More On Politics Of Spying

I've been thinking about this in the week after the NY Times domestic spying story. This story was certainly groundbreaking, especially when the secret nature of the information included in the story is considered. To think that (presumably) somebody or several people within the scariest, most secretive organization in the country, the NSA, leaked that type of information to reporters is amazing. Furthermore, the way that this story instantly changed the news cycle is a testament to its magnitude. FISA courts and wiretaps have become worthy of water cooler conversation. While the scope of the story is interesting, one cannot be that surprised that this administration has been involved in this type of power grab. This a great example of an executive vs. legislative/judicial power struggle that will certainly be studied further.

That being said, I have to suspect that Republicans are furious that they have been put into a position where they have to defend the administration's actions. Republicans in Congress have already begun to show their willingness to break with the administration on some domestic issues; Republicans who are generally skeptical of the administration or those who live in vulnerable districts are now finding themselves being identified with the president and/or having to defend unwarranted domestic wiretaps. While the president had shown signs of recovering from the approval rating rock bottom of his presidency, he is once again stuck in a partisan mud throwing contest with Democrats. Aside from any one issue, Democrats will now begin attacking the entire philosophy behind his presidency and certainly his leadership style/capabilities. '06 Republicans need to separate themselves from this president and define themselves to their constituents; they must appear to be above the Republican culture of abuse, corruption, and power hunger.

2008: Secretary Of Defense Reed?

It's obviously way too early to predict election results in 2008. But that doesn't stop me. Should a Democrat get elected in '08, I'm prepared to make an admittedly premature and bold prediction about a possible Democratic cabinet level position (probably one I have no business making - again, that's not going to stop me). Should a Democrat get elected President, I would not at all be surprised if you see Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) nominated to the top civilian position in the Pentagon, Secretary of Defense. Here's a disclaimer: I'm from RI, am familiar with Reed's work, and have met him several times - so am I biased? Yeah, probably. But I'm not the only one who thinks this.

Here's some biographical info on Reed: He's a West Point graduate (the only one currently in the Senate), reached the level of Captain while serving with the Army Rangers, and currently serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee (he is the ranking member on the Armed Services Emerging Threats Subcommittee). While many outside of Washington and/or Providence may not be familiar with his work, those who are know that he is the real deal.

I've noted his rising stature within the Democratic party, particularly after Rep. Murtha unveiled his proposal to gradually draw down our presence in Iraq. After Murtha's revelation, the Democrats needed a person to speak on behalf of the party that could not labeled as a defeatist and could speak realistically about Iraq. And who have they turned to, time and again since mid-November? Sen. Reed.

Reed has been described as a "go-to guy on all matters of policy," particularly military/national security related issues. In a recent Rhode Island Monthly article, local journalist Jim Taricani describes a scene from the Armed Services Committee:

Three senators are clumped together: Democrats Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Clinton of New York, and Republican John McCain of Arizona. The senatorial huddle is waiting for its quarterback. When they spot Reed walking in the room, the huddle loosens, and three of the nation's most powerful politicians welcome the go-to guy on defense issues. Reed counsels his players. They listen attentively, nodding their heads as if agreeing to the plan.

If that account doesn't convince you, consider this, from the same article:

There are many people in and out of Washington who think that Reed's steady climb up the public career ladder has only just begun. Retired General Barry McCaffrey is one of them. This hard-nosed Army officer, who is still consulted by the Pentagon, has the utmost respect for Reed, and [says the following]..."I think that Jack Reed is one of the five people in the United States who ought to be President."

Yeah, that's right. One of the five people; not one of the five Democrats, but people. Whether a liberal from Rhode Island could get elected is another issue entirely. But that's not what McCaffrey was talking about. Based solely on merit and not political realities, he thinks that Reed would make a superb candidate.

In addition, many of Reed's West Point classmates and Annapolis contemporaries are now serving as the nation's military leaders in the Pentagon. Reed has unique contacts and therefore insight into all matters military and therefore, as Sen. McCain has said, "Jack sees things in Iraq that a lot of us don't get to see." Here's more, from The Hill:

But Democrats say his mix of military background, dedication to policy and lack of any obvious ambition for higher office lend credibility to his arguments on Iraq. It is a combination that sharply contrasts with the personas of many Democrats who have chosen to engage in the debate over the war.

That analysis is spot on. Reed has repeatedly denied any desire to move up the career ladder, proclaiming his satisfaction with his job in the Senate. Compare this with, oh I don't know, Sen. John Kerry (and his ego) criticizing the President and his Iraq policy. Reed not only knows what he's talking about, but he even looks like he knows what he's talking about.

Bottom line: Reed is for real, he knows what he's talking about, and people within the Pentagon already have tremendous respect for him. If the Dems can get their act together and take back the White House, don't be surprised to see Reed's name in the running for Secretary of Defense (if he's not already on the ticket...)

Note: That picture is of former Sen. Pell (D-RI), Reed, and former President Clinton on Air Force One in 1994.

The Politics Of Domestic Spying

A quick word on the politics behind the revelation of President's Bush's authorization of unwarranted domestic spying...

I'm not going to get into the legality/extralegality of this issue...I'll leave that to the "experts." When there is a special secret court within the Justice Department with the specific purpose of issuing warrants for domestic wiretapping, it does seen suspicious (to say the least) that the President would deliberately circumvent this process. But lets talk about the politics behind the upcoming battle over this domestic spying program:

First, on Saturday the President offered a strong and fairly compelling defense of his authorization of domestic spying. Simply put, this is really his only option. If he's learned nothing else from the Plamegate fiasco, its that repeatedly saying "there's an ongoing investigation" and therefore the White House has "no comment" only hastens the fall of his approval ratings and undermines what little political capital he has left. His approval ratings seem to have turned the corner and he cannot afford to get bogged down in damage control and a 'no comment' policy. Instead of dancing around the issue, he has attacked it head on, admitting he authorized the spying at least 30 times since 9/11 and proclaiming that he continues to do so for the remainder of his presidency. As he did with remarkable success during both his presidential campaigns, he has claimed ownership of the issues and now has the ability to define them as he pleases. If the president is successful, which I think he may be, it will not be a debate over the legality of his decision; rather it will be a choice between the best national security that he can provide vs. sissy liberal civil liberties complaints. The White House (yes, probably Rove and company) is banking on the fact that the American people will choose national security over civil liberties every time. I expect the Democrats to run, full speed ahead, into this trap; they will once again be painted with the 'weak on defense' brush.

One last point: I get the sense that President Bush is PISSED about the fact that this information was leaked. Do I think that he truly cares about civil liberties? I don't know - he certainly doesn't care as much as he claims to publicly. However, no president should have to deal with such highly sensitive things leaking to the media. He should be careful, though, not to develop a Nixon-like paranoia about such things. Let's sit back and watch this one play out...it's going to be fun to watch.

UPDATE (12/18/05 - 8:58PM): This WaPo story relates Friday's NY Times revelation to the pseudo-fillibuster of The PATRIOT ACT renewal: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/17/AR2005121701113.html?nav=hcmodule

Decking The Halls In New Zealand

From AP: Apparantly 40 drunks dressed as Santa Claus wreaked havoc in New Zealand. Merry F***in Chrismas...

Bush: "Do Not Call Me A Racist"

It is quite clear that the President is starting a PR blitz with the aim of improving his poll numbers and disproving the perception that he resides in a bubble (as Newsweek reported this week). This is a must for the President. After declaring his intentions of spending the political capital that his reelection proved that he had, the President has been dogged by slow progress in Iraq and no significant legislative victories in the first year of his second term. If he hopes to achieve anything in his second term, he must improve his image now. Several polls have shown marginal improvement in Bush's approval ratings (except for Zogby, which has him down a few points in the last month); however, these numbers are soft and as the temperature drops and Americans begin paying the heating bills, these numbers will drop again.

This PR campaign has involved a series of pre-election speeches about Iraq and the first of probably a few prime time interviews. In his series of interviews with NBC Nightly News' Brian Williams, President Bush was asked a series of questions about Hurricane Katrina and the government response to it. While I applaud his willingness to come out of the West Wing and talk directly to the American people, I must take issue with his answer to this question:

WILLIAMS: After the tragedy, I heard someone ask rhetorically, `What if this had been Nantucket, Massachusetts, or Inner Harbor, Baltimore, or Chicago, or Houston?' Are you convinced the response would have been the same? Was there any social or class or race aspect to the response?

Pres. BUSH: I--somebody--I heard, you know, a couple of people say--you now, said, `Bush didn't respond because of race'--or `He is a racist.' Or alleged that. That is absolutely wrong, and I reject that. Frankly, that's the kind of thing that--you can call me anything you want, but do not call me a racist. Secondly, this storm hit all up and down. It hit New Orleans, but it hit down in Mississippi, too, and people should not forget the damage done in Mississippi.

First of all, nobody of any actual importance has publicly called President Bush a racist. (To respond directly to Kanye "George Bush doesn't care about black people" West is ludicrous.) Williams asked him a legitimate question about the class and race dimension to Hurricane Katrina, and the President immediately went on the defensive. He had a great opportunity to address a real problem in American society, and the President completely botched it. It is in candid moments like this that Presidents can speak directly to the public and change perceptions; however, this president has made it clear that he has no interest in acknowledging, let alone addressing, some of the most pressing issues facing this country. He is more interested in remaining a champion of the conservative Right, not the American people.

Chafee Challenger Lands Club For Growth Endorsement

The conservative Club For Growth has announced its official support for Cranston (RI) Mayor Stephen Laffey in his quest to unseat Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI). This is big news for Laffey, but as a resident of Rhode Island I find it funny that he's getting praised as being a tax cutting Republican - all he's done while Mayor of Cranston is tax and spend. He has gone after unions, which is obviously a popular thing to do in conservative circles. His main line of attack against Chafee has to do with spending, particularly pork barrel spending. As a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Chafee has certainly supported quite a bit of pork barrel spending. However, this is a double edge sword for his primary challenger, Laffey: on the one hand Laffey hopes to tap into the national disgust with some of the more frivolous spending authorized by Congress (and there certainly is enough to complain about); however, Chafee has "brought home the bacon", as it were. Here's some of what he has secured for FY 2006: $350,000 for a library; $200,000 for a new school for disabled children; $200,000 for a Sexual Assault and Trauma Resource Center. Even Republicans have to recognize that if there's going to be pork in Congress, we might as well get a piece of it.

Laffey is certainly an odd duck. His biggest selling point in early advertisements is that he is a graduate of the Harvard Business School. I understand that the early portion of any campaign involves introducing the public to the candidate, biographically. But frankly, who cares where you went to school Mr. Mayor? You should probably drop that angle. In addition, Laffey is unquestionably unorthodox in his tactics and style. As a buddy of a local talk show host, Laffey secured his own radio show while serving as Mayor. One of his biggest accomplishments (one that he is not shy to point out, mind you) has been dismantling the benefit package that local crossing guards received. Ooooooo. Ahhhhhhh.

Bottom line: Laffey is an amateur and should stand no chance against the institutional support (i.e. National Republican Senatorial Committee) that Chafee has secured. That being said, Republicans are few and far between in Rhode Island; the number of Republicans that actually show up to vote in Republican primaries is even smaller and is made up of a very volatile group of people. With the money that the Club For Growth endorsement brings, Laffey has more than a reasonable shot of winning the primary (and getting clobbered by any of the Dems in the general election).

At the end of the day, however, I still give Chafee the edge. With the national party behind him, Chafee has the structure and $$$$$$ needed to win this primary and advance to the general election as an incumbent. The national party has already began to attack Laffey. In an early advertisement, they are defining him as "Tax and Spend Steve Laffey" (referring to his aforementioned raising of taxes while Mayor); in a more damning ad, they outline how Laffey has profited from selling oil industry stock on Wall Street and proclaim, "Steve Laffey: Laughing All The Way To The Bank." Here's some of a press release from the NRSC, responding to CFG's endorsement of Laffey:

In a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, Club for Growth Chairman, Pat Toomey, implies that Mr. Laffey will carry the Ronald Reagan torch for limited government and tax reductions. In fact, Club for Growth portrays Mr. Laffey's record as Mayor of Cranston, Rhode Island as one that highlighted hard-nosed spending cuts to correct Cranston's troubled budget woes.

That is plainly and categorically untrue.

Mr. Laffey never cut overall spending - he has increased municipal spending. As Mayor, Mr. Laffey balanced the budget by increasing taxes. In fact, under Laffey's leadership, Cranston now has the highest residential property taxes in Rhode Island...

Mayor Laffey may have balanced the city budget, but he did it by increasing taxes, not through spending reductions. The last time I looked, increasing taxes wasn't the cornerstone of the Reagan legacy. To portray Mayor Steven Laffey as a fiscal conservative has no basis in fact. To portray Mr. Laffey in the Reagan mold is laughable. (Note: Emphasis NOT mine)

Ouch. The NRSC is all over this campaign. They are not going to risk losing this seat by letting amateuruer get the Republican nod. Reports show that high level RNC officials and White House officials have personally urged Laffey to withdraw from the race (by urge, of course I mean threaten to ruin his political career). This is going to be perhaps the ugliest primary in the country. I can't wait.

One further note: I'd like to say that Pat Toomey is a has been, but unfortunately he's better described as a never-was. He served 3 terms in the House before embarrassinging himself by challenging Sen. Arlen Specter - the primary was indeed close, but he tried to take down one of the most respected members of the Senate. And now? He's going after more fellow Republicans. Here's idea Pat. Rather than dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into an effort that, if successful, will only result in a Democratic gain in the Senate, why not find a vulnerable Democrat and try to take him down. 2006 is going to be a bad year for Republican candidates, and people like Toomey are only going to make it worse.

Here's Toomey's endorsement from the Wall Street Journal: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007668

Here's one of the NRSC's anti-Laffey ads (its actually pretty funny and worth watching):
http://www.gopsenators.com/newsdesk/audiovideo/laffey.aspx

Joe's Getting Ready To Jump Ship

The latest buzz in Washington has to do with Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) jumping ship and joining the Bush Administration in a cabinet level position. After reading about this idea, my natural first response was to laugh it off and disregard it. Sure Lieberman is a bit of a maverick and has shown staunch support for the President's Iraq policy. But why shouldn't he? He's been supportive all along and, after an unsuccessful VP run in 2000 and failed Presidential bid in '04, it seems that Lieberman will be remaining in the Senate for the foreseeable future, especially since he remains popular in Connecticut ("all politics is local" - Lieberman work on saving the Groton Base from closure will help in his reelection bid). There would seem to be no reason to retreat from his convictions and adopt a more liberal-friendly position. He's popular enough in his own state and around the country to stick to his guns and not cave to more liberal groups. In addition, Lieberman isn't saying anything too outrageous - he's calling for more bipartisanship when dealing with Iraq. However, he does appear to be increasingly comfortable with the administration.

That has been my general line of thought. But the more I read about and watch events surrounding Sen. Lieberman and the Administration, the more I tend to put some credence in the possibility of Lieberman abandoning his party. Some of my analysis still applies - Lieberman has already tried to reach higher office within the Democratic party. Maybe he has personally concluded that his only hope of moving up is if he switches sides and tries to make a name for himself in the last throes of the Bush presidency. Furthermore, if he does take a job with the administration, Lieberman could view himself as a leader for the moderate, bipartisan movement. Somewhere between ambitiously wanting to advance his career and selflessly sacrificing his party allegiance for bipartisanship probably lies Lieberman's true motive.

Whatever his motives, the trend is clear: Lieberman has been increasingly vocal in his support for the President at the same time that other Democrats are upping the ante in the debate over the war. Reciprocally, the White House has been praising Lieberman for his leadership on this issue and quoting him during public appearances.

The rumor mill has been churning up stories of ineffectual Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld leaving his post since Bush's reelection campaign; the latest round of stories about Rummy finally leaving seem to have some credibility. The general line of thought is that he will leave after Iraq has elected its government. The convergence of Lieberman's support of the President and Rumsfeld's possible departure have produced the current buzz. Here's some of the coverage of all of these events from last week:

From the New York Times:

Mr. Lieberman particularly infuriated his colleagues when he pointed out at a conference here that President Bush would be commander in chief for three more years and said that "it's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that."

"We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril," Mr. Lieberman said...

Although some Democrats are upset with Mr. Lieberman, Republicans are embracing him, with President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld singling him out, and his support for the war, for praise in speeches this week...

Concerns about Mr. Lieberman's coziness with the administration grew this week when he had breakfast with Mr. Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. Later, rumors spread that Mr. Bush was considering asking Mr. Lieberman to join the administration to succeed Mr. Rumsfeld next year as defense secretary.

From the New York Daily News:

White House officials are telling associates they expect Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to quit early next year, once a new government is formed in Iraq, sources said yesterday.

Rumsfeld's deputy, Gordon England, is the inside contender to replace him, but there's also speculation that Sen. Joe Lieberman - a Democrat who ran against Bush-Cheney in the 2000 election - might become top guy at the Pentagon.

That's not as farfetched as it might first appear...

Rumors that Lieberman could replace Rumsfeld started flying early this week, and Bush and Vice President Cheney fanned the flames by quoting the former Democratic veep candidate's pro-war statements.

The mention of Lieberman's name prompted some Democrats to whisper that he is lobbying for the job.

"Lieberman seems to be coordinating his statements on the war with the White House," a Senate Democratic source said.

The source pointed to a news conference this week where Lieberman urged his party not to undermine Bush. The timing of Lieberman's pitch, also this week, to form a bipartisan "war cabinet" to aid Bush was cited as well.

From the Hartford Courant:

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, increasingly isolated in his own Democratic party because of his strong support for the Iraq war, today called on the White House and congressional leaders to form a special "war cabinet" to provide advice and direction for the war effort...

Lieberman cited historic figures like former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and former U.S. Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, whose call for bipartisanship after World War II helped the Allied effort to rebuild Western Europe, and tried to summon their spirit.

"We can't tolerate the kind of division that current exists in our country," the senator said. "Why are we fighting among those who have the same goals?"

All this talk of a new "war cabinet" is interesting. However, for me, it begs the question: Why can't Lieberman spearhead an effort to form a similar bipartisan group of moderates within the Senate or Congress as a whole? If the point of the group would be to discuss Iraq and perhaps recommend policy, as the Courant writes, why couldn't a bipartisan "war caucus" be formed among Senate moderates? Interesting stuff that will be fun to watch. More later.

Climb Aboard The Bandwagon...

Here's the latest in the new collection of Warner literature. Eleanor Clift in the latest Newsweek, writing about Gov. Warner as a credible anti-Hillary candidate:

If primary voters conclude they need a Red State friendly candidate, Virginia Gov. Mark Warner is the real thing...If there's a formula for electing a Democrat president, Warner is the latest iteration...Democrats want to win, and they'll abandon Hillary in a New York minute if they think there's a new more competitive model coming on line.

Clift rightly contrasts Clinton's transparent "dance" to the right, while Warner remains sincere as he travels the country and rubs elbows wieverydayday Democrats desperate for a win in 2008. It's happening. This guy is for real.

UPDATE (12/11/05 @ 11:44PM): The Hotline has a blueprint of Warner's stump speech. Sounds good to me. Here it is: http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2005/12/the_warner_stum.html

More On Democratic Gaffes

I somehow missed this story, but there was yet another Democrat (in addition to Howard Dean, see below) who made an awful gaffe last week. Can you guess who? That's right, former Presidential Candidate/Junior Senator from Massachusetts John Kerry. Speaking with CBS's Bob Schiefer on 12/4's Face the Nation, Kerry said the following:

But I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment. You've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis. And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not......Iraqis should be doing that. And after all of these two and a half years, with all of the talk of 210,000 people trained, there just is no excuse for not transferring more of that authority.

Once again, this is not an issue of whether or not what Kerry said was true. Indeed, I don't necessarily disagree with his sentiment - having Americans breaking into houses and arresting Iraqis just vindicates those who view our involvement as nothing more than an occupation. The American Red Cross has released a report on this type of activity by "arresting authorities" and some of the findings are disturbing. However, nobody is suggesting that our soldiers shouldn't be able to "hunt down" the insurgents, arrest them, imprison them etc. However, the sooner we can have the "arresting authorities" primarily made up of Iraqis, the easier it will be to bring our troops home. I'm not even sure that the President would disagree with this - it coincides with his "as Iraqis stand up, we will stand down" line.

But, Kerry's absent minded wording has only served to embolden conservatives and give new life to their "retreat and defeat" line of attack. For prominent Democrats like Dean and Kerry to be so irresponsible with their choice of words is appalling. It should not have surprised Kerry to learn that using "terrorize" and American soldier in the same sentence was a bad idea. Has he been taken out of context by conservatives? Absolutely. Are they smart enough to understand what Kerry was actually getting at? Of course. Do those things matter? Absolutely not. Again, Kerry said what he said, and now he has to live with it.

It doesn't take much tape to for conservatives to make attack ads against you. Dean and Kerry have personally given conservative groups across the country all they need to label the entire Democratic party as cowardly defeatists who do nothing but give comfort our enemies and undermine our troops' efforts overseas. Once again, John Kerry is falling into a trap set by Republicans - first they labeled him an indecisive "flip flopper" and he responded with, "I actually voted for it before I voted against it" (remember that gem?...Republicans made an ad out of that one too); now, after being labeled the party of "cut and run"/"retreat and defeat", Kerry ostensibly compares our troops to terrorists. Way to go Senator. No amount of backtracking or "putting your comments in context" will fix this. The RNC ad machine is already churning and you're just helping their cause.

P.S. To get a sense of conservatives' response to Kerry's comments, watch this clip over at Media Matters: http://mediamatters.org/items/200512080001

UPDATE: Here it is...this is the first ad, from the RNC's website: http://www.rnc.org/Default.aspx

Dean Continues To Hurt The Democrats

If you haven't heard, DNC Chairman Howard Dean continues to do wonders for the Democratic cause. Earlier this week he told a San Antonio radio station that the "idea that we're going to win this war [in Iraq] is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong." Way to go jackass. What in God's name does Dean think about before opening his mouth. On what planet would that sound like an appropriate thing to say. Oh, were you taken out of context, Mr. Chairman? NOBODY CARES. You said what you said, and in doing so just gave Republicans the soundbite they need to paint Democrats as the party of retreat/cut and run. More than one conservative commentators/talk show hosts have already called for Dean to be tried for treason. It doesn't matter that the mere notion of trying Dean with treason is absurd or that Dean's comments may have had more truth to them than most people would like to admit. He's the voice of the party; he has a tremendous amount of responsibility to make his party look good. Raise money, try to make your party look good, and SHUT UP. That's all you have to do Howie. You moron.

Congressional Democrats have been making progress (not coincidently when Dean's mouth has been shut) in recent weeks in sounding sensibly opposed to the current course in Iraq. Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee/Ranking Member of the Armed Services Emerging Threats Subcommittee/West Point Graduate/Retired Army Captain has been the Senate's point man on all matters related to Iraq in recent weeks. He was chosen by the leadership to give the official Democratic response to the President's speech at Annapolis last week (it became a joint press conference after John Kerry scheduled his own press conference and they were forced to combine the two - yeah, Kerry has an ego issue); Reed gave a similar official Democratic response to another of Bush's recent speeches (12/7?), classifying Bush's rhetoric as nothing more than "vague generalities." Reed is obviously a thoughtful man who actually knows what he's talking about (there's an idea). Contrast Reed's recent comments with the voice/face of the Democratic Party, Dean. Dean is an embarrassment to Democrats and has no business speaking....ever....about anything. But, I must say this - Democrats asked for these type of antics when they gave Dean the Chairmanship as a consolation prize for losing the 2004 primary.

For more of my thoughts on Dean, read here: http://the-last-polka.blogspot.com/2005/11/oh-howard.html (Notice how I was right...about pretty much everything).

Warner's In The Money

This story is a couple days old and I haven't posted in a while (I've been a little busy), but its still worth noting: Now Governor of Virginia and soon to be Democratic Presidential candidate Mark Warner just raised a TON of money for his new political action committee (Forward Together PAC). At a fundraiser/$1,000-$5,000 per person dinner, Warner raised about $2.5 million. This money can't be used for any future Warner campaign, but it will be used to help elect sensible Dems in 2006. The Washington Post rightly notes that Warner will indeed be playing catch up with other Democratic favorites (namely Hillary and Evan Bayh) who can use left over reelection money for a 2008 campaign. So what? If Warner is raising over $2 million in one night 3 years out, he shouldn't be worried. There is a lot of buzz about this guy - my general feeling is he is for real. I've noted before how I feel about a Warner campaign. He's got everything the Democrats have been lacking in the last 2 elections. Everywhere he's gone since his Lt. Gov. got elected to be his successor, Warner has been received very well. Democrats and activists in important primary states are getting excited about this guy. Again, I say...Watch out Hillary (and any other ambitious Dems).