At the end of the day

All three Democratic presidential candidates -- Hillary, Edwards, and Obama -- support the death penalty "...as have virtually all leading Democrats running for office in the past 20 years.... Why so much longstanding support for capital punishment? It is the easiest way to combat the quadrennial charge that Democrats are 'soft on crime.' "

The NYT editorial board endorsed Hillary as their Democratic "primary choice." Is this a good thing when the Times publishes loony columnists Bill Kristol, David Brooks, and MoDo? They also endorsed McCain as their Repub "primary choice." Well, at least the NYT has Paul Krugman on board. Still...

Michigan and Florida delegates -- When the DNC objected to states moving their primary dates up, they decided to strip the states of their delegates. Edwards and Obama removed their names from the ballot in Michigan but Hillary and Kucinich did not. "Today, Hillary announced that she will demand the DNC seat Michigan's and Florida's delegates. Delegates that only she - in violation of DNC rules - competed for." Yellow Dog provided details. Via Deb-TUD, Josh Marshall had something to say about it, too.

Yesterday, Joe Conason indicated he's gotten some heat for not bashing Hillary enough. His response: "There's no taking sides" and concluded, "I perceive strengths and weaknesses in both of the leading Democrats. They're politicians and human beings, not angels or devils. I can certainly imagine voting for either of them in the general election." His favorite pick for president didn't run. Hmmm, I would guess that's Al Gore!

Mitt and McCain vie for who's the biggest tax cut whore of all! But, wait a minute... Rudy wants the coveted title.

FactCheck.org identified Repub falsehoods in last night's GOP debate in Boca Raton, FL. Mitt "misrepresented" Hillary's health care plan, plus note the Huckster's "FairTax fairy tale," "Giuliani's fables," and "McCain's tax evasion." Some are old lies, and some are new. Unsurprising, isn't it?

Atrios pointed out the Draft Bloomberg effort has recorded "a whopping 3136 signatures." At the time of this posting, the amount has catapulted to 3,375! Wheee-oooo. Are you feeling the "Mikementum"? His favorable rating is "Teh Suck".

The latest Florida poll, a national Gallup primary poll, and Mark Blumenthal discussed variations in SC polling.

Cernig at Newshogger posted an in-depth discourse on a "nuke policy blog tank." An excellent synopsis and worth the time to click the link (h/t to blogging goddess, Avedon).

Toe-tappin' Larry Craig sex sting -- "No one on the tight-lipped Senate committee will say how far along any investigation is or whether they expect it to yield any findings." CREW hasn't heard anything. Craig's lawyer remains silent. Is anything being investigated? "No one with the committee has asked to speak with anyone connected with Craig's arrest or asked for more information about it, said Patrick Hogan, a spokesman for the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport." McClatchy

Tortured silence -- Today during a press conference, AG Mike Mukasey wouldn't say if waterboarding is torture. "In a letter to Mr. Mukasey this week, all 10 Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee pressed him again for an answer to the question of whether waterboarding is torture and suggested it would be a focus of an oversight hearing next week at which the attorney general is scheduled to testify." Tomorrow's NYT

Bloody Iraq -- Today Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, said "that Iraqi reinforcements have begun moving toward the northern city of Mosul for a 'decisive' battle with the Sunni insurgent group al-Qaeda." Also in Mosul, "A provincial police chief was killed by a suicide bomber" on Thursday. "Duraid Kashmoula, the governor of Nineveh province, said the number of people killed in Wednesday's attack had increased from 15 to 38.... The revised death toll made Wednesday's bombing the deadliest in Iraq since mid-December. Kashmoula said 134 people had been wounded."

Pakistan -- SecDef Gates said the U.S. will send "troops to conduct joint combat operations with Pakistan's military against al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan's tribal areas."

Check out Corpus Juris' funny video post below. Hilarious! Our hyperbolic media stars... erupt!

[That's all...no more after the jump.]

There's more: "At the end of the day" >>

Bloomberg for Prez looking more official

The Unity08 website to reconstitute as a “Draft Bloomberg” one.

Spare us, please. Bloomberg has nothing new to add to the campaign. He has a mixed bag of pro-stay in Iraq (pro-war from the start), generic social liberal and moderate economic proposals, all of which are already out there somewhere.

That said, per a post of mine on this issue about a month ago, I think (pending the actual Democratic and Republican nominees) he stands a chance of hurting Democrats more than Republicans.

There's more: "Bloomberg for Prez looking more official" >>

Bloomberg run: Would it hurt Dems or GOP more?

It looks more and more likely New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg will run for president. So, as I rhetorically asked about the “Mitt Romney” Christmas card a couple of days ago, cui bono?

I think which party benefits depends on the candidates, though, given Bloomberg’s stance on most social issues, he seems more likely to take actual or potential Democratic/Democratic-leaning independent votes than GOP ones.

If Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, even if her “divisiveness/Clinton history” negativity is overrated, it’s not non-existent, either. I think Bloomberg takes a heavy cut into her vote.

Edwards would probably be hit second-hardest, and Obama the least hard of the top three Democratic candidates.

On the GOP side, it would be hit hardest if Huckabee is nominated. Given that the non-Mayberry conservative hardcorers are already piling on Huck in National Review and elsewhere, some of them will see Bloomberg as solid enough fiscally to jump ship.

I think Romney and Giuliani are hit somewhat, and that McCain, rightly or wrongly seen as a “straight shooter,” gets hit the least.

Meanwhile, former Missouri Senator John Danforth summed up where many more moderate GOPers feel:

Danforth said he remains a Republican but finds little cause for optimism among the current GOP candidates. "My party is appealing to a real meanness," he said in an interview, "and an irresponsible sense of machismo in foreign policy. I hope it will be less extreme, but I'm an American before I'm a Republican." Danforth has also written critically about the impact of religious conservatives on the Republican Party.

Yes, John, but did you pull the lever for Shrub in 2004, or at least stay home if nothing else? And, let’s not forget that you’re the senator who foisted Clarence Thomas on us. Even if you couldn’t have seen everything about him in advance, the man showed his intellectual dishonesty in advance of his confirmation by essentially denying he’d ever been helped by affirmative action.

In addition, as Steve Benen points out at Washington Monthly, in comparing Unity ’08 to most Democratic candidates, at least, the movement’s focus on “bipartisanship” is a problem in search of a solution, as Obama, Edwards and Richardson have all pledged to have Republicans in their cabinets. (Whether such a pledge is a good idea, and whether “bipartisanship” is such a good idea, is another question entirely.

Update: Per Glenn Greenwald, the simplest characterization of Bloomberg is either as Rudy Giuliani with much more money, or a kinder, gentler, neoconservative.

That second characterization is especially apt.

Bloomberg gave blank-check support to the invasion of Iraq, on that issue, and, as far as being in the Israel lobby’s corner, gave blank-check support to Israel’s 2006 invasion of Lebanon.

There's more: "Bloomberg run: Would it hurt Dems or GOP more?" >>

Rudy: Blame Bloomberg for Shagfest — who’s next?

Rudy’s latest spin on secretly billing a cool half a million in police dollars around the NYC budget to go visit Judith Nathan?

Michael Bloomberg must have leaked it because he’s about to enter the presidential race himself.

Man, this just gets more fun all the time. I think trying to nail down a straight answer on this is definitely a case of “Pin the Tail (or Tale) on Rudy.”

Lemme see: Who could Rudy blame next?

Amadou Diallo? Yeah, if he hadn’t provoked NYC cops into their behavior, Rudy wouldn’t be so stressed out as to need to see Nathan all the time on the NYC dime.

Al Sharpton? Sure, just because he’s Al Sharpton and conservative Republicans will understand what Rudy really means by blaming Al Sharpton.

Hillary Clinton? Sure, her moving to New York to run for Senate disturbed the moral fiber of the city.

Don’t worry, we’ll probably get the Fire Department of New York in here soon enough.

There's more: "Rudy: Blame Bloomberg for Shagfest — who’s next?" >>

If Bloomberg runs

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has denied that he will run for president as an Independent in 2008. Term limits prohibit him from running for reelection as NYC's mayor. So is Bloomberg being coy about eyeing the WH? And if he does run, how will he explain his past to the left and the right? Joe Conason at Salon digs in (emphasis added):

For instance, voters will want to know why he joined the Republican Party after a lifetime supporting Democrats. And they may not like the answer when they learn that he essentially bought the New York Republican mayoral nomination from the party's leaders and then narrowly won the election by spending an unprecedented $70 million. In a stunning act of overkill, he spent even more to win reelection against a hapless, hopelessly underfunded Democratic opponent two years ago.

Voters will also want to know whether he suddenly left the Republican Party only because its prospects are so dim. Only three years ago, he heartily endorsed the reelection of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, even vowing to carry New York City for the ticket. Those were the days when he was still an enthusiastic Republican booster and generous party donor, and was praising the GOP as the party of "honesty, efficiency, compassion and inclusion." That sounds ridiculous now, of course, but was he cynically mouthing those banalities, or did he believe them? It is hard to say which would be worse.

Voters might also wonder why Bloomberg left the Democratic Party in the first place, especially when his ideological outlook has always been difficult to distinguish from that of most Democrats on matters such as reproductive and gay rights, gun and tobacco controls, immigration, global warming, minimum wages, healthcare and a long list of other issues. Most New Yorkers are Democrats and few would disagree with Michael Long, the leader of the state's Conservative Party, who likes Bloomberg personally but says that he is indistinguishable from any "liberal Democrat." (No doubt Long was thinking about the hefty tax increase that Bloomberg imposed on the city's property owners in 2002, a bad memory that Republicans are sure to mention now that he has spurned them.)

Actually, there is an important difference between Bloomberg and most liberal Democrats. Dating back to his infatuation with Bush, the mayor has always been an enthusiastic supporter of the war in Iraq. He marched lockstep in the Bush drive toward invasion when he addressed the United Nations General Assembly in September 2002: "Freedom comes at a price, and tragically, sometimes that price is the commitment to defend freedom by arms. America has been, is, and always will be willing to do its duty -- to sacrifice even its own blood, so that people everywhere can live as individuals responsible for their own destinies." (As Wayne Barrett once pointed out in the Village Voice, the man spouting this brave talk got out of the Vietnam draft because his feet are flat.)

Bloomberg's pro-war rhetoric dutifully echoed the White House line connecting Saddam Hussein with al-Qaida and 9/11, almost as if Karl Rove had programmed his brain. "I'm voting for George W. Bush and it's mainly because I think we have to strike back at terrorists," he said in September 2004. "To argue that Saddam Hussein wasn't a terrorist is ridiculous. He used mustard gas, or some kind of gas, against his own people."

If Bloomberg runs, the media may be faced with a dilemma -- how to distinguish pro-war Giuliani from pro-war Bloomberg while, of course, lionizing both of them.

As Conason concludes, " Should he ultimately decide to run for president, Bloomberg and his clever political advisors will have to find some way to backtrack from his unpopular statements about Iraq. But that would only return us to the fundamental question about this protean businessman and politician: Does he have any political convictions that transcend his own ambitions?"

There's more: "If Bloomberg runs" >>

Bloomberg/Hagel--The Indy Dream Ticket Or A Rare Genetic Disorder

Ladies and gentlemen! Boys and girls! Step Right Up! Step Right Up!

Watch in awe as the comedian covers real news well while simultaneously covering professional "journalists" covering fake news badly. He does it all without a net.

For your amazement and amusement, the Thursday Night Funny.



Hurry! Hurry! Don't wait to watch this video. It expires on July 21, 2007.

There's more: "Bloomberg/Hagel--The Indy Dream Ticket Or A Rare Genetic Disorder" >>

Bloomberg bubble — hold the phone on Iraq

Via TPM Election Central, it appears Big Mike does NOT favor an immediate or a full pullout from Iraq.
At a speech at Google HQ Monday:

“We are in trouble overseas. There’s obviously an unpopular war, but a war that has no easy answers. The people that say, ‘let’s just automatically pull troops out,’ I don't think have really looked at the consequences of destabilizing the world, and the genocide that may or may not occur, depending on who you believe.”

The only other quotes TPM EC has about Bloomberg’s position are pre-invasion; any further information about his stance between then and now, to flesh out the picture, is welcome.

In any case, the first picture of him on Iraq is that he won’t be more progressive than any Democrat to the left of JoeMentum Lieberman (whom Bloomberg endorsed over Ned Lamont).

So, contrary to somebody like M.L. Rosenberg over at TPM, right now, I personally don’t have a hankering for Bloomberg, and, unless he changes positions on Iraq, Corpus Juris is probably right that he’ll draw more from Republicans, should he jump in.

Also, and something I missed, Bloomberg’s been ginning up speculation for a month, even to the point of a possible VP to run with him.

Only days after Bloomberg’s [mid-May] Houston appearance, maverick Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) hinted broadly that he was considering joining forces with the billionaire mayor to run for the White House as independents.

So, his Hamlet-like demeanor will wear thin soon enough.

Cross-posted at Socratic Gadfly and Out of Iraq Bloggers Caucus.

There's more: "Bloomberg bubble — hold the phone on Iraq" >>

Michael Bloomberg update, with a difference of analysis

Via Talking Points Memo, I see (as did Corpus Juris) that he has left the GOP. Here’s his statement guts:

”As a political independent, I will continue to work with those in all political parties to find common ground, to put partisanship aside and to achieve real solutions to the challenges we face. Any successful elected executive knows that real results are more important than partisan battles and that good ideas should take precedence over rigid adherence to any particular political ideology.”

Well, doesn’t THIS stir up the pot? His claim he’s doing this to be a better mayor for NYC is of course spin and nothing more.

But, my unconventional wisdom is just a bit different than CJ’s

Let’s look ahead to 2008. If he does run, this likely knocks New York State out of any Democratic win column. Probably Connecticut, too. Could even have consequences in The Golden State if Dems have a weak presidential candidate. Bloomberg could run well in Florida, too, I’ll bet.

So, contrary to 1992, I do NOT think this is generally good news for a Democratic presidential candidate. It may not be bad news; it may be a wash. But, I do not think it is good news.

Update:

Via TPM’s Election Central, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Bloomberg pulls equally from both parties in New York.

Cross posted (edited) at SocraticGadfly.

There's more: "Michael Bloomberg update, with a difference of analysis" >>

Bloomberg Drops Republican Affiliation

CNN is reporting that

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg changed his party affiliation from Republican to unaffiliated Tuesday, a move that will surely increase speculation he is considering an independent White House bid.

Yep, it's beginning to sound like Michael Bloomberg is the Ross Perot of 2008.

Hmmm, who benefited from Ross Perot's run? That's right, Bill Clinton. Who might benefit from a run by Bloomberg? Why, Hilliary Clinton, of course. Coincidence?

There's more: "Bloomberg Drops Republican Affiliation" >>

Who could the Ross Perot of 2008 be?

If Corpus Juris doesn’t mind a little healthy debate about his Ron Paul=Ross Perot post, I’ll argue against, then submit my own thought, as stimulated by some blog speculation reading I’ve done.

Actually, since Paul has no real money, and the Libertarian Party (should Paul decide to ditch the GOP) is rightly regarded as pretty nutbar, I just can’t see him as the Ross Perot of the next presidential election.

Instead, let’s look at someone who is on the record against being in Iraq, has other political views that are much more mainstream than Paul, let alone the Libertarian Party, and who DOES have Ross Perot money.

Folks, he’s out there right now. And, he’s won elective office himself, putting him a healthy leg up on Perot. And, he hasn’t denied any early speculation about his 2008 intentions.

OK, those hints aren’t enough?

Meet New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. A billionaire. A businessman more successful than Perot, and without feeding at the hog trough of government contracts, unlike the hypocritical H. Ross Perot. Centrist to left of center on many social issues. Big-business views on many economic issues, but not heartlessly so.

THAT is your Ross Perot 2008. Unlike Perot in 1988, you can bet Bloomberg is more likely to steal Democratic-leaning independents than Republican-leaners, too.

There's more: "Who could the Ross Perot of 2008 be?" >>