What to make of the blogger brouhaha engulfing the Edwards campaign?

First, I guess I have to backtrack from yesterday’s lament that the media doesn’t pay attention to outrageous comments when they come from the left. The New York Times, the AP, CNN, ABC… they’re all paying attention.

(By the way, Terry Moran, in an updated post, explains why he thinks the bloggers’ comments can be described as ‘hate speech,’ and I think he makes an effective argument:

A couple of points. First, it seems to me that trashing the sacred beliefs of another person in sexually explicit or scatological terms for the purpose of wounding and delegitimizing the other person could fairly be construed as hateful. The gutter is always the comfortable resort of haters. That’s why white supremacists use the word “n*****” and slander all black men by portraying them as sexually predatory beasts; that’s why antisemites repeat the blood libel. For another disgusting example of this kind of discourse, check out what “James” wrote about Islam in response to my post on Edwards and Marcotte (at 2:40:24 PM EDT); pure hatred, in my view.

 

There are all kinds of ways to dispute what another person says or believes. Sometimes, giving offense is a great way to make a point, to get heard, to break through the unspoken oppression of certain views. But to seek to obliterate the legitimacy of another person’s faith or other allegiances–and wound them in the process with the vilest terminology–isn’t debate. It’s rhetorical gangsterism.

If one gives absolutely no respect to one’s rhetorical opponents, one doesn’t have much of a right to demand respect in return.)

As of this morning, it’s still not quite clear whether the bloggers have been dismissed, or where things stand as Salon updated its report:

Speculation from sources that the two bloggers might be rehired was bolstered by Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman for the Edwards campaign, who said in an e-mail that she would “caution [Salon] against reporting that they have been fired. We will have something to say later.”

Still, you figure if they weren’t fired (or perhaps being disciplined or reassigned) the Edwards campaign would have just come out and said, “They’re not fired, we stand by our staff.”

On paper, Edwards has reached a point where he just about has to minimize the damage by dismissing the bloggers. How would you like to be the head of “Catholics for Edwards”? How do you make the case that John Edwards is the candidate that Catholics ought to vote for, when he’s seen their writing – semen jokes about the Virgin Mary — and responded with a shrug?

Inevitably, some angry lefty out there will read the above and accuse me of stifling free speech. Hey – Marcotte has every right to write her gross-out humor and sneering disdain for the religious beliefs of millions of Americans (although her assertion that the Duke lacrosse players are rapists may run afoul of libel laws). But Edwards has every right to not hire her, and if he deems her a liability to his campaign, fire her.

How does something like this happen? It’s easy to suspect that the professional campaign class largely falls into two groups. The first are old-school, non-Internet oriented types who don’t read the blogs, can’t be bothered to keep up with blogs, and whose attitude is, ‘let’s get the campaign a blogger, I don’t care who, just get me a big name.’ The other are the political die-hard true-believers who read these writings and who aren’t offended because they largely agree with them; they’ve completely lost touch with how offensive, obnoxious, and out-of-the-mainstream those comments sound to the non-blogging world.

By the way, if writing outrageous, furious blog postings can hinder your future career options, this may actually save the blogosphere. I’m not kidding. A wise man once noted that the character of the medium changed once bloggers started appearing on television. Suddenly, writing a blog wasn’t just a hobby or something done for passion; it was a road to fame and fortune! Thus, blogger sought traffic to attract advertisers and other attention, and the dominant style got shriller, angrier, louder, flashier, less thoughtful and more instantaneously reactive.

If using the F-bomb more frequently than punctuation and metaphorically spitting on the beliefs of others can hinder one’s chances at future career opportunities, we may see a politer, more respectful, kindler and gentler blogosphere.

UPDATE: Jonah offers some thoughts over on the Corner.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Danny Glover – the smart one I used to work with, not the former Detective Murtaugh – thinks I’m dreaming.

And in other news, Leon Wolf of RedState is now the new blogger for the Sam Brownback campaign. Lefties, start your searches through the archives…

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: By the way, I have no intention of working as a campaign blogger, but if I ever do in the distant future, I encourage my future employers to practice something like this:

“All of us here at Edwards/Manson 2016 are appalled by the comments of Mr. Geraghty, and vehemently disagree with the tone and content of the remarks that have come to light. However, it is our understanding that when he wrote those comments, Mr. Geraghty was “off his meds”, and we do not expect additional comments that would contradict the views and standards of this campaign. We will be keeping him on as the official campaign blogger.”

Heck, Edwards might as well try playing that card.

I notice on the site of John Avarosis, my left-of-center sometimes-debating-partner on CNN, a recognition that the housing market is slowing, and that those who bought more than they could afford on credit (no money down, ARMs, etc.) are going to be facing really rough times. One blogger on the site writes that this happened “under the GOP,” while John puts more of the blame on people who bought into a “get rich quick” market.

I’m going to go out and make a prediction (and recognize that I have a blah record at best in this area). With so many presidential candidates looking for a way to stand out in a crowded field, somebody is going to latch onto the issue of a “Distressed Homeowner Bailout” for buyers at taxpayer expense. Expect a lot of rhetoric about its necessity to “save the American dream.” 

Lefty bloggers are upset with former DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe about his comments about illegal immigration on NPR. Hillary Clinton felt obligated to emphasize that his comments do not reflect her position.

McAuliffe’s comment:

TERRY MCAULIFFE: I couldn’t agree more. We’ve got to shut these borders down. These people shouldn’t be coming in this country. We need to enforce our border protections. We have to do something for the people who have been here for years and have paid taxes — you know, we’re for the people who have been in this country and paying taxes and raising their family. But for the people who have not been here, who have been here illegally and have taken advantage of the situation, we need to have a plan to get them back to the countries they came from, and more important, which is the first thing John talks about, we have gotta shut these borders down. I couldn’t agree more.

… I don’t care if you’re a Democrat or a Republican, we all agree you’ve gotta shut the borders down. People who are coming into this nation taking our jobs.

Hillary’s statement:

“These comments do not reflect Senator Clinton’s thinking or her position on immigration.”

“America has been a beacon of opportunity to generations of immigrants and we need an immigration system that respects that heritage while also respecting the rule of law. Senator Clinton supports comprehensive reform that fixes our broken immigration system, strengthens our border security and sanctions employers who break the law. She has supported legislation that provides an earned path to citizenship while respecting the enormous contributions that immigrants make and continue to make to our country.”

Just one guy’s opinion: Moments like this on the Senate floor, where John McCain just dismantles the “I support the troops but not their mission” position of folks like Harry Reid, are among his most appealing as a potential president. Sarcasm, just a touch of biting anger…

His comment on the Warner resolution: “I don’t care whose name is on it, it’s not a Republican resolution.”

This is intriguing news to me, and to the very small minority of foreign policy geeks. Military strategist Thomas P.M. Barnett, author of “The Pentagon’s New Map” and weekly interview subject of Hugh Hewitt, had an “hour of intense dialogue with Obama’s foreign policy adviser.”

Barnett writes that he has also talked with Sen. Brownback’s people.

I saw this story, and my instinct was, “Really?”

What many conservatives regard as the nightmare scenario — President Hillary Rodham Clinton — is increasingly seen by veteran Republican politicians and strategists as virtual inevitability.

In GOP circles, the Democratic front-runner is seen as so strong, and the political climate for Republicans so hostile, that many influential voices — including current and former lawmakers, and veterans of President Bush’s campaigns — have grown despairing. These partisans describe a political equivalent of the stages of grief, starting with denial, then resentment and ending with acceptance.

For now, these Republicans say the party needs good luck, including a change of fortune in Iraq, and a revival of organization and leadership in the conservative movement to avert another Clinton presidency.

“If the conservative movement and Republicans don’t understand how massive the Clinton coalition is, she will be the next president,” former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said in an interview last week, after giving a private talk to GOP lawmakers. Clinton will win, he added, “if we don’t use everything available to us and motivate our base, the people that believe in us.”

Really?

I may be completely wrong. I don’t doubt that Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, and that Democrats start this cycle with an advantage. I don’t doubt that come Election Day 2008, the country will be ready for a new direction, and they will be very tempted to see the Democratic nominee as the better choice for a new direction.

But I’m going to echo the thoughts of a smart Republican strategist-type who said not long ago that the country would have to be “dragged kicking and screaming into a Hillary Clinton presidency.” The country has seen furious partisan passions raging since… impeachment? The 1992 campaign? I mean, think about it – the tooth-and-claw 2000 campaign, the Florida recount, the Jeffords switch, 9/11, the neck-and-neck 2002 campaign, the Florida recount, the long and angry 2004 campaign, and then last year’s long, angry, mudslinging, expensive, noisy midterm elections. A Hillary Clinton presidency means, in all likelihood, that the Republican base will be as angry and loud and outraged as the Democratic base has been these past six years and change. Another four to eight years for this exhausting, disillusioning  scream-a-thon.

Americans are tired of it. Politics are not supposed to take up so much of our attention and energy. Our political leaders are supposed to be competent and a little bit boring. Thus the boomlets of enthusiasm for Obama, and to a lesser extent, McCain and Giuliani – they all come across as guys you can respect, even if you don’t always agree with them.

A President Hillary comes with a significant amount of baggage – not least of which is named Bill – and I think that when the campaign begins in earnest, a lot of voters are going to look at her and ask, “Am I ready for another four years of this?”

Quinnipiac University polled Florida, and found:

Rudolph Giuliani has a razor-thin 47 – 44 percent lead over New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, while Sen. Clinton edges Arizona Sen. John McCain 47 – 43 percent.

Clinton tops former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 52 – 34 percent; McCain gets 42 percent to 40 percent for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, a tie; McCain gets 43 percent to 42 percent for 2004 Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards, a tie.

In a hypothetical Democratic primary, Clinton dominates with 49 percent, followed by 13 percent for Obama and 7 percent each for Edwards and former Vice President Al Gore.

Giuliani gets 29 percent of Florida Republican primary voters, with 23 percent for McCain, 14 percent for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and 6 percent for Romney.

Obama has released the schedule for his (surprise!) announcement that he’s running, no longer exploring. If you’re in Iowa or Illinois, check it out.

Certain bloggers are paying close attention to a particular paragraphs in a New Yorker profile of Sen. Joe Lieberman:

Iraq is the reason that Lieberman calls himself an “independent Democrat.” Democratic voters in Connecticut abandoned him in last year’s primary, favoring the antiwar candidate Ned Lamont. Lieberman ran as an independent, and beat the ineffectual Lamont in the general election in large part because Republicans voted for him. In the campaign, Lieberman said that he would join the Democratic caucus if elected, and his victory was the deciding one that gave the Democrats control of the Senate. But he told me recently that his attachment to the Party is based in some measure on sentiment, and should not necessarily be thought of as eternal.

“A lot of Democrats are essentially pacifists and somewhat isolationist,” he told me. He had particular problems with Senator Edward Kennedy’s proposal to deny the President funding for a troop surge, and with an idea recently raised by the senior senator from Connecticut, Christopher Dodd, to cap the number of American soldiers in Iraq. Lieberman was not willing to say whether he would remain a Democrat if the Party cut off funding for the war. “That would be stunning to me,” he said. “And very hurtful. And I’d be deeply affected by it. Let’s put it that way.” 

Some of these underdog Democratic senatorial candidates are in a really odd, and tough spot. The only way they can get attention and traction against Hillary and Obama is to be bolder, to go further to the left and appeal to the base; essentially, by attempting to end the war by cutting off funding and to paint the frontrunners as spineless by comparison. But that act might be the last straw to Lieberman, and he could flip, giving Republicans control of the Senate again.

High-risk, high-reward strategy. If you want to be the senator who can say, “I’m the man who got us out of Iraq”, you have to risk being the senator who as to say, “I’m the man who cost us control of the Senate.”

I try not to rant about media bias or political correctness much, because after a while it feels like you’re banging your head against the wall.

But Kathryn’s latest column – pointing out the comments of John Edwards’ new campaign blogger, Amanda Marcotte about “What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?” [Sorry to lay that on you, readers, but there’s no other way to so effectively illustrate the obnoxious, vulgar, sneering and confrontational bigoted tone of her comments] – illustrates the ridiculousness of the “rules” for public debate in America today.

I like free speech. I like passionate arguments. I like it when opposing views clash with vigor and volume, when John McLaughlin bellows, “WROOOONG, Eleanor!” I like jokes, and I know that sometimes an attempt at humor is going to fall flat.

But sometimes some comment will cross a line of taste, or decency, or just common respect, and in an ideal world, the body politic would say, in a more-or-less unified fashion, “that’s wrong. That’s unfair. That’s out of line. Knock it off.”

Right now, we have a public debate in which one side is stringently patrolled for anything that could be considered rude, uncouth, or indecent, and the other side is given carte blanche.

A few years back, Rush Limbaugh makes controversial comments about Donovan McNabb, and he resigned from ESPN to spare the network additional protest. Trent Lott made his idiotic comments about Strom Thurmond, and resigned as the party’s leader in the Senate (although returning to a leadership position four years later). Voters punished George Allen for his “macaca” comment, after the Washington Post gave it wall-to-wall coverage for the duration of the campaign.

Just in the past few days, we have seen George Soros explicitly compare the Bush administration to the Nazi regime, and nothing happened – few media outlets believe his comments are even worth mentioning, much less criticizing. Edwards hires a blogger foaming at the mouth about Catholics, and nothing happens. The Hotline’s Blogometer responds, “So What?”

William Arkin’s comments about the troops being mercenaries were exceptionally tasteless, and should have prompted the Washington Post to reconsider whether he was the best national security columnist they could find.

I don’t care that Soros, Edwards’ blogger, or Arkin disagree with me; lots of people do. I do care that we are establishing a precedent where no statement warrants rebuking or public condemnation, as long as it comes from one political perspective. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. When Limbaugh brought up race in his discussion of McNabb, he was stepping clumsily into a sensitive topic and a rebuke was inevitable (though I love Rush, I think he was just flat wrong in that situation). It is good that Lott was rebuked for insinuating that America should have elected a segregationist generations ago, and while I think Allen paid an awfully steep price for losing his cool, there’s no denying that there was something ugly in his confrontational, belittling tone with the young cameraman from the Webb campaign.

But the movers and shakers of our public debate – those who set the news agenda for our major newspapers, wires, magazines, radio and television have decided that they will only object to outrageous comments to one side. And that is not good for either side of the debate.

I wrote a story in the Philadelphia Inquirer last year, lamenting the fact that death threats were becoming increasingly common in the blogosphere, and commenting that no matter how stark our political differences are, writing “I hope you die” ought to be unacceptable. The overwhelming reaction from Philly readers was… “How come you only picked examples of death threats from the left? Why are you covering up death threats from the right? You right wing [long string of profanity]!” Utterly depressing. Political discussion, in this atmosphere, is becoming impossible.

UPDATE: Maybe I spoke too soon. The New York Times writes of the Catholic League’s objections, and I’m stunned to read:

Mr. Edwards’s spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri, said Tuesday night that the campaign was weighing the fate of the two bloggers.

The two women brought to the Edwards campaign long cyber trails in the incendiary language of the blogosphere. Other campaigns are likely to face similar controversies as they try to court voters using the latest techniques of online communication.

Ms. Marcotte wrote in December that the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to the use of contraception forced women “to bear more tithing Catholics.” In another posting last year, she used vulgar language to describe the church doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Kudos to the Times for paying attention, and it appears, so far, that the Edwards campaign might just be taking this seriously.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Several Hillary Spot readers note that the Times report mixes up the Immaculate conception and the Virgin Birth, pointing out that Marcotte’s sneer was about the Virgin Birth. The Immaculate Conception refers to Mary being conceived without original sin, despite being conceived the regular way.

Honestly, I’m just thrilled that the Times recognized that those words could offend someone, and weren’t “normal” language or descriptions in the conversational circles of New York Times reporters… but I suppose that could be the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Roger Simon writes in the Politico that the Democratic frontrunners (Hillary, Obama) may skip some early debates. Okay, well, he speculates that they may not attend some, as neither has accepted nor turned down an invitation to debate yet. They do have day jobs, of course.

I am in agreement with Simon 100 percent that if the Nevada Democratic Party is going to have a debate, there is absolutely no good reason to have it in Carson City when the national press corps is itching for a chance to go to Vegas on expense accounts.

“Exotic Dancer Candi said she wants to see more details from Edwards on his health care plan…”

If at some point in the near future, Barack Obama’s campaign hits a bump, he could do much worse than to go before the press and paraphrase the great Steve McCrosky: “Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit smoking.”

David Broder was not impressed with Wes Clark’s appearance at the DNC winter meeting, and he actually slams the Democrats as a party:

One of the losers in the weekend oratorical marathon was retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who repeatedly invoked the West Point motto of “Duty, Honor, Country,” forgetting that few in this particular audience have much experience with, or sympathy for, the military. The larger disaster was the long harangue of former Alaska senator Mike Gravel, a strident critic of almost everything and promoter of a folly — a national initiative process — that not even a deranged blogger could love. Someone has to give him the hook before the real debates begin.

To Clark’s credit, “Won’t Back Down” is a great campaign song. I would have gone with Tom Petty’s version instead of Johnny Cash’s, but hey, Tom Petty hasn’t had a biopic made of him recently.

Elsewhere on NRO, Todd Seavey is upset that Hillary Clinton is using “Right Here, Right Now,” by Jesus Jones, a song that has vaguely conservative, hooray-that-the-Cold-War-is-over-and-Communism-is-dead lyrics.

Obama did not pick a song for his DNC appearance. May I recommend Living Colour’s “Cult of Personality”?

Hillary Spot readers continue to look over Edwards’ comments, and find them wanting.

Michael notes a subtle mischaracterization in his discussion of the Social Security taxes:

He also subtly mischaracterizes the cap as applying to “families.”  In fact, the cap applies to individuals, which means that households with a husband and wife in the workforce have potential can get taxed on up to $188,400 of income.

It’s tough to say how this information impacts his argument, since he seems to be working very hard at not taking a position on the issue.  If the system continues under the same rules but creates a “bubble” where no SS tax is paid between $94,200 and, say, $150,000, won’t that leave a lot of the middle class out in the cold?  For example, an individual who makes $150,000 and has a stay at home spouse will benefit from the “bubble” to the fullest extent possible ($3,459.60 – using 2006 cap).  However, a dual income couple who each make $75,000, but have the same gross household income as the other couple, will not see any benefit from the “bubble.”  I’m wracking my brain trying to figure out who Edwards would root for in this scenario.  In truth, neither feeds into his “two America’s” theme, so both couples will probably [get the short end of the stick].

Numerous readers pointed out that Social Security taxes are paid with 6.2 percent of your pay and 6.2 percent from your employer, up to (this year) $97,500. Edwards didn’t specify whether if the cap were raised under his plan, whether employers would be paying an additional 6.2 percent on the additional amount.

Hillary Spot reader David wonders who told Edwards about brokerages report capital gains and how individual’s taxes on those gains are paid.

On John Edwards MTP interview, he said, “we need to do a much better job of collecting the taxes that are —that are already owed. And a very specific example of something we should do, we should have brokerage houses report the capital gains that, that people are incurring, because we’re losing billions and billions of dollars in tax revenue, and billions and billions of dollars from capital gains not being reported.”

He is in error. All brokerage houses are required to report capital gain transactions on IRS Form 1099 where it is then further reported on the individual Schedule D. This information has been reported to the IRS for at least the last 22 years I have been in the brokerage business. Former Senator Edwards is grossly misinformed.

I guess Edwards could be referring to some sort of ongoing organized fraud scheme against the IRS, requiring collusion between the brokerage house and the taxpayer. But if that’s the case, and he knows about this being a common practice among, say, former trial lawyer multimillionaires, then he ought to be calling the FBI or IRS.

By the way, this isn’t the first time Edwards has run afoul of the facts when talking about taxes on investment. Back in 2004, FactCheck.org took Edwards to task for running an ad insisting that multimillionaires pay less in taxes than a teacher, but Edwards was comparing the teacher to a hypothetical multimillionaire with no income, only investment returns. How many millionaires have no income at all?

I recognize that in the Meet the Press interview, Edwards was speaking extemporaneously, and that he may not have every exact figure at the tip of his tongue. But the net effect of these little errors here and there create a sense that health care is a fairly easy fix once we get those rotten rich people to pay their fair share of taxes.

It’s almost as if there are two Americas: one in Edwards’ mind, and one that the rest of us live in.

A seven page release on Edwards’ health care plan is here. The New York Times puts the price tag at $120 billion.

A lengthy discussion of health care policy, revealing how there really aren’t that many easy answers, can be found here and here.

UPDATE: Man, this discussion is going to go waaaaay beyond my knowledge of tax law.

Hillary Spot reader John writes in, “Perhaps what Edwards was suggesting is taxing shareholders on unrealized gains — that is, taxing them on the appreciation in shares held in brokerage accounts but not yet sold.  I can easily see Edwards advocating such a thing.”

Charlie points out, “Brokerage firms report sales of stocks, the proceeds of sales, and the dates of those sales to the IRS. They do not report the cost/ basis, which is needed for determining the amount of capital gain. They do not report the date of purchase, which is needed to determine whether the holding period is long term or short term. So there is
an opportunity to cheat under current procedures for those who choose to take that risk.”

Hillary Spot reader Tom brings this to my attention. Yesterday Edwards said:

MR. RUSSERT: But what about for Americans, say, who are 50 and younger, the next generation? Could you establish something different for them?

 

SEN. EDWARDS: I think there’re multiple ways to do it. You know, we could do—one example is, we now have a cap on, on, on the taxes that’re paid. About—it’s about $90,000. And does that cap make sense? Maybe not. Do we need to be—do we need, perhaps to—if we’re going to raise the cap or eliminate the cap, do we need to have a bubble for middle income families that earn over $90,000 a year? Maybe. I think there’re—I think there’re tools available to us, and we certainly do need to deal with it.

To his credit, Edwards said “about” $90,000, but that was the amount in 2005. Last year the cap was set at $94,200; in 2007, the amount is $97,500. According to the Social Security Administration, this limit increases each year with increases in the national average wage index.

I guess one of the advantages of being a presidential candidate who doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in heck is that you can call ‘em as you see ‘em, like when the Senate votes on an Iraq resolution:

The result is a conflicting mix of signals that says the Senate “disagrees” with the troop increase; endorses Bush’s insistence that U.S. security depends on a self-governing Iraq; lists military objectives; conditions support on “benchmarks” that must be met by the Iraqi government; eschews withholding funding; and says that its recommendations “should not be interpreted as precipitating any immediate reduction in, or withdrawal of, the present level of forces.”

“I don’t know how you can vote for this resolution,” [Connecticut Democratic Senator Christopher] Dodd said, “and then simultaneously be for a redeployment of forces in the coming months.”

You almost want Dodd’s proposal requiring a new authorization for the war to come to the Senate floor, just to watch the panic in senators required to actually have a position and commit to it.

Aw, heck, why don’t they just introduce a resolution declaring, “We, the Senate, like all the good parts of the war and disapprove of all the bad parts. We demand all credit for anything that goes right, and reject any blame for anything that goes wrong”?

In other John Edwards news, various bloggers are noting that his tone on Iran’s nuclear program sounds a bit different when he was speaking in Israel as compared to other venues. The candidate, speaking in Israel: 

Edwards: Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Speaking to the American Prospect:

Klein: Can we live with a nuclear Iran?

Edwards: I’m not ready to cross that bridge yet. I think that we have lots of opportunities that we’ve … We’re not negotiating with them directly, what I just proposed has not been done.

Edwards isn’t quite blatantly contradicting himself, but there’s a big difference between “never” and ”I’m not ready to accept it yet.”

I know John Edwards is in a tough spot. He’s apologized for his vote authorizing military force in Iraq, but he’s got to also figure out how to deal with his rhetoric supporting the war beforehand, and even into 2004 as John Kerry’s running mate.

But to say on Meet the Press, essentially, ‘well, I didn’t really think about it until after the election’ doesn’t strike me as the best possible answer.

(Videotape, October 10, 2004)

 

MR. RUSSERT: If you knew today, and you do know, there is—there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, would you still vote to go to war with Iraq?

 

SEN. EDWARDS: I would have voted for the resolution, knowing what I know today, because it was the right thing to do to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein. I think Saddam Hussein was a very serious threat. I stand by that, and that’s why we stand behind our vote on the resolution.

 

(End of videotape)

 

MR. RUSSERT: That’s a year and a half into the war.

 

SEN. EDWARDS: Mm-hmm. Perfect—that’s a very fair question. I can tell you what happened with me, personally. We got through—I was—at that point, I was in the middle of a very intense campaign, one that I thought was very important for America. When the campaign was over and the election was over, we had a lot going on in my own family. Elizabeth had been diagnosed with breast cancer, we were taking care of her. And for the first time I had time to really think about, number one, what I was going to spend my time doing, and, number two, my vote for this war.

Later, Edwards makes something of an odd comment about Obama – indicating that his opposition to the war – which is now, essentially, Edwards’ position – was poorly informed. And yet, somehow, right: 

MR. RUSSERT: Another opponent in the Democratic race for the presidency is Barack Obama of Illinois. In October of 2002, he was a state senator in the Illinois legislature. He came out against the war, and I want to share his words with you and our viewers. “ I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

 

“I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.”  His judgment was on the money.

 

SEN. EDWARDS: Yeah, he—he’s correct. Now, I will say, he wasn’t burdened, like a lot of us with the information that we were receiving on the Intelligence Committee. And as members of the United States Senate, we were getting very intimate, detailed information about what was actually happening in Iraq. Senator Obama, I think, you—what’d you say?–was a state senator at the time. So he obviously wasn’t, wasn’t in the Congress and wasn’t part of the—of the decision making. But a lot of those predictions turned out to be true.

MR. RUSSERT: You mentioned the vote in the Senate, and this is what you said about it. “ That nonbinding resolution against Iraq troop surge favored by Barack Obama? ‘Useless,’ said Edwards. ‘Exactly like a child standing in the corner and stomping his feet.’”

 

SEN. EDWARDS: True.

 

MR. RUSSERT: So the Democrats shouldn’t vote for the resolution against the president’s surge.

 

SEN. EDWARDS: Oh no, it’s fine to vote for the resolution, but the—complaining at this historic moment in American history is not enough. I mean, we won the election. We’re now in charge of the House and the Senate. We have—we have the power to actually do something about this escalation.

Later in the program, Edwards talks about health care with a lot of “I want to do this, I want to do that,” and, to his credit, some details about expanding Medicare and S-CHIPs and something called “health markets.” He admits several times he’s willing to raise taxes on people making more than $200,000. But here’s the part where he drove me nuts:

SEN. EDWARDS: Well, here’s, here’s what I think we’re going to have to do, actually, in both cases. This is such a hot political issue that it will require serious—this is the one area where it will require really serious bipartisan effort to get anything done. You know, this has been approached and approached and approached in the past. But I do have—and, and so what I would do is, let me first say what I would do as president of the United States, I would bring together leaders on both sides and experts and put—try to put together something that would work on both Social Security and, and Medicare.

Arrrrgh! Yes! How original! Let’s try and work together in a bipartisan fashion! Let’s bring together leaders on both sides and experts! That’s never been tried before!

MR. RUSSERT: But what about for Americans, say, who are 50 and younger, the next generation? Could you establish something different for them?

 

SEN. EDWARDS: I think there’re multiple ways to do it. You know, we could do—one example is, we now have a cap on, on, on the taxes that’re paid. About—it’s about $90,000. And does that cap make sense? Maybe not. Do we need to be—do we need, perhaps to—if we’re going to raise the cap or eliminate the cap, do we need to have a bubble for middle income families that earn over $90,000 a year? Maybe. I think there’re—I think there’re tools available to us, and we certainly do need to deal with it.

If I’m reading him correctly, eliminating the cap on Social Security taxes would mean raising taxes 6.2 percent on every dollar made past $90,000, which would make for a huge tax increase on top of his previously proposed increase in federal income taxes.

Beyond that, Edwards said he was rooting for the Colts – and when Russert pointed out that decision will cost him the Illinois primary, Edwards responded that Obama probably has that wrapped up anyway.

It’s subscriber-only, but Martin Peretz notes that Barack Obama backer George Soros has made a reference explicitly comparing the Bush administration to Nazi Germany, and declaring that the country has to go through a “de-Nazification” process. (Hat tip, Instapundit.)

Another summary:

Last week at Davos, Soros made the likes of Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn look downright patriotic.  The New York Post writes that after asserting that the United States is recognizing the error it made in Iraq, Soros said, “To what extent it recognizes the mistake will determine its future.”  Soros went on to say that Turkey and Japan still suffer from reluctance to admit to their dark moments in history, and contrasted that reluctance to Germany’s rejection of its Nazi-era past. “America needs to follow the policies it has introduced in Germany,” Soros stated. “We have to go through a certain de-Nazification process.”

There was a time when this stirred outrage, but now it just seems depressing. Because we know Obama will not feel the need to distance himself. We know no Democrat on Capitol Hill will feel compelled to say, “I strongly disagree with the policies of the Bush administration, but comparing them to the Nazis is out of line and beyond the pale.” We know that very, very few lefties will feel insulted or outraged that the country as a whole has been compared to Nazi Germany. We know that some lefty believing himself smart or funny will insist that Bush isn’t as smart as Hitler.

Any fear of demonstrating Godwin’s law got obliterated a long time ago.

Naturally, the lament at the Huffington Post is that “Neocons” are trashing him and the need for a “political purge” in America.

Saturday morning his time and Saturday afternoon my time, I had the chance to talk briefly with Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts and candidate for the Republican nomination for president in 2008. The following is not quite an exact quote, as my tape recorder picked a most convenient time to die on me; it’s the best transcription my finger speed could achieve.

Jim: Technically my beat at the Hillary Spot is the Democratic primary… Do you have any thoughts on the dynamics of what’s going on in the opposition party?

Gov. Romney: Well, I’m not a political pundit, I don’t make it a practice to strategize on the developments in Democratic party – or my own party, for that matter. Right now I’m focus on my own message and policy initiatives… I will say that it sure looks to me like Hillary Clinton is far and away most likely to receive nomination.

Jim: So at this time in the previous cycle, the flavor of the month was Howard Dean, Dr. “I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for” and “YEAARRRRGH.” This year, it seems to be Obama. Is this a sign that the mood of the country has shifted, that anger has been tried and rejected as a way to galvanize support?

Gov. Romney: This has been my first occasion to travel around the country, but what I have seen is that Americans want to less talk and less bickering and more progress and action. We face some extraordinary challenges as a nation – health care, our schools are falling behind the rest of the world’s, too much of our paychecks are going to taxes. Americans see that Washington bickers and points fingers, and they want to see some action and solutions.

Jim: I know elected officials don’t always like hypotheticals, but I think you’ll like this one. You win the presidency in 2008, and in January 2009, right after you’re sworn in, the leaders of the House and Senate say, ‘to honor your mandate, we will pass any three pieces of legislation you like. Beyond that, we’ll fight you tooth and nail.’ What would those three pieces of legislation be?

Gov. Romney: I’m going outlining over the next year my policy prescriptions for a whole series of matters. It’s tough to say what my first three pieces of legislation would be, or if I could only pass three, which those would be. My priorities are several: first to win the battle against the jihad. Second to help the country become more competitive; I want us to reach standards so that they exceed those of Asia. [I believe the governor was referring to education and economic productivity.]

I want to help solve our domestic weaknesses – the failure of health care, failure of our schools. And I want to make us independent of foreign oil. I want to be an action oriented president, and the president can focus on more than one topic at a time.

Jim: I’m glad you spoke at the National Review Institute summit, even though I wasn’t able to attend. I presume you saw the comments on the Corner by Rich Lowry, that you should have addressed Iraq more. Any reaction?

Gov. Romney: Well, he’s correct that I didn’t talk a great deal about Iraq; I wanted to concentrate on Iran. You have different speeches for different audiences. I had spoken about Iraq before, and in fact I spoke about Iraq a great deal yesterday.

Jim: Was it a fair criticism?

Gov. Romney: All criticism is fair; it represents the viewpoint of the author it is true that in my address I  didn’t speak much about Iraq. But I have in other speeches. Next week, I’ll be speaking at the Detroit Economic Club, where I won’t be speaking about Iraq or Iran there, I’ll be speaking about the economy. I spoke a great deal about Iran at the Herzliya Conference in Israel. In any given speech, you can’t speak on all important topics.  I can understand that Rich felt I should have spoken more about Iraq.

Jim: I’m happy that I’ve got work covering a campaign starting in early 2007, but I can imagine not everyone is thrilled by the fact that we’re having, in effect, a 23-month election cycle, and a 13-month primary (at least), which is much longer than in the past. What does the longer cycle change for a campaign like yours?

Gov. Romney: Not having been a part of previous cycles as a candidate, it’s hard to judge, but I was speaking to George Stephanopoulos by phone earlier this week and he mentioned that he was hired as the first staff member of Clinton campaign in would have been October of this year of that cycle. [In other words, Steph was hired in October 1991.] It gives you a sense of how the process has changed just in that short period of time. The bad news is that a campaign needs lots of money, more money for airplane fares, more money for staff. But it is fun, because with a longer campaign, you get to meet a lot of people.

Jim: What’s your goal in the coming months, before, say, the first debate in April?

Gov. Romney: At this first stage you listen as much as you speak. There are lot of questions asked, lots of discussions, one on one, and I use these occasions to describe my views about the future of this country and about where we’re going to be. 

Jim: What’s been the greatest challenge of the campaign so far?

Gov. Romney: Hmm. It’s gone very well so far, I think the challenge might be that I’m having a hard time answering that question. I think it’s important to hire the right team, and I’ve been very successful so far. Our financial team is strong so far, I think you saw that we raised $6.5 million on our first day. We have a good ground team in each of early primary states, and a good national team. The question will be, can the candidate keep up?

Romney was preparing to speak at a Lincoln Day dinner in Louisville, Kentucky, and then heading on to meetings in Cincinnati.