“No Man’s life liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session”.

- attributed to NY State Judge Gideon Tucker



Thursday, February 7, 2008

Harold Ford, Jr.'s Disingenuousness & Other Super Tuesday Topics

First, the ironic topic.

Only a few weeks ago, after the Republican Michigan primary, Democratic pundits chortled that the GOP couldn't produce a winner, and was hopelessly fractured. At that point, Hickabee, Romney and McCain had each won one primary/caucus.

Now, the shoe is on the other foot. Hillary and Obama are locked in a dead heat, and are expected to remain so until their convention. Thanks to Robert Novak's superb reporting on Fox News the other day, it is clear why. Long ago, in the McGovern era of the party, the Democrats became embarrassed by 'winner take all' primaries, and eliminated them. So proportional are they, Novak explained, that it takes a win of over 60% for a candidate to be awarded more than only half of the delegates in a two-person contest.

Thanks to this typically-populist move, the Democrats have assured that Obama can't get swept out of the race by one or two large-state wins by Hillary.

As Novak put it, by now, Hillary's campaign had planned to announce their victory, and begin Republican-bashing in full force.

Instead, they are in the fight of their lives.

The way I figure it, if she muscles the so-called super delegates to vote for her, Obama and his black/young following will feel they were jobbed. Many of these newly-registered voters could well sit home, rather than vote for the Evil Queen.

Further, if she wins, and Obama believes she will lose the general election, he will want to protect his newly-won base. If so, will he whole-heartedly embrace Hillary and support her? Only to have the Kos and his newfound supporters desert him for being so, well, predictable and conventional?

It's not a pretty picture the Democrats have facing them, no matter who wins.

Meanwhile, Fox News hired Harold Ford, Jr., late a Tennessee Democrat Representative, failed Senatorial candidate, and current chair of the Democratic Leadership Council, Bubba's old outfit.

As a paid commentator, Ford was opining on the Hillary-Obama battle last night with Chris Wallace.

Every time Wallace tried to engage Ford on the importance of the black vote to Obama throughout the south, Ford kept alleging, to paraphrase him,

'...remember, Obama won in Iowa. And Iowa doesn't have many african americans. So race didn't matter.'

Nice try, Harold. But Iowa is uber-liberal to begin with. They'd be the most likely to embrace a neophyte black candidate. Especially one from literally next door- Illinois. And, Obama employed a tactic of asking college supporters to flood into Iowa at every opportunity, including to vote. Iowa may not be a state with a large black population, but that doesn't mean the black vote isn't important to Obama.

And, by the way, Ford said this, smiling slyly, trying to appear uncommited. But he's clearly backing Obama, based upon his continuing attempt to deflect the race issue and implicitly campaign for Obama's electability.

Then Wallace asked Ford if Obama's strong showing in red states was immaterial, because those would go Republican anyway. Again, Ford danced quickly, alleging, totally illogically, to paraphrase,

'I don't think so, Chris. The turnout on the Democratic side was high, so I think he'll do well in those states in a general election.'

Again, a non sequitor. The Democratic turnout has no bearing on whether a state's electorate, in general, will suddenly switch to blue from red.

With logic and reasoning like this, maybe it's easier to understand why Ford lost his Senate campaign.

Meanwhile, it borders on hysterical to watch the Democratic pundits recoil in horror, as the condition they so joyously celebrated among their Republican foes, a deadlock, has now been visited upon them until their convention.

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Equal Time: Obama

As I did in a post earlier today with Hillary Clinton, I'd like to explore some of Obama's recent claims amidst his bid for the Oval Office.

While not having a Wall Street Journal editorial to critique, I have heard, more times than I can count, or want to, Obama's recent political television ad. In it, he espouses, as I recall:

-a tax cut for the middle class

-affordable health care for all

-bringing back middle class jobs to America

-reuniting 'one America'

That's quite a plateful. Let's consider these promises.

A tax cut for the middle class would be great! Does that mean he will push Congress to make the Bush tax cuts permanent? Let's hope so. He'd be finishing the job of his predecessor.

I'm at a loss to understand how Obama, whose health care plan is not really different from HillaryCare 2.0, is going to bring "affordable health care" to all with the usual mandate that insurers cannot use price to offset risks. As with RomneyCare in Massachusetts and ArnoldCare in California, ObamaCare won't be able to fulfill this pledge because he will try to legislate prices, thus shrinking availability of coverage, or make all insured customers of.....Uncle Sam.

Think that's ever going to be affordable in the long term? No way.

How will Obama personally 'bring back middle class jobs to America?' Is he, as I asked of Hillary in the prior, linked post, going to now function as VP of Human Resources for America, too? Does he have some magic crystal ball that allows him to know which jobs to create onshore for our economy?

Silly me. I thought the private sector did that. I thought that government's job was to provide an economic environment hospitable to private risk taking and economic value creation- not actually purport to create jobs. Or know which should be created.

Finally, Obama trumpets that we are "one America," and he's going to unite us all.

Fat chance. This is a country with a history of bare-knuckle political brawling. We celebrate our differences, and only compromise when it's unavoidable.

Further, Obama is the ultra-liberal darling of the Daily Kos folks. They have 'one' way, alright- their ultra-liberal way.

Do you really think Obama intends, or could afford, to compromise with conservatives, and live to tell about it? The far left will eviscerate him if he tries that.

And what about defense? The only thing we know about Obama vis a vis the country's military strength is that he won't use it. He'll run away from our current enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq. He'll probably never be capable of ordering US armed forces in harm's way to protect our interest or challenge our enemies.

Won't he be lying if he takes the oath of office, when he gets to the part about,

"....and defend the Constitution.....?"

Here's a guy with zero- absolutely zero- relevant adult experience to be President. His only differentiating campaign riff is 'uniting us for change.'

But what change? How can we unite behind an inexperienced windbag for unspecified changes?

It rings hollow. Too hollow to risk trusting our precious democracy and world-class economy to this neophyte windbag in nice suits.

Equal Time: Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal just before Super Tuesday. The core of her article was, in my opinion, these passages in italics. Let's consider her contentions, one at a time.

"My measure of economic success will never be a single, dry statistic. Rather, success means an economy that allows those at the bottom to work their way into the middle class, without pushing anyone out. It means leaving people better off when I finish than when I start. In short, success means an economy that shares its prosperity with all.

Yes, a laudable goal. And one already attained, per this recent post . If the American economy wasn't offering great income mobility, both up and down, in response to effort and education, then we wouldn't have an immigration problem. We'd have an emigration problem.

In the 1990s we saw how smart economic plans could help spur the economy to create 22 million new jobs and income growth across the board. For the past seven years we've seen the opposite. Corporate earnings have been impressive, but the average income of workers has declined. The typical household is paying $2,000 more in energy costs. Health care is nearly twice as expensive, with the number of uninsured rising to 47 million. Five million Americans have fallen into poverty.

Is Hillary's contention that, somehow, health care and energy costs are the responsibility of government, and they magically would have been lower under her husband's regime, had it continued for eight more years?

Here, Romney's criticism of Hillary's lack of value-creating, private sector employment is on target. She clearly misunderstands the nature of our economy. Energy prices rose because of market forces. Our government really doesn't control or, for the most part, affect these forces. When it has tried, it has usually failed to have its intended effect, e.g., gasoline rationing.

It's the same with health care. If anything, health care costs, particularly insurance, have risen because of government regulations and failure to control lawsuit costs. If insurance were not mandated to be available to all at the same price, and were, instead, risk-priced, many of us would see our health care costs fall.

Lastly, an average wage number, if it were correct, which I doubt, would still not capture the mobility factor. How many lower-paid citizens were better off eight years later? Hillary doesn't go there.

Because of the Bush administration's neglect, the forces of globalization and technological change -- which should represent opportunities for economic growth -- have weakened America's great middle class.

This is simply incomprehensible? Exactly which 'forces of globalization and technological change...have weakened America's great middle class?' Aren't responses to these forces, in our economy, the province of private sector companies, not the federal government?

This post discusses a specific rebuttal to Hillary's allegation that our middle class has been weakened.

Once more, Hillary the facsist comes to the fore as social planner extraordinaire.

Simply put, since 2001, our economy has failed the shared prosperity test, and we need decisive, experienced leadership to get us back on the right track."

No, it hasn't. Economic mobility is alive and well. And if anyone is not experienced in leading anything, Hillary is one of them.

By the way, in her Super Tuesday speech last night, midway through the election returns, Hillary again stumped for adding 'green collar' jobs to America, as well as well-paying auto making jobs.

Where'd this come from? Is Hillary now VP of Human Resources for America? How does Hillary know which jobs we need? What is a 'green collar' job? How would Hillary know that employers want to hire people for these jobs?

Or is she just going to tax you and me, in order to offer generous subsidies for modern-day equivalents of FDR's make-work programs?

If this is leadership and progress, Hillary, you have miles to go before you're ready to run anything.

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

The Peculiar Democratic Presidential Disease

I was discussing the current state of the Presidential nominating races with a quasi-liberal Democratic friend the other evening.

Since I don't spend a lot of time deconstructing Democratic politics, the conversation took an interesting turn.

It occurred to me to ask,

"Why do the Democrats keep nominating unelectable, fringe candidates?"

If the US were run with parliamentary-style parties, the Democrats would probably not be nominating either of their two candidates. Both are needlessly extreme, fractious, divisive and polarizing. Instead, the powers that be would be sure to nominate a fairly centrist, experienced Democrat for President.

Hillary isn't really experienced, and Obama Bim Baden certainly is not. Both are polarizing.

Don't the Dems have some solid, sitting governor of a blue state who can attract moderate Republicans and conservatives?

For example, I'm not crazy for McCain. If Richardson had been less strident over Iraq, I could have easily voted for him as President.

If you look back at various Presidential candidates, you see that Republicans have been better at nominating candidates that can grab some of the historically middle-of-the-road voters who really aren't wedded to either party for the long term.

After Clinton, the Democrats continued with Gore, lost, but he hung around like a specter for another four years. The result was a candidate not really representative of their party- Kerry. He was too effete and wealthy.

The Republicans, after eight years of a powerful President, with no succeeding VP, understandably have a bit of a vacuum just now. Even so, every one of their candidates could conceivably be seen as sufficiently moderate to reach some centrist Democratic voters.

Not so with Hillary and Obama.

Hillary polarizes everyone. Obama, by virtue of his total inexperience and race, also tends to parse the electorate. You can even imagine women not voting for Obama, and blacks staying home to help defeat Hillary.

It's like the party has a theoretical 'center,' but nobody who actually occupies that physical space. Even my liberal, Democratic acquaintances and friends tend to be- lawyers and teachers. The two most powerful 'unions' affecting the Democratic party. It just doesn't seem built to produce an easily-electable, moderate candidate.

This time around, McCain is, I think, a fairly comfortable winner against Hillary. Against Obama, it'll be a landslide, one way or the other.

How much more easily the Democrats could win the election in November if they chose some moderate, competent governor from between the Ohio river and the Rockies.

But such a candidate couldn't win their early primaries, or the nomination.

Such is the path of a party that seems to have a Presidential death wish.

Monday, February 4, 2008

Down To Four & One Day 'Til Super Tuesday

As I wrote in this post last Sunday,

"So the highly-probable match-ups for November are now clearing appearing. Candidates will now more likely be evaluated for their ability to win against known opponents, as well as their positions and records."

And, in concert, most of the past week's media coverage has been about electability, rather than issues, for each candidate.

Today's Wall Street Journal has a lead article discussing the various candidates' strengths, as they approach a potentially decisive voting day tomorrow.

My own handicapping goes thusly:

Hillary: A known quantity, ambitious, ruthless, socialistic. Will probably attract fewer women voters and Bubba-lovers than she'll draw opposition voters for whomever opposes her.

Obama: Totally unknown, totally lacking in experience or relevant accomplishments. On the latter point, Bubba was right to call his 'record' a "fairy tale." All sizzle, but no steak. Still, as Dick Armey said on MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell this morning,

'When you get up every morning singing Kum Bah Ya and talking about coming together, it's hard for anyone to hate you.'

Obama is, by far, I think, the more dangerous Democrat for Republicans to face in November. Either it's a landslide for the GOP candidate, as America wakes up to the fact that Obama has no governmental clothes, or it's a landslide for the novice from Illinois, as the nation's voters lose their sense of reality and stampede for the cotton-candy-pink-cloud dreamspinning of this empty suit.

Romney: He has no principles. Period. What at first seems beguilingly attractive, his consultant's focus on 'the data,' is, in fact, a lack of a priori principled belief in anything that hasn't been polled and calculated to give him an edge with conservative voters. Reagan had principles. He already knew what the relevant data were on the issues that mattered to him. Precious few consultants actually make effective CEOs. As this year's campaign's sole reigning technocrat, he has the market cornered on wonkism and likelihood of bumbling badly in office- just like Jimmah Carter and Herbert "Wonder Boy" Hoover.

McCain: His 90+ year old mother is right- just "hold your nose and vote for him"- as she stated in an interview last week. McCain isn't too bright. Who could be, and co-author McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy? He gets angry, testy and irritated when, after a primary win, someone asks him a piercing, thought-provoking question, the answer to which is likely to embarrass him. He, too, has few core principles. Thus, his 'maverick Senator' reputation. He'll sell out conservatives at the drop of a Senatorial hat. Then, again, he'll sell out moderates, too.

Fair is fair.

He's mean, ornergy, old, and quasi-embittered. As I wrote many months ago, there's a lot of Bob Dole's informal Presidential campaign slogan in him,

'I've waited long enough, it's my turn, dammit!'

This time, though, McCain has now Bubba with whom to contend. My guess is McCain is the better Republican choice to probably defeat either Democrat.

As a Senator, he's way more experienced than either Democrat, if you believe Senators even have relevant experience. Other than profound windbaggery.

As a bona fide war hero- by the way, a bomber pilot, not a fighter jock- and former POW, he's got the potential to sway and get the middle class, bluish-collar Democrat vote. This guy is a real patriot. Unlike the two Democrats, one of whom is merely ambitious, the other totally naive, McCain has a lot of knocks, dings and dents, but is undeniably patriotic.

Plus, if you liked Rudy, you might get him as the second half of the ticket with McCain, come November.

Were some likable, credible, visionary Democratic governor running this time, s/he'd be able to sweep all before her/him. Same with the Republicans. But Romney's not all that credible. And he was more an East Coast moderate Republican governing a blue state. West of the Ohio, we would call that a Lindsay Republican, which is nearly the same as a moderate Democrat.

So as Super Tuesday looms less than twelve hours away, I am voting for electability. Like so many other Presidential primaries and general elections, I'll vote for someone whom I know can't be the best we have to offer.

But McCain's mom is persuasive. I'll be heading for the polling booth with my clothespin and my sample ballot.....