The 8 foot inflatable Grinch has a new friend this year. I picked him up in Normandy last winter. He's this tackly little fellow who was hanging on practically every house in northern France. Had to have him. I'm waiting for someone to call the cops thinking Santa is threatening to jump.
Nice analysis of the cover story of the very-conservative National Review, which basically thinks the Republicans are toast next election and beyond. If you ever needed a story to help perk up your mood, this one will do just that. Enjoy.
Well, I mean, he did catch Osama bin Laden, so there's really no more threat. Oh. Never mind. But at least Iraq is free. Sort of. Oh that's right, we spent all our money and all of our military resources on a war we didn't need and now don't have anything left for the war we do need to fight. This would be shocking if it weren't typical. Get ready for Bush and the GOP presidential candidates to blast the Dems sometime soon as being soft on terror.
A break from the hostage situation in NH to get an update on Rudy's growing scandal.
This thing just keeps getting worse for Rudy as ABC's The Blotter gets more information that contradicts the former Mayor. This has become a textbook campaign scandal. Now, we're dealing with the lies and the cover-up of the original scandal about Rudy using taxpayer dollars to finance his extra-marital affair with Judith Nathan. Yesterday, Rudy tried to blame NYPD. NYPD's chief says otherwise. Lies and cover-up:
Giuliani said Thursday the unusual billing practice was not intended to hide anything but instead to speed payment of American Express credit card bills.
But the current New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said today he knew of no problems with the delay of payments before Giuliani was mayor, when Kelly served under Mayor David Dinkins, or since.
"I don't recall anybody, any statements about delay," Kelly told reporters.
He said all bills for the police details for Dinkins and now for Mayor Mike Bloomberg are handled directly "through the police department."
Back to you, Rudy. What's your lie to explains this?
Oh, wait. Rudy's not talking to the media today. Now we're seeing the pre-9/11 Rudy. That's the Rudy New Yorkers hated.
4:51 pm NBC tentatively identifies the suspect as "Leland Eisenberg." Son-in-law claims he was "drinking and that he was someone who wanted to be hospitalized."
4:48 pm "That was the most pointless press conference of all time" was the message I got from a reader. And, he's right.
4:35 pm Just heard from a very reliable source that all of Clinton's offices in Iowa have been shut down.
3:44 pm MSNBC: From AP, There were four hostages, but three have been released. One hostage is still being held. Also, the suspect is "known to local authorities from a past incident and that he may have a history of emotional problems."
3:19 pm ABC NEWS: Suspect is an older male with a history of mental illness who told his son today "watch the news."
2:58pm You can watch live coverage of the story on the local TV news in NH via this link.
Officials with the campaign confirmed that there were two workers taken hostage in the office on 28 North Main St., and NBC News reported that the man demanded to speak to Clinton.
Clinton, who is not in New Hampshire, canceled a National Democratic Committee meeting in Virginia....
Witnesses described the man as in his 40s with salt-and-pepper hair. There are several police officers in the area with guns drawn....
"There are sharp shooters on the roof, and police are negotiating with someone in the building," said another witness, who did not want to be identified. "The police are notifying all the business owners on the street to evacuate. There are fire trucks behind the Hillary Clinton office."
Presidential candidate Barack Obama also has an office in Rochester, and it has been evacuated. Staff members in John Edwards' office, which is a few buildings away, were also evacuated.
CNN reports that Hillary just canceled her speech she was going to give momentarily at the DNC winter meeting here in Virginia.
Channel 5 Boston has much more. The national cable TV networks have totally dropped the ball on this story - it took them a good half hour AFTER ABC broke the story on their Web site:
The incident happened at about 1 p.m. Friday at 28 North Main St. in Rochester. The man had what appeared to be a bomb strapped to himself inside the Democrat's office, according to Bill Shaheen, a top state campaign official.
A witness said that she spoke to a woman shortly after she was released from the office by the hostage-taker.
"A young woman with a 6-month or 8-month-old infant came rushing into the store just in tears, and she said, 'You need to call 911. A man has just walked into the Clinton office, opened his coat and showed us a bomb strapped to his chest with duct tape," witness Lettie Tzizik said.
There are several police officers positioned across the street from the office, crouched down behind cruisers with guns drawn, according to a reported at the scene.
"There are sharp shooters on the roof, and police are negotiating with someone in the building," said another witness, who did not want to be identified. "The police are notifying all the business owners on the street to evacuate. There are fire trucks behind the Hillary Clinton office.
"I walked out and I immediately started running, and I saw that the road was blocked off. They told me run and keep going," said Cassandra Hamilton, who works in an office adjacent to the building.
Nearby businesses have been evacuated, and the St. Elizabeth Seaton School has been locked down.
An armed man took people hostage at a New Hampshire campaign office for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton on Friday, New Hampshire's WMUR TV reported.
Clinton, who was scheduled to campaign in Virginia on Friday, was not present at the office in Rochester, New Hampshire, according to TV reports.
The number of hostages was unclear, WMUR said. A separate report on MSNBC said a man claiming to have a bomb strapped to him walked into the campaign office.
The rumors are swirling that Hillary might consider asking Colin Powell to be her VP and that Obama may be considering NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Weird but interesting notions for each candidate. Pohell isn't exactly loved by Democrats, and he really screwed President Clinton, his commander in chief, to the tune of insubordination in the early 90s. Odd that there might be a rapprochement with the Clintons now. I'm not sure Hillary can or should trust Powell. And it's an interesting question, though not a very PC one, as to whether America will take kindly to the first woman president and first black vice president being on the same ticket (and even if they wouldn't, is that a reason not to do the ticket?) As for Obama, also a bit odd, talk of him considering a Republican, albeit a very moderate kind of Democrat one, isn't going to thrill party regulars.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. Well, actually, there is. First, Giuliani is running as a Republican, and the Republican party is the party of family values. Adultery isn't a family value. Second, Giuliani didn't just use taxpayer money to pay for his security while visiting his mistress - and I would agree, he was the mayor of NYC, he needed security even during his off hours - but he then tried to jigger the books to hide the money he was spending on his security for the adultery. That's creepy. And it's of questionable legality as well - you just can't charge the NYC agency dealing with "lofts" for your security to visit your mistress. And Giuliani is now telling the media that he charged obscure agencies for his security detail while visiting his mistress because it was easier to bill it this way. Hmmm. Then did Giuliani use this innovative accounting method, charging the wrong agency for his security, for any other extra-curricular activities beyond his adultery? And just as important, why did Giuliani keep charging the security detail's expenses to different agencies each time, as though he were trying to hide it by spreading it around?
Giuliani is falling into the classic political scandal trap. You get caught, then you lie, then you get caught in your lie, making the story even bigger.
Ah yes, a president who lies and then breaks the law because of his adultery. Plus ca change...
I've decided, for now at least, to do a weekly election update on the podcast. Joe really is one of the smartest people I know when it comes to elections - he has a scary knowledge of polls and districts and facts about why a caucus isn't a primary, and more. So, each week, we're going to do a round up of where the elections stand and why. This week, Joe and I invited longtime Internet reporter Jacki Schechner (formerly of CNN) to join us. I think it turned into a really interesting discussion, and hope you agree (I also left the file in stereo mode this time, which I think adds a nice touch). You can listen to the broadcast via this link (just click and it should play the audio file on your computer), you can subscribe to our podcasts via iTunes here, or you can subscribe to our podcast RSS feed here. This show is about 26 minutes long, so perfect for the treadmill :-)
The right wingers are in a frenzy over the CNN YouTube debate. In their world view, it's somehow diabolical that real Americans, some of whom were Democrats, submitted questions to the candidates. The GOPers have gotten used to watching Bush live in his his bubble where he's only greeted by adoring fans. Apparently, right wingers only want their candidates to be insulated from anything except immigration bashing and supporting Bush's war in Iraq -- and top GOP operative Grover Norquist who managed to get a question.
Seriously, how are any of these wimps going to stand up to Al Qaeda if they can't even take a tough question from a Democrat?
Rudy, Rudy, Rudy. The GOP front-runner is in BIG trouble. He's got a major scandal on his hands -- having taxpayers finance his affair probably won't go over so well with the GOP voters. Just imagine how insane the right wingers would be if a Democrat pulled a stunt like that and also tried to cover it up.
Jonathan Klein, the President of CNN, has got himself yet another biased reporter.
The wife of Dan Senor, who served as a spokesperson for Bush in Iraq, is now working for CNN. Normally, who a reporter's spouse is wouldn't and shouldn't matter. And, it wouldn't if Campbell Brown didn't show an obvious bias. Last night, in her first week on the job, she attacked MoveOn:
During the November 28 CNN special Campaign Killers: Why Do Negative Ads Work?, CNN anchor Campbell Brown said: "General David Petraeus made his reputation taking on insurgents in Iraq. But when he came to Capitol Hill in September, he was confronted by American insurgents, a liberal anti-war group called MoveOn.org."
Seriously, comparing MoveOn to insurgents is beyond the pale. That is such an obviously loaded term. Campbell Brown showed a clear bias, plain and simple.
Actually, Campbell, if you want to know what real insurgents are, ask your husband and his colleagues who let the insurgency grow in Iraq under their watch. He even still has his White House web page touting that gig.
See. Setting a withdrawal timetable really isn't all that difficult. A country just needs a new leader:
About 550 Australian combat troops in Iraq should be withdrawn by about the middle of next year, Prime Minister-elect Kevin Rudd said on Friday, setting a broad timetable for the soldiers to return home.
Australia has about 1,500 troops in and around Iraq, but Rudd won power at the Australia's national election on November 24 with a promise to bring frontline forces home.
“Earlier this month, Congress approved nearly a half trillion dollars for the Department of Defense. Just two weeks ago, House Democrats passed $50 billion in additional funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have provided every penny that is currently necessary to fund Defense Department operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world. It is President Bush and his Republican allies in the Senate who are preventing extra funds from reaching our troops.
This is becoming a very big scandal for Rudy Giuliani at the worst possible time. ABC's Jake Tapper just did a devastating piece showing Rudy claiming a "hit job." Yet, Rudy didn't deny what happened -- he just tried to rationlize it and change the subject:
Late this afternoon Giuliani told ABC News this story was a "hit job."
"This was really done to try to focus on my personal life," Giuliani said.
He said the NYPD always reimbursed city agencies for his security details' expenses.
"They were handled openly, honestly, it was the practice that was going on since my first term and the idea was to get the bills paid quickly," Giuliani said.
Comptroller Thompson said this about the Mayor's explanation: "That's not the way that we operate these days and it would not be the preferred way of doing business," Thompson said. "In the end, it's a very convoluted way of getting things done."
"If anyone hoped that no one would notice, they were being foolish," Thompson told ABC News.
Um, Rudy, this is about your public life intersecting with your "personal life." You were having an extramarital affair. And, you were using taxpayer dollars to facilitate that affair. And, you tried to hide it. So, Rudy, that makes it an issue.
Welcome to the big leagues, Rudy. And, stop your whining. You've been busted.
These Republicans are so thin-skinned. Rudy and Mitt are escalating their intra-GOP spat. Have at it, boys:
"I thought that that was Mayor Giuliani showing his nasty side," said Romney communications director Matt Rhoades. "And it was a personal attack of a personal nature, and the audience booed him."
Giuliani aide Bill Paxon, a former Republican congressman, said it was Romney who initiated the attack on Giuliani.
"Others have tried to misrepresent his record. And I think they learned that he doesn't take it when he's attacked. He's going to come back, he's going to tell the truth, he's going to lay it out," Paxon said.
Surprise surprise surprise. What surprises me is that it took this long for the Democrats to get cold feet.
As you may recall, the hate crimes bill (adding sexual orientation, gender identity, disability and gender to the already-existing federal hate crimes law) was added on to a defense bill in the Senate (Bush threatened a veto, thus the reason it was added on to a must-pass bill that Bush would be uncomfortable vetoing), it passed the House as a free-standing bill. Well, it appears that House Republicans are now balking at adding the hate crimes legislation on to the same defense bill in the House, which would pretty much guarantee it would make its way to the president's desk, then he'd have to veto a defense bill, which would be quite interesting. The House Republicans are up in arms about attaching a gay thing to a defense bill (surprise), and the Democrats, the conservative ones at least, are siding with the House Republicans (again, big surprise there). So let me ask the following question: At what point did we not think that the Republicans were going to squawk because this was added on to a defense bill? I mean, I'm all for adding it to must-pass legislation like the defense bill in order to try to short-circuit Bush's veto - in fact, it's a very smart strategy. But it was also painfully obvious months ago that the GOP would complain that we were "polluting" a defense bill. So why is everything heading south now, as if the GOP complaint, and conservative Dem defection, is suddenly some kind of surprise we weren't prepared for?
This is looking very much like the ENDA debacle where, suddenly, everyone was surprised that adding "gender identity" (e.g., transsexuals, cross dressers) was somehow a controversial notion. Like no one thought it might be controversial before the brouhaha?
And a final PS. The bill is already passed in the House as a free-standing bill, and it's already been passed as part of the defense bill in the Senate. That means that the real issue here is whether the Dems have the courage to keep the hate crimes provisions in the House-Senate conference report (i.e., after they reconcile the House and Senate versions of the defense bill). The Dems run the House and Senate, so if it drops from the conference report, it means that senior Dems agreed to drop it. Just remember that.
My God. I had no idea it was that bad. 40%? And the article in today's Washington Post makes it sound like a good thing - the numbers are trending downwards. Al Qaeda schmaeda, our biggest threat is ourselves.
Northern Rock, previously one of the leading mortgage providers in the UK, took a higher international profile recently after being the first big bank to be caught in the credit crunch. This triggered a run on the bank and massive government intervention to keep the bank in business. Besides being caught up in those banking problems, The Guardian is now reporting that the bank promoted a charity fund, though the charity in question was unaware of the relationship.
And at the heart of Granite's operations is a rather peculiar fact: on paper, at least, it had been set up to benefit charities, and in particular a small organisation for children with Down's Syndrome, and their families, which was being run from a semi-detached house on the outskirts of Newcastle.
Even more peculiar, perhaps, is the fact that nobody at Northern Rock bothered to tell the children's charity that it was a beneficiary, and the charity never received a penny from Granite.
For seven years, Down's Syndrome North East (DSNE) raised small sums of money as best it could. There was £125 from a man who cycled across the United States, children at a primary school in Middlesbrough chipped in £100, and the North East Ladies' Luncheon raised £750. And the whole time, the volunteers who kept the charity running were unaware that it was supposed to be the beneficiary of a trust which had raised £71bn on the international financial markets and which enjoyed a turnover of £1.8bn last year.
After the Guardian asked Northern Rock for an explanation, the bank apologised to DSNE for what it described as an "oversight" and promised the charity that it would receive a donation in the future. The bank then told the Guardian that the charity might receive a payment - but only if its trust was wound up.
The "charity trust" set up by the bank raised £71 billion (double that and add some for dollars) though it remains to be seen if any charities were aware of this.
This piece on Obama is just mind-bogglingly awful. Essentially, this is the summary: "There are a bunch of vicious rumors online about Obama. Obama denies them, but some random people interviewed assume they're true. Because these random people think the smears might be true, we'll tell you all about the smears, but without saying that they're all false and malicious. Plus, if they are true, it might torpedo his candidacy!"
Seriously. It's like, "Random emails say Obama is a Muslim. He says he's not. But if he is, he's screwed!" It's absurd.
On a related note, for an excellent explanation of how these types of smear emails get started and stay influential, see Chris Hayes's recent Nation article.
