White House Deputy Chief of Staff announced this afternoon that he will be leaving at the end of the month. There will be, unsurprisingly, no tears shed from this corner over the resignation of the man who shamelesslyleaked the name of a CIA operative for purely political reasons, engineered the removal of distinguished US attorneys for, again, shamelessly political reasons, and committed countless untold other sins. What I’m curious about is the effect that his departure will have on the course of this administration in its waning months–in others, what this president will do when sapped of his so called “brain” in addition to his political capital, his credibility, his above-30 approval ratings, and his friendly congress. On the one hand, President Bush has never been one to be terribly involved in the nitty gritty of political maneuvering and has, to a very large degree, relied on those who have been with him since his years in Texas (like former counsel Dan Bartlett, like now Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and like Rove) to do the main steering, with the exception of that done by the vice president, and with so many of these trusted friends jumping ship (and his chief of staff, as quoted in the NY Times article, pressuring remaining aides to leave now or plan to stay on until the end of the second term), he may be adrift. On the other hand, this viciously partisan and resolutely divisive administration has had so few successes since losing its lockstep congressional majority that I’m not convinced it really matters much who is steering a car with no gas.
By Molly in News, Culture of Corruption at 6:30 PM | 1 Comment »
Though he’s been running for a while, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson declared his candidacy for the presidency yesterday. Richardson’s a funny case: he’s got an excellent resumé, having spent fourteen years in Congress and served as UN ambassador and secretary of energy prior to his time as governor, but lacks national name recognition or well-known positions on the issues. He’s consistently trailed Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and former Senator Edwards in the polls–he’s at five percent in the latest CNN poll (versus Clinton’s 38%, Obama’s 24%, and Edwards’s 12%).
His bigger obstacle to overcome, however, is fundraising: as of the last FEC filing at the end of March, he had just over five million dollars on hand, compared to $10.7 million for Edwards, $19.2 million for Obama, and just under $31 million for Clinton. That overwhelming lag between his fundraising and that of his better-known, higher-polling competitors makes it difficult for me to see him breaking out in the months between now and Iowa. A vice presidential nod seems much more likely, with his experience bolstering the inexperience of one of the one-term senators (either Edwards or Obama) and helping in the Southwest–Democrats have held New Mexico, barely, in recent presidential election and its neighboring states might hold pickup opportunities.
By Molly in News, 2008 at 1:11 PM | Comment »
If you’re having trouble keeping track of the complexities of the Meta Screw-Up, try poking around on Slate’s infinitely entertaining illustrated guide to Republican scandals, complete with tags for “sex,” “conflict of interest,” and “prison,” among others. I’m especially fond of the “Clue” style titles (”Scooter Libby in the White House with the Faulty Memory,” “Dusty Foggo in the CIA with the Bribes,” “Duke Cunningham in Congress with the Candlestick”). It even puts little devil horns on the head of the responsible party! It’s really telling about what six years of the Bush administration and twelve years of Republican control of Congress amount to when you start to look at all the ways in which the various and sundry scandals are connected–especially when you pair the Slate map with TPM’s Grand Old Docket, which keeps track of criminal investigations.
By Molly in News, Culture of Corruption, The Lighter Side at 11:02 AM | Comment »
As has been reported extensively elsewhere, last week President Bush’s job approval ratings fell to the catastrophically low number of 28% in an Newsweek poll,, the lowest of his presidency (he hit the same mark in a CBS poll in January, but had since bounced back). Just for comparison, in May 1999, the comparable point in his presidency, President Clinton was at 53% approval in the same poll.
The last president to hit 28% was President Carter in July 1979. The historical records to beat are Nixon in January 1974 at 23% and Truman in February 1952 at 22%, according to Newsweek. Way, way back in 2001, this president clocked in with 93% approval in the immediate aftermath of September 11, the highest approval rating since Gallup started asking the question during FDR’s presidency. So, with 624 days left in the White House, the question is this: will President Bush manage both the highest and the lowest approval ratings of any president since the advent of modern polling?
By Molly in News, 2008 at 7:24 PM | Comment »
Four years ago today, President Bush announced to the country that “major combat operations in Iraq {had} ended.”
Since then, over three thousand American military men and women have been killed in Iraq, including five this weekend. This is in addition to those who have been wounded and those other soldiers who have been killed or wounded fighting for the coalition in Iraq and the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have been killed and the countless Iraqis who have had their lives destroyed by this war.
A CBS/ New York Times poll taken last week found that just 24 percent of all adults approve of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, while 71 percent disapprove. An NBC/WSJ poll from the same period found that a majority of American adults (55% +/- 3.1%) feel that it is no longer possible for the U.S. to achieve victory in Iraq.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is what President Bush’s version of “mission accomplished” looks like four years later.
By Molly in News, Iraq at 10:51 PM | Comment »
Though this will likely go down as another one of the dozen or so false starts from the Gore campaign, it’s exciting nonetheless:
Friends of Al Gore have secretly started assembling a campaign team in preparation for the former American vice-president to make a fresh bid for the White House.
Two members of Mr Gore’s staff from his unsuccessful attempt in 2000 say they have been approached to see if they would be available to work with him again.
His denials of interest in the presidency have been couched in terms of “no plans” or “no intention” - politically ambiguous language that does not rule out a run.
One of his former campaign team said: “I was asked whether I would be available towards the end of the year if I am needed. They know he has not ruled out running and if he decides to jump in, he will have to move very fast.
“He hasn’t asked them to do this, but nor has he told them not to.”
Gore’s my guy if he jumps in, and as has been pointed out before, he can basically wait until the very last second if he does decide to run. It serves his interests to let Clinton, Obama and Edwards beat the tar out of each other for a while. If he jumps in, he’ll raise millions within hours and decimate the staffs of other candidates with defections.
I think the nomination’s his if he wants it. Follow Gore’s team (and his waistline) closely.
By Charlie in News, 2008 at 2:24 PM | 3 Comments »
Today’s New York Times reports on a group of students protesting the selection of Vice President Cheney as their graduation speaker. The students question the selection of the vice president, pointing to the treatment of enemy combatants and his Halliburton ties, but primarily raising questions of personal character and integrity. So which bastion of liberal activism and perennial partisan nitpicking is host to these protests?
That would be Brigham Young University.
Just another example of your liberal media distorting the widespread public support of the administration!
By Molly in News at 11:15 AM | 2 Comments »
