note: I had a HUGE update today. Large. Major! And then, just as I published it, blogger burped and I lost it all. I simply can’t reconstruct it today, so you get the stripped down version. Tomorow, I’ll give the delux version!
Bush administration Faces Subpoenas From 9/11 Panel
The chairman of the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks said that the White House was continuing to withhold several highly classified intelligence documents from the panel and that he was prepared to subpoena the documents if they were not turned over within weeks.
The chairman, Thomas H. Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey, also said in an interview that he believed the bipartisan 10-member commission would soon be forced to issue subpoenas to other executive branch agencies because of continuing delays by the Bush administration in providing documents and other evidence needed by the panel.
“Any document that has to do with this investigation cannot be beyond our reach,” Mr. Kean said on Friday in his first explicit public warning to the White House that it risked a subpoena and a politically damaging courtroom showdown with the commission over access to the documents, including Oval Office intelligence reports that reached President Bush (news – web sites)’s desk in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks.
“I will not stand for it,” Mr. Kean said in the interview in his offices here at Drew University, where he has been president since 1990.
“That means that we will use every tool at our command to get hold of every document.” more
I rather enjoy being mentioned on other blogs. Sometimes the comments are good. Sometimes they’re bad. Sometimes they’re just… there.
A few days back I got mentioned in an old friend’s blog. He was writing about General Wesley Clark being my candidate for the democratic nomination. For the record, he is in Howard Dean’s corner.
He wrote something, though, that I wasn’t aware of:
“Dean has said straight out he would openly endorse any of the other candidates should they get the nomination.”
I haven’t heard that Dean has said that. I do know that Dean has hinted that his followers will NOT automatically vote for the democratic candidate should it not be Dean. And given what is at stake for 2004, I think that is a bit dangerous.
Quote: “I really do believe � and I think about this � I want to get this nomination, and if I don�t . . . these kids are not transferrable. I can�t just go out and say, �Okay, so I didn�t win the nomination, so go ahead and vote for the Democrats.� They�re not going to suddenly just go away. That�s not gonna happen.� link
Put it into this perspective, if this is indeed a pespective worth considering:
On Democratic Underground, polls are conducted at least weekly on the democratic candidates – asking various questions. These are usually done by supporters trying to prove whose candidate actually is leading.
One recent question was, “If your candidate does not get the nomination, will you support the candidate who does?” or something along those lines.
Dean supporters overwhelmingly said “NO.”
The blogger in question went on to voice his agreement with a recent Daily KOS entry where it was expressed that the national polls mean absolutely nothing at this stage in the game. The only polls that matter, he says, are the local primary polls. Once the nomination has been gained, then we can start paying attention to the nationals.
Whaaaaa? Polls revealing who has the best chance in beating Bush mean nothing?
I have a small problem with this. Yes, Dean leads in all the primary states that have thus far taken polls. However, nationally, some polls show Dean trailing Bush in the general election. These same polls show Wesley Clark either beating Bush or statistically even with him.
What does this say? It says Clark is garnering support from more than just the democratic base – and with the country seemingly divided right down the middle, the democrats need more than the democratic base to win.
If winning is the most important thing.
Again, let’s examine Ruy Teixeira’s, co-author of “The Emerging Democratic Majority,” analyzes of an October Gallup poll to discern “The Demographics of Clarkism”:
“While Clark receives more support than Dean among both men and women, his margin over Dean among women is just 3 points (16 percent to 13 percent), but an impressive 12 points among men (29 percent to 17 percent),” Teixeira points out. “He also beats Dean in every region of the country, but especially in the South (25 percent to 8 percent). Also intriguing is how well he does among low income voters (less than $20,000), clobbering Dean by 26 percent to 5 percent. In fact, Clark bests Dean in every income group up to $75,000. Above $75,000, Dean edges Clark, 26 percent to 25 percent.”
Might I also add that Clark’s impressive military record is wooing the so-called “Reagan Democrats,” Democrats that bolted the party and voted for Reagan in 1980 and ’84.
Let me say before I wrap this up that I am above all things an ABBer (Anybody But Bush.)
If another candidate’s national numbers and broad appeal were as phenomenal as Clark’s, I’d be in his corner.
And what good will it do to win the nomination if you are already behind Bush nationally?
I will gladly and rabidly support Dean if he is the Demnom. But I can’t help but feel, based on the words and actons of Dean’s supporters and Dean himself, that this is an ego thing with Dean. His victory in the primaries is more important, it seems, than the ultimate victory of the democratic party. Remember how Ted Kennedy acted in 1980 when Carter won the nomination? He embarassed the party. Will Dean have one of his famous temper tantrums should he not get the nomination?
Doesn’t any of this sicken you?
Michael Moore on Wesley Clark
Short, small MP3. Funny yet enlightening. Click here.