Newsvine Q&A: Chuck Todd on U.S. Politics

chuck

You keep saying you're going to be here and then you rarely show.  C'mon, chuck.  You can't be that busy.  It's just another election. 

That said, here's my question.  1) What line of attack do you think the McCain campaign will focus on in these last two weeks, and 2) do you think whatever he does (ignoring the possibility of a huge non-political catastrophe) he can overcome Obama's apparent lead?

I'll hang up now and listen to your answer on the air. 

Chuck, I have a question for you. I put it in the form of an article.

http://loosecannon.newsvine.com/_news/2008/10/21/2021992-why-wont-chuck-todd-give-credit-where-its-due

I did not read the full article, but Chuck Todd has stated that Obama is closing the gap and winning some of the swing states because of organization and people on the ground.  He has said at least once that this more than the economy has helped Obama in several states, especially close primary states. 

chuck

You keep saying you're going to be here and then you rarely show.  C'mon, chuck.  You can't be that busy.  It's just another election. 

Where's Chuck?

Where's Chuck?

Probably golfing with that fellow slacker David Shuster.  

Doesn't anyone work around here?

we voted today for the next president of the u.s. of flippin' a! shhhh!

we are living in david dukeland and have noticed a total lack of support for john mccain. in 2004 metry was full of bush/cheney signs and stickers. it is very eerie the way the neighbors don't chuckle at the obama sign gracing our opulent front yard anymore, and also very noticeable is the lack of support for the incumbent party...

i am taking down the obama sign tonite.

Chuck: I enjoyed your analysis with the touchscreen on Sunday evening. Very well presented, sir.

This thread with chuck's responses just showed up in my conversation tracker.  

7 days late and 364 electoral votes short. 

Same with me, schnoo.   When I saw it appear with 30 new replies, I was wondering how so many accumulated all at once. 

Very weird!

To add to that, isn't it true Obama's tax proposal would be very similar if not the same as President Clinton's?

If true why doesn't anyone point it out and didn't the economy prosper under Clinton?

Lastly, why doesn't anyone realize that taxes are a necessary evil to pay down the deficit and not borrow any more money in order to keep Government functioning?

Thank you, GO. I'm a mortgage broker in California, and I've seen a lot of tax returns of "small business" owners. There's very little that they can't write off, and so clearing $250,000 after taxes is a lot of money.

Not to mention that when Clinton took office the economy was not in great shape.  Nothing like now.  But Clinton did prove that you can raise taxes on the wealthy in poor economic conditions and have positive effects.

It is clearly stated on Obama's website:

"Under the Obama Plan, No One Will Pay Higher Tax Rates Than They Paid in The 1990s."

I know it is coming from the actually candidate but at least dude put it in writing.  See the entire plan and make your own conclusion. 

Along these same lines, we've had a progressive tax system since, what, 1910ish.  Isn't it misleading, if not outright false, of the McCain/Palin campaign to call the rollback to pre-2000 rates for the single highest tax bracket socialism?

With earned income credit, we've been cutting checked above and beyond on folks have paid in income tax for years.  If Obama's tax credit makes us socialist, then wouldn't it be safe to say we've been socialist for all these years?

Can you guys read my article about Socialism (link below) and add your comments?  Or maybe send the link to a friend who might be able to add something to it?

http://gnja.newsvine.com/_news/2008/10/21/2024222-socialism-is-a-powerful-word

$250,000 is alot of money.  It appears to me that the entire "small business" v. "large business" argument is dependent upon whomever is applying the definition of "small", "rich", "poor", etc.

Also, the media has not made it clear that in his tax plan the amount over $250,000 is taxed at a higher rate, not the whole amount. If I made $270,000 a year then only $20,000 would be taxed at a higher rate of 39 percent, not the entire $270,000. This is NOT socialism.

Barbara - I did not think of that!  Thanks.

Bill Clinton promised tax cuts but didn't deliver... that's why 2 years after he was elected Republicans took over Congress for the first time in 50 years!  And that's why the economy got better and taxes were cut under Clinton... I predict that IF Obama gets elected - after governing for 2 years with Pelosi and Reid - there will be a HUGE Republican sweep in 2010!

Also - raising taxes on anyone - hurts the economy - jobs get cut, people spend less, etc.  When you CUT taxes for everyone (like Reagan and JFK did) - tax revenues actually INCREASE!  McCain has the right idea - everyone benefits when all taxes get cut!

Sorry, Reaganomics has been proven wrong. You cannot cut your way out of a 10 trillion dollar debit.

FACT:  "Reagonomics" created 20,000,00 new jobs. 

Cutting taxes = create more jobs = more tax revenues (from all those new jobs!).

If you recall - after the Republican landslide in 1994 - Clinton cut taxes = budget surplus.  Cutting taxes WORKS! 

20 million new jobs when exactly? in the 90's after taxes had been raised twice?

you can't cut your way out of debit. and no Clinton did not cut taxes across the board, he cut CERTAIN taxes.

Irresponsible republican borrow and spend  (reaganomics) has lead us to the mess we are in right now.

If cutting taxes for everyone is the magic answer, then why didn't Bush cut our taxes when he was cutting the taxes of the wealthy?  And since the rest of us who didn't get tax cuts was about 95% of the country, maybe Bush didn't know about Reaganomics?  oh please

and by the way, the couple of hundred dollars I might save under McCain will fill the gas tanks on our two cars for a couple of months.  gee thanks, I feel rich already...

Look:

www dot youtube dot com/watch?v=X2JPbQOHEkY&fmt=6

Thanks again Barbara!  I just sent that to a bunch of my friends that are blindly following McCain.  I swear, if he spoke that honestly now, I would be struggling a lot more over who to support.

We were talking about Reaganomics - therefore the 20,000,000 new jobs were in the 1980's not 1990's.  Jobs were created in the 1990's after the Republicans won Congress and passed tax cuts.  Taxes can't be cut for 95% of Americans - because 40% of them don't pay taxes! 

...and why all this hatred of the "wealthy"?  (I know I'd like to be wealthy some day!)  These are the folks that go to restaurants, go to stores, and buy cars, boats, clothes - you name it.  If you keep raising their taxes, they will stop spending - and where does that leave the rest of us???  Without jobs!

...as for Bush - he did cut taxes - but he also spent way too much.  When you cut taxes, you create jobs - more money comes into the gov't - the key is then NOT TO SPEND IT ALL!  It is SO simple really - just difficult to get through Congress. 

They just announced corporate layoffs - 3300 at Pepsico for example.  That's 3300 less that will be paying taxes.  What if you lower the corporate tax rate (like McCain wants to do) so they keep more of the money they make, and they can hire more people??? 

Obama wants to raise taxes.  Corporations will keep laying people off, the "wealthy" won't spend their money (in fact they will find ways to hide it) and us little people will be out of work.  Just ask Jimmy Carter how well raising taxes works!

Of course Obama says he wants to cut taxes for us little folk - but that's not going to help us very much if we don't have a job.  Then you won't feel rich at all.

McCain wants to cut taxes for ALL - and - he's proven this time and again - he will CUT spending.  That's a recipe to get this economy moving again. 

I would like to be rich also - but it's not going to happen.  I don't have that kind of job - and most people I know don't either.  But giving me a $300 a year tax cut will not really help me, and I don't know why people making three times my salary should get more than three times my tax cut, if they are not a business "creating jobs." 

You might be correct on companies creating jobs, if only they would have created them here.  Instead, they outsourced good American jobs so as to increase their profits.  Why do you think they will stop thinking about increasing profits every year, and instead put the profits into creating good jobs here in America?  I am not being snarky, I really would like to know what you think.

thanks 

Well, Obama's plans include tax credits for businesses that create AMERICAN jobs, while penalizing businesses that ship jobs out by withholding that tax credit and raising their tax rate.

That is one way to make sure those businesses put some of their profits into creating jobs "here in America".

McCain, on the other hand, wants to continue the Bush tax cuts that have allowed and almost encouraged businesses to move their jobs out of America.

I think that alone makes the choice pretty clear.

OK - a couple of things... People making 3x as much as you aren't getting 3x the tax cut.  We're talking about keeping their tax rate at 36% (Obama wants to raise it to the mid 40% level).  You don't pay anywhere near 36% in taxes!  For me - even though I am not in that tax bracket - it is simply wrong to take 40+% of anyone's money!  Now Obama might say... "well, they don't need it."  How presumptuous!  They EARNED it... they should be able to keep it!  If the gov't didn't spend SO much - then ALL of us could keep more of what we earn!

As for jobs going overseas... clearly it would be easier for companies to keep their businesses here - if only the taxes were smaller.  Right now they pay 35% in corporate taxes - in Ireland, it's 11%.  So sending jobs overseas actually helps them make money!  If the corporate tax rate were lower over here - more in line with the rest of the world - then they would make more money here in the US.  Why ship jobs overseas to pay say 15% in taxes, when they can keep them right here and pay 15% in taxes???  Businesses want to make money - of course - and making the US competitive will keep the businesses and the jobs HERE!

As for Obama including tax credits for businesses that create US jobs - that's just wrong.  (Although you are right that he will penalize corporations that ship jobs overseas.)  There have been numerous reports that show that small businesses - the ones that have 10-100 employees and that make over $250,000 will have their taxes raised under Obama's plan.  (True - the small businesses that make under $250,000 - home businesses, hot dog vendors, etc. will get a tax cut - but those don't create jobs.)  These small businesses (10-100 employees) account for 80% of job creation in the US!  80%!!!  (I read somewhere that they were responsible for nearly 100% of new jobs over the last year!)  If you raise taxes on these guys - jobs WILL BE CUT.  Costs will be passed on to us - the consumer.  It is simply BAD for the economy.  John McCain will cut taxes FOR ALL - then more jobs will be created, more jobs will stay in the US - and therefore more Americans will pay US taxes - more money will flow to the gov't.

McCain's plan:  Cut taxes - Cut spending = more jobs and better economy!  

Parade magazine had a chart that detailed how much people would get under the two proposed tax plans.  Parade is not a liberal rag, so I think we can be sure that they have presented the plans fairly.  That is where I saw the tax rates - and I grant you, they are for individuals.  There was no chart for businesses.

While I can understand your frustration at small businesses having to pay so much in taxes, you are leaving out the pesky details that make the solution more difficult than the way in which you present it.  Businesses can take deductions for their expenses.  Taxes are on net, not gross.  I have read posts from small business owners who say they could only in their wildest dreams think of netting more than $250,000.

As for those that are large enough to be creating good jobs,  I would say to you, point out to me which businesses actually pay 35% in taxes.  Many businesses get tax credits from our government - see how the oil companies have still made record profits recently despite what on paper looks like high taxes.  I think you also have to differentiate between the businesses that are doing well right now and growing because they have valuable products and/or services to sell, vs. those that are doing poorly because of poor management or business practices, salary levels that are out of synch with performance of duties, etc. etc.  If a business owner thinks it's more important to purchase "company vehicles, planes, apartments, etc." for personal and family use, rather than use this money to create new jobs, then does this business deserve more tax breaks which may or may not be used as intended?  

And do you think that perhaps some businesses might like having health care being removed as one of their responsibilities?  If companies would save money by having employee health care being covered by the government in some other form, I bet many would like that.  But the answer is not having everyone go out on their own to get health insurance.  Group insurance provides group discounts, and most people need help figuring out which insurance plan is best for their needs.  Insurance companies are looking for profits too, so they won't be as helpful if it would cost them money.   

I am asking these questions only because I think you are assuming there is only one simple and obvious way to grow the economy, and that is Mr. McCain's way.  You keep using the exclamation marks and caps like you're yelling at us - as if to say, if you would just listen to me, you would see that I am right.  And there are no simple answers to any of our problems today - we do have to think about the way one decision will impact other sectors of the economy - just look at what's happening now - many sectors are being affected, not just banks.  And sometimes when we try to benefit one group, we hurt another, as you have correctly pointed out.  

Finally, I know no one likes to pay more taxes (I don't), but I do know that there are many in my community who are not as well off as I am.  If I had to pay a little more in taxes to help out those hardworking folks that are struggling to pay bills, I would be ok with that.  Maybe you don't agree, but don't you think that many people with incomes of half a million dollars a year could go back to the rates they paid 8 years ago?  It's not like we're soaking them, they were doing ok before Bush gave them the cuts. 

But the government has to stop spending more than the revenue it gets, so priorities will have to be set.  That is the difficult part, and that is where negotiation has to come in.  If solutions were always so easy, they would have been implemented by now. 

Sorry this is so long, but I feel like I have to explain more, lest you think I am a bubblehead who is blindly accepting what I am fed by the Democrats.  I don't envy whoever wins this election - it's going to be really tough - no matter what he does, there will be people who will be really upset and mad.

Also, health care is a deductible expense for small businesses.  My husband's small business needs those medical expenses to reduce our tax liability.  Also too, (sorry - couldn't help it) one of the reasons our corporate taxes rates are so high is because that is the only way the gov't can squeeze a fair amount of money out of the big corps who have teams of CPA's that put the $ in tax shelters (usually off-shore).

Colin Powell's endorsement is huge because of the respect people have for him.  One interesting consequence of this election is how many senators; congressmen, and pundits have proven themselves less intelligent than I would give them credit for because of the stupid, childish remarks they have made in trying to sell  and defend their products - John McCain and Sarah Palin.  Colin Powell's message showed intelligent reasoning and that he is a man concerned with what is best for Americans, not loyalty to a cause he can't believe  in.

Expanding on that... would Joe Lieberman have brought enough independent voters into the McCain fold to balance the possible loss of some of the base?

I need someone to tell Mr. Lieberman that not being clear on who your friends are from day to day in the Senate, does not make you an Independent.  Sorry...could not help myself.  Please see SnotRag Dave's question...did I just type SnotRag Dave??

Yes, Gina O... you did.

It's OK... I've had all my shots.

;-)

Lenore K - You asked this:

'1) What criteria goes into determining "likely" voters?'

Chuck can answer this for you, but you might want to try the Gallup Homepage. They answer this question very well.

My question for Chuck Todd -

Have you moved any electoral votes over to the Obama category lately? And if so, why?

To expand Lenore's question in regards to polls, I know that you take more than polls into considerations when you're filling in the blues and reds on the map. What exactly do you look at to come to your conclusions? Also, early last month you said that where the race stood mid October is most likely who will win the election (barring any major craziness of course). Do you still stand on that prediction?
Thanks Chuck ! :)

Good question!   I read somewhere that the news networks have "special language" they will use to imply that Obama has basically won without actually calling it. 

Really, anyone who's done the electoral math on any of these electoral map webpages will find that if Obama wins VA and Iowa with the Kerry 04' states - he wins.   Hence - WHEN the networks call VA for Obama the race is over!  (Iowa is nearly a slam dunk for him at this point)

I would like to add to this question. At what point (in other words, what will it take) will the media take a stand for America and call out the vile campaign tactics of the McCain Campaign. It is escalating daily and if it isn't reigned in, there is likely to be violence. The rest of the world is watching our democracy in action and it is pretty shameful.

Hello Chuck,

My first time doing one of these, and I will likely post a question or two of my own below - but I wanted to chime in on this one because it's an important question.

When will the "MSM" start standing up for truth and the American people?  

For instance, the network could say they are taking a stand against negative campaigning, and that from now until the end of the election, they will only show clips of campaign speeches that focus on the issues facing Americans - but will NOT show the parts of the speech that promote divisiveness or bigotry.   Instead, they could put up a scoreboard, showing how many times each campaign went negative during that day's campaigning. 

If all the networks would do that, I would think that both sides would have to change their tactics pretty quickly if they wanted to get any face time on the news.  Of course, I realize you don't have any control over other networks - but it has to start somewhere, right?  

To put it another way, do you feel NBC has done an adequate job in calling the McCain/Palin campaign on their dishonest and divisive tactics? I'm glad to see folks like Matthews, Olbermann, and Maddow highlight these tactics and explicitly delve into the damage they do to our society. However, Brian Williams and the Nightly News team, which has much more viewership (am I right?), seem reluctant to "take sides." I can't help but wonder whether the GOP hasn't succeeded in instilliing a kind of chilling effect. What's your view?

I believe it was Murtha - a Democrat and Obama supporter that called western PA "racist" and "redneck".  Seems like the left is using the race card - not the Republicans!  Please give specifics if you are going to make such an outrageous charge!

McCain promptly anounced his agreement with Mertha on the stump.

Get out!  Why would McCain call western PA racist??? He's trying to get votes! 

McCain said that PA is full of patriotic, good, decent Americans.  Period.  How is that racist???

uhh...apparently you missed the footage. yes, it was a biff, but it is hillarious.

thanks i had missed that footage too. he just messed that whole thing up! those people were probably thinking "what is he talking about"

That's so strange that you blame the Rep.'s, when Barrack started out his campaign with all the slogans from MLK.  Then decided the white democrats wouldn't care for that. 

What if the black canidate does not win?  Will the black communities riot & burn there own houses & pilfer their own store in their area???  Will they take innocent truck drivers sitting in an innersection & nearly beat them to death??? 

We are all scared.  I believe that it's just another reason the stock market is so crazy.  It's always down during a presidential year.  But the media has cause much of these rumors & made people loose confidence.

I have voted for the one person that has never lost faith & has always been proud of his country.  Always saluted the flag & served his country.  Believes that Americans are Americans!!!  

Not only that...what's up with Charlie Christ?

I want to follow up on ACORN.  It's my understanding that ACORN had to turn in every registration card they had even if they suspected they were bogus and it was up to the election board for each sate to follow up on the legitimacy of the registrant.  If that's the case then what did ACORN do wrong?  I freely admit that I'm not familiar with ACORN and may be completely wrong, but I'd like to know what exactly the issue is (or is this a campaign smokescreen by the Republicans)?

What ACORN did wrong - It hired felons (among others) to get voter registrations.  Clearly many of these registrations that were turned in were false (the Dallas Cowboys lineup, Mickey Mouse, etc.)  The fear is that when ACORN turns in these knowingly false registrations - by the thousands - it will overwhelm the system, and a lot of them will be cast.  This raises it to the level of voter fraud. 

Also, there are reports of ACORN reps using intimidation to get people to effectively break the law, by registering more than once, or using false information.

Oh, and these folks that are making all these phony registrations - they are getting paid for each registrant - not by the hour - and ACORN is partially funded by the government.  That is our tax dollars hard at work! 

McCain Floridafan, maybe you should speak to your local Board of Elections, who will tell you that your scenario cannot happen.  "A lot of them" will NOT be cast.  And a lot of "regular" people have registered to vote without the assistance of ACORN, and it is that massive influx of registrations that is overwhelming so many local governments. 

And if you want to complain about your tax dollars at work, go holler at Halliburton bigwigs, who wasted millions of your dollars and defrauded the government to enrich themselves, AND endangered our troops! 

And why aren't you concerned about thousands of innocent citizens who were purged from the system unfairly because their names looked similar to people who are felons, or who are dead, or who moved out of the state.  Why aren't you all up in arms about that?

The question was about ACORN - so I was responding to that.

As Americans we should all be concerned with any voter fraud - even from liberal organizations with ties to the Democratic presidential nominee - like ACORN.

voter registration fraud is not the same thing as voter fraud.  these bogus or duplicated registrations does not equal a vote.  even if someone registers 10 times does not mean they get to vote 10 times.  the system might be overwhelmed with registrations but it is not ACORN's fault Obama has energized so many Americans.

I guess it's easier to forget John McCain spoke at an ACORN event. You are just spouting the talking points to keep the slander of the "community organizers" going.

John McCain spoke at an Immigration Reform rally of which ACORN and many other organizations were sponsors.  It was not an ACORN event.

And voter registration fraud and voter fraud are very different... but in Ohio - where they have same day registration and voting - voter registration fraud CAN turn into voter fraud!  It should be troubling to all - regardless of party.

It IS troubling to all of us - just like the voting machines that change your vote from Obama to McCain are troubling.

No one is saying voter fraud, or voter registration fraud, is a good thing.

What we're saying is that until there is some actual PROOF that ACORN deliberately and purposely tried to pass off phony registrations (the organization - NOT individual employees trying to get paid for work they never did) - we are reserving judgment, and you should too.

Jumping to conclusions usually ends up making people look foolish. Just like all those who thought the story about the woman who was "attacked" by an Obama supporter who carved a "B" on her face was real - you don't want to end up having to eat crow over this, do you?

I could agree with you about being concerned about voter fraud as long as you don't keep saying that Obama is somehow responsible for what ACORN does.  I don't blame McCain for things that were done by other Republican groups run by people he knows.

And the same day registration and voting thing has nothing to do with ACORN activities.  So why don't you focus on the wide variety of ways that both parties are trying to influence who registers, and who votes?  Can you be objective in this way?

I have to agree with this Chuck.

Not spin or hypothesis...but
The year Todd and Sarah Palin first attended the AIP convention and the year that Todd Palin was so moved from that convention to join...was the year that both Joe Vogel was killed trying to purchase domestic terror bomb making materials in fighting for the same issues he founded the party on...

that same year!

...(that's not hype or spin ...that is the truth which baffles me )and common sense tells you some in that party had to have been  mourning at least talking about the party founders' death....and also that same year they drew up their Alaska constitution if they were to secede.We have not seen a single story on this.Todd Palin from that initial convention that he and sarah attended...was so moved ...that he joined after attending.  and was an active member for 10 years.Sarah attended again once ...just as a non member supporter.and then as the keynote speaker.this is a problem.but I would love to hear your thoughts.There is something wrong with the press' overwhelming omission of this story.

WTF? Dude, Chuck has been nothing but fair. if anything the difference you see if that he has opportunity to be a multi-dimensional person. on C-Span he reported some inside information from his office at Hot Line and that was it, no emotion or joking around, now that he is on a cable news network, he gets to show off his personality a bit.

I think you need to pay attetion and get over your right wing bias of how you view the world. "Reality has a decidedly left wing bias", as Colbert so eloquently put it.

Wow.  DG....Do you even know who Chuck Todd is?

He predicted a realistic 6 point spread a week ago...even during the debate thrashing and through the subsequent "terrorist pals and socialist!" bs from the McCain/Palin message-o-da-week campaign.

Chuck Todd is virtually unimpeachable as a man seemingly obsessed with getting his numbers right above all else.

dgraphics2009 comments reported as inflammatory.

dgraphics

his job is to report and discuss why people are feeling the way they do...

The point of the press is to make sure reality gets out there.

Whether you agree with them or not.

The ultimate goal is to get reality in front of the public and their audience

Thus the reason Fox News   isn't really news... or is only news a third of the time.

I gotta agree!  Chuck - you seemed fair earlier in the campaign - but lately it seems difficult for you to contain your glee at the Obama numbers.  Why aren't you reporting on the closer polls, like the Battleground poll (1 point Obama advantage)? 

I think polls do a disservice to both sides - a huge margin for Obama can lull voters to stay home since they think he's going to win anyway.  A huge deficit for McCain can lead to lack of enthusiasm and people just staying home since they think he is going to lose anyway.  I wish they would just do away with polls.  Look at the primaries - they were rarely correct!

The only poll that counts is on election day!

Sorry, but you're nuts if you think Chuck can hardly contain his glee.  Where in the world did you come up with this?  Are you even watching him, or are you getting these ideas from blogs - or maybe you're viewing his commentary through beer goggles?

Nope - I watch him on the Today show in the morning before I head to work.  Even my 13 year old wanted to know why Chuck looked so happy...

If you have decided that Chuck is "in the tank for Obama" (another Republican talking point) then why are you even watching MSNBC or NBC? 

And why are you here?  If you really think we're all morons who can't recognize truth, why are you bothering to try to enlighten us?

Jen in Upstate - You are cracking me up!  Go get 'em!

First of all - I never called anyone a moron.  I thought this was a public forum where people could voice their opinions without being attacked. 

If you find my opinions so offensive - then don't read them...

Are you sure we're not interested in that?  Has any news organization ever polled the public on whether or not they think the Bush administration should be investigated and held accountable for any breaches of ethics or law?   I certainly haven't heard of any poll to that effect.

Furthermore, even if it wouldn't be "well received politically", isn't justice and truth, and holding people accountable for their actions more important than popularity?  If not, then why bother having a Constitution or government at all?

...is it possible to pardon someone that hasn't been convicted of anything yet?

... can one President un-pardon those that were pardoned by a predecessor?

He could verywell pardon several people. The last part is fantasy.

BD, yes.

Maureen, no.

I don't think a president can pardon someone who has not been convicted.  If someone is convicted after a presidents term that president can't pardon before the fact.

WOW Dave...now wouldn't that be something. scary thought.

Oops.

Ford pardoned Nixon who was not convicted of anything.

I found this on the United State Department of Justice web page under pardon information and instructions :

"Under the Constitution, only federal criminal convictions, such as those obtained in the United States District Courts, may be pardoned by the President. In addition, the President's pardon power extends to convictions obtained in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and military court-martial proceedings. However, the President cannot pardon a state criminal offense." 

Also the President (I think) has the power to pardon himself of crimes other than impeachment.  This was an option Secretary of State Haig gave to Ford concerning the pardon of Nixon.  Article II section 2 of the Constitution is pretty broad and offers no real guidance.

For those who question whether a presidential pardon can be granted to someone who has not been convicted:

"Now, therefore, I, Gerald R. Ford, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from July (January) 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974."  Source. 

greenwolf... you stated:

If someone is convicted after a presidents term that president can't pardon before the fact.

But, if granted a pardon... there would be no subsequent conviction.  That is the purpose of the unconditional pardon granted to Nixon, to prevent prosecution (which was likely) and conviction (also likely).

Bush is a pretty far-fetched President.  

I recall reading a link here on the Vine recently that claimed Bush and others in his administration could be prosecuted as war criminals due to the Supreme Court's rulings regarding the treatment of detainees at Gitmo and other such prisons.  If that's true, then there is a very good reason for Bush to want to make sure he has them all covered with pardons before he leaves office.