Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Colorado Senate: Leading Republican to Exit Race

UPDATE, 6:30 p.m. ET: McInnis made it official this afternoon, releasing a statement to the press that the race wasn't right for his family. McInnis's departure leaves Republicans without an obvious candidate, although chatter surrounding a candidacy by former Rep. Bob Schaffer is heating up in the state.

Original post from this morning:

Former Colorado Rep. Scott McInnis (R) is expected to end his Senate bid as soon as today, according to sources familiar with his thinking who asked not to be identified because they did not have permission to speak for the McInnis camp.

McInnis's exit from the race comes less than one month after he formed an exploratory committee to run for the seat being vacated next year by Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.). McInnis did not return a call placed to his Denver office Tuesday seeking comment. And it's worth noting that several sources who said they expected him to abandon the race refused to rule out the possibility that he would change his mind, insisting that McInnis is notoriously unpredictable about his political plans.

If McInnis leaves the field, speculation will immediately turn to former Rep. Bob Schaffer (R), who ran unsuccessfully for the Senate in 2004. Schaffer has refused to rule out a bid for Allard's seat, and he may be more inclined to run now, as informed speculation in Colorado was that he was unlikely to make the race if McInnis was in the field.

Other Republicans mentioned as possible candidates include Bentley Rayburn, radio talk show host Dan Caplis and state Attorney General John Suthers.

McInnis, who gave up his House seat in 2004, was mentioned as a possible candidate for governor in 2006, but he took a pass on that race. He still has $943,000 sitting in his House campaign account, a sum he could transfer in its entirety to a Senate bid.

No matter who emerges on the Republican side, he (or she) faces an uphill fight to hold the seat. Democrats have united behind Rep. Mark Udall, and Colorado has grown increasingly blue over the last few years, with Democrats taking over the governor's mansion, a Senate seat and two U.S. House seats.

(See today's Denver Post for more speculation on McInnis's plans.)

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 21, 2007; 7:45 AM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Louisiana: Blanco Bows Out of Gov. Race
Next: Money, Money Everywhere


John Suthers is going to be the obvious candidate for the GOP.

Posted by: reason | March 22, 2007 12:45 AM | Report abuse

Every vote counts. That means yours too.


Posted by: CW Goad | March 22, 2007 12:17 AM | Report abuse

remember also that al gore, tipper, and their employees all work in the house. and i would not compare an ex-vice president and ex-presidential candidate's use of energy with the average joe's. and anyway, gore's using a greater than average amount of electricity does not detract one bit from the essential validity of his message. are we really small-minded enough as a nation not to be able to see that?

Posted by: meuphys | March 21, 2007 11:50 PM | Report abuse

I never hold my nose when I vote. I find that it makes it difficult to write legibly, especially when standing up.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2007 11:45 PM | Report abuse

Thirdparty -- Here's the money quote from you as far as I'm concerned: "I can stand for what I believe regardless of the outcome. "

Yes, you can stand for what you believe in, but there HAVE BEEN consequences for your support of an idiot like Nader. The poor in this country have gotte poorer while the rich have gotten richer. We've expended huge amounts of treasure and american lives in Iraq in order to further destabilize the entire region. AND YES, we've injured the environment in ways that NEVER WOULD HAVE OCCURRED if people like you hadn't "voted your principles" in 2000. Those, my friend, are the consequences you seem content to ignore.

Want to discuss any of that? Are you willing to take responsibility for the effect your "principles" have had on the working class in this country? Somehow I suspect the answer is no and that you'd rather simply complain about both parties without actually having to work to change anything.

Posted by: Colin | March 21, 2007 9:30 PM | Report abuse

Third party - what proof do you have about Gore's lifestyle anyway? And please don't go quoting some illegitimate Tennessee conservative 'think' tank...I want credible evidence.

Posted by: Aussie view | March 21, 2007 6:48 PM | Report abuse


No, the American people voted for Bush not me they have to live with their own conscience. I voted mine and I have no regrets. I don't have to hold my nose and vote as you and other Rs and Ds do. I can stand for what I believe regardless of the outcome. You and your party has to cower to corporate sponsors and donors. Answer me this if Gore is so on target with his message, what levels would the green house gases be if people lived his lifestyle? If he is not willing to make sacrifices, why should we expect other countries, corporations, and individuals to make the similar sacrifices?

Posted by: Third Party | March 21, 2007 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Third Party -- what I see is someone hugely stretching the truth to try and make a point. Al Gore's lifestyle is the complete opposite of what he's advocating for? What do you base that absurd statement on?

Also, if you voted Green in 2000 I'd like to thank you again for giving us GWB, the IRaq war, and tax cuts for the wealthiest but deficits for all of us. Amazing how all of that happened even though there is no difference between the two parties. Crazy.

Posted by: Colin | March 21, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse


How do you stand up for an issue if your lifestyle is the complete opposite? What message is that? Yes, I know it wrong, but hey I bought some carbon credits so I can drive my SUV around town. Please spare me the sermon. Either he thinks Global Warming is real and acts on it or he is a true politician who speaks empty words. Maybe I did vote Green, but at least I don't have to back a hypocrite. You don't even see the irony in which you speak.

Posted by: Third Party | March 21, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

These blogs are better if we all stay on topic.

I think Scott McInnis is withdrawing from the race to avoid a primary fight, possibly with John Suthers. I doubt Bob Schaffer gets into the race, either. The GOP may crown Suthers the nomination just as Udall will be crowned the Democratic nomination. This may be a plus for Republicans, and may say alot about the job of John Ensign. In 06', Dole had problems recruiting the best candidates and avoiding devasting primary fights for the GOP. Perhaps this is an early sign that Ensign will be able to recruit good candidates and avoid costly and devastating primary fights.

Posted by: reason | March 21, 2007 5:15 PM | Report abuse

third party... start your own, buddy. then shut up on how everyone but you is a hypocrite.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2007 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Third Party -- Are you actually Ralph Nader himself posting on this board? If so, that's amazing. I really admired your work in the 70's and 80's but not so much when you said there was no difference between Gore and Bush in 2000. Obviously time has shown everyone except you (Ralph) that that's not true.

Look, snark aside, if you want to say both parties are hopeless b/c neither Al Gore nor any other politician is perfect that's your perogative. I prefer to look for politicians and public figures who I think are standing up for the issues I care about. Al Gore fits that bill for me, despite the fact that he doesn't live the kind of austere lifestyle you seem to think would be necessary for him to speak credibly about the environment.

I would suggest, however, that if you're looking for the level of purity you appear to be then you're not going to accomplish much at any level of government. There simply aren't very many saints out there.

Posted by: Colin | March 21, 2007 4:36 PM | Report abuse


You sound like all the R who says at least my candidate is not doing such and such. Both the R and D have been irresponsible with our budget and environment. Are you saying that Gore can live his lifestyle because he's not perfect? Sounds like "do as I say not as I do." What type of message is that anyway? Gore reminds me of the R who say we need a constitution amendment to balance the budget. You balance the budget by not spending all your money, not by passing a constitutional amendment. Gore would prove he believes what he says by scaling back his lifestyle. Gore is no different than the man who sits in front of his TV getting fat, while knowing eating less and exercise will help him lose weight and be healthier. He is nothing more than a glutton and a fake. What do you expect from a two party system.

Posted by: Third Party | March 21, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

I must say I love it when movement conservatives take to criticizing progressives because they don't perfectly live up to their beliefs, even while the party of "family values" commits infidelity after indifelity and runs up huge debts while preaching fiscal responsibility.

Al Gore isn't perfect. He does use more energy than he should. We all do -- which is the entire point of his current campaign. If you saw the movie, you'd realize that he isn't asking people to be perfect. He's asking for individuals, corporations, and the government to take real steps to improve what is currently a dangerous situation.

Given the leadership that this administration has shown on environmental issues, even as our oil dependence has clearly become a national security liability as well, I'd say Al's imperfect advocacy beats what anybody else is doing. And that aint bad.

Posted by: Colin | March 21, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

blarg2 -- oh stop it zouk, you're so transparent. christ.


'Or, best of all, we could make efforts to produce more in the US, instead of having dirty Chinese factories make everything.'

That's exactly what I think. there are a lot of things we can do to address more than one problem at once. Reviving our manufacturing sector with clean technology will cut down our dangerous dependence on China and help us correct our trade balance. it will also create good jobs HERE.

Samuelson and other corporate/oil company hacks like him were screaming bloody murder that global warming doesn't exist. Now they admit it but they're still trying to do everything they can to prevent it from being addressed. Why? Because they are making lots of money and they don't want to do anything that might put a dent in their income streams.

They don't care about America... or the future. It's just cash out, now.

JD, we're talking abuot survival now. The food supply. Did you know that half of the honeybees in this country have died out in the last year, it is suspected because of weather changes that make them susceptible to mold and mites? What will we do then to pollinate the approx 30% of the food supply that needs it?

Did you know that the timber industry in British Columbia [huge] is tanking because 40% of the tress [millions of acres] have been destroyed by beetles becasue they don't die off in the winter anymore because it isn't cold enough?

And water supplies... drought is endemic all over, even in our own Sourthwest. Australia burned like it's never seen, with widespread fires and intense drought this last year. The republican governor of alaska has asked for huge amounts of federal aid to move whole tribes of native americans whose islands and coasal enclaves are sinking. It's now...

Are you saying that we just don't have the will to survive? We don't care enough to try? Then maybe we deserve to die off as a species, so that we can be replaced by something stronger.

And by the way, I don't see why Gore would be cynical about that.. he's been harping on it for twenty years. What has it gotten him?

Posted by: drindl | March 21, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse

I guess we should just give up and admit that we're all screwed, rather than putting the slightest amount of effort into fighting the war in Iraq, terrorism, or any other problem. That's the liberal thing to do! In fact, I might be better off just killing myself now. Life is tough, and there's nothing anyone can do to make it better.

Posted by: blarg2 | March 21, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse


What is ironic is that Haggard was shown to be a hypocrite and lost his job, but Al Gore and company continue to consume this planet are given accolades by people like you. I guess you could say buying carbon credits is similar to buying atonement (maybe you should be a Priest). Who really is the hypocrite?

Posted by: Third Party | March 21, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

The main thing I disagree with in Samuelson's article is the line "No amount of political will can erase these problems." I don't buy it.

If the president and Congress were serious about global warming, there are plenty of ways they could deal with the China situation. International pressure could force China to sign a Kyoto-like treaty to reduce their carbon emissions. Or we could add punitive tariffs on all Chinese imports. Or, best of all, we could make efforts to produce more in the US, instead of having dirty Chinese factories make everything.

I know it's a tradeoff. This isn't easy. And efforts need to be made to ensure that the poor aren't being unfairly penalized by any new energy-saving laws. (Though the poor emit a lot less carbon per capita than the rich, for obvious reasons.) But Samuelson's argument, and your argument, is that anything which isn't easy shouldn't be done. (Or won't get done.) And that's just lame.

Posted by: Blarg | March 21, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Yikes! Don't do that!


I guess I'm suggesting that everything's a tradeoff, and the law of Unintended Consequences will rule in this situation. If we hobble ourselves financially to implement the changes Gore wants, we cannot pretend that there are no consequences (and mostly on the poor the liberals claim to want to help: Wal Mart prices go up thanks to China embargoes etc, gas taxes hit the poor the hardest, etc)

If you re-read Samuelson's article, it becomes obvious that Gore's and Hollywood's efforts are Quixotic (*at best*, and more cynically, calculated and disingenious).

Posted by: JD | March 21, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Sorry if I'm not being realistic enough for you, JD. I guess we should just give up and admit that we're all screwed, rather than putting the slightest amount of effort into fighting global warming, or any other problem. That's the American thing to do! In fact, I might be better off just killing myself now. Life is tough, and there's nothing anyone can do to make it better. Goodbye, cruel world.

Posted by: Blarg | March 21, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Third Party, Gore "preaches" that we as a country and as a planet need to output less carbon. He doesn't live a Spartan lifestyle, and you think that the carbon offsets he buys are meaningless.

Ted Haggard literally preaches that homosexuality is a horrible sin and that all gay people are evil. And then he has sex with male prostitutes while doing meth.

You can say that Gore and Haggard are the same because they're both hypocrites. But that completely overlooks the severity of what they've done. It's like comparing petty theft to grand theft auto. They're both crimes, but one is far greater than the other.

If you think Gore inadequately offsetting carbon emissions is as bad as Haggard breaking a variety of laws while doing something that he claims is the most immoral act possible, then you're just wrong. It's a ridiculous comparison.

Posted by: Blarg | March 21, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Maybe the Colorado GOP should run Coors again. That worked out pretty well for them last time.

Seriously, pretty amazing to watch the GOP implode throughout the mountain west and even into the plains. The electorate probably has gotten slightly more liberal out that way in the last 5 years, but I genuinely think the recent Democratic success in that area has more to do with the Republican party's coalition fracturing. I honestly wonder whether they'll be able to put their divergent elements (libertarians, christian right, neocons) back together again.

Posted by: Colin | March 21, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, do you *honestly* believe that America, the home of instant gratification and short attention span theatre, is willing to make the draconian changes necessary to limit GH gasses?

Partisanship aside, I seriously doubt it. When have we been willing to suffer EVER? (at least, in the last 2 generations)? Politicians are complete wimps, and I'm talking R's and D's both (just look at the budget and avoiding the tough decisions about SS and medicare).

I think the right (or at least, the anti-Gore, anti-treehugger, or as drindl would say, the pro-rape-the-earth faction) doesn't WANT the earth to heat up per se, with more hurricanes or whatever the consequences; I just think they are more realistic and less emotional about it.

Posted by: JD | March 21, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse


Carbon credits are a bunch of hot air with no proven benefits. The only way to reduce global warming is reducing our consumption. NPR did a segment on people who sold carbon credits and most did not have a clue if what they were selling were truly occurring (actually a few were shown not to be doing as promised). And how is Ted Haggard any different than Al Gore who practices one thing then preachers against another. However, if you like someone you can always find excuses for their hypocrisy and lifestyle. Neither you nor Al Gore get it.

Posted by: Third Party | March 21, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

You're making a circular argument. You're saying that America won't change because it's pointless unless China changes, and China won't change unless America does. Actually, you're making two circular arguments, because you're also arguing that there isn't the political will to make these changes, so there's no point in trying to raise public awareness.

If we actually make efforts to fight global warming, then that will have some positive effects even if China and India aren't on board. And then we can try to get them to fight global warming too. Even if we aren't 100% successful, it's a lot better than admitting there's a problem and refusing to do anything about it.

Posted by: Blarg | March 21, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Blarg: There is no way to get rid of GW, that is a given. This will insure that he will go down as among the top two worst POTUS's in our history. From what I can see of him, it matters not in the least.

Posted by: lylepink | March 21, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

drindl and Blarg, I think Samuelson's point, and mine as well, is that this is a lot of 'hot air' (pardon the pun) about nothing. We will never, as a country, realistically have the political will to make the changes to our lifestyle necessary to effect real change.

Sure we can bluster about it and hope to improve things at the margins; but how many Americans (including Dems) are willing to put a $2/gallon tax on gas? How many are willing to deal a serious blow to their standard of living? I just paid $440 last month for my gas bill - what if that was double? Is that the kind of America you realistically see happening?

And of course, we can't ask China and India et al to take a cut without doing those things ourselves, else we'd be hypocrites. In the meantime, though, it's great for selling movie tickets and raising political funds, I'll give you that.

Posted by: JD | March 21, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Gore buys carbon offsets, which helps make up for using more resources than the average person. Even if he didn't, that wouldn't make him nearly as bad as someone like Ted Haggard, who preaches against homosexuality while hiring male prostitutes on the side. Nobody's perfect. And I'm sure your hypothetical third party would have its share of flaws as well.

Posted by: Blarg | March 21, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

you want someone perfect, third party? you aren't going to find them in the human race. maybe a new ruling species will evolve, one that will suit your ideals.

in the meantime though, the rest of us will have to choose the lesser of evils. right now, the dems are less evil...and have better surivival ideas.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2007 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Agree Drindl - it makes me really angry when people just shrug their shoulders and say, 'well we're screwed, we may as well not make any changes because they won't make a difference anyway'. Admittedly many of these people realise global warming is real, which is one step ahead of the zouks and Inhofes of this world, but it's still very sad.

Posted by: Aussie view | March 21, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Since we are so off topic...I think both D and R are hypocrites. Look at all the corruption on the R side; however, the D are starting to have the light shine on them and guess what it's not so pretty either. D promised to be fiscal responsible but look they are trying to buy votes as well (echoes of R congress).

Look at all the social conservatives and how they turn a blind eye to ethics and lifestyles to those they favor; however, look at Al Gore and others celebrities talk on global warming and you see the same hypocrisies (i.e., their lifestyles consume more natural resources than the average person...but I guess money and fame has it perks). How dare they talk about Global warming unless they are willing to match their lifestyle with their rhetoric.

Its time for a change.....

Posted by: Third Party | March 21, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

If Congress is issuing subpoenas to White House aides, how is that good for Bush? That seems like the worst possible thing for Bush.

Posted by: Blarg | March 21, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Looks like the House will supena top White House aids. Another plus for the Bushies, for they control the Court. The amazing thing about GW, being close to being the bulb that doesn't shed much light in a room, dealing with a deck of 50 cards, and an elevator that does not go to the top floor, he has to be, IMO, among the top as far as luck goes in the world of politics.

Posted by: lylepink | March 21, 2007 1:11 PM | Report abuse

--and lazy and unAmerican as welll...

Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

In other words, JD -- just give up. Don't even try. Just make all the money you can, while you can, because we're quitters and we're not even going to try to do anyhting so that our kids can have a future.

I really just don't understand that attitude. It's so defeatist. It's also so -- convenient.

Posted by: drindl | March 21, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Samuelson said that the best we can hope for is to keep carbon emissions at their current level in 2050. That would still be a huge improvement over doing nothing. It wasn't a call for total inaction, it was a statement that global warming is harder to fight than some people expect.

We wouldn't need to nuke China and India. Just make them cooperate. That could be done with treaties, punitive trade sanctions, etc. It's not an insurmountable problem. And even if we can't force other countries to go green, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't. That's just being defeatist.

Posted by: Blarg | March 21, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

sue, I recommend you read today's Op Ed by Samuelson vis a vis Global Warming.

Long story short: we're basically screwed, there's little we can do to limit the CO2 production, unless you want to nuke China and India to shortcircuit the coal plant construction there.

(now cue drindl's claiming that Samuelson is a corporate tool and international cabal mouthpiece, while she never refutes any of the facts...)

Posted by: JD | March 21, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Gore's not going to run. Al you Al-heads out there will just have to deal with that.

Posted by: mth | March 21, 2007 12:31 PM | Report abuse

'WASHINGTON (AP) -- Al Gore, a Democratic favorite for the presidency despite pronouncements that he's not running, spoke out on his signature issue Wednesday, warning of a "true planetary emergency" if Congress fails to act on global warming.

The former vice president, who 20 years ago held the first hearings in Congress on global warming, appeared before a joint hearing by two House committees. Later in the day, he was to testify before a Senate committee that included the current Democratic front-runner for the nomination -- Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Several public opinion polls show Gore among the top three in the presidential race, although he has said he has no plans to seek the presidency again. In 2000, he won the popular vote but lost to George W. Bush when the Supreme Court ruled for the Republican in the disputed election.

Polls consistently place Gore, the non-candidate, third behind Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama -- ahead of John Edwards and other declared candidates -- and indicate that much of his support comes from Democrats who would otherwise back the New York senator. (Interactive: View one poll's results)

Gore advised lawmakers to cut carbon dioxide and other warming gases 90 percent by 2050 to avert a crisis. Doing that, he said, will require a ban on any new coal-burning power plants -- a major source of industrial carbon dioxide -- that lack state-of-the-art controls to capture the gases.

He said he foresees a revolution in small-scale electricity producers for replacing coal, likening the development to what the Internet has done for the exchange of information. He also advocated tougher fuel-economy standards for cars and trucks.

"There is a sense of hope in this country that this United States Congress will rise to the occasion and present meaningful solutions to this crisis," he said. "Our world faces a true planetary emergency. I know the phrase sounds shrill, and I know it's a challenge to the moral imagination."

Gore favors a "cap-and-trade" program for the U.S. economy, not just specific sectors such as electricity or manufacturing, which would set an overall limit on warming emissions but allow industry to meet the target by trading pollution allowances.

"Trust the market, make it work for us," he said.'

Make the markets work - for us, for a change. My god, what i wouldn't give to see my country run by an honest man of real presidential caliber, able to actually solve problems and find solutions -- instead of a cabal of greedy, soulless barbarians and idiots.

Make America great again, Al. You can do it. Real leadership, real solutions, new ideas. Go al.

Posted by: sue | March 21, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

The Hagle vote was the last straw for me, and I thought a lot of him until the "no announcement" a few days ago and now this. I may be wrong, but I have a hunch he might be leaving the Senate and getting out of politics. The money for him is to great to remain in the political arena which he doesn't seem to care that much about anyway.

Posted by: lylepink | March 21, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of hypocrits, surely there isn't a bigger one on earth than Newt:

'NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is considering whether to run for president, said Tuesday the personal lives of White House hopefuls shouldn't be an issue in the 2008 campaign.

In an interview with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson's radio program this month, Gingrich acknowledged he was having an extramarital affair while pursuing President Clinton's impeachment in the Monica Lewinsky scandal.'

And Mullah Dobson said, that's okay son, you're one of us...

Posted by: Roseann | March 21, 2007 12:17 PM | Report abuse

'A House panel today authorized the committee's leaders to issue subpoenas to force Karl Rove and other key White House aides to testify in the probe of the firings of eight U.S. attorneys. President Bush has said sworn testimony by his aides would breach executive privilege and vowed a legal fight if subpoenas are issued.'

Can someone please explain to me how sworn testimony by bush's aides would breach executive privilege, when sworn testimony President Clinton presumably didn't?

Is there some actual rationale here, or is this just more of the same extraordinary hubris and hypocrisy?

Posted by: Mac | March 21, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

JD -- I'm retired from teaching now, son.

Jason -- we call it a joke. But if it quacks like a duck, well.

You have the right to disagree all you want. You have the right to your own opinions. But you don't have the right to your own facts -- and if you hang here long enough you'll find quite a few gop posters who just make sh*t up.

Posted by: drindl | March 21, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

You can put this one on the board for the Democrats. End of story.

Posted by: Shaun | March 21, 2007 12:07 PM | Report abuse

It's time for someone to pull the plug, Intredpid. It's the kindest thing to do in cases of total and irrevocable brain death.

Gosh, grow up. How can you make such a generalized statement about all GOP's or GOP supporters? People are entitled to their opinion, and I think we would all agree we have the right to express it. Just because everybody doesn't agree with what you say - they aren't brain dead.

Posted by: Jason | March 21, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Know why there was a gap in emails? Because White House staffers know that all email from their official addresses is archived. So they use alternate email addresses to send stuff that they don't want made public. (Including addresses on domains like, owned by the RNC.)

Posted by: Blarg | March 21, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

When are you guys going to get the Eighteen Day Gap up on your website?

Eighteen days of records missing.
So much for full disclosure.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

drindl shouldn't you be running off to class by now?

Posted by: JD | March 21, 2007 11:08 AM | Report abuse

'six of the eight fired prosecutors were involved in corruption investigations focusing on GOP lawmakers or officials'

Posted by: no appearance of impropriety here! | March 21, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Mike Allen does something right -- he notices [altho he wasn't the first] the 18-day gap -- shades of rosemary woods!

'In DOJ documents that were publicly posted by the House Judiciary Committee, there is a gap from mid-November to early December in e-mails and other memos, which was a critical period as the White House and Justice Department reviewed, then approved, which U.S. attorneys would be fired while also developing a political and communications strategy for countering any fallout from the firings.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a member of the Judiciary panel, noted that six of the eight fired prosecutors were involved in corruption investigations focusing on GOP lawmakers or officials, and she questioned whether the firings were an effort by Republicans to protect their own.

After fighting off GOP attempts to alter the bill, Senate Democrats on Tuesday pushed through legislation that would revise the Patriot Act so that Gonzales or his successor does not have the power to unilaterally appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation. The legislation, sponsored by Feinstein, passed by a 94-2 margin, with only Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Kit Bond (R-Mo.) voting against the bill.'

This vote cements my feelings about Hagel. Why on earth would he vote to undermine the Senate's tradtional authority to confirm attorneys, thus providing a check on the executive's power to appoint political hacks?

Bond's statement on his website proves that he is simply a bushbot-- incapable of doing anything but his master's will -- although I think it's a healthy sign that they were the only two.

Posted by: drindl | March 21, 2007 11:01 AM | Report abuse

'The best bunch of prosecutors you'd ever want to fire.

I've said it before here, and I'll say it again. One of the remarkable aspects of the U.S. attorney firings is that the Justice Department didn't select a group of mediocre prosecutors and then try to smear them as underperforming -- oh, no. They chose from among the most distinguished U.S. attorneys in the country (by the DoJ's own admission), and then announced to the world that they'd canned them for "performance related" issues.

Let's go down the list, shall we?

New Mexico's David Iglesias, we pointed out yesterday, was considered for a promotion in 2004 to head up the office that oversees all U.S. attorneys. And that wasn't the only promotion for which he was considered. As The Washington Post points out this morning, he was also considered for the position of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia (the crown jewel of the U.S. attorney offices) and U.S. Attorney for Manhattan (another very high profile office -- just ask Rudy Guiliani). And just to clinch it, former Deputy Attorney General James Comey (he left in August of 2005), has called Iglesias "was one of our finest and someone I had a lot of confidence in as deputy attorney general."

And then there's Arizona's Paul Charlton. Here's what Comey to say about him (from The Los Angeles Times):

"I considered you a star among U.S. attorneys," Comey told Charlton in [a Feb. 9 e-mail]. "You ran an office with a staggering caseload, in both numbers and variety, and did it beautifully."
Comey added that he knew of "no performance issues" with Charlton. "In fact, quite the contrary, because you were at the top of your class."

And Seattle's John McKay. Here's Kyle Sampson, Alberto Gonzales' right hand and the point man for the purge, writing about McKay in August, 2006: "re John, it's highly unlikely we could do better in Seattle." (Update: as a reader points out below, this was written in the context of considering McKay for a position as a federal judge in Seattle, but I think it's fair to say the point still applies.)

And then there's the case of Daniel Bogden of Nevada, the one Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty got cold feet about just two days before he was fired ("I'm a little skittish about Bogden"). Even though he was supposedly derelict in his prosecution of obscenity cases, the Justice Department is currently helping him get another position at the DoJ.

Of course, everyone knows how Carol Lam distinguished herself, but despite bringing the highest profile case in the Justice Department's recent history (with the exception of the Abramoff investigation), she doesn't seem to have had any champions inside the Gonzales Justice Department. Funny.'

Posted by: for the whiny sleazebag zouk | March 21, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

so what, coward? the war is getting worse than ever. iraqi children are being blown up. that wasn't happening before the occupation, was it?

get over zouk, you are so transparent and childish.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2007 10:48 AM | Report abuse

"Of especial interest are the escape routes used by Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ramzi Yousef, (who made the 1993 WTC bomb) both of whom helped prepare the bomb and then fled America.
Yasin (who is not even mentioned in the 9/11 report) came to the U.S. from Iraq in 1992, at about the same time as Yousef, and then returned to Iraq via Jordan. Despite being indicted for the World Trade Center bombing, and put on the FBI's list of the most-wanted terrorist fugitives with a $5 million price on his head (increased to $25 million after 9/11), Iraqi authorities allowed Yasin to remain in Baghdad for 10 years. (In 2003, after the U.S. invasion, he disappeared.)"

Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2007 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Of especial interest are the escape routes used by Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ramzi Yousef, (who made the 1993 WTC bomb) both of whom helped prepare the bomb and then fled America.
Yasin (who is not even mentioned in the 9/11 report) came to the U.S. from Iraq in 1992, at about the same time as Yousef, and then returned to Iraq via Jordan. Despite being indicted for the World Trade Center bombing, and put on the FBI's list of the most-wanted terrorist fugitives with a $5 million price on his head (increased to $25 million after 9/11), Iraqi authorities allowed Yasin to remain in Baghdad for 10 years. (In 2003, after the U.S. invasion, he disappeared.)

"Children in the back seat lowered suspicion, (so) we let it move through, they parked the vehicle, the adults run out and detonate it with the children in the back," Barbero told reporters in Washington. "The brutality and ruthless nature of this enemy hasn't changed."

Posted by: To Coward | March 21, 2007 10:07 AM | Report abuse

JD: Agreed, this che guy/gal must be stopped from this blog. How many "Rules" must be violated to be removed? Once in awhile would be ok, but now, even asking for money, goes beyond the pale.

Posted by: lylepink | March 21, 2007 9:49 AM | Report abuse

'WASHINGTON - Rep. Jean Schmidt wrote in her weekly column on her Web site Monday that media reports about living conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, one of the nation's main facilities for treating veterans wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, were "overblown."

Schmidt's 1st Congressional District colleague and fellow Republican, Rep. Steve Chabot, said late Tuesday that he had not read Schmidt's comments but said it is wrong to suggest that the media or anyone else has "overblown" the problems at Walter Reed.

"I continue to believe that this is a very serious issue, and the press is doing its job in reporting it," Chabot said. "The media and Congress have an obligation to shine a light on a situation like this. It's intolerable. It is totally unacceptable to treat our military veterans this way."

Apparently, however Jeanne thinks it's just fine. So mcuh for supporitng the troops. But that's jusst a joke to republicans. A mindless slogan, a 50cent car magnet.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2007 9:42 AM | Report abuse

"Children in the back seat lowered suspicion, (so) we let it move through, they parked the vehicle, the adults run out and detonate it with the children in the back," Barbero told reporters in Washington. "The brutality and ruthless nature of this enemy hasn't changed."

Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2007 9:40 AM | Report abuse

Wow. Check THIS out. Ohio's greatest embarrassment, congresswoman Jean Schmidt, has just released a newsletter addressing the sensitive issue of anti-Americanism in the Middle East. I haven't read essays this juvenile or poorly written outside of a fourth grade classroom. I'm not even kidding. The Vic Wulsin for Congress Blog has the goods.

Get a load of nuggets like this one:

'The Iraqi's perception is that we are all powerful. We watch them from space with technology they cannot even imagine. Surely if we wanted to turn on his electricity we could do so. He has no idea how large the problem is but he knows we can do anything. He was angry. Eventually his air conditioning began running and his anger cooled.'

Obviously she's from the George Bush School of Retarded Politicans -- she's at about a 3rd grade level, I'd say, probably incapable of advancing much past that. Can probably manage 'My Pet Goat' if trying reeeeeeel hard.

Posted by: swing stater | March 21, 2007 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Jean Schmidt, aka The Pit Bull.. meanest woman on earth.Of course that's an attractive trait to Republicans, pure meanness, but she may go too far even for them. Is she on your list, Chris? Because her performance is laughable, bottom of the barrel... and take at look at the photo-- you choose, rottweiler or wicked witch of the west?

'Whether it's advocating for the importation of nuclear waste into her congressional district (which inspired one of my all-time favorite editorial cartoons), sending out infantile, racist campaign mailers, or embarrassing herself on the floor of the House of Representatives, you've got to wonder if Jean Schmidt was born with some of the worst instincts in American politics today, or if she's simply trying to test the upper limits of endurance that her ruby red district (R+13) is capable of handling.

Add disregard for America's veterans to the list:

Schmidt, a Clermont County Republican, decided to take "several hours" to travel to the hospital in Washington, D.C., to see the situation "first hand."
Her conclusion?

"I found the situation at Walter Reed to be overblown by both politicians and the media."

Posted by: swing stater | March 21, 2007 9:34 AM | Report abuse

Now that condi and the bush administration have lost all credibility and leverage in the middle east, it's interesting that our 'pals' the saudis now seem to be runnin the show. I'm sure the radical right in this country will be very disappointed to see an Arab/Israel truce when they were so hoping for an all-out clash of civilizations replete with lots of blood:

RIYADH, March 21 (Reuters) - Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal held talks in Saudi Arabia with King Abdullah late on Tuesday, ahead of an Arab summit which is expected to relaunch an Arab peace initiative with Israel.

The meeting follows the establishment of a Palestinian national unity government between the Islamist Hamas and the secular Fatah, based on a deal brokered by Saudi Arabia last month that ended months of deadly factional violence.

Saudi media carried pictures of the Damascus-based leader of the Islamist militant group smiling in what appeared to be friendly conversation with King Abdullah, saying only that they discussed "developments in the Palestinian situation".

Posted by: drindl | March 21, 2007 9:29 AM | Report abuse

'But for political strategists, ad experts, even journalists, the ad presents a series of other fundamental unknowns.

How will Web content outside the control of campaigns affect voters?

How should campaigns react to anonymous but highly viewed attacks?

When is Web content, no matter how provocative, newsworthy?

As the Internet looks more and more like an electronic community, politicians are increasingly devoting resources to their Web sites..'

This is from ABC... it makes you realize how clueless the MSM is about the web. They'r just starting to thnk about all this stuff NOW -- like years after it became apparent to most of us that the web would surpass both TV and radio and phone because it is all those things together, and more. It has tremendous power and reach and gives any ordinary person the power to reach millions and will change politics in an even more elemental way than TV did.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 21, 2007 9:19 AM | Report abuse

It's time for someone to pull the plug, Intredpid. It's the kindest thing to do in cases of total and irrevocable brain death.

Posted by: drindl | March 21, 2007 8:55 AM | Report abuse

The GOP is on life support in states such as Colorado. They deserve to be. They should be life support everywhere.

Posted by: Intrepid Liberal Journal | March 21, 2007 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Anyone know if Che is actually 18 years old? Does he (she?) have a job? Is he/she manager of Lambda Rising or some whackjob headshop in Dupont Cir?

This is getting ridiculous

Posted by: JD | March 21, 2007 8:23 AM | Report abuse

Not that Udall needed it but this is very good for him. I bet that McInnis read the writing on the wall and knew he didn't stand a chance in this cycle. So he bowed out and will save himself the humiliation of getting stomped next year.

Posted by: Andy R | March 21, 2007 8:10 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company