-
sponsorship
This is the sixth entry in "The Fringe," a
periodic look at the lesser-known candidates for president. Read the archives here.
The Fringe suffered its first rejection this week. On
Tuesday I called Randy Crow, a North Carolina Democrat running for president,
hoping to profile him for this series. But Crow said what none of the other
Fringers have: he didn't want the press coverage. He told me that he doesn't
like being the oddball fringe candidate that the mainstream media trots out to
show how easy it is to run for president. He'd be willing to talk if I asked
him for a quote on a policy-related story that I also asked the frontrunners
about. Fair enough, I said.
But that doesn't mean Mr. Crow's website is off limits. Click over to it
and you'll meet a conspiracy theorist who claims he's a descendent of Pocohontas, thinks the
New York Times is in cahoots with the Bush administration, and thinks "zioni$m"
is a major problem for the country.
Crow's biography
is comprehensive, to say the least. He helped run his family business, owned a
"high tech sewage plant," and is an avid reader. He's 61 and has already spent
$70,000 on running for 13 different political offices. Also, people play "dirty
tricks" on him:
In 1994 I started having some weird events
of a dirty trick nature enter in my life. It took me five or six years to
figure what was going on and even to this day what was and is going on is a
little unclear. One thing is for sure, my PHD in the capabilities of
clandestine forces did not come from osmosis.
Crow is convinced
that the planes that crashed into the World Trade
Center towers were
controlled via remote by the Bush administration. Moreover, the publishers of
both the New York Times and USA Today are in on the plan. He also thinks the "DC snipers are patsies,"
referring to John
Allen and Lee Boyd Malvo (who aren't responsible for the DC
shootings, according to Crow).
He's unabashedly anti-Zionist. He says he doesn't think he's
anti-Semitic, just anti-Zionist. "Some people, usually zioni$t$' and
communi$t$, as a means of trying to nullify me, say I am prejudiced against
Jewish people. This is not true. I was not raised to hate anyone or to be
prejudiced against any person." Those dollar signs must be typos, in that case.
There's plenty more, but I'll let his own list of "problems
in the United States"
speak for itself:
1) communi$m 2) The Economy 3) US
dollar 4) Alan Greenspan 5) God under attack 6) The media 7) Rigged political
system 8) President making war on the economy as much as he is making war
around the world 8) Homeland Security 9) The Patriot Acts 10) Gun Control 11)
Vouchers 12) Military Tribunals 13) NAFTA 14) Faith Based Programs 15) Farmers'
plight 16) Merger Mania 17) Credit card interest rates 18) Stock Market 19)
Enron 20) Social Security 21) Short Selling commodities 22) Interest paid on
savings too low 23) Mortgage debt 24) zioni$m 25) Total elimination of
inheritance taxes 26) Oil & gas prices too high
Sorry we didn't get a chance to talk, Mr. Crow.
-
sponsorship
There was a point during last night’s debate, as Chris Dodd railed against Hillary, when a friend turned to me and said, “Imagine if it was Obama saying that.” It’s a sentiment a lot of Democrats have been thinking over the past few weeks. What if Obama started talking like Dodd?
A few weeks ago, Dodd put a hold on the FISA bill that would give immunity to telephone companies that cooperated with government wiretapping. More recently, he became the first Democratic candidate to publicly oppose the confirmation of Michael Mukasey as attorney general. Since then, Sen. Biden and the three front-runners have all jumped on board. (Mukasey’s refusal to classify waterboarding as torture and his views on executive powers have irked other Democrats, too.) Both moves have won Dodd admiration among activists and, while his prospects for election may still be dim, but there’s no doubt he has shaped the debate.
Why hasn’t Obama done the same? As Washington Monthly’s Kevin Drum noted the other day, Obama needs a new issue. He may have struck gold last night when Hillary went knock-kneed over the secrecy surrounding her National Archive papers. But in the meantime, there’s no reason he shouldn’t take the lead in opposing Mukasey. He missed his first chance. But if Mukasey’s nomination comes to a vote, most likely next week, he will have a second shot: the filibuster.
The last person to call for a major judicial filibuster was John Kerry during Samuel Alito’s confirmation hearings. That plan didn’t go particularly well and even drew him some scorn, since many senators considered it futile. But with more and more Dems turning against Mukasey’s nomination, Obama would likely have more backing.
No word yet from Obama’s campaign on whether they’d consider using the filibuster. Hari Sevugan, a spokesman for Dodd, said the senator would be “considering what options are available.” The filibuster is clearly one of them. The question is, who will push for it first?
-
sponsorship
From the communications team that brought you Snackgate 2008, here's the latest (Click to enlarge):
-
sponsorship
Pundits have been slamming Hillary’s debate performance on two counts—her ambiguous answer about driver's licenses for illegal immigrants and her evasiveness over whether she would release her papers stored in the Clinton Presidential Library. (Transcript here.)
On the second question, she was particularly unconvincing. When moderator Tim Russert asked her if she would make available her communications with the president in the 1990s, she said that’s “not my decision to make.” As if she might not have some pull with the former president. Her evasion makes it sound like she—or Bill—has something to hide. (So far, the dodge seems to be working.)
But on the question of Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to offer driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, she’s been getting an unfair rap. Yes, she equivocated: “I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it.” Yes, she contradicted herself: When Chris Dodd pointed out that “you thought it made sense to do it,” she replied, “No, I didn't, Chris,” which is simply untrue. But her waffling served a purpose. She was trying to say that the policy “makes sense” without actively supporting it—a distinction that, while Clintonian, is reasonable for a candidate to make. She recognizes the tough circumstances Spitzer faces and, if you read into her language, it’s clear that she supports his decision. But she also doesn’t want to say something that could be used against her in the general election. (“Driver's licenses for illegal immigrants” in scary bold lettering would fit nicely across the TV screen.)
Russert and others were trying to get her to hitch her trailer to Spitzer’s rig. But she shouldn’t have to—it wasn’t her decision. People are right to be concerned about equivocation, especially from someone whose husband redefined the term. But there’s a middle ground between supporting a policy and denouncing it. For a front-runner to try to occupy that space shouldn’t be all that shocking.
-
sponsorship
Is it just me, or does the “lightning round” represent everything that’s wrong with American political discourse? I understand that candidates can get wheezy and it's necessary to set limits. But the idea that you can even begin to give a satisfying answer in 30 seconds is absurd. Worst of all, you get these extended cut-off battles, which makes the candidate’s answer sound verbose and meandering, even when it's not:
[BRIAN] WILLIAMS: Governor Richardson, we're going to start with you. This is about something called Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. It's called TIMSS. A number of overseas nations took part in it. It found that overseas students spend an average of 193 days annually in school. The deficit compared to the U.S., where it's 180 days -- over 12 years, that adds up to one-year gap between education in the U.S. and overseas. Do you believe we in this country need to extend the school day and/or extend the school year? And will you commit to it?
GOV. RICHARDSON: Yes, I'd commit to it. And I'm glad finally education is coming up in a major debate. This is what I would do. We are 29th in the world in science and math compared to the EU, to countries in China and India. They graduate four or five times more engineers. There is a competitiveness gap here. This is what I would do. One, I'd have 100,000 new science and math teachers. But we have to pay our teachers what they deserve, a minimum wage, what I believe, of $40,000 per year. I'd get rid of No Child Left Behind. I would have science and math academies.
MR. WILLIAMS: Time.
GOV. RICHARDSON: But in the high school curriculum, it's critically important --
MR. WILLIAMS: Time.
GOV. RICHARDSON: -- that we have more civics, more language, and art in the schools --
MR. WILLIAMS: Governor?
GOV. RICHARDSON: -- to provoke creativity in science and math proficiency.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thirty-second limit on these.
(See nifty New York Times transcript analyzer here.)