An Eventful Week

There is certainly a lot going on this week. I just heard the news that Arlen Specter has switched parties - becoming the 59th Democratic seat in the Senate. He is facing re-election in Pennsylvania this year and decided to run as a Democrat.

On one hand, this is good news for the Democrats, because if Al Franken finally wins in Minnesota, the Democrats could have a filibuster-proof majority of 60. (Assuming all 60 agree on the issue at hand, of course, which isn't always the case).

On the other hand, it is a sad day for the so-called Grand Old Party. That leaves even fewer moderate Republicans in the party, concentrating it even more into the hands of the far right. If anyone was hoping for less partisan rancor, it just isn't going to happen.

Of course the other big news right now is the swine flu, which may become a pandemic. Fears that it might be as bad as the 1918 pandemic that killed so many people are probably exaggerated. However, any time there is a new strain of flu that the vaccines can't prevent, it is a big concern. If you want to check out how many cases are in your area, here is a link to an interactive map.

President Obama is about to hit his first 100 days in office so be prepared for yet more analysis of "How's he doin'?" (as NY Mayor Ed Koch used to ask people about himself). As the linked article points out, most of the time the first 100 days don't really serve as a real indicator of the mettle of the President in question. Only Roosevelt accomplished a huge amount in his first 100 days - which would probably not be possible in modern times, since our modern Congress just doesn't do things that fast.

In a stunt of remarkable stupidity and insensitivity, one of the planes used as Air Force One made some low circles over the Statue of Liberty with an F-16 escorting it on Monday - just to provide a photo of the plane juxtaposed with the statue. Governor Corzine said that New Jersey was not notified of the plans and that it was "unacceptable."

Mayor Bloomberg's office was supposedly notified - but the word had not gotten out even to the Mayor, so he was furious about the incident, which caused workers in high-rise buildings to flee them in panic, thinking it was a reprise of September 11.

President Obama had nothing to do with the incident and was reportedly "furious" also.

But it isn't even a matter of notification - it's more like, "WTF WERE THEY THINKING?" How could anyone think this was a good idea given that New York's memories of 9/11 are like a raw wound that is just barely scabbing over? How could they even consider doing such a thing? I hope someone gets fired over this.

Oh, come on...Who are you kidding?

First it was Timothy Geithner, now it's Tom Daschle. Yes, I'm talking about failure to pay taxes.

In the most recent case, the administration refers to Mr. Daschle's failure to pay over $100,000 in taxes from the previous 3 years a "serious mistake." But is it really just a "mistake" if Daschle didn't ask his accountant to look into it until 2008 when he owed the taxes for the car and driver he was using starting in 2005? Or was it more like "Hmmm, Obama might win this thing and since I'm a close adviser of his, maybe I'd better get that little tax issue in order in case I'm nominated for something."

What I don't understand is why all of these people who are clearly in public life are always turning up with back taxes they owe, or an illegal housekeeper, nanny or some other snafu, whereas we ordinary folk manage to pay our taxes and not hire illegal aliens. You'd think people in public life would be more careful, not less. It is a mystery.

There are other issues with Daschle as well - as Jolly Roger points out, there are other aspects of Daschle's more recent career that may pose a conflict of interest for him to deal with the healthcare industry.

I understand President Obama's wish to support Daschle but I would like it if Daschle had the honor to bow out and let someone else with less baggage take the position. Surely he's not the only person around that could handle Health & Human Services.

There is another thing this week that is troubling me and I hope it's only temporary. Despite ordering the closure of Guantanamo, apparently President Obama is not going to end the practice of rendition. If, as he has said, we will no longer torture prisoners, what then is the reason to keep this practice? What will be done secretly to prisoners who have been spirited away to some other country that can't be done openly?

Let's all make sure to send President Obama a message on his website asking him to end this immoral practice immediately.

I'll end this with a few haiku since I haven't done any in awhile!

Paying back taxes
Is a popular pastime
For new nominees

Why they just noticed
They owe all these back taxes
Is rather unclear.

In much lighter news
Chuck bit Mayor Mike Bloomberg
No shadow was seen.

Punxsutawney Phil
Came out and saw his shadow
Winter will go on.

Phil's original
Chuck's only an imposter
Six more weeks to go.

Each time it's snowing
Feels like it happened before
It's still Groundhog Day.

It's snowing again
Beginning in the morning
Will it never end?

Tempus Fugit

Time really does fly...it's hard to believe it's Sunday again already and work is looming tomorrow.

This has been a busy week and I haven't had as much time to visit blogs or to post myself. Before we know it, it will be Baxter's turn to write tomorrow and I haven't written anything substantive since his last post!

I looked at the headlines this morning and realized that yesterday was the South Carolina primary for the Republicans - but not the Democrats. And McCain won it. This makes Romney's win in the Nevada caucuses a non-event, to me. I think McCain may be on the road to win the Republican nomination - which is probably bad news for the Democrats since I think he's the only Republican with a snowball's chance to win the Presidency.

In the meantime, Hillary beat Obama in the Nevada caucuses, 51% to 45%; but apparently, after some dispute, it has been confirmed that Obama has won more delegates (13 to 12).

And of course, we still don't know if Bloomberg is going to run, and he's out in California still giving speeches that have nothing to do with New York City. If he jumps in, all bets are off.

Today's date is January 20, and that date reminds me of the fact that it was 47 years ago today that John F. Kennedy was sworn in as President and gave his famous "Ask not what your country can do for you" inaugural address.

In two parts, here are the links to the video of his address:

First link
Second link

DH remembers watching this live on the old black-and-white Westinghouse television set on that cold January day when he was 8 years old. It made an indelible impression. On that day he held in his hand a letter dated December 9th, 1960, from President-Elect Kennedy, that said:

"I want to thank you for the very friendly message that you sent me after my election to the Presidency.

I am most heartened by the many expressions of good will which I have received. I'm sure that they reflect a broad unity of purpose in our nation. I hope that my record during the next four years will sustain your generous confidence.

With every good wish, I am,

Sincerely,

John F. Kennedy."

The letter had come in response to the letter of congratulations he had sent to Senator Kennedy after his election.

The letter from Kennedy, and the autographed picture that accompanied it, are framed and hang on his office wall to this day.

Looking back on that letter today, he reflects that the words were sadly ironic, in that there were no four years of the Presidency for Kennedy. And the criminals in office today have stolen the promise of that Presidency.

Let's hope we can get back that hope and promise in November.

The Plot Thickens - 3rd Party Candidacy a Real Possibility

I heard the news on the radio that Michael Bloomberg, among others, has announced a meeting scheduled next week among influential Democrats and Republicans to discuss ending the partisan politics in Washington, and possibly deciding to back a third-party candidate.

The Washington Post has a detailed article on the upcoming meeting, which was announced before the Iowa caucuses in order to avoid the appearance of the meeting being a reaction to any one candidate.

According to the Post,

"Those who will be at the Jan. 7 session at the University of Oklahoma say that if the likely nominees of the two parties do not pledge to "go beyond tokenism" in building an administration that seeks national consensus, they will be prepared to back Bloomberg or someone else in a third-party campaign for president."

The group includes influential Democrats such as former senators Sam Nunn (Georgia), Charles S. Robb (Virginia) and David L. Boren (Oklahoma). Among the Republican organizers are Senator Chuck Hagel (Nebraska), former party chairman Bill Brock, former senator John Danforth (Missouri) and former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman.

Whitman served as head of the EPA under Bush but resigned in 2003 "to spend more time with her family" - however, many surmised she had serious differences with the Bush administration in regard to its environmental policies.

According to the Post,

"Boren, who will host the meeting at the university, where he is president, said: 'It is not a gathering to urge any one person to run for president or to say there necessarily ought to be an independent option. But if we don't see a refocusing of the campaign on a bipartisan approach, I would feel I would want to encourage an independent candidacy.'"

So far the only candidate advocating for any degree of bipartisanship is Barack Obama.

If the group does decide to run a 3rd-party candidate, it is likely they would have the financial - and political - wherewithal to pull it off.

"Others who have indicated that they plan to attend the one-day session include William S. Cohen, a former Republican senator from Maine and defense secretary in the Clinton administration; Alan Dixon, a former Democratic senator from Illinois; Bob Graham, a former Democratic senator from Florida; Jim Leach, a former Republican congressman from Iowa; Susan Eisenhower, a political consultant and granddaughter of former president Dwight D. Eisenhower; David Abshire, president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency; and Edward Perkins, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations."

If they do choose to run a candidate, it is likely to be Mr. Bloomberg, given that he has been expanding his role in recent months to travel the country and comment on matters outside the New York City political area.

The group seems to be really serious about this effort.

"A letter from Nunn and Boren sent to those attending the Jan. 7 session said that 'our political system is, at the least, badly bent and many are concluding that it is broken at a time where America must lead boldly at home and abroad. Partisan polarization is preventing us from uniting to meet the challenges that we must face if we are to prevent further erosion in America's power of leadership and example.'

At the session, Boren said, participants will try to draft a statement on such issues as the need to "rebuild and reconfigure our military forces," nuclear proliferation and terrorism, and restoring U.S. credibility in the world.

'Today, we are a house divided,' the letter said. 'We believe that the next president must be able to call for a unity of effort by choosing the best talent available -- without regard to political party -- to help lead our nation.'"

For those of us who have been sitting back watching the circus that our political process has become, the endless campaign that began nearly two years before the election, the countless repetitive debates on both sides, this prospect may actually add a lot of excitement and enthusiasm to the upcoming election.

It is not too late for a new candidate to emerge, one that appeals to the vast middle portion of the electorate, that is repulsed by the Republicans' appeals to the basest instincts of our nature (racism, anti-immigration, fear) but is not quite ready for the most radical liberal ideas either.

The important thing is for that candidate to be serious, not just act as a spoiler. Someone like Bloomberg could be that candidate, given the vast financial resources he can muster, as well as the connections he has forged in both parties.

If nothing else, it will at least make the coming year interesting!

UPDATE:

Just to be clear, I am not in support of Bloomberg running - a third party candidacy by Bloomberg would hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans, and if he acts only as a spoiler, this could be a disaster; President Huckabee, anyone? :-(

From what I know about Bloomberg, I don't think he'd run if he'd only be a spoiler - I think he'd only do it if he thought he could win. But of course that might not be good either, depending on what his policies would be. We'll have to wait and see what happens...he may just be trying to shake things up; he may even be sincere about wanting bipartisanship in government. I realize sincerity is not in plentiful supply in our political system but you never know.

Mayor Mike - Still in the Picture

(Picture courtesy of Time, Inc., credit to Sacha Waldman / Levine and Levitt)

According to the Huffington Post, New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been receiving foreign policy briefings from "Nancy Soderberg, a former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and a Clinton Administration foreign policy adviser."

This is very interesting. Despite the Mayor's frequent denials that he plans to run for President, it seems he is continuing to prepare for just that. Why else would he need foreign policy briefings?

I wrote about this before when Mayor Mike first switched from Republican to Independent. Apparently since then, he has quietly been making more preparations.

If he runs, it will throw the 2008 election into a free-for-all. It is hard to say which side a Bloomberg candidacy would pull from the most. As an ex-Republican, you might think it would be the Republican side. But he is also an ex-Democrat and has liberal views on many issues. It would also depend on who he picked as a running mate.

I am not at all sure we won't end up with a Republican president in 2009. If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, it is likely the GOP would mobilize its base with their hatred of all things Clinton. Rove (or should I say, his replacement) would have a field day digging up old dirt on Hillary and Bill. In the meantime, a Bloomberg candidacy would just confuse things further and, in the ensuing chaos, we might end up with President Romney or President Guiliani. It is a scary thought.

As I've said before, Bloomberg as a candidate is rather appealing. But under our current system, it is impossible for a third-party candidate to win. I often think it would be better if the national election process provided for the possibility of a runoff if no one candidate received a majority of the votes. To me, that would be a fairer way to decide the election. But of course it would require a Constitutional amendment and no one would ever propose it.

In the meantime, we watch and wait to see what is going to happen in 2008.

Dark Horse

Will he or won't he?

Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York seems to be flirting with the possibility of running for President. He is in his second term as mayor, and term limits prevent him from running again. So, if he is not thinking of running for President, why is he suddenly making trips to California, making speeches criticizing the other candidates that have already declared their interest in the top job, and, most surprising of all, changing his affiliation from Republican to Independent? If Mayor Mike were truly planning to retire and go into philanthropy, as he has said he will do, then why bother to change from Republican to Independent? Who would care if he weren't planning to pursue a future political office?

Fiscally conservative and socially liberal, the Mayor may be what the American public is really looking for. In a crowded field that Jon Stewart refers to inelegantly as the Clusterf@#k to the White House, Mayor Mike would be a candidate that would really stand out. Pragmatic, non-political and too rich to be bought, he might be the breath of fresh air people have been waiting for.

John McCain has become too linked to his pro-war stance, and no longer seems to command the "maverick" label he had back in 2000, since he has been pandering to the far right lately.

Giuliani, although popular because of his heroic September 11th performance, will probably crash and burn once people get to know more about him - a few too many skeletons in the old closet.

Mitt Romney probably won't make it because of his flip-flopping on key issues (was he lying in Massachusetts when he said he was pro-choice, or is he lying now?).

The rest? I forget which Thompson is which and can't remember the others.

On the Democratic side, it's a choice between Hillary and Obama. I want to like Hillary, I really do. She's a woman, I would love to see a woman president, the time is ripe. But I just don't like her. I want to. I really do. But I never feel as if she's sincere, and she certainly isn't the kind of gal I would have hung out with in college. (Uh, maybe that's for the best on her part, come to think of it. But still.) She doesn't seem to ring true for many of us lifelong Democrats. We want to want her but we don't.

Obama seems great, and could be that breath of fresh air people are looking for. But much as I like him, I'm afraid he doesn't have enough experience. (Yes, I know, neither did Bush...and look what happened). I do think he'd have the sense to surround himself with great advisers and people who do have the necessary experience. But it's a long road ahead and I'm afraid he may get caught up in the focus groups and politics and not stick to his ideals.

Enter Mike Bloomberg. Sometimes irascible, often blunt, the man seems to not give a hoot about focus groups. And while that might not come across well for some, in other ways I think many people would find it refreshing. An ex-Democrat turned Republican, now Independent, he might appeal to that broad Center that everyone is always talking about. Sure, he has no foreign policy experience. But he ran a multi-billion dollar corporation. He knows how to run things. Since 9/11 he has straightened out New York City and he sure as heck could straighten out the United States. I could even imagine him saying from day one that he's only going to serve one term so he won't have to worry about what the consequences are of what he does.

Of course, if he decides to run, it could just backfire. He might just siphon off votes from one side or the other and be a spoiler, as third-party candidates almost always are. And given his more socially liberal attitudes, I have a suspicion it would hurt the Democratic side more than the Republicans.

If he runs, it sure will shake things up. It would be particularly amusing if both Rudy and Hillary won their respective nominations and it ended up being three New Yorkers vying for the Presidency. Sort of like a Subway Series!

One thing for sure, if the Mayor decides to run, it will make things interesting!