Good Cop/Bad Cop

I feel kind of bad about writing so many negative things about Mitt Romney. Despite a hefty PR offensive (defensive?), he's still trailing behind in the polls, and nobody likes it when people start beating up on the little guy. So, in the spirit of fairness and goodwill, here is my exhaustive list of good things about Mitt Romney:

1. His hair is generally excellent.
2. His kids are nice people, and one even has a beard, which is also nice.
3. He thinks polygamy is a bad thing. I agree.
   
4. He has a lot of money, and probably gives some of it to poor people.
5. He is a special, individual person.
6. He hasn't recently robbed a bank, car, or synagogue treasury.

With that out of the way, I will now proceed to indirectly bash Mitt by bashing one of his top political advisers. Sorry, Mitt.

---

There are basically three types of scandals in American politics: (A) scandals involving money, (B) scandals involving extra-marital relations, and (C) a scandelicious combination of the two. But the Romney campaign is now faced with the prospect of dealing with a brand spankin' new kind of scandal; a scandal innovation, if you will. To put it into the simplest of terms, one of Romney's top political aides has been allegedly caught impersonating highway patrol officers in two states. To put it into slightly less simple terms, here is a long article which you may not have the attention span to read and that you can skip if you have to:

(From the Boston Globe)
State Police are investigating one of Mitt Romney's top campaign aides for allegedly impersonating a trooper by calling a Wilmington company and threatening to cite the driver of a company van for erratic driving, according to two law enforcement sources familiar with the probe.

Jay Garrity, who is director of operations on Romney's presidential campaign and a constant presence at his side, became the primary target of the investigation, according to one of the sources, after authorities traced the cellphone used to make the call back to him. The investigation comes three years after Garrity, while working for Romney in the State House, was cited for having flashing lights and other police equipment in his car without proper permits.

The New Hampshire attorney general, according to the Associated Press, has also opened an investigation into a report that a Romney aide, later identified as Garrity, pulled over a New York Times reporter in New Hampshire and said he had run his license plate.

New Hampshire law prohibits private citizens from accessing license plate databases or pulling over fellow citizens.

In the phone call to the Wilmington company, which was recorded by an answering service and obtained by the Globe, a man who identifies himself as "Trooper Garrity with the Massachusetts State Police" complains about the driving of a van owned by Wayne's Drains Middlesex Sewers of Wilmington. The caller repeatedly says he is a trooper and questions when the driver will return to the office.

"I'm going to get the address of your company," the caller says during the May 13 call. "I'm going to come down to your company. I'm going to personally issue this driver a citation for both speeding, driving erratic, cutting across."

"The whole thing was just hinky," said Wayne Barme, owner of the Wilmington drain and sewer cleaning company, whose wife, Dot, contacted State Police after receiving the complaint.

The charge of impersonating an officer, a misdemeanor, carries a penalty of a fine of up to $400 or up to one year in prison.

In 2004, the Globe reported, Garrity was cited and fined for driving a Crown Victoria with red and blue lights mounted in the grill, a siren, a PA system, and strobe lights; and for having a nightstick and identification showing a State Police patch that read "Official Business."

Garrity was also cited for having windows that were more deeply tinted than state law permits

So, to briefly recap the story for everyone who skipped it:

• A "Trooper Garrity with the Massachusetts State police" called a plumbing company, threatening to come over and fine one of their drivers.

• The call was traced back to Jay Garrity, one of Romney's closest political aides.

• A New York Times reporter in New Hampshire also claims to have been pulled over by Jay Garrity, who ran his license plate number.
  

• As recently as three years ago, Jay Garrity was fined for driving a car decked out with illegal police equipment, including strobe lights, a siren, and a PA system. He was also found bearing a police baton and a fake police ID.

What does this mean? It means that one of Mitt Romney's closest friends is a junior psychopath with a thing for pretending to be a police officer and doing creepy faux-police work in his spare time. Seriously people, I couldn't make this stuff up if I wanted to.

Of course, I know it's terribly wrong to judge a man by the company he keeps, but couldn't Romney at least try to publicly distance himself from the nuttiness? So far, Romney is sticking by his man, despite the fact that the evidence doesn't look so good for good ol' Trooper Garrity. And even if all the allegations prove to be false, in a presidential race, it pays to play it safe. But hey, it's just politics: some campaigns offer sleaze and intrigue, the Romney campaign offers wacky cartoon hijinks. It's a good thing that I happen to like wacky cartoon hijinks.

And if it turns out that Jay Garrity is as clean as a whistle, I get to add another item to my ever-growing "Good Things About Mitt Romney" list:

(7) His top aide isn't a nutcase who illegally impersonates state troopers.

That's what you call a win-win situation.

Say It Ain't So Flipper, Say It Ain't So!

At last, another item can be added to the long ledger of things that you can/do/should fear: dolphins that wish to physically harm you.

(From local 6 news Orlando)
Marine researchers are warning about a growing number of dolphin bite cases in Sarasota County, according to a Local 6 News report.

Florida experts said wild dolphins are becoming more aggressive because boaters are feeding them.

"It seems reasonable to understand why you wouldn't feed a bear or something more dangerous-appearing, but these are wild animals," dolphin researcher Jason Allen said. "They are wild animals with lots of sharp teeth."

As far as fears go, this one ranks somewhere in between the mysterious disappearance of our bee population and the Ebola virus, although the inevitable Michael Jackson comeback tour should knock it down a few points.

And you thought it was safe to go back in the water...

Vice Presidential Material.

McCain Losing Steam. Duh.

Yes, it's still pretty darn early, but a lot of people are already proclaiming the death of McCain's presidential bid. And I'm one of them. The truth is, McCain just doesn't have a solid political base. He alienated the right by siding against the GOP establishment on issues like gun-control and campaign finance reform, and then proceeded to alienate the moderates by maintaining a hard-line stance on the war in Iraq. McCain has prided himself on being a "maverick" politician who says and does what he thinks is best, without considering what the political consequences may be. Unfortunately, as it turns out, in order to do well in politics, you actually have to consider the political consequences of your actions from time to time.

Still, there is a chance that McCain could reach the White House in '08, at least as the numero dos man in the Executive branch. A McCain Vice Presidency looks compelling on paper: he's got a lot of experience, his independent streak could attract some of the independent vote, and at 5'7" his presence wouldn't overshadow any of the possible Presidential candidates. And, to give a little McCain-esque "straight-talk", let's face it: McCain is very old. This is his last chance to make a bid for the presidency, and if he fails, a lot of people (myself included) will feel at least somewhat sorry for him. Even if the Republican party doesn't like McCain enough to anoint him as their new king, I don't think anyone would object to tossing him a consolation prize to comfort him during his last years of public service.





Powell-Obama '08? Fuhgeddaboutit.

Colin Powell made an appearance on Meet The Press this Sunday (subscribe to the vodcast NOW) and said a lot of things about a lot of things. The most notable things he said had to do with the situation in Iraq, which he constantly referred to as a "civil war", much to the chagrin of the Bush administration, and the Guantanamo bay military prison, which he believes should be closed immediately (also to the chagrin of the Bush administration). But then, near the end of the interview, he handed Tim Russert two tidbits of political information that can only be classified as intensely juicy: (1) Powell has met with Barack Obama, and (2) Powell isn't ruling out a possible return to public life (but not elected public life). He immediately played the Obama bit down, explaining that he would meet with any candidate running for President, and refusing to reveal which candidate (or party) he'll support in 2008. But he had already said too much.

Soon, despite the fact that Powell expressed disdain towards the idea of running for elected office, the question that was perched on the tip of just about everyone's tongue was whether an Obama-Powell ticket could be in store for voters in 2008. Personally, I find the notion a bit ridiculous. Obama's strongest selling point has been his consistent opposition to the war in Iraq (unlike Hillary and Edwards who voted for the war before they voted against it). And although Powell has distanced himself from the current administration and openly admitted that if he had known then what he knows now, he wouldn't have supported the invasion of Iraq, Colin Powell remains embedded in the collective-consciousness of the American people as the face of the Invasion of Iraq. I can't think of anything that would tick-off Obama's anti-war base more than the selection of Colin Powell as his running mate, and I don't think he's stupid enough to commit that kind of political suicide.

See? Glasses DO Make People Look Smart!

In a magical time long ago, Republican candidates may have been chosen based on their adherence to the conservative principles of little government and traditional values, or their ability to articulate such principles. But somehow, it appears that the GOP is now more interested in candidates who can prove that they're tougher, meaner, and more eager to bomb third-world countries than the rest. Principle is firmly buckled in the back-seat, chutzpah takes the wheel and pseudo-conservatives like Rudy Giuliani reign supreme.

I've written previously about Giuliani's liberalism, a fact which has been widely discussed in both the old and new media. But over the past few months, Giuliani has displayed a Teflon-like resistance to this criticism, maintaining his lead in the polls. The reason for this is becoming clear: a lot of Republicans just want a tough-talking alpha-male, and Giuliani is THE tough-talking alpha-male. Sure, his rhetoric about expanding domestic surveillance, enacting a national ID card and suchlike are completely anti-conservative in nature, but as long as it proves that he's got the "resolve" to fight terrorism, it doesn't matter. And who cares if he's been divorced twice, is estranged from his kids, and supports public funding for abortion? I mean, at least he's not Hillary, right? Yes, Rudy isn't Hillary, but a vote for either is a vote for big government; the choice is only whether you want a welfare state or a police state.

Here's an idea: how about choosing neither?

A tragic example of the GOP's choice of tough-talk over solid conservative reasoning occurred in the second debate. It was the most talked about moment of the day: Giuliani's "smackdown" of Ron Paul. Essentially, Ron Paul suggested that America's interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East could have contributed to the hatred of America that led to the attacks on September the 11th. Whether or not you agree with that assessment, it's one that's been supported by dozens of experts, and at the very least it deserves some substantive debate. But instead of presenting rational arguments against Ron Paul's point, Giuliani basically told the audience that Paul's statement was outrageous and that he should take it back. No reasoning, no logic, just an elementary school-esque "I'm right, you're wrong". Did anybody care? No; The crowd went wild, conservative pundits tripped over themselves to see who could heap the most ridicule on Congressman Paul, and everyone declared Rudy Giuliani the winner of the debate. It didn't matter that no real debate on the issue occurred: Rudy Giuliani was the macho conservative who took a stand against the terrorists, Ron Paul was the weak, appeasing, liberal, and that was that.

Another (slightly less severe) example of the Republican obsession with form over substance is the popularity of soon-to-be candidate Fred Thompson. While Fred Thompson isn't a bad candidate, and is definitely more conservative than Rudy Giuliani, the excitement surrounding him is only partially because of his conservative views, and certainly not because of his government experience (1-1/2 terms in the Senate). In fact, on the issues, Thompson is pretty close to McCain (Thompson was a strong supporter of McCain in the 2000 election), and there are already candidates with better or equal conservative credentials in the race (Brownback, Hunter, etc.). What really gets most people fired up about Fred Thompson is the fact that he's got a gruff southern voice, drives around in a big pick-up truck, towers over the other candidates at a commanding 6 foot 5+ inches, has played powerful authority figures in movies and television shows, and delivers aggressive rhetoric on the issue of "Islamic-fascism". For a lot of people in the GOP, it's more important to have a "cowboy president" than a truly conservative president.

There isn't anything particularly wrong with having a straight-talking, tough, charismatic man in the oval office (Reagan, anyone?). However, there is something wrong when those qualities are confused with sound reasoning and conservative principles. While there are occasions when black-and-white "axis of evil" rhetoric is required, conservatives need to realize that some situations (such as the current war in Iraq) are very complicated and that nuance isn't a dirty word. When aggression, strength, and machismo are valued above all else, you end up with a dictator in office. I don't think any Republicans want that, but if candidates like Giuliani, who embody power detached from principle, continue to succeed, we may find ourselves traveling down that path.

A Few Debate Highlights...

Rudy Giuliani on Iraq:





John McCain on Iraq:





Mitt Romney on Momonism:





Ron Paul on everything:





Tom Tancredo on the role Bush would play in his administration:





Mike Huckabee on evolution:

Third GOP Debate Summary.

Rudy Giuliani dominated the evening with his preaching-to-the-choir attacks on the Democratic candidates supposed weakness towards "Islamic fundamentalist" terrorism. His response to a question on abortion may have been weak, but no one will ever know, due to the fact that lightning knocked his microphone out about three times during his response (his humorous rebound from the mic failure could win him a few points).

John McCain was attacked by just about everyone on stage because of his stance on immigration, but seemed to handle himself quite well, although he did say "my friends" a few too many times for comfort (at least he didn't pull out the stale "drunken sailor" joke). Worst moment: dodging a question on what to do if the troop surge fails, essentially admitting he has no plan B for Iraq.

Mitt Romney tried to appear Reagan-esque with his rhetoric about being a visionary with a plan for the future (which apparently consists of selling American products to Asia), poorly dodged a question on whether he would have supported an invasion of Iraq if he had known then what he knows now, and invoked JFK while defending his faith. Flip-flopped on yet another issue: gays in the military (he's against it now... imagine that!)

Mike Huckabee distanced himself from the current administration by dissing it's handling of Katrina, Iraq, the border, and just about everything else, gave more canned speeches on the "culture of life", and defended his views on creation (his use of Martin Luther's "here I stand" line might be popular among evangelicals). Still smooth, still canned, still Huckabee.

Sam Brownback's statement that abortion is the key issue of our time and that the Republican party shouldn't think about nominating an anti-life candidate made him look like a strong, principled pro-lifer, but his admission that he will ultimately support whoever gets the Republican nomination (including Giuliani), made him look less so.

Ron Paul was his usual anti-war-libertarian self (dubbing himself "the champion of the constitution"), but seemed to be trying to capture a piece of the evangelical pie as well, saying that preemptive war was a violation of the "just war principals of Christianity" and that Roe vs. Wade was incorrectly decided

Duncan Hunter revealed that he was the only guy on stage who had actually read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before voting on the war, attacked Bush for having "a case of the slows" on the border-fence project, and initiated a last minute attack on the so-called "big three" candidates (referring to them as the Kennedy wing of the Republican party).

Tom Tancredo stunned everyone by attacking the Bush administration with unparalleled bitterness (called Bush a liberal, attacked just about all his policies, and said that Bush won't be allowed to "darken the doorstep" of the Tancredo whitehouse), and went a tad overboard with respect to immigration (says he wants to halt all legal immigration). Tancredo didn't have a chance in the past, and certainly doesn't have a chance now.

Tommy Thompson served up another sizable portion of his trademark arrogant bluster, delivering yet another forgettable debate performance. Reiterated his cryptic line about turning our health-care system into a system centered around prevention rather than treatment (still won't mention how).

Jim Gilmore remained the most obscure of the "little seven", although his Rudy McRomney line was brought up yet again (and it still wasn't funny). He should quit now and give more debate time to the candidates that people actually want to hear.

Maybe She Should Just Stay Home and Bake Cookies.

Watching the most recent Democratic candidates debate made me wonder...

Who actually likes Hillary anyways?

And I'm not just saying that because I disagree with her on "the issues", because she's married to Bill, or because of the ridiculous faux-southern accent incident. I'm saying that because I believe she's a genuinely unappealing candidate, in almost every possible way.

The first strike against Hillary is her lack of a definable personality. The other candidates standing on stage last Sunday were pretty easy to peg: Biden was audacious and unfiltered, Edwards was as slick as a greased pig, Obama was the slow, steady guy, Dodd was gruff and authoritative, Gravel was like a giant, rabid, hairless squirrel, and so on and so forth. But what was Hillary? I really don't know. I don't even think she knows. There wasn't anything in her performance to particularly praise or deride, kind of like a kid in a school play who isn't bad enough to be funny or good enough to get applause, and who's role is immediately forgotten as soon as she walks off the stage. With all due respect, her style of communication would go a lot further in the world of PBS documentary voice overs. She may not be able to get a crowd fired up about health care, but just listen in awe as she elaborates on the migration patterns and feeding habits of the rare and majestic Guinea Baboons of Senegal.

To be fair, it has to be said that her personality crisis isn't entirely her fault. Friends of Hillary have often noted that the warm, funny Hillary they know is almost nothing like the cold, stilted Hillary that appears on TV. I'm not exactly an expert on social theory but I think I have a pretty good idea of what's causing Hillary's dichotomous persona:

(1) Hillary is a woman.
(2) In the past, all of our presidents have been men.
(3) Therefore, as a society, we expect our president to be (for the most part) masculine and tough.
(4) Masculine, tough women freak most people out.
(5) If Hillary acts masculine and tough, she will freak most people out.
(6) If Hillary doesn't act masculine and tough, she will appear too weak to be the president.

Basically, Hillary exists in a state of political purgatory, unable to go to either end of the personality spectrum without alienating people. In the end, her choice to embrace a somewhat bland, undefinable personality is actually quite logical.

The second strike against Hillary is her puzzling attempt to appear moderate in order to appeal to disaffected Republicans. Let's face it: Hillary Clinton is Hillary Clinton, and no Republican will ever like Hillary Clinton. When asked about Hillary Clinton, a Republican will likely tell you that she is either (A) the Antichrist, (B) Satan, or (C) the bride of Satan, but never will you hear him or her tell you that she is (D) a candidate that they are earnestly considering voting for. Hillary is sacrificing her radical base in order to pander to people who will carry their hatred of her to their graves. This is a really dumb thing to do.

And of course, the final strike against Hillary is the heavy proliferation of creepy (and probably photoshopped) Hillary pictures, like this one:



Enough said.