raise money, but also get signatures on petitions. As this Washington Post article states, Thompson's expected September announcement leaves him precious little time to get signatures.
So as Thompson has wanted to avoid scrutiny and play above the political game, his non-candidacy is starting to become a liability. Thompson needs to announce or back off if the GOP has any chance in 2008.
7.09.2007
And this is news because . . . .
Today's New York Times has an article about how the 2008 Presidential election is playing . . .in France. I don't know why this is newsworthy, quite honestly. Link here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/us/politics/09web-healy.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
One important element in the backstory is this line: " Much of the interest in ‘08 comes from the serious disaffection here for the current American president." So that's it! Ah, this article is another opportunity to take shots at President Bush in a veiled fashion.
Really, there's nothing newsworthy about the story.
One important element in the backstory is this line: " Much of the interest in ‘08 comes from the serious disaffection here for the current American president." So that's it! Ah, this article is another opportunity to take shots at President Bush in a veiled fashion.
Really, there's nothing newsworthy about the story.
2.21.2007
Welcome to Tier 3, Nancy Boyda
The national parties set priorities for where their money goes: Tier 1 is the big-time, Tier 2 is for candidates who might have a shot, and Tier 3 is for everyone else. Nancy Boyda and Carol Shea-Porter just placed themselves on Tier 3.
By foregoing money for the DCCC's "Frontline" program which funnels logistical support and campaign cash to vulnerable incumbents, Boyda and Shea-Porter have distanced themselves from their party. Good luck with those leadership posts, ladies. Those will not happen, now or ever.
The two also make a point about the state of play in national politics. During the 1990's and even as recently as 2002, national party targeting was a great value to candidates. Now, you have some who don't even want to take campaign cash.
More than anything, I think we can chalk this up to the Pelosi-Hoyer rift among Democrats in the House. If you're on Pelosi's side, you're probably looked upon askance by Hoyer. And remember that Hoyer was one of the masterminds behind the DNC/DCCC 50-State Strategy that helped Democrats take the House last year.
By foregoing money for the DCCC's "Frontline" program which funnels logistical support and campaign cash to vulnerable incumbents, Boyda and Shea-Porter have distanced themselves from their party. Good luck with those leadership posts, ladies. Those will not happen, now or ever.
The two also make a point about the state of play in national politics. During the 1990's and even as recently as 2002, national party targeting was a great value to candidates. Now, you have some who don't even want to take campaign cash.
More than anything, I think we can chalk this up to the Pelosi-Hoyer rift among Democrats in the House. If you're on Pelosi's side, you're probably looked upon askance by Hoyer. And remember that Hoyer was one of the masterminds behind the DNC/DCCC 50-State Strategy that helped Democrats take the House last year.
XM-Sirius Merger and the FCC
The New York Times reports that the nation's two satellite radio companies would merge. (Personal disclosure: I'm an XM subscriber and miss my XM144 NASCAR channel, now jumped ship to Sirius)
What does this mean in a democratic system? First and foremost, the Federal Communications Commission has something to say about this deal. The FCC, when Michael Powell was chair, made some public statements about their interest in regulating the content of satellite radio. Powell's comments were on the heels of the infamous Janet Jackson exposure at the Super Bowl, of course, and now that time has passed and Powell has moved on his unique brand of puritanism has gone away.
But the FCC would still like to be empowered in satellite radio, and their ability to broker or dismantle the deal might be the way to do it. I predict the fight will be a long one.
It's not a long bridge to content, either. The FCC's main interest is in monopoly control, and they have a point. The equivalent would be Coke and Pepsi trying to merge, as they are the two dominant powers in the market. In fact, it's worse in the case of XM-Sirius, since they are the ONLY two content providers in satellite radio. A 100% market share awaits the combined company.
If the FCC does approve the satellite radio monopoly, then their allowance may take the same form that the feds created for television airwaves: treating it as a distributable utility, subject to all regulation government sees fit. That could mean limiting choice of channels or content, or both.
Part of the reason for satellite radio's recent success has been those who want uncensored content. XM's Opie & Anthony/Ron & Fez shows and Sirius' Howard Stern/Bubba TLS have been magnets to both services (though Major League Baseball for XM and the National Football League for Sirius have likely drawn the most subscribers) for people who want content they cannot get on terrestrial radio. If the FCC steps in, it may effectively squash any content difference between terrestrial and satellite radio, effectively numbing the market value of satellite.
If the merger does not go through, though, another problem arises. Sirius' debt management is awful, having borrowed big to secure the NFL, NASCAR, and Stern contracts. Sirius' stock price hovers below $5. XM, with more subscribers and a softer debt load, has stock price around $14 but it's still likely not enough to sustain a long-term profit. The merger could, through cost-cutting and economies of scale, make the joint venture profitable and thus viable over the long term. Without a merger, one or both of the companies might fold within the next few years.
What does this mean in a democratic system? First and foremost, the Federal Communications Commission has something to say about this deal. The FCC, when Michael Powell was chair, made some public statements about their interest in regulating the content of satellite radio. Powell's comments were on the heels of the infamous Janet Jackson exposure at the Super Bowl, of course, and now that time has passed and Powell has moved on his unique brand of puritanism has gone away.
But the FCC would still like to be empowered in satellite radio, and their ability to broker or dismantle the deal might be the way to do it. I predict the fight will be a long one.
It's not a long bridge to content, either. The FCC's main interest is in monopoly control, and they have a point. The equivalent would be Coke and Pepsi trying to merge, as they are the two dominant powers in the market. In fact, it's worse in the case of XM-Sirius, since they are the ONLY two content providers in satellite radio. A 100% market share awaits the combined company.
If the FCC does approve the satellite radio monopoly, then their allowance may take the same form that the feds created for television airwaves: treating it as a distributable utility, subject to all regulation government sees fit. That could mean limiting choice of channels or content, or both.
Part of the reason for satellite radio's recent success has been those who want uncensored content. XM's Opie & Anthony/Ron & Fez shows and Sirius' Howard Stern/Bubba TLS have been magnets to both services (though Major League Baseball for XM and the National Football League for Sirius have likely drawn the most subscribers) for people who want content they cannot get on terrestrial radio. If the FCC steps in, it may effectively squash any content difference between terrestrial and satellite radio, effectively numbing the market value of satellite.
If the merger does not go through, though, another problem arises. Sirius' debt management is awful, having borrowed big to secure the NFL, NASCAR, and Stern contracts. Sirius' stock price hovers below $5. XM, with more subscribers and a softer debt load, has stock price around $14 but it's still likely not enough to sustain a long-term profit. The merger could, through cost-cutting and economies of scale, make the joint venture profitable and thus viable over the long term. Without a merger, one or both of the companies might fold within the next few years.
11.28.2006
So, Would Edwards/Kerry '04 Have Won?
Check out this Washington Post article.
Here's why the 2006 elections don't necessarily translate into a great Democratic year in 2008: they don't have the horses for the courses. Kerry finished DEAD LAST among Democrats in a feeling thermometer rating of likability. Now, anyone who watched his charisma-free 2004 presidential campaign would know that Kerry is a likable as avian flu, so it isn't much of a surprise. In fact, I think a flipped ticket in 2004 would have come closer to Bush or tied like 2000. Also interesting that the poll was conducted before Kerry's hoof-in-mouth moment over the less educated getting 'stuck in Iraq'. Pretty much everyone knows Kerry is a jerk now. So memo to the Senator: stay home in '08. You've done enough damage to your party.
Then again, it might not have been good to have a young 'un at the helm in 2004. Edwards was probably too inexperienced to win it, and the lesson from Edwards goes to the New Democratic Heartthrob (NDH) Barack Obama. Oprah has practically soiled herself trying to get this guy to run, but guess what? Nobody knows who he is! 41% of respondents didn't know enough about the guy to register an opinion. Plus, Kerry taught us that the Senate is a terrible place to make a run from because your voting record can be used against you just as it can be something to run on. Give Obama another few years, let him run for governor of Illinois, serve a term or two, and THEN run. The guy's got time to run in the future after he builds a more national profile. He'll be a much better candidate in 2016 or 2020 and he will still be in his 50's.
Two other things ought to give the Dems pause right now: Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Joe Freakin' Lieberman came in ahead of their putative nominee, Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton is still more popular than her, for what that's worth. In other words, the Democratic pool is filled with inexperience and churlishness. Maybe McCain and Lieberman ought to run as an Independent ticket. . ..
Here's why the 2006 elections don't necessarily translate into a great Democratic year in 2008: they don't have the horses for the courses. Kerry finished DEAD LAST among Democrats in a feeling thermometer rating of likability. Now, anyone who watched his charisma-free 2004 presidential campaign would know that Kerry is a likable as avian flu, so it isn't much of a surprise. In fact, I think a flipped ticket in 2004 would have come closer to Bush or tied like 2000. Also interesting that the poll was conducted before Kerry's hoof-in-mouth moment over the less educated getting 'stuck in Iraq'. Pretty much everyone knows Kerry is a jerk now. So memo to the Senator: stay home in '08. You've done enough damage to your party.
Then again, it might not have been good to have a young 'un at the helm in 2004. Edwards was probably too inexperienced to win it, and the lesson from Edwards goes to the New Democratic Heartthrob (NDH) Barack Obama. Oprah has practically soiled herself trying to get this guy to run, but guess what? Nobody knows who he is! 41% of respondents didn't know enough about the guy to register an opinion. Plus, Kerry taught us that the Senate is a terrible place to make a run from because your voting record can be used against you just as it can be something to run on. Give Obama another few years, let him run for governor of Illinois, serve a term or two, and THEN run. The guy's got time to run in the future after he builds a more national profile. He'll be a much better candidate in 2016 or 2020 and he will still be in his 50's.
Two other things ought to give the Dems pause right now: Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Joe Freakin' Lieberman came in ahead of their putative nominee, Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton is still more popular than her, for what that's worth. In other words, the Democratic pool is filled with inexperience and churlishness. Maybe McCain and Lieberman ought to run as an Independent ticket. . ..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
