CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Democrats Boycott Rogue Primaries

Democratic presidential wannabees Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Bill Richardson pledge not to campaign in states that hold early nominating contests in violation of party rules.

The three signed onto a pledge circulated by Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, which have the Democratic Party's blessing to hold early primaries. The pledge says they will avoid competing in any other states that vote before February 5.

A week ago, Democratic Party officials decided to disenfranchise Florida voters, unless the state party agrees to hold its primary later in the 2008 election calendar.

The Democrats' boycott won't amount to much if the frontrunners don't participate.

UPDATE: Here is the pledge as signed by Richardson:

Four State Pledge Letter 2008

Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina

August 31, 2007

WHEREAS, over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;

WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;

WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to ensure that money alone will not determine our presidential nominee;

WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the nominating calendar.

THEREFORE, I Bill Richardson, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by the rules and regulations of the DNC. It does not include activities specifically related to raising campaign resources such as fundraising events or the hiring of fundraising staff.

Democratic Candidate for President

Vice President Franks?

In today's Washington Times "Inside The Ring" column Bill Gertz reports three Republican presidential candidates are considering retired Army General Tommy Franks as a vice presidential running mate.

General Franks, commander of U.S. Central Command from June 2000 until he retired in 2003, led American and Coalition troops in two strategically unprecedented campaigns in two years – Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq.

Franks would boost Republican prospects in the South and provide an articulate spokesman for winning the global war against Islamist extremism and a counter to the Democrats' current defeatism:

All Democratic candidates overtly oppose the Iraq war and most favor ending the Bush administration's military and paramilitary emphasis on fighting global terrorism. A Democratic administration in 2009 likely would restore the approach of the Clinton administration, which favored law enforcement and diplomacy over military action.

Reviving those failed Clinton policies will only bring us more terrorist attacks such as the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center; the 1995 bombing of U.S. military headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; the 1996 bobming of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia; the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; the 2000 attack against the USS Cole in Yemen, and 9/11.

Fred Almost Makes It Official

There were lots of rumors today that Fred Thompson was going to make his long awaited "presidential announcement."

In the end, Fred spoke to certain supporters and pre-announced the formal announcement.

Fred will "formally" announce his candidacy via a video on September 6. I know, it was just three days ago that I posted Fred would announce on the 6th. As I posted then, the delay doesn't bothers me. What bothers me is the constant shifting of the date, which makes the campaign look second-rate.

After the release of the announcement video, Fred's campaign launch festivities include a tour of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida.

What About The Other $977,000?

Democratic presidential wannabee, Hillary Clinton, will donate to charity $23,000 of the contributions she has received from her fugitive fundraiser.

Why only $23,000? The Wall Street Journal [subscription required] reports that Hillary's fugitive fundraiser, also known as Norman Hsu, has raised over $1 million for Hillary's Presidential campaign:

Beyond his $23,000 in personal contributions to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Hsu had raised well over $1 million for the New York senator's presidential campaign, making him one of her top 20 "bundlers.

As recently as Tuesday, Hillary's campaign was touting Hsu's integrity saying, "there has been no question about his integrity or his commitment to playing by the rules, and we have absolutely no reason to call his contributions into question."

After the Los Angeles Times reported that Hsu pleaded no contest to a grand theft charge, agreed to accept up to three years in prison, failed to show up for a sentencing hearing, and then disappeared, Hillary changed her tune. At least she changed her tune for 2 percent of the money Hsu raised for Hillary.

I don't get it. All of the money raised by Hillary's fugitive fundraiser is equally tainted. The entire $1 million should be given to charity, not just 2 percent of the funds raised by Hsu. Maybe Hillary is consulting with Al Gore, who remains unaware of any controlling legal authority.

Flushing Craig

I join Republican Senators McCain (AZ) and Coleman (MN) in calling upon Senator Craig to resign.

Stepping down from his position as ranking member on the Veterans' Affairs Committee is a step in the right direction. Craig has also resigned from his role as a co-Senate liaison for Romney's presidential campaign. It's not nearly enough.

Senator Craig was arrested in June for engaging in lewd conduct at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. On August 8, Craig pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct. The Senator paid more than $500 in fines and fees, and a 10-day jail sentence was stayed. He also was given one year of probation.

The Idaho Statesman has investigated allegations that Craig engaged in homosexual conduct:

In an interview on May 14, Craig told the Idaho Statesman he'd never engaged in sex with a man or solicited sex with a man. The Craig interview was the culmination of a Statesman investigation that began after a blogger accused Craig of homosexual sex in October. Over five months, the Statesman examined rumors about Craig dating to his college days and his 1982 pre-emptive denial that he had sex with underage congressional pages.

The most serious finding by the Statesman was the report by a professional man with close ties to Republican officials. The 40-year-old man reported having oral sex with Craig at Washington's Union Station, probably in 2004. The Statesman also spoke with a man who said Craig made a sexual advance toward him at the University of Idaho in 1967 and a man who said Craig "cruised" him for sex in 1994 at the REI store in Boise. The Statesman also explored dozens of allegations that proved untrue, unclear or unverifiable.

Craig now denies any wrongdoing, regrets his guilty plea, and blames the Statesman for his legal and political problems:

He denounced the longstanding probes by the Statesman -- he called it a "witch hunt" -- for inspiring him to plead guilty to the offense even though he said he was actually innocent. He said he had been "viciously harassed" by the newspaper. "I am not gay," he said twice. "I love my wife."

[. . .]

Craig also said he would not step down as senator and still planned to serve his state in Washington, and walked away without answering questions from the media.

Craig needs to reconsider, stop blaming others, apologize, and resign from the U.S. Senate. He can make all the denials all he wants. He plead guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct - thereby admitting to the truth of the charges. If he is actually innocent of the criminal charges, Craig should resign for bad judgement in choosing to plead guilty.

I feel badly for Craig's family, not Craig.

Hillary's Fugitive Fundraiser

The Los Angeles Times reports California authorities have been trying Norman Hsu for 15 years. Hsu "pleaded no contest to grand theft, agreed to serve up to three years in prison and then seemed to vanish:

"He is a fugitive," Ronald Smetana, who handled the case for the state attorney general, said in an interview. "Do you know where he is?"

According to the Times, Hsu has been hiding in plain sight:

Since 2004, one Norman Hsu has been carving out a prominent place of honor among Democratic fundraisers. He has funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions into party coffers, much of it earmarked for presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

Hsu earned a place in the Clinton campaign's "HillRaiser" group by pledging to raise more than $100,000 for her presidential bid.

Tuesday The Wall Street Journal reported Clinton campaign spokesman, Howard Wolfson, said in an email:

Norman Hsu is a longtime and generous supporter of the Democratic party and its candidates, including Senator Clinton. During Mr. Hsu's many years of active participation in the political process, there has been no question about his integrity or his commitment to playing by the rules, and we have absolutely no reason to call his contributions into question.

But Kent Cooper, a former disclosure official with the Federal Election Commission, sees it differently. According to Cooper, the two-year pattern of donations justifies a probe of possible violations of campaign-finance law, which forbid one person from reimbursing another to make contributions:

"There are red lights all over this one," Mr. Cooper said.

The Times makes it clear that this isn't a case of mistaken identity:

On Tuesday, E. Lawrence Barcella Jr. -- a Washington lawyer who represents the Democratic fundraiser -- confirmed that Hsu was the same man who was involved in the California case. Barcella said his client did not remember pleading to a criminal charge and facing the prospect of jail time.

I'm sorry, does anyone truly believe Hsu would forget the possibility of going to jail? Nor am I impressed with attorney Barcella's implication that Hsu is being picked on because of his "name." Yesterday's Wall Street Journal quoted Barcella:

You are barking up the wrong tree. There is no factual support for this story and if Mr. Hsu's name was Smith or Jones, I don't believe it would be a story.

Attorney Barcella doth protest too much. Hsu's attorney acknoewledged Hsu's California legal troubles. I'm inclined to think where there is smoke there is fire.

It's not just Hillary who is connected to Hsu. He is also coonected to Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell; New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine; Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy; California Sen. Dianne Feinstein; Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown; California Rep. Mike Honda; and Rep. Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island

Hillary and the rest of the money hungry Democrats should be distancing themselves from such questionable folks, not singing Hsu's praises as Hillary campaign spokesman Wolfson did yesterday.

UPDATE: Aides say Hillary's campaign won't return tens of thousands of dollars contributed by a seemingly low-income bunga-lowdown clan:

The father, William, is a mail carrier, and the mother, Alice, is a homemaker. They live in a one-story green bungalow - yet six Paws have given a combined $45,000 to Clinton's Senate and presidential campaigns in the past two years.

They also ranked up with some of the most affluent addresses elsewhere in the country by giving roughly $200,000 to various Democratic White House hopefuls during that time - and their donations hewed closely to those made by apparel executive Norman Hsu, the Journal reported.

The article insinuates that Hsu gave money to the Paws to donate to get around limits on campaign contributions from individuals.

Hsu and the Paws denied their donations were related.

Hsu is slated to host a Sept. 30 fund-raiser in Northern California for Clinton.

More at Captain's Quarters, Don Surber, Riehl World View Sister Toldjah, Stop The ACLU, and The Influence Peddler.

Most Americans Say Iraq War Not Lost

A new UPI/Zogby poll finds a majority of Americans - 54% - believe the United States has not lost the war in Iraq.

As usual there is a huge partisan divide on this question:

While two in three Democrats (66%) said the war effort has already failed, just 9% of Republicans say the same.

This Democratic defeatism echoes that of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who said in April that he believed that "this war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything."

While the President's approval for his handling of the war improved, up to 27% from 24% in July, Congress remains stuck at a 3% approval rating for its handling of the war. Nearly all Democrats -95% are dissatisfied with the way the Democratic Congress has handled the war. Perhaps Democrats would hold a higher opinion of Congress if Democratic leaders advocate victory rather than retreat. If Democrats would join in the call for Reids resignation over his moral support for our enemies, other Democrats in Congress would realize Americans want to win the war.

Americans are also split over which party, if elected in 2008, would be more likely to bring the war to a successful conclusion - 39% say a Republican president, while 36% say a Democratic president.

Asked which of the 2008 presidential candidates would best handle the war in Iraq, respondents preferred Rudy Giuliani - 14%, followed by Fred Thompson - 11%; Hillary Clinton - 10%; Barack Obama 9%; John McCain and Joe Biden - 7%; John Edwards - 5%,;Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Bill Richardson, and Dennis Kucinich - 4%. But more Americans said they were unsure (15%).

The poll was conducted August 17-20, and has a margin of error of +/- 1.2 percent.

Senator Johnson Will Run for Reelection

ABC News' Bob Woodruff Reports: Senator Tim Johnson, the South Dakota Democrat who suffered a near fatal brain hemorrhage last December, will seek reelection in 2008.

Johnson is greeting South Dakota voters Today, in his first public appearance since falling ill.

We continue to wish Johnson well, but now that Johnson decided to seek reelection it's time for the gloves to come off. Johnson won reelection in 2002 by just 524 votes and was a tempting target even before he became ill.

Two Republicans, State Representative Joel Dykstra and business man Sam Kephart, are running for Johnson's seat.

Castro's Choice - Hillary/Obama

Cuba's Fidel Castro tells Democrats the winning ticket is Hillary Clinton and Obama:

"The word today is that an apparently unbeatable ticket could be Hillary for president and Obama as her running mate," he wrote in an editorial column on U.S. presidents published on Tuesday by Cuba's Communist Party newspaper, Granma.

Castro also had kind words for former President Bill Clinton, saying Clinton was "really kind" when the two men shook hands at the U.N. in 2000:

He also praised Clinton for sending elite police to "rescue" shipwrecked Cuban boy Elian Gonzalez from the home of his Miami relatives in 2000 to end an international custody battle.

Castro's favorite U.S. president is Democrat Jimmy Carter.

Fred Fixes A Date

Fred Thompson's new campaign manager, Bill Lacy, forces out communications director Linda Rozett and suddenly we have a date for Fred's announcement:

Sources tell numerous outlets that Thompson will announce his campaign September 4th, and that he will participate in his first debate on September 27 at Morgan State University in Baltimore. His first major appearance at a GOP event will be at the Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference in Michigan around a week earlier.

Fred's campaign must be paying attention and catching on.

Scott Rasmussen doesn't think much of the media story line that it is a mistake for Fred to delay his announcement:

However, the polls show Thompson remains more of a threat to Giuliani's lead that Romney. His support is down a bit from its peak, but he's still showing a lot of potential. As Rasmussen Reports has noted many times in recent months, that may change when Thompson does enter the race for real. But, it may not.

]. . .]

Those who really understand the game know that spring training victories don't count once the regular season begins.

The delay doesn't bothers me. What bothers me is the constant shifting of the date, which makes the campaign look second-rate at best. But, like Rasmussen says, that's what spring training is all about.