Justin's Thursday Political News 11.01.07

Posted by Justin Baragona on 11.01.2007

John Edwards lays the smack down on Hillary Clinton, President Bush says he will veto the children's health bill over cigarette taxes and Democrats are complaining about the Mukasey.

Welcome to another edition of Justin's Thursday Political News. Halloween was Wednesday. Of course, my office allowed for parents to bring in their children to trick or treat amongst the cubicles. Therefore, I was treated to rude ass little kids demanding candy and being made by their mothers to utter 'Thank you.' If they weren't thankless little devils, then they were toddlers who were wailing at the top of their lungs as their parents carried them along, all while people remarked how cute they looked in their SpongeBob costumes. Goddamn, do I hate little kids! It is probably for the best that I do not have any of my own. On that happy little note, it's time for the news.



Former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) had the following to say about Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) in the Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday night:


"The American people ... deserve a president of the United States that they know will tell them the truth and won't say one thing one time and something different at a different time."



It would appear that based on the debate, and the comments Edwards has been making the past week or so, that he feels that he has nothing to lose now and that he needs to go for the jugular in regards to Clinton. He already knows that he does not want to be a running mate to her, so know harm going down with both guns blazing. At Tuesday's debate, Edwards just lit into the former First Lady and current New York Senator, criticizing her on many fronts, not least of all the large amount of money she has collected from lobbyists and corporations. He basically stated that she will not be able to bring about change in the country as she is in bed with too many special interests that she will have to answer to when she gets into office. Edwards had a great line with the following: "Will she be the person who brings about the change in this country? You know, I believe in Santa Claus. I believe in the tooth fairy. But I don't think that's going to happen." Edwards also criticized Clinton for her support on a resolution that would label the Iranian Revolutionary Council a terrorist organization. He felt it was calculated and that she was trying to move right into a "general election mode." "I think that our responsibility as presidential candidates is to be in 'tell the truth' mode all the time," Edwards said.

Clinton responded back to the criticism by touting her record and stating that she does not think that Republicans feel that she is sounding and voting like them. She also pointed out that at the last Republican debate, she was the main topic of discussion. "If you watched their debate last week, I seemed to be the topic of great conversation and consternation. And that's for a reason, because I have stood against George Bush and his failed policies." However, both Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), who finally decided to stop playing it so safe, made pointed statements in response to Clinton's claim. Edwards said "another perspective on why the Republicans keep talking about Sen. Clinton is, Senator, they may actually want to run against you." "Part of the reason that Republicans, I think, are obsessed with you, Hillary, is because that's a fight they're very comfortable having," Obama stated. One candidate who seemed to come to Clinton's defense was New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who criticized the other candidates "holier than thou" attitude towards Clinton while also stating that the personal attacks were something that was unnecessary. It should be pointed out that Richardson served as Bill Clinton's energy secretary and is most likely trying to get some brownie points with Clinton so that he can be chosen as her running mate.

Personally, I am glad that both Obama and Edwards are calling out Clinton on her reliance on corporate money as well as her conservative voting record. Edwards made more pointed remarks towards Clinton regarding her resolution vote when he stated that he thought it was laughable that she was stating that she wanted to maximize pressure on the president while voting for a resolution that "looks like it was written, literally, by the neocons." While it is nearly impossible for Clinton or Obama to make up the difference with Clinton in the polls, I think they both know that the only way for them to make up that ground is to bash Clinton and point out that she will be nothing more than GOP-lite. Edwards, especially, is making himself appear to be the liberal populist in this election and the one who is more inclined to make changes when he gets into the White House. At the very least, it is refreshing to have him speaking his mind and not pulling any punches, as opposed to the canned speeches and slogans we are getting from Clinton and, until very recently, Obama. He is doing a good job in differentiating himself from the other candidates.






President Bush made the following statement Tuesday in regards to the children's health bill that he vetoed earlier in the month and is threatening to do again if it includes a tobacco tax increase:


"You know, they proposed tax increases in the farm bill, the energy bill, the small business bill and of course, this bill. They haven't seen a bill they could not solve without shoving a tax hike into it. In other words, they believe in raising taxes, and we don't."



So, is the president stating that it is more important for people to have cheap smokes than it is for children to have adequate health coverage? Of course, that is a complete oversimplification of the entire situation, but I'm sure at least one Democrat will say that exact thing (if it hasn't been said already.) What the president is declaring, for the most part, is that he won't sign any legislation from Congress that has any tax increase, as there are other bills in the work, such as an energy bill, that also have tax increases attached to them. However, Bush looks to be fighting a losing battle on the children's bill. While he somewhat has the support of Republican leaders in the House, none of them are fully committed to standing by the president's veto if it looks like the House will be able to override the veto. The Senate already has enough votes to override Bush's veto, and the House failed by only 12 votes the last time the bill was brought up.

When asked if he would support a bill that the president will not sign, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said, "That's always a possibility." House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) also stated that he would need to see the bill before making a decision (I would hope so, Roy. It is your job to know what you are voting on.) Being that these two have given a non-committal to the president in terms of sticking to his veto, many Republicans may feel empowered to go ahead and vote for the popular bill, rather than stick with an unpopular president. I would go ahead and predict that the bill will once again pass easily through the House, but this time with a comfortable, veto-proof margin. Bush will symbolically veto the bill rather than sign it, but the bill will pass anyway once the House overrides it.




Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) had this to say on Tuesday about the President's nominee for Attorney General, retired federal judge Michael Mukasey:


"While his legal credentials are strong, his views on two critical and related matters are, in my view, disqualifying. We don't need another attorney general who believes that the president enjoys an unwritten right to secretly ignore any law or abridge our constitutional freedoms simply by invoking national security."




This all comes from Mukasey's recent testimony before the Senate where he would not state whether or not waterboarding, which is where a detainee is made to feel the effects of drowning, is actually torture. He did state that he felt that it was a "repugnant" practice, but he would not go so far as to say that it violated U.S. torture laws. Due to this, the leading Democratic presidential candidates made sure to jump all over him and state that they will not support his nomination for AG, at least until he relents and states that he will not condone torture or allow for the president to expand his powers in the interest of national security. While I feel that they may be overreacting a bit in regards to Mukasey's testimony and positions regarding national security and the powers of the White House, I see the point they are trying to make. They want to make an example of this administration for what they feel is disregard for the Constitution and the law of the land. While Mukasey should be an easy confirmation, especially considering he will only serve about a year in the position, Democrats want to make sure to that they confirmation is as grueling and in depth as possible, considering the issues that came about during Gonzales' tenure. Mukasey will probably get confirmed, and he is as safe a choice as the president could have made considering his unpopularity, but the Dems will make sure it is not a slam dunk.




Well, that will do it for me this week. One column that I really enjoyed, and feel you should check it out as well, was Mark's. While we may be at different ends of the ideological spectrum and normally don't agree, I found this week's column very informative and interesting. Also, I'm pretty much in total agreement with what he had to say. I'll be back next week with more news in the realm of politics.