Sen. Larry Craig: A Lesson In Stupidity

By now we have all heard the news of Sen. Larry Craig’s (R-ID) questionable actions in the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport bathroom, and regardless of whether Sen. Craig was actually trying to show his Mr. Potato Head to the officer, the man should be removed from office because he just doesn’t get it.

As a veteran member of Congress, you would think that Sen. Craig would have been capable of demonstrating a certain level of competency as the situation unfolded. But if anything, Sen. Craig’s actions following his arrest have risen to nothing short of painfully stupid.

Let’s rehash the situation. According to the police report, following his arrest, Mr. Craig was taken to the police operations center at the airport. Because he didn’t have his driver’s license on his person, he showed the officer his business card and pompously stated, “‘What do you think about that?’” This was not a very wise move but it was certainly one that he could have recovered from. Lesson #1: Immediately following your arrest, regardless of your social stature, don’t try to intimidate law enforcement because you will only inflame the situation.

Next, without counsel, Sen. Craig agreed to a post-Miranda interview. During this interview, Sen. Craig stated that “his foot may have touched” the officer, and that he had “reached down with his right hand to pick up a piece of paper on the floor.” Honestly Senator Craig, are you that incompetent? Have you not seen Law & Order within the past century? All you did during that interview was further incriminate yourself, because it appears that you might have lied to the officer, as his report specifically stated that there was no piece of paper on the floor. Congratulations, your credibility is now at zero. Lesson #2: You have the right to remain silent; giving up that right will only hasten your demise.

Earlier this month, Sen. Craig pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. Apparently, Sen. Craig entered his plea, because he wanted the situation “to go away.” Now I don’t know if Sen. Craig sought out legal counsel before he entered his plea, because if he didn’t he is an idiot. On the other hand, if Sen. Craig sought out legal counsel and they advised him to enter the guilty plea, they should be disbarred for stupidity. Look, Sen. Craig, did you really think this situation was not going to come to light given that every two bit Woodward and Bernstein with a liberal agenda monitors criminal records on a daily basis hoping for their next bring break? Honestly, Sen. Craig, if you didn’t, I am amazed that you have gotten this far in life. With regard to the legality of the alleged situation in question, I find myself in agreement with Ed Morrissey of Captain’s Quarters, although Sen. Craig’s actions are reprehensible, I don’t know that they actually constitute a crime, save a possible battery violation for touching the officer’s foot. Lesson #3: Under all circumstances, never plead guilty to a crime until you have sought out sufficient legal counsel and you are out of options.

Now let’s fast forward to this week’s news conference. Here, Sen. Craig had one final chance to set the record straight. Instead of engaging in damage control, he made the situation worse. First, he bellowed that “I am not gay” as if he were a Jehovah’s Witness delivering his testimony at a religious revival. Then he proceeded to lash out at his local newspaper, the Idaho Statesman, claiming the publication was partially responsible for his situation. Given these two statements, I can’t help but wonder who is running the senator’s press shop? Either Sen. Craig has the worst press shop on Capitol Hill or he blew off his press advisors. Regardless, his handling of the news conference was a lesson in political self-destruction. Lesson #4: Don’t feed into media frenzy and certainly don’t bash your hometown paper, because every good politician knows that you need to have an amicable relationship with hometown publications. They serve as a direct line to your constituents. You know, the people that actually vote for you and give you money?

Given that Senator’s Craig’s political career is all but finished, conservatives have to hope that all Republican members of Congress are listening. Repeat after me: Perception is everything in politics and the best way to damage your image is by being caught up in scandal. Even if Sen. Craig is able to clear his name, it doesn’t matter because he will always be perceived as being guilty. There is no coming back from this one. How do I know? Because I just saw it on television, heard it on the radio and read it in the paper.

Rove Hatred Could Cost Dems In '08

Karl Rove is at it again, and I love it. Taking a page right from his 2004 championship playbook, the “Boy Genius” began spinning a web of treachery during his recent Hillary bashing tour, a web of treachery that if left unchecked could cost the Democrats the White House in 2008.

As I watch the beginning stages of Rove’s plan for 2008 unfold, I have to wonder: are Democrats really this stupid? With exactly one year until the Democratic National Convention, I will gleefully say that the answer appears to be yes. To understand the present state of Democratic idiocy, it is important to revisit 2004.

For four years, I have been arguing that if Democrats had selected Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina on “Super Tuesday” instead of Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, they would have won the presidency. Democrats in 2004 were shortsighted because they picked who they wanted to win, rather than who could actually win. Of course as a conservative, Democrats have been informing me ever since that I am the one who is in fact myopic.

Well Democrats, say hello to former Rove associate and lieutenant Matthew Dowd. According to Peter Wallsten in Sunday’s Los Angeles Times, Mr. Dowd, during a post-mortem conference on the 2004 election at Harvard University held one month after that election, confirmed my suspicion.

For Republican strategists, Edwards was seen as the real threat to Bush 43 because of “his Southern base, charismatic style and populist message.” Therefore, to make sure Edwards did not receive the Democratic nomination, they chose to attack Kerry. By attacking Kerry, Rove and his cronies rightfully believed that Democrats would rally around him and make him the party’s nominee. Obviously, Rove and company were right on the money in 2004.

Now the question becomes, why attack Senator Clinton? Three reasons come to mind.

First, by attacking Sen. Clinton, Rove is hoping that Democratic hatred for him will translate into a Clinton nomination in much the same fashion it did for Kerry in 2004. As it currently stands, Democrats certainly appear to be taking the bait.

Second, Sen. Clinton has chinks in her armor that Republicans can exploit. As Mr. Rove recently noted, “‘[Clinton] enters the general election campaign with the highest negatives of any candidate in the history of the Gallup poll.’”

Finally, as Republicans scurry to reinvent themselves for 2008, Rove rightfully knows that attacking Sen. Obama and Citizen Edwards will only strengthen their respective candidacies to the detriment of Republicans. Let us remember that Obama did not assume office until after Iraq was voted on, and until the picture in Iraq becomes clearer, this is not a road that Republicans want to travel down at this juncture. With regard to Edwards, he is dangerous to any potential Republican candidate because he is a Southerner who touts a populist message, no matter how “nutty” that message may appear at times.

Will a Clinton nomination alone secure a Republican victory in 2008? Of course not, but it is a step in the right direction. Republicans still have a lot of reinventing to do to overcome their present quagmire. They have to hope that Iraq takes a turn for the better, they have to sever ties to current Republican congressional members embedded in scandal, President Bush has to prove that he is tough on bills containing earmarks and finally, Republicans have to hope that the nation’s disgust for Congress continues to outdistance its disgust for Bush 43. But if Republicans can overcome these obstacles, then the web that Mr. Rove started spinning this past week could translate into a Republican presidential victory in 2008.

Karl Rove: Doing It His Way

At the end of August, Karl Rove will be stepping down as White House deputy chief of staff, and whether you view him as the antichrist or a loyal Republican soldier, his mark on contemporary presidential politics is undeniable.

So, how did a man who lacks a college degree become one of the most influential White House aides and successful political strategists of modern times? By utilizing unconventional and often polarizing tactics, he made the system work for him.

Decades from now, pundits may dispute the pivotal moment that permitted Rove to burst onto the political scene. Some may argue this occurred when he overcame controversy to become chairman of the College Republicans because this allowed him to form a close personal friendship with George H.W. Bush and in turn George W. Bush. Others may argue that it occurred when he formed Rove and Co. and he became one of the first to demonstrate the effectiveness of direct mail as a campaign tool, thereby cementing his name as one of the preeminent campaign consultants. Either way, Karl Rove became a household name in the late 1990s when he sold his company and devoted his time to George W. Bush’s presidential bid.

For a good portion of the 2000 Republican primary season, the prospects of a Bush 43 presidency were bordering on doubtful. All then frontrunner, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, needed to do was secure the South Carolina primary, and the current president’s fate would have been sealed. Under Rove’s guidance, the Bush campaign machine went into overdrive and turned the tables on McCain in South Carolina.

How did Rove achieve this result? By painting McCain as being “too liberal,” while simultaneously marketing Bush as a “compassionate conservative.” This brash and allegedly sleazy tactic not only secured victory for Bush in South Carolina, it also led to his earning the nomination long before the Republican convention.

Next on Rove’s campaign docket was the 2000 presidential election. The Democratic candidate, Vice President Al Gore, proved to be a formidable opponent for Bush 43. Instead of focusing on Gore, Rove focused on Gore’s former boss, President Bill Clinton. As Paul A. Gigot of the Wall Street Journal notes, Rove successfully chipped away at Gore’s candidacy by marketing Bush 43 as “both an alternative to Bill Clinton’s scandalous behavior and “a different kind of Republican.” Of course, the Supreme Court also played a crucial role in the 2000 election when it declared Bush the winner in Florida.

Some would argue that Rove’s greatest accomplishments as a political strategist came in 2002 and 2004. In 2002, the president’s party gained seats in both houses of Congress in a first midterm election; a feat last witnessed in 1934. Not to be outdone in 2004, the “Boy Genius” helped to orchestrate a feat that had only been accomplished one other time in history, the president not only won reelection but he helped his party gain seats in both houses of Congress.

Though Rove’s achievements as a political strategist are unparalleled, the 2006 midterm elections proved to be a nightmare. The GOP lost control of both houses of Congress. Should Rove shoulder all of the blame for the 2006 midterm mishap? No, but at the same time, because he operates in a “what have you done for me lately” environment, the 2006 midterm election did deliver a crippling blow to his legacy.

With 14 months until the 2008 presidential election, Karl Rove says he is stepping down because it is in the best interest of his family, the typical, cliché refrain of those whose time in the spotlight has ended for reasons beyond their control. Do I buy it? Of course not. This is the same man who, upon taking the office in the White House once occupied by Hillary Clinton, allegedly invited priests to perform an exorcism to drive her evil spirits away. Karl Rove clearly wants one more bite at the proverbial political apple. He wants to atone for 2006. Unfortunately, Karl Rove recognizes that it is in his party’s best interest to just retreat quietly into retirement. For this reason, we as Republicans have to thank Karl Rove for putting the party and president before himself. Just maybe, this noble deed on his part will pave the way to a Republican victory in 2008.

Why Pelosi And Reid Should Be Impeached

For the past several months, there has been a quiet but steady whisper on the Hill about the possible impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Richard B. Cheney. Much of this nonsensical drivel centers on the war in Iraq and has been spearheaded by the usual cast of nitwits: Namely, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, and the media chameleon Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

Now, fast forward to July 30, 2007, when Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institute authored an OP-ED piece in The New York Times entitled “A War We Just Might Win.”

When I first read their piece, I had to hit refresh on my computer a couple of hundred times. In fact, I could not believe my eyes. Was this some kind of sick April Fools joke in July that the Grey Lady was disseminating to amuse me as I battled the torrid D.C. summer heat?

No, it was not a joke. Two Brookings analysts who have been highly critical of the Bush administration’s handling of Iraq were now offering qualified hope given the recent troop surge.

No matter how skeptical the left may be of the two individuals’ assertions, Congress clearly needs to heed their advice: “[T]here is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.”

Given this advice and the present general laziness of the media in its unquestioning consumption of the spoon-fed communist propaganda by the ever-so dishonest Democratic Congressional leadership, I have to say that maybe we should initiate impeachment proceedings against Reid and Pelosi.

Why? Since taking power in their respective chambers of Congress, Pelosi and Reid have done nothing but foster a “defeatist attitude” towards Iraq that is crippling America’s armed forces, internally and externally. What these two leaders of Congress fail to realize is that Iraq is a situation that yields no risk-free alternatives.

If we pack up and leave right now, Iraq will destroy itself, America will lose all bargaining credibility in future conflicts and the efforts of the more than 3,500 American service members who have died in Iraq will be for naught.

On the other hand, if we stay and back the recent troop surge, we may lose more American service members, but there is a chance that we can make headway and at the very least “produce not necessarily ‘victory’ but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.”

You would have to be extremely insane or a minion of Wolf Blitzer to not back the latter option.

If you are still in doubt, think back to the resounding success known as Desert Shield/Desert Storm. In that conflict, America deployed more than 420,000 troops to drive an enemy out of an area roughly three times the size of Delaware. Therefore, logic dictates that to successfully quash sectarian violence in Iraq – which is slightly larger than California – America’s troop presence needs to be greater than 300,000. Prior to the surge, America’s troop presence in Iraq was estimated to be 159,000, the surge increased that total to approximately 190,000 troops. If 30,000 troops can make this kind of difference in Iraq, think of what an additional 100,000 can do.