13
Jan
Here we go. The members of the US Senate class of 2008 haven’t even been fully seated and we are already sepculating on 2010. CNN has already decided the Republicans are in trouble in 2010 simply because, get this, they had trouble in 2006 and 2008. Logical huh? Wikipedia references something called the Cook Political Report as the official word on what is going to happen in 2010. Their breakdown has it looking something like this:
| DEMOCRATS | 17 HELD SEATS | ||||||
| SOLID D (11) | LIKELY D (5) | LEAN D (1) | TOSS UP (0) | LEAN R (0) | LIKELY R (0) | SOLID R (0) |
| Lincoln (AR) | Boxer (CA) | Bennet (CO) | ||||
| Dodd (CT) | Reid (NV) | |||||
| Kaufman (DE) | Dorgan (ND) | |||||
| Inouye* (HI) | Murray (WA) | |||||
| IL (Obama) | Feingold (WI) | |||||
| Bayh (IN) | ||||||
| Mikulski (MD) | ||||||
| Schumer (NY-A) | ||||||
| NY-B (Clinton) | ||||||
| Wyden (OR) | ||||||
| Leahy (VT) | ||||||
| REPUBLICANS | 20 HELD SEATS | ||||||
| SOLID D (0) | LIKELY D (0) | LEAN D (0) | TOSS UP (4) | LEAN R (2) | LIKELY R (2) | SOLID R (12) |
| FL (Martinez) | KS (Brownback) | OH (Voinovich) | Shelby (AL) | |||
| Bunning* (KY) | Specter* (PA) | Coburn (OK) | Murkowski (AK) | |||
| Vitter (LA) | McCain (AZ) | |||||
| MO (Bond) | Isakson (GA) | |||||
| Crapo (ID) | ||||||
| Grassley* (IA) | ||||||
| Gregg (NH) | ||||||
| Burr (NC) | ||||||
| DeMint (SC) | ||||||
| Thune (SD) | ||||||
| TX (Bailey Hutchison) | ||||||
| Bennett (UT) | ||||||
Basically, it’s a pretty simple chart. If you’re a Democrat, you’ll likely win. If you’re a Republican, it could be a toss-up. For instance, it lists Kentucky as a toss-up because the sitting senator might be retiring. That’s based on actions Bunning made in 2007. In 2008, he’s running. That’s how accurate these things are at this point.
Most people are painting the Republicans in trouble primarily because of what happened two months ago. However, history tells them, and me, that things are probably not going to be as easy in 2010 as they were in 2008. There are several things people need to take into consideration before lumping the Democrats unbeatable forever.
- Most pundits, especially the slightly more liberal ones like ABC, CNN and MSNBC, predicted Democrat super-majorities based on the 2008 elections. That didn’t happen. In Kentucky particularly, the Republican Senator won and Obama lost. So, these coat-tails that some media have been assuming is there never has been in some places. The Republicans did surprisingly well in Kentucky given that Kentucky is a 2.5 to 1 Democrat state and the head of the Democrat ticket was being lauded by all media as the greatest candidate of all-time. Something went wrong somewhere.
- History has been brutal on the majority party during the first election following a presidential election. The wildly popular Bill Clinton had his legs taken out from under him in 1994. The exception noted by CNN and most people was 2002. However, there was an event in very late 2001 that affected the elections of 2002. Barring some catastrophe in 2009, I expect history to repeat itself for several reasons. Partially, in large part, because the “wildly popular” Bill Clinton was never truly “wildly popular”. The media just loved him. The majority of people in the United States did not. 43% of the vote just isn’t a terribly long coat tail.
- The dynamics of the 2008 election have been horribly abused by the media. Although the Democrats nominated someone farther to the left than is typically successful, the Republicans nominated a moderate that failed to capture the base of his own party. This left the Republicans putting more resources into the presidential race as the presidential candidate was unable to compete financially with the Democrat. As such, their efforts in the Senate races were not well coordinated or financed. In 2010 the Republicans will not have this distraction and typically outspend the Democrats. Whether people like it or not, money talks very loudly in local races. Expect a much more coordinated effort from the Republicans in 2010. Because:
- Obama is pro-civil rights to the point of being extremely anti-business. A lot of his views border on Marxism. Sure, I know that has been tossed around a lot, but it is true. What little legislation we’ve seen coming out of the House in 2009 so far has been pro-civil rights, anti-business. Even with the economy in the tank, the liberal arm of the Democrat party is in full socialist mode, attacking businesses. That will bite the Democrats very quickly.
- Nancy Pelosi is in charge of the House. She got to where she is as a one trick pony. However, that one trick is now biting her. Running on purely ethics issues and against “the worst president ever”, she now has neither issue to fall back on. In addition, she is as liberal or moreso than Obama, and purely committed to partisan politics. Her stance that no Democrat ever had anything to do with the economic mess we’re in now flying squarely in the face of reality should mean something more if the economic situation continues into 2009. A very simple campaign platform for the Republicans would be that this mess didn’t occur until the Democrats took over the House. If it’s not resolved by election time, look for a lot more people to believe that argument.
- Harry Reid is in charge of the Senate. His ineptness and flip-flopping on issues has not only confounded people outside of Nevada like myself, it’s apparently tiring people in Nevada to the point where some are questioning whether he can even hold his seat. Some pundits are even calling Reid the most vulnerable Democrat up for re-election. If Reid is vulnerable in 2010 as the Senate Speaker under the most popular elected president in the history of the world, something’s amiss. If his leadership is so out of touch that it jeapordizes his long held seat, that could present problems for the DNC in 2010.
- Balance of power. This country has been unkind to the party in power. Bill Clinton had it all of two years. George HW Bush had it for a few years and lost it as well in 2006. It would most likely have been earlier, but the dynamics of the 2002 elections were skewed, and the Democrats shot themselves in the foot repeatedly in 2004. By 2006, things returned to normal and the people voted for balance. I’m not saying we’ll have that balance by 2010, but I think people will be working towards it.
- Failed expectations. People set the bar way too high for Obama. He can’t meet all those expectations. It’s just impossible. He can do well. But, well isn’t good enough. Because of that, expect some backlash over time as people realize he is not the messiah. He’s not at this point even controlling his own party. As much as he preached bipartisanhip, Nancy Pelosi has put the screws to that already. I expect he’ll survive. But, expect some backlash with the constituency.
- Iraq. If the troops aren’t out of Iraq by 2009, look for serious backlash.
- Economy. If the economy’s not back on track in 2009, look for serious backlash.
- National security. Obama painted a picture by choosing Leon Panetta as CIA director. If there is a major terrorist issue in 2009 or early 2010, expect that to affect things.
- Scandals. A lot of the gains the Democrats made in 2006 and 2008 were based on self-inflicted wounds within the Republican party. However, those players are out of the spotlight and now we’re looking at Democrats such as Blago, William Jefferson, Sheila Dixon, and others.
I could go on and on. Each race will have its own dynamics. However, the bottom line to me is this could be 1994 all over again. The only question to me at this point is if the RNC is capable of capitalizing. Now, I’m moderate. However, I’m not moderate on any real issue. No one is. The Republicans hung their hat on conservative issues with Reagan, and that’s what got them in charge. Over time, people confused conservative values with a reliance on religious values. That eroded some of the base. Abuses of power, inept leadership, and in-fighting took them down. However, the culmination was running a moderate for president. He appealed to me to some degree, but wasn’t anything I could get real excited about. It’s hard to get excited about any moderate. That’s just the nature of the beast being open to any issue. When Clinton won, he had to be more moderate, but won on liberal views. When Bush II won, he won on conservative values but had to move to more moderate views as well. Now, Obama has won running on extremely liberal credentials but moved to the middle during his campaign, and I expect will lurch even moreso to the middle once the realities of his decisions hits him ( which I think they arlready have ). I think this is a lot of the reason for the second year curse that seems to hit most modern presidents. As the figurehead abandons the ideology that got him and his minions elected, the public revolts in the democratic way. Obama can not possibly remain as liberal as he ran and was perceived and be an effective president. He’s already abandoned several campaign issues ( we’ll be in Iraq a lot longer, his tax incentives will be moderated ). As such, I expect the revolt to begin in 2010.
That’s all I have to say about that. Today.
In 1979 the US government bailed out Chrysler. It was a resounding success as Chrysler restructured, cranked out new and innovative vehicles, and paid back the loan in four years.
In 2008, Chrysler, GM, and Ford are back at the begging table for another bailout.
In 1979 I was a teenager more interested in babes than parsing federal politics. In 2008, I wish I was more interested in babes than federal politics. That’s not the only thing that’s different this time.
The key to the 1979 bailout of Chrysler was restructuring employee benefits in such a way it made it a lot more profitable to make a vehicle. So far, the 2008 version, from what I’ve seen, contains no measures to do so. In 1979 Congress held the unions’ feet to the fire and said they would not assist Chrysler unless the workers made concessions as well. I have seen nothing like that this time.
The simple reason the US automakers are in the fix they are in is because they are paying double or more what the foreign automakers are paying within in the US to make a car. I have seen the figure of $73 an hour being average. That folks, is nuts.
What Harry Reid is proposing is extending unemployment benefits and creating an oversight committee to keep an eye on the loans. What’s the point of that? What does that accomplish? The whole country knows what needs to be done, why does Harry need a committee?
Bottom line, this does nothing to reduce the automakers operating costs and make them more efficient. Nothing.
Why do you suppose Harry Reid is so ignorant? I don’t think he’s all that ignorant. I think there’s a totally different reason he’s not going to do the obvious and force the unions to the table to protect the US citizens’ investment in Ford, GM, or Chrysler:
Does it get any clearer than that?
If that doesn’t do it, then look at some headlines from recent elections:
- UAW endorses Barack Obama
- UAW endorses John Kerry
- UAW endorses Al Gore
- UAW endorses Bill Clinton
- UAW endorses Bill Clinton
What do you all think?
Realizing that her very public message that Democrats never had anything to do with the finance meltdown regardless of the fact their legislation and policies OBVIOUSLY caused it to the point even Bill Clinton personally accepted some blame, Nancy’s got a new gig:
In the past I would have defined bipartisan for her, again. However, it’s pianfully obvious she has no clue, and doesn’t care. She can say anything, no matter how stupid, and get a free pass from most of the media. If Bush had said this up until this fall, it would have been all over all media, SNL, and Letterman. Now, that hat has been passed to Sarah Palin. Nothing Palin has said is nearly as stupid as most of what Pelosi does say. Where are the gags on SNL? Why isn’t Keith Oblermann calling her the worst, Congressman, ever? Why aren’t these side-splitting gags repeated on Letterman? I mean, come on, Dave, this is easy stuff here.
Oh well, it’s not gonna happen any time soon. There’s an election to get out of the way first. Maybe if Nancy does have a more bipartisan Congress with very few members of the opposing party to deal with, she’ll no longer be in charge of the most unpopular Congress in the history of Earth.
Clearly invigorated by the wave of popular support behind her efforts to clean up the Republicn Party, Nancy Pelosi has apparently set her eyes on her own party finally. To this end, she replaced John Edwards‘ speech at the Democrat National Convention with Bill Clinton.
3
Jun
Bill Clinton had some harsh comments for Todd Purdum. He then apologized for the harshness of those comments. He shouldn’t have. The Vanity Fair hit piece was without substance or verification. I cite the primary reason I think it’s unmerited on the main blog. Bottom line, unless someone is willing to cite their references and sources, and it’s slanderous, I don’t buy it. Even if it’s true, I don’t buy it until there is some hard evidence supporting it. Over the last twenty years, media has transformed itself from an information industry to an entertainment industry. So, until I see real evidence, I take it as just another source of entertainment. However, when it comes to entertainment, I prefer almost anything to unsubstantiated gossip. Todd Purdum’s piece IS scumbag reporting. For once, I’m with Bill.
Here’s what Hillary Clinton said:
Now, MSNBC has been no fan of Hillary’s. I don’t think I’ve seen them dig terribly deep into anything Obama’s claimed. But, they did a good job of presenting the facts behind this situation. Mainly, Magnequench was already internationaly controlled. Their resources came FROM China, the patent from Japan. So, what was happening was they were importing the resources from China to Indiana to build at much higher wages. The owners, George Soros being one, were losing money and closed the plant. Nothing was lost. The intellectual property was already in China’s possession and has been for a decade. In fact, it fell into China’s hands in 1995. Wanna guess who was in charge in 1995? What made it possible for the Chinese to completely own Magnequench was this event in 2000:
By establishing normal trade relations with China, Bill Clinton made it possible for China to own companies that supplied military parts, along with those intellectual rights, to the the US Military. At that point, Magnequench in Indiana became completely useless. A LOT of people, including me, opposed the situation of allowing a military antagonist to the US that much access to our military secrets.
Digressing, Magnequench isn’t a threat to our national security because we have the ability to develop our own in California if need be. Given the rise of technology associated with hybrid cars, they are now making similar magnets and such. So, it’s not a crisis. But, it could have been. The free market usurped the dangers imposed by Hillary and Bill Clinton.
Now, eight years later, Hillary wants everyone to forget that she was right there with Bill when he signed normal trade relations with China and allowed military technology to be shipped to China, and allowed China unfettered access to ours. Now, she wants to blame Bush for being compelled, by law, both nationally and internationally, thanks to her husband, for what did not actually happen in Indiana.
That, in a nutshell, is why Hillary Clinton should never be allowed to be President.
17
Apr
Last night I didn’t watch the debate. I prefer to spend my time chasing a five year old around and working in the yard. Additionally, I prefer to just wait till it all filters out through what people take on it after the fact. 90% of any debate is fluff and posing, I just don’t consider that worth watching. The good stuff sticks around for a day or two. Apparently the best part of last night was George Stephanpoulos throwing Obama a curve-ball about his relationship with William Ayers. First of all, a little background on who William Ayers is:
Bill Ayers was a member of Weather Underground in the late 60′s and 70′s. They advocated violent opposition to the Vietnam War. I always loved people who advocated violence to stop a war, that should tell you about how bright they are in the first place. I mean, if we’re gonna have violence, explosions, and death, why not do it somewhere else? Back to the point, his main claim to fame in his quest for violence to end the war was blowing up three of his friends, including his girlfriend. Because of that, he went truly underground for a while. He eventually re-emerged and I guess the FBI decided he was too stupid to prosecute, since he did a better job busting his violent opposition group than the FBI did and the war ended so he apparently had nothing to violently oppose any more. So, he became a college professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Amazing how 1960′s radicals just magically become college professors.
Fast forward to last night. Based on a $200 contribution several years ago, and the fact Obama and Ayers are members of a local charity, Stephanopoulos asked Obama about his relation to Ayers. This is where it gets weird to me. Here’s his reply:
“George … this is an example of what I’ve been talking about. This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.
“And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense, George.”
OK so far, but then he decided to kick in an unnecessary opinion:
Instead, he struck a blow against bipartisanship by mentioning that he is friends with Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who he termed “one of the most conservative Republicans” in the Senate and a politician who “once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions.”
Continued Obama: “Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn’s statements? Because I certainly don’t agree with those, either.
Now, the average person I think would see the difference between someone who expresses an opinion and works diligently with the system to get the change they want, and someone who thinks blowing things up because they’re not happy with it is a proper coping mechanism. What Coburn said I don’t agree with, but I feel he’s rational enough to discuss it. I don’t usually like arguing with people who blow up things they don’t like.
Hillary took the bait and ran with it. As usual, she should have just left well enough alone as Obama’s bizarre comparison wasn’t setting too well with people and Hillary had been handed a gift. She expressed her disdain for the comments Ayers had made after 9/11 and how it was something the Republicans would use in the fall. She was right on that part. However, a lot of pundits are attacking Stephanopoulos for asking what the Republicans would obviously bring up in the fall. I mean, comparing someone who hangs out with radicals ( the preacher ), and terrorists ( the weatherman ), versus a war hero is just too easy to pass up. The problem with last night wasn’t that the question was asked, it was Obama taking the answer too far AND the rebuttal by Clinton. She may not like the comments Ayers made or what he stood for in the 1960′s, but she has more of a connection to supporting The Weathermen that Obama had in the first place:
Now, here’s where it gets very troublesome for both. In Obama’s case, he’s once again linked to the radicals he was inferred to be one of again. Although he did say he didn’t agree with what Ayers was, he cited his relationship with another “radical” as his justification. The donation he received and kept from Ayers is physical proof that relationship exists. In Hillary’s case, she once again has pretty much lied. If she truly opposed Ayers, ergo the Weathermen, she would have openly opposed, or gotten her husband to not to pardon other Weathermen for murders they committed. Ayers killed people by accident, the others were in the act of a crime. Not a protest, but a robbery. For reasons unknown to me, the Clintons saw fit to pardon Susan Rosenberg. Now, which pile of evidence will be more damning, a check from someone else, or a signature by your husband? Hillary claims a lot of her experience from the fact she was the wife of a president. Once again, she wants to cherry pick what that experience is. Obama took a flesh wound from this one, Clinton then took the gun and aimed it squarely between her eyes, again.
The big winner here once again will be McCain. It could have been a moot point to a large degree, but neither candidate could keep their mouths shut.
“It’s all about sex.” Remember that one? You know, the elected official who got busted lieing to a grand jury about having an affair with another person under their leadership and used the bully pulpit their position provided to publicize their defense?
If you guessed Bill Clinton (D), you’re right, but way behind the times. Now, the one smart thing Eliot Spitzer (D) did was resign before he got to that point. However, some people, like Bill (D), aren’t smart enough to do that. Case in point today, Kwame Kilpatrick (D). He swore to a grand jury he did not have sex with that woman, Christine Beatty (D). Only problem was, the investigators had over 14,000 text messages between the two contradicting their claim. That’s not a few, that’s what I call a boatload. What makes it more incredible to me is this was between the dates of April 2002 and May 2003. That’s thirteen months. That’s over 1,000 a month. That’s thirty every single day. That folks, is nuts. Someone sends me 1,000 text messages, they’re blocked.
So anyways, Kilptatrick (D), is in deep doo-doo. Much deeper than Spitzer (D) since he bucked the investigators and lied to a grand jury. Much deeper than Bill (D) since he’s not President of the United States of America.
“Hey Moon, what’s with all the (D)’s?” ya say? Here’s what. Here’s the AP release of the breaking story:
DETROIT (AP) — Kwame Kilpatrick, a one-time rising star in American urban politics who embraced his “Hip-Hop Mayor” image as Detroit’s youngest elected leader, was charged Monday with perjury and other counts after sexually explicit text messages surfaced that appear to contradict his sworn denials of an affair with a top aide.
Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy also charged the charismatic and popular yet polarizing 37-year-old mayor with obstruction of justice and misconduct in office.
Former Chief of Staff Christine Beatty, 37, who also denied under oath that she and Kilpatrick shared a romantic relationship in 2002 and 2003, was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice.
In all, Worthy authorized a 12-count criminal information.
“This case was about as far from being a private matter as one can get. Honesty and integrity in the justice system is everything. That is what this case is about,” Worthy said at a news conference.
“Just when did honesty and integrity, truth and honor become traits to be mocked, downplayed, ignored, laughed at or excuses made for them? When did telling the truth become a supporting player to everything else?”
The charges could signal the end of Kilpatrick’s six-year career as mayor of one of America’s largest cities.
Perjury is a felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison. But for Kilpatrick, a conviction also would mean his immediate expulsion from office. The Detroit City Charter calls for any elected official convicted of a felony while in office to be removed.
The mayor’s office sent out a statement announcing a noon news conference, saying “Mayor Kilpatrick will discuss his outlook on the current legal matter and his continued focus on governing the City of Detroit.”
Kilpatrick has said he would not resign and last week said he expects to be vindicated when all aspects of the scandal are made public.
Worthy said she expected the mayor and Beatty to turn themselves in no later than 7 a.m. Tuesday.
In all, Kilpatrick faces the following charges: conspiracy to obstruct justice, obstruction of justice, misconduct in office, perjury in a court proceeding and two counts of perjury other than in a court proceeding.
Beatty is charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice, obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury in a court proceeding and two counts of perjury other than in a court proceeding.
Worthy said she has spoken to a lawyer for Beatty but was not able to contact Kilpatrick’s mayor, leaving several messages.
She also said the investigation was ongoing and other people could be charged. She said she has had conversations with the U.S. attorney, but would not elaborate.
Worthy said she and her staff have pored over more than 40,000 pages of documents since January, when the Detroit Free Press published excerpts of sexually explicit text messages sent to Beatty’s city-issued pager in 2002 and 2003.
The messages contradict statements Kilpatrick and Beatty gave under oath during a whistle-blowers’ trial last summer when each denied an intimate relationship.
“Witnesses must give truthful testimony, and we have to demand that they do,” Worthy said. “That is why they take an oath. There are variations on courtroom oaths, but basically an oath says, `I do solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that we are about to give in this case will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.’
“The oath does not say, `I do solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony I’m about to give in this matter will be some of the truth, some of the time, when it suits me, and anything but the whole truth.’”
Worthy began her investigation the day after the Free Press published excerpts of the embarrassing text messages in late January. The messages called into question testimony Kilpatrick and Beatty gave in a lawsuit filed by two police officers who alleged they were fired for investigating claims that the mayor used his security unit to cover up extramarital affairs.
In court, Kilpatrick and Beatty denied having an intimate relationship, but the text messages reveal that they carried on a flirty, sometimes sexually explicit dialogue about where to meet and how to conceal their trysts.
The lawsuit ended with the jury awarding $6.5 million to the two officers in September. A defiant Kilpatrick vowed to appeal the verdict, but a month later said settling the suit was in the best interests of Detroit. The city agreed to pay out $8.4 million to the two officers and a third former officer who filed a separate lawsuit.
Documents released last month showed Kilpatrick agreed to the settlement in an effort to keep the text messages from becoming public.
During the trial last summer, Mike Stefani, a lawyer for the officers, asked Beatty if she and Kilpatrick were “either romantically or intimately involved” during the period covered by the case.
“No,” she replied, rolling her eyes.
The mayor, while on the witness stand, later went on the offensive about the allegations, defending his reputation and that of Beatty.
“I think it was pretty demoralizing to her — you have to know her — but it’s demoralizing to me as well,” he testified. “My mother is a congresswoman. There have always been strong women around me. My aunt is a state legislator. I think it’s absurd to assert that every woman that works with a man is a whore.”
Yet the text messages published by the Free Press revealed a romantic discourse.
“I’m madly in love with you,” Kilpatrick wrote on Oct. 3, 2002.
“I hope you feel that way for a long time,” Beatty replied. “In case you haven’t noticed, I am madly in love with you, too!”
On Oct. 16, 2002, Kilpatrick wrote Beatty: “I’ve been dreaming all day about having you all to myself for 3 days. Relaxing, laughing, talking, sleeping and making love.”
Kilpatrick is married with three children. Beatty was married at the time and has two children.
Kilpatrick went into a nearly weeklong seclusion after the Free Press’ report. But on Jan. 30, with his wife, Carlita, at his side, the mayor emerged to apologize to Detroiters on live television for mistakes he had made, avoiding direct mention of the text messages. However, it was a confident Kilpatrick who told city residents he would see them “at work tomorrow.”
For Beatty, who attended Detroit’s Cass Technical High School with Kilpatrick and managed his campaigns for Michigan’s state House and the mayor’s office, the scandal forced her to resign.
Over the next six weeks, city lawyers and Kilpatrick’s attorneys waged a futile legal battle to keep documents related to the lawsuit settlement and text messages from public eyes.
Calls for his resignation surfaced in late January from some city union leaders. Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox repeated that call, and the Detroit City Council echoed it last week with a nonbinding resolution asking Kilpatrick to step down. The council approved the $8.4 million payout but didn’t know about the revealing text messages or the secret deal to keep them quiet and now is conducting its own investigation into the mayor’s handling of the case.
The Detroit Free Press hasn’t explained how it obtained the 14,000 text messages, which were sent or received in 2002-03 from Beatty’s city-issued pager. The newspaper said it cross-referenced the messages with the mayor’s private calendar and credit card records to verify events in some of the notes.
Controversy has surrounded Kilpatrick since his 2001 election as mayor.
Embraced by many Detroit residents for his boldness and confidence, Kilpatrick, then 31, embodied the new black politician and wore a diamond stud earring that helped foster his unofficial title as “Hip-Hop Mayor.”
His first four years were marred by use of his city-issued credit card for expensive travel, the city’s lease of a luxury Lincoln Navigator for his wife and unsubstantiated allegations of a wild party involving his security team and strippers at the mayor’s mansion.
At the start of his second term, Kilpatrick vowed to not make the same mistakes and announced a residential redevelopment along Detroit’s dormant riverfront, hosted a successful Super Bowl that shone a light on the city’s renewal efforts and initiated other improvements.
He had been expected to seek a third term in 2009.
Real quick, count the number of times his party affiliation is mentioned even though it speaks of his rise through the ranks. Hurry!
And, here’s the story of David Vitter admitting to using an escort service:
Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, apologized Monday for “a very serious sin in my past” after his telephone number appeared among those associated with an escort service that operated here for 13 years.
Mr. Vitter’s spokesman, Joel Digrado, confirmed the statement to The Associated Press.
Mr. Vitter, elected to the Senate in 2004, said in the statement: “This was a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible. “Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there — with God and them. But I certainly offer my deep and sincere apologies to all I have disappointed and let down in any way.”
He said his telephone number was on old phone records of the business known as Pamela Martin & Associates, before he ran for the Senate.
Federal authorities have accused Deborah Jeane Palfrey of operating the business as a prostitution ring. She contends it was a legitimate escort service.
They couldn’t get the party name mentioned any faster if they tried.
“So what” you say, a one time deal. “No way”, I say! Remember the recent flap over Eliot Spitzer? It wasn’t too long ago. Here’s AP’s write-up on that one:
NEW YORK – In a startlingly swift fall from grace, Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned Wednesday after getting caught in a call-girl scandal that made a mockery of his straight-arrow image and left him facing the prospect of criminal charges and perhaps disbarment.
“I cannot allow my private failings to disrupt the people’s work,” Spitzer said, his weary-looking wife, Silda, standing at his side, again, as the corruption-fighting politician once known as Mr. Clean answered for his actions for the second time in three days.He made the announcement without securing a plea bargain with federal prosecutors, though a law enforcement official said the former governor was still believed to be negotiating one. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the case.
Spitzer will be succeeded on Monday by Lt. Gov. David Paterson, a fellow Democrat who becomes New York’s first black governor and the nation’s first legally blind chief executive.
The resignation brought the curtain down on a riveting three-day drama — played out, sometimes, as farce — that made Spitzer an instant punchline on late-night TV and fascinated Americans with the spectacle of a crusading politician exposed as a hypocrite.
His dizzying downfall was met with glee and the popping of champagne corks among many on Wall Street, where Spitzer was seen as a sanctimonious bully for attacking big salaries and abusive practices in the financial industry when he was New York attorney general. And his resignation brought relief at the state Capitol in Albany after days of excruciating tension and uncertainty.
“Some rules can’t be broken, and when they are broken there are consequences,” said state Assemblyman John McEneny, a Democrat. “In this case, one of the most promising careers I’ve seen in a generation.”
The scandal erupted Monday after federal law enforcement officials disclosed that a wiretap had caught the 48-year-old father of three teenage daughters spending thousands of dollars on a call girl at a fancy Washington hotel on the night before Valentine’s Day.
Investigators said he had arranged for a prostitute named Kristen to take the train down from New York while he was in the nation’s capital to testify before a congressional subcommittee about the bond industry.
With every development, it became increasingly clear that Spitzer, politically, was finished.
Law enforcement officials said the governor — the millionaire heir to a New York real estate fortune — had hired prostitutes several times before and had spent tens of thousands of dollars, and perhaps as much as $80,000, on the high-priced escort service Emperors Club VIP, whose women charge as much as $5,500 an hour.
Senior Spitzer aides, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said Spitzer had been informed Friday by federal prosecutors that he was linked to the prostitution ring.
They said he had kept it to himself through Saturday night, when he attended the annual dinner of the Gridiron Club in Washington. That night a reporter kept calling cell phones of Spitzer aides.
Spitzer first shared the news Sunday with his wife at their Manhattan apartment, and after several excruciating hours they told their daughters, the aides said. By Sunday evening Spitzer had called top advisers, personal friends and loyalists. The little band huddled in the apartment until midnight.
After making a watery-eyed, non-specific public apology Monday with his wife by his side, Spitzer continued to talk to family and advisers through Tuesday. By Wednesday morning, aides said, he had decided to resign.
He and his wife rode in a black SUV from their Fifth Avenue apartment to his New York City office to announce his resignation — a trip whose every move was captured by TV helicopters. During the news conference, he and his wife stood inches apart, never touching as they entered or left the room.
Speaking in a strong and steady voice, he apologized for his actions and said: “Over the course of my public life, I’ve insisted, I think correctly, that people regardless of their position or power take responsibility for their conduct. I can and will ask no less of myself.”
He did not address the allegations in any detail in the less than three-minute statement, and left without taking questions.
Officials said that Paterson asked for the Monday hand-over because he needed more time to prepare and wanted Spitzer to say the proper goodbye to his staff.
In a statement issued after Spitzer quit, U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia, the chief federal prosecutor in New York, said: “There is no agreement between this office and Gov. Eliot Spitzer relating to his resignation or any other matter.”
Among the possible charges that law enforcement authorities said could be brought against the former governor: soliciting and paying for sex; violating the Mann Act, the 1910 federal law that makes it a crime to take someone across state lines for immoral purposes; and illegally arranging cash transactions to conceal their purpose.
Spitzer, a graduate of Princeton University and Harvard Law, could also be disbarred. In New York, an attorney can lose his license to practice law for failing to “conduct himself both professionally and personally, in conformity with the standards of conduct imposed upon members of the bar.”
It was a spectacular collapse for a man who cultivated an image as a hard-nosed politician hell-bent on cleansing the state of corruption. He served two terms as New York attorney general, earning the nickname “Sheriff of Wall Street,” and was elected governor with a record share of the vote in 2006. The tall, athletic, square-jawed Spitzer was sometimes mentioned as a potential candidate for president.
But he also made powerful enemies, many of whom complained that he was abusive and self-righteous.
“I really don’t feel vindicated,” said John Faso, the Republican who lost to Spitzer for governor. But he added: “One of the many things I said was that Eliot Spitzer had one set of rules for himself and one set for everyone else. I never would have imagined it could be so glaring.”
Traders on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange were transfixed by TV monitors broadcasting Spitzer’s resignation, and his ruin drew scattered applause from traders as they went about buying and selling stocks. One trader said some firms even cracked champagne open — a ritual usually reserved for when the Dow hits a milestone.
Paterson said in a statement that he was saddened, but added: “It is now time for Albany to get back to work as the people of this state expect from us.”
Barely known outside of his Harlem political base, Paterson, 53, has been in New York government since his election to the state Senate in 1985.
Though legally blind, he has enough sight in his right eye to walk unaided, recognize people at conversational distance and even read if the text is placed close to his face.
While Spitzer was famously abrasive, uncompromising and even insulting, Paterson has built a reputation as a conciliator, and lawmakers quickly embraced the new order.
“The first thing he can and I think he will do is end the era of accusation and contempt and ridicule,” said Democratic Assemblyman Richard Brodsky. “I think everyone will be better off because of it.”
If you infer, by AP mentioning other Democrats, that Spitzer is a Democrat, you might by right. However, the opening volley certainly does not say, “Eliot Spitzer, Democrat Governor of New York”.
Remember William Jefferson? You know, the guy busted with frozen money, in his freezer, after taking bribes:
WASHINGTON (AP) – Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., was indicted Monday on federal charges of racketeering, soliciting bribes and money-laundering in a long- running bribery investigation into business deals he tried to broker in Africa. The indictment handed up in federal court in Alexandria., Va., Monday is 94 pages long and lists 16 alleged violations of federal law that could keep Jefferson in prison for up to 235 years. He is charged with racketeering, soliciting bribes, wire fraud, money-laundering, obstruction of justice, conspiracy and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Jefferson is accused of soliciting bribes for himself and his family, and also for bribing a Nigerian official.Almost two years ago, in August 2005, investigators raided Jefferson’s home in Louisiana and found $90,000 in cash stuffed into a box in his freezer. Jefferson, 63, whose Louisiana district includes New Orleans, has said little about the case publicly but has maintained his innocence. He was re-elected last year despite the looming investigation.
Jefferson, in Louisiana on Monday, could not immediately be reached for comment.
Two of Jefferson’s associates have already struck plea bargains with prosecutors and have been sentenced.
Brett Pfeffer, a former congressional aide, admitted soliciting bribes on Jefferson’s behalf and was sentenced to eight years in prison.
Another Jefferson associate, Louisville, Ky., telecommunications executive Vernon Jackson, pleaded guilty to paying between $400,000 and $1 million in bribes to Jefferson in exchange for his assistance securing business deals in Nigeria and other African nations. Jackson was sentenced to more than seven years in prison.
Both Pfeffer and Jackson agreed to cooperate in the case against Jefferson in exchanges for their pleas.
The impact of the case has stretched across continents and even roiled presidential politics in Nigeria. According to court records, Jefferson told associates that he needed cash to pay bribes to the country’s vice president, Atiku Abubakar.
Abubakar denied the allegations, which figured prominently in that country’s presidential elections in April. Abubakar ran for the presidency and finished third.
The indictment does not name Abubakar. But it describes Jefferson’s dealings with an unnamed “Nigerian Official A” who was a high-ranking official in Nigeria’s executive branch who had a spouse in Potomac, Md. One of Abubakar’s wives lived in that Washington suburb.
Court records indicate that Jefferson was videotape taking a $100,000 cash bribe from an FBI informant. Most of that money later turned up in a freezer in Jefferson’s home.
In May 2006, the FBI raided Jefferson’s congressional office, the first such raid on a sitting congressman’s Capitol office. That move sparked a constitutional debate over whether the executive branch stepped over its boundary.
The legality of the raid is still being argued on appeal. House leaders objected to the search saying it was an unconstitutional intrusion on the lawmaking process. The FBI said the raid was necessary because Jefferson and his legal team had failed to respond to requests for documents.
Some but not all the documents seized in the raid have been turned over Justice Department prosecutors.
A little closer, but still not quite the same as Democrat from Louisiana.
In my very limited exercise, AP wrote 3,134 words about three major scandals, and not one single time directly mentioned the word “Democrat” with the person committing the scandal. On the flipside, they couldn’t get past two words before mentioning the word “Republican”.
Someone with more education than I have will have to tell me what the mathematical chances are of that just being luck.
I think it’s something completely different.
30
Jan
Could someone PLEASE explain to me again what the issue is and why it matters? We don’t elect a Pope or head of the church. We elect an administrator to safe-guard our military and fiscal spending. That’s all. What difference does it make what church that administrator is a member of? Are people afraid that if Mitt’s elected all their children will become Mormons? When Kennedy was elected did all the Southern Baptist or Jewish children rush to become Catholics? When Reagan was elected did the children rush to be whatever Reagan was? Once in office, the church of the President has been an almost non-issue. Even with Dubya, who’s as overtly religious as any President I’ve experienced, how many people can quickly name the church he belongs to?
Mitt’s a successful businessman. He obviously knows how to manage large groups of people and large sums of money. That is really all that is truly expected of a President. The fact he attends a minority church to me is just a little more attractive than giving Bill the opportunity to bang fat pages in the White House again.
So, once again, what’s the big deal about Mitt’s religion?
