411 Politics Fact or Fiction: Week 54

Posted by Brandon Crow on 08.06.2007

Will the diametrically oppposed Stephen Feher (staunch conservative) and Brian McLain (flaming liberal) bring Crow his first 0 for 4 scoreboard?!

Good morning to all, and welcome back to another week of Fact or Fiction in the Politics Zone. This is Week 54, and the "Oldies But Goodies Tour" continues for this edition of F or F. Last week, we saw mainstays Mark Radulich and Josh White come out of hiding to do battle on the F or F stage. This week, we reached even further back into 411 lore and came up with 411 Politics' "OC" (Original Conservative) Stephen Feher, and the "Father of the Ragin' Liberal" Brian McLain.

Quick plug: Brian, the Angry Scotsman has been posting some good work these past several weeks on the 14 points of Fascism. Be sure to check out those columns under the heading "With Special Guest Star."
Last week, I tried to follow Ryan Latimer's legacy by attempting to score an 0 for 4 on my first time at bat. I swung and I missed! I ended up with a lousy 50% (2 for 2). I promised Ryan I'd try harder this week. Let's see how I fared.

Ding, Ding!

1) Simply put, Pat Tillman was used by this administration to stoke fervor for the Iraq War, and his family was disgracefully lied to for the same reason.

Brian McLain: FACT. Pat Tillman was used as star power for the patriotic drive against Iraq. He left an extremely lucrative career in the NFL and enlisted to defend his country. What better Army advertisement could anyone have made. The problem was that Tillman saw the war as a fraud, saw the war was based on nothing but lies, and was planning on leading the charge in America after he got back for withdrawal. Tillman was not killed in combat or friendly fire, this man was killed for political reasons and that alone should be a wake up call to all of us of how potentially low this administration can go.

Stephen Feher: FICTION. Of course the Army wouldn't want to admit that any soldier was killed by friendly fire, much less one as high profile as Tillman. I believe President Bush's public recognition of Tillman's Silver Star was meant to honor the troops, though, not as a propaganda tool.

Lt. General McChrystal, whose recommended Tillman for the Silver Star said it was due to "devastating enemy fire" and who later backed off that statement, still feels that Tillman died honorably and is worthy of the award. According to the AP, McChrystal gave the latter memo to members of Central Command, and felt then that the circumstances of Tillman's death were in doubt, not clearly wrong.

I should also note that Tillman served in Afghanistan, not Iraq, though I certainly appreciate the recognition that both are two fronts in the same war.

(Editor's note: Ah, but I never claimed he served in Iraq, only that his death was used to stoke fervor for the war in Iraq…)

I do believe that Corporal Tillman's family was lied to and that the cause of death was covered up to avoid embarrassment. I just think that it was done so in the Army chain of command, not by the Administration. So I answer "fiction" tepidly. Call it HISTORICAL FICTION.

0 for 1. Ok, I don't know if I'd take the same "conspiratorial route" as Brian did, but I certainly don't agree with Stephen's take that the cover up was in the Army and not the Administration. This is, after all, an administration that did not do anything about Abu Ghraib till the torture photos went public; would not admit Rumsfeld ran an incompetent war till years later; proclaimed nobody told them of the severity of Hurricane Katrina till the video conference where Michael Brown was shown telling Bush of the severity finally found its way to the surface; denied knowledge of the horrific conditions at the VA Hospital until Bush himself made the blunder of saying in public that "of course I knew. I'm president."; and currently, is ordering officials to not cooperate in the US Attorneys scandal. Do I have irrefutable, paper proof that the Administration was involved? No. Is there enough of a patterned history for anyone with two eyes and handful of brain cells to connect the dots? Certainly.

2) Currently, Senator Hillary Clinton has the support of 37% of Democratic voters surveyed. This is up from 33% just a month ago. Senator Barack Obama remains at 21% and former Senator John Edwards is holding at 13%. Clinton is starting to run away in this race and will, in fact, be the Democratic nominee for president.

Brian McLain: FACT. It's already in the cards, its already in the books, Clinton will be the presidential nominee and I can see Obama being the running mate. Must be all that money Clinton is getting from Fox News mogal and attempted Dow Jones swollower Rupert Murdoch. Wait...what?

Stephen Feher: FACT. And I don't think this surprises anybody. Hillary has been priming herself for a Presidential run since her husband was still in office. She's a high profile Senator from a high profile state, and her last name is still gold among Democratic voters.

Senator Obama's stature has by and large been a creation of the media: he's a nondescript one-term Senator with a single break-out convention speech to his name. Whatever support he would receive for being an ethnic minority is negated by the fact that the frontrunner is a woman. Obama would make an excellent vice-Presidential candidate, or perhaps a future Presidential Candidate, but he's not ready for prime-time.

And Edwards is damaged goods. He ran on a failed ticket four years ago, and is currently trying to run a class warfare campaign in between getting $400 haircuts.

Hillary's opponents are a highly flawed group. Her image will be closely guarded since she's a woman and a Clinton. Conventional wisdom seldom holds up throughout the campaign (how's the view down there, Senator McCain?), but this one is an easy call: Hillary Clinton's going wire to wire to win the Democratic nomination.


1 for 2. WHAT?! An agreement between McLain and Feher? Damn it, there goes my perfect record!! Alright, NOW I'm calling for a gosh darn conspiracy!

3) Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson has not even announced officially that he will join the 2008 race, and yet he is polling at a consistent 20% (more than Al Gore on the Dem's side). Once Thompson announces, his numbers will go up and he will overtake Giuliani as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination.

Brian McLain: FICTION. Thompson is not going to run. Period. End of Story. The man is ill with terminal cancer and his campaign is being strictly directed by Bush himself. He's being thrown up to fill the giant, sucking black hole left by McCain as he quickly dies away and keep more non-Neo Con candidates like Tancredo or Paul from filling the void and getting more news coverage.

Stephen Feher: FACT. And I'm not just saying that because I have two Fred Thompson bumper stickers on the back of my truck. The question pretty well answers itself: when someone who hasn't entered the race and only formed an exploratory committee a couple of months ago is tied with someone who's been campaigning for more than a year, then he's clearly primed to take the lead in the race.

Republican primary voters are hungry for someone with both conservative credentials and the ability (whether real or perceived) to be a strong leader and a strong candidate. Thompson has already taken shots from the media (such as the abortion-lobbying story) and still maintained his poll numbers, so the increased scrutiny declaring would bring shouldn't hurt his poll numbers.

I will qualify this, though, by saying that his window of opportunity won't stay open forever. His supporters were excited for an announcement on July 4th weekend. That got pushed back to the end of the month. We're now into August, and no formal announcement seems imminent. If Thompson waits too long, he'll lose whatever momentum he currently has. But if he declares his candidacy before the end of August, he's a lock to overtake Giuliani and the rest of the GOP field.

1 for 3.


4) A recent Newsweek poll has Bush at a 26% approval rating. Historically, this is one of the lowest ratings without some form of tangible scandal ( i.e. Nixon—25% right before resignation). The Bush Administration deserves this rating and frankly, brought it upon themselves.

Brian McLain: FACT. Let me try to say this in a professional sort of way...DUH. However, I would say there are lots of tangible scandals, since I believe that wiping your feet on the Constitution every chance you get is a scandal. But then, that might just be me...

Stephen Feher: FACT. At times, Bush almost seems like he's trying to figure out just how low his rating can go. A major component of his low approval rating is, of course, the war in Iraq. Support for the war (and as a result, for Bush) has traditionally risen when Bush is aggressive in presenting the American public with the reasons for a continued military presence there. Yet we don't hear anything from the President. Nothing about the positive reports coming from General Petraeus. Nothing about the sheer barbarity being reported by Michael Yon.

When leadership on the war would help him, Bush is silent. Yet he manages an impressive act of bipartisan leadership by uniting Republicans and Democrats together in opposition on the amnesty bill, even going so far as to suggest that the roughly 70% of Americans opposed to the bill were racists.

The public wants an explanation as to why his assistant US attorneys were fired, and we get silence. Yet he has no problem vocally supporting Attorney General Gonzalez, a man who even Republicans think should be fired.

He commuting of Scooter Libby's sentence managed to anger both Democrats who felt Libby deserved worse and Republicans who were clamoring for a full pardon (I thought the commuted sentence was exactly right, but I'm a distinct minority there).

The list goes on and on. Bush has lately seemed to do everything in his power to not only stoke the coals of hatred on the left, but alienate his supporters on the right in the process. Bush doesn't have anybody to blame for his low approval rating except himself.

At least he is still more popular than Congress at the moment. So he's got that going for him, which is nice.

Thanks to Mr. Crow and the staff at 411 for inviting me back for Fact or Fiction. Comments or concerns about my responses can be directed to [e-mail]

2 for 4. Again, I must live with the mediocrity of 50%. I guess I'll have to hang my head in shame for another week… Ryan, please don't move back to Michigan from Florida just to reestablish some credibility into this column! And by the way, Mr. Feher, you're very welcome. Anytime you want another shot on F or F, shoot me a line and you're in.

Editor's Note: This wasn't Crow's idea. I suggested to him that he should invite Steven and Brian to For F. The nerve of the old windbag. That crazy blackbird is trying to credit for an idea which he had nothing to do with. I swear that he does these sorts of things just to annoy me.

Well, I'm still searching for readers who want to try their hand at keeping the old Crow in mediocrity! If you'd like to participate, please email me at [e-mail]. See you in seven.