The Answers are Here

We just need to be willing to talk about the questions.

Newt Gingrich has made an outstanding presentation at the American Enterprise Institute on March 27, 2008, in response to Senator Obama’s speech on race in America.  It is not a refutation – but an extension.  Speaker Gingrich follows his familiar format describing what works and what doesn’t and calls for continued dialog with state, local and federal policy makers to bring about substantive change.  He focuses on Detroit as a case study (and other urban and ethnic areas) and describes the changes that could bring back the greatness that was Detroit in past years.  Newt is not speaking to race – he is speaking to poverty and he offers real solutions for our consideration.

The speech runs more than an hour, so will not be featured here – but a transcript is available at :

http://newt.org/tabid/102/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/3284/Default.aspx

The video is available at : http://newt.org/MediaCenter/tabid/61/Default.aspx

Speaker Gingrich is always a remarkable orator.  He is well though out, articulate and, lately, bi-partisan. Please listen to the video in full if you can find the time.  It is worth it.

Quoting John Kennedy, Gingrich says “Our task is not to fix the blame for the past but to fix the course for the future.”  Senator Obama expressed a similar sentiment.  We cannot advance the state of race relations in this country by focusing on the oppression and victimization of yesterday.  The only progressive course will be to focus on the improvements that can be made tomorrow.  That is the only course that can replace hate and anger with hope and progress. 

Decades of abuse and neglect of cities and our education system is the direct result of specific cultural and  governmental actions.  The trend is now a clear and present danger to our society which is equal to a conventional war as a threat to us today. 

I commend Speaker Gingrich for his progressive, strategic thinking and I hope we as a society will listen to him. 

 

 

The Beat goes On

Oh wait – there is more good news. 

We read about Speaker Pelosi suggesting that the candidate who is ahead in June should be accepted so that the party can unite.  Ha ! Madam Speaker has been threatened by Clinton loyalists for her obvious bias for the other guy. 

Now in response, the move0n.org folks (you remember – the ones with all the money) have responded with threats to withhold financial support for the Democrat Congressional Committees (the guys that finance congressional races every two years) if Hillary steals the nomination. 

It is gratifying to see the Democrats eat their young in a Presidential Election cycle.

But let’s keep our eye on the ball.  There are two major battlefronts that will occur here.  There has been polling to suggest that significant percentages of both Obama and Clinton camps could jump ship and vote Republican in November if they don’t get their way in the convention.  And it appears that from now until August we could see Democrat infighting on the news every day – all good for Senator McCain.

But the key is going to continue to be money.  and McCain is not raising enough of it.  This is where the rubber meets the road in this race.  McCain does not inspire the conservative base.  He will still get their votes (they have nowhere else to go) but he is not getting the money yet.  The only hope is that as the Democrat candidates self-destruct, a McCain victory will look more likely and the money will begin to flow.  Otherwise we have another Bob Dole – a strong candidate without financial support.

The other major battleground is the Congressional races – and the name of the game, again, is money.  A McCain who is not electrifying the base is not providing coat tails for House and Senate candidates to ride. Also McCain is tied to the war in Iraq – a difficult issue for the Senate and House candidates to support.  Congressional race fundraising is being dominated 3–1 by the Democrats ($60M, to $20M).  A Republican White House will not be able to be effective if the Democrats reach veto-proof majorities in House and/or Senate. 

So enjoy the soap opera running up to the Democrat convention – but remember there will be only 60 days of campaigning after the Republican convention and legislative and executive power is at stake. Much will depend on the news from Iraq, the state of the economy and the non-occurrence of terrorist attacks. 

 

The Nobel Prize and the Grameen Bank

Much has been written concerning the trend toward irrelevance by the Nobel Prize committee with selections which opened them to criticism such as the recent award to Al Gore. But the committee got it right in the previous year with an unusual award of the Peace Prize to Professor Muhammad Yunus and the bank he founded, the Grameen Bank.

Professor Yunus and his bank operate in Bangladesh and have created a concept of microcredit to serve the needs of the rural poor in that country. Yunus noted thirty years ago that an availability of a very small amount of capital could make a significant difference in the lives of the poor, particularly women. If these people could rise above their day to day survival needs for even a short time, they could create their own business using their own talents and production capabilities. By having a brief availability of capital in small amounts ($50 to $100 equivalent) they could purchase raw materials at favorable prices and begin to create products which they could sell and could not only repay the loan but could continue to thrive in the self-employed opportunity that they had, themselves, created.

Potential borrowers were collected together in small groups (for this example – 5). Only two could have a loan outstanding an any time, so there was supervision and encouragement within the peer group to succeed and repay the loan. The success rate was phenomonal and the impact on the customers of the bank was life-changing.

By the assertion that credit is a fundamental human right, Professor Yunus and his bank have had a positive impact on millions of rural poor in Bangladesh. By creating a positive environment for self-employment he has lifted up his people with dignity and economic development possibilities that are not reflected in a government system of welfare payments. It is the archtypical example of the concept “feed a man a fish and he will have a meal – teach a man to fish and he will feed himself and his family for their lifetime”.

Our culture seems to recognize significant trends by brief appearances in monologs of such as Jay Leno. In this case, Professor Yunus was recognized for tackling the blight of poverty on a national scale in one of the poorest of the third world countries with the Nobel Peace Prize and a brief appearance in the May 13, 2007, Doonesbury cartoon strip.

Bravo !

Doonesbury features Prof. Muhammad Yunus


Source : http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20070513

My Problem

This will be the third in a series of comments on the criticisms of Senator Obama in recent weeks concerning the televised excerpts of his church pastor Jeremiah Wright.  The rhetoric is factually flawed, disturbingly anti-American and of concern to those who look at Senator Obama’s candidacy.  I have been surprisingly supportive and cautious of Senator Obama’s positions considering the fact that I begin each comment with the disclaimer that I am not voting for the man.

The first article in the series, Mr Obama’s Problem (March 17), described the unique perception  I have of Senator Obama which began with his Keynote speech to the Democrat Convention in 2004.  Here is a black man who does not focus on racial grievances.  Here is an urban Democrat that talks of inclusion and smoothly and articulately directs his reasonable positions at a broad audience across party lines or political prejudices.  How refreshing.  Now here is a candidate for President who has the most liberal voting record in the Senate, seems to think Federalism means all problems are to be solved by a tax and spend giveaway program at the Federal level – but who continues to speak in educated, reasoned tones of his vision for America which appears to include Republicans. Here is a Candidate with whom I disagree but to whom I am willing to listen.  And, in this article I build the case that he is being undermined by the Clintons in a coordinated attack that seeks to build Mrs Clinton’s future solely on Obama’s race and the statements of his surrogates.  I do not mind if Senator Obama loses his election in November because the American Public chooses the Conservative Republican’s philosophy over the Liberal Democrat version – in fact, I am counting on it.  But I don’t want to see the decision based upon his skin color or racially based fears and hatreds.  There can be no question that Senator Obama is qualified to be a serious candidate for the highest office in the land because of his equality as a citizen and the excellence of his mind, education and character. 

The second article in the series, Mr Obama’s Problem – and Mine (March 19) was presented after the Senator’s “More Perfect Union” speech given in answer to the media storm concerning Pastor Wright.  While my personal blog is presented in a rather antiseptic environment without much participation or comments (it is a moderated environment) these posts have been also presented in another blogging environment where the discussion and commenting is usually a bit more “rough and tumble”.  Blogging can be a contact sport – but still usually enjoyable.  But this post received almost no response from the usual suspects, either pro or con, despite my point of view that was contrary to the Fox News commentators following the Obama speech and, I thought, controversial for the forum.  I suggested caution in responding to the Jeremiah Wright video clips because I expect that they may not be representative of the man’s total work in his communities or beliefs.  And, despite the close personal relationship between Pastor Wright and the candidate, Senator Obama should not be judged solely on a message of another, no matter how outrageous, that was intended and directed at a limited audience whose frame of reference is vastly different from my own.  We are on dangerous ground here and the way we deal with Senator Obama will impact our chances for meaningful dialog on race in this country for a generation.

So now I am at the head of my third article, My Problem (March 20).  You can see by the progression of the titles that I am progressing in my thinking as events unfold.  In this article, my concern is not for Senator Obama but for a deeper cancer at work in our society that should be brought to the surface for examination but which may become a much more destructive poison in the process.  I am at a loss to recommend a course of action that can deal with these problems within the careful structure of our laws and fragile framework of our culture. 

As we have examined the rise of terrorism and the threat of radical Islam in the world we have been sharply critical of the Madrasas or Islamic religious schools in the Middle East  < background >  particularly those under the influence of the Wahhabism which has teachings and interpretations of the Quran and other religious texts which are radical and extreme in the view of scholars more versed than I on these matters.  We have criticized Saudis for permitting the unfettered teaching of anti-American programs and even support for such programs by members of the Saudi Royal Family.  It appears we may have a similar problem a bit closer to home.

The scrutiny of Jeremiah Wright and the Trinity United Church has brought into focus the underlying faith and belief systems on which Pastor Wright, his church and many other black community churches are based.  And the picture is not pretty.  These churches are based upon a commitment to Black Liberation Theology as described by the works of James Cone as their central organizing belief in God. As I am not expert in these areas, I am attaching a Town hall.cam article from Paul Edwards to expand on the significance of Black Liberation Theology. 

I continue to seek to separate Senator Obama from the practices and beliefs of his church because I really seek a dialog on race in America that is based on reason not bias and that can focus on the potential of the way forward rather than the grievances of the way back.  But the climate of confrontation and distrust that will surround the media discussions of this church and the eventual need to address the teachings of Black Liberation Theology does not present a picture of improvement in race relations in this country in the near term. 

My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PaulEdwards/2008/03/19/senator_obama,_its_about_far_more_than_rhetoric?page=full&comments=true

Senator Obama, It's About Far More Than Rhetoric
By Paul Edwards
Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Senator Obama’s “A More Perfect Union” speech was political rhetoric at its finest. While skillfully denouncing the words of his pastor and spiritual mentor, Barack Obama left intact a tacit endorsement of the philosophical worldview that fuels the incendiary rhetoric of Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Rev. Wright is not merely ranting when he says things like the following:

The government gives them [black people] the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law, and then wants us to sing “God Bless America?” No, no, no! Not “God BLESS America,” God DAMN America. That’s in the Bible. For killing innocent people. God damn America for treating her citizens as less than human ….

These words betray a commitment to a dangerous political theology. Rev. Wright’s worldview is a poisonous mixture of Marxist socialism and a distorted view of the gospel of Jesus Christ which has as its chief goal the obliteration of Anglo/European influence on American life, culture and politics. Rev. Wright’s worldview comes across loud and clear:

… [Jesus] cares about what a poor black man has to face every day in a country and a culture controlled by rich white people … Jesus was a poor, black man who lived in a country, and who lived in a culture that was controlled by rich, white people. The Romans were rich. The Romans were Italian, which means they were European, which means they were white. And the Romans ran everything in Jesus’s country.

Senator Obama has a two-decades-long association with Rev. Wright and his church, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. In the mission statement at its Web site, Trinity’s commitment to Black Liberation Theology is clearly outlined. Furthermore, in an interview with Sean Hannity, Rev. Wright confirmed the work of James Cone, considered by many the founder of Black Liberation Theology, as a primary influence in the shaping his worldview. Evangelical blogger Joe Carter, in a recent post, quotes Cone:

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.

The media, both conservative and mainstream, is focused on the incendiary rhetoric of Jeremiah Wright while totally ignoring the political/religious philosophy fueling the words. Obama skillfully (and successfully) convinced us that he repudiates the words of his mentor and spiritual advisor, but what politician wouldn’t? The more important question we should be asking the Senator is, Do you repudiate the philosophy of Black Liberation Theology espoused by your church?

Obama can distance himself from Rev. Wright, referring to him twice in his speech as his “former pastor” (the Rev. Wright retires at the end of March), but the fact remains that Obama is a member of a church whose mission is rooted in Black Liberation Theology.

Christian apologist Robert A. Morey characterizes the goals of Black Liberation Theology as, “… to turn religion into sociology, Christianity into a political agenda, Jesus into a black Marxist rebel, and the gospel into violent revolution. They are more interested in politics than preaching the gospel.” Morey points out that ministers like Jeremiah Wright who espouse this worldview seek to, “… manipulate embittered young blacks by turning their feelings of inferiority, alienation, jealousy, hopelessness and self-hate, into racist rage against whites, Orientals and affluent blacks who are conveniently blamed for their lack of personal initiative to better their lot in life.”

If you are bewildered as to why an up-and-coming politician would remain a member of a church whose pastor preaches hate against whites and Europeans, the answer is probably not because he agrees with the rhetoric. He rightly condemns the rhetoric. The only logical answer has to be because he agrees with the church’s particular theological worldview. Senator Obama has yet to publicly denounce the political theology that inspires the rhetoric. And, in fact, Obama’s “A More Perfect Union Speech” bears the marks of Black Liberation Theology in at least two parts.

First, the call for a merging of spirituality and political philosophy:

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand: that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

By the way, nowhere does Scripture command us to “be our brother’s keeper.” On the contrary, it was Cain who, after killing his brother, justified the killing on the grounds that he was not his brother’s keeper. It is this kind of Scripture twisting that is used to justify wealth redistribution and to condemn the capitalist system in which our democracy is rooted.

Second, his veiled assertion that the private creation of wealth is “the culprit” in racial tension in America:

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze—a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many.

There is no question Senator Obama repudiates his pastor’s hate speech. However, still unanswered is whether or not he repudiates a political theology that calls for the suppression of more than half of the American population and is fundamentally at odds with American democracy?

 

Oral Arguments at the Supreme Court

As previously discussed,  the Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday on the historic DC Gun case – the first case to potentially address directly the ambiguous content of the Second Amendment.  It is hoped that this decision (expected in June) will decide whether the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to gun ownership or merely comments upon a state right to arm an official militia. 

I have selected an excellent article from Mark Sherman of the Associated Press printed in Law.com for a description of the proceedings.

But first, a lighter account from Kim Strassel writing for the WSJ political newsletter, OpinionJournal’s Political Diary.  Subscription information available < here > 

“Talk out being outgunned. Former Clinton Solicitor General Walter Dellinger apparently had a bulls-eye on him when he faced the Supreme Court yesterday to defend the crime-ridden District of Columbia's handgun ban.

Mr. Dellinger didn't do himself any favors by taking the most extreme view -- that the Constitution's right to bear arms applies only to members of a militia, none of which exist anymore. He was barely a few sentences into his argument before the Court's conservative majority opened fire. Chief Justice John Roberts asked why the Second Amendment mentions "the people" if it didn't mean... the people? Justice Antonin Scalia followed up with a sermon on the eminent 18th-century English legal authority William Blackstone, who placed a high value on a right to self-defense that likely animated the Founding Fathers too.

But what really had observers buzzing was the intervention of Anthony Kennedy, seen as a swing vote on this case. He quizzed Mr. Dellinger about whether the right of self-defense wasn't at the heart of the Framer's deliberations, given their natural concern for a "remote settler" who needed "to defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears and grizzlies and things like that."

Anything can happen behind the Court's closed doors, but yesterday's oral argument strongly indicates that the District's comprehensive ban on private handgun ownership may be headed for history's ash-heap. Gun controllers will be outraged, but leading Democrats, who have all but abandoned the gun-control issue in their pursuit of national majority status, are likely to find some other subject to get worked up about when the Court's decision comes down.”

 My source for Mr Sherman’s article which follows: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1205848849051

High Court Hears Major Second Amendment Case
Mark Sherman, The Associated Press
March 18, 2008

The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to endorse the view that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns, but was less clear about whether to retain the District of Columbia's ban on handguns.

The justices were aware of the historic nature of their undertaking, engaging in an extended 98-minute session of questions and answers that could yield the first definition of the meaning of the Second Amendment in its 216 years.

A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, left little doubt about his view when he said early in the proceedings that the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms."

Several justices were skeptical that the Constitution, if it gives individuals' gun rights, could allow a complete ban on handguns when, as Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out, those weapons are most suited for protection at home.

"What is reasonable about a ban on possession of handguns?" Roberts asked at one point.

But Justice Stephen Breyer suggested that the District's public safety concerns could be relevant in evaluating its 32-year-old ban on handguns, perhaps the strictest gun control law in the nation.

"Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say no handguns here?" Breyer said.

Solicitor General Paul Clement, the Bush administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, supported the individual right, but urged the justices not to decide the other question. Instead, Clement said the Court should allow for reasonable restrictions that allow banning certain types of weapons, including existing federal laws.

He did not take a position on the District law.

While the arguments raged inside, advocates of gun rights and opponents of gun violence demonstrated outside Court Tuesday.

Dozens of protesters mingled with tourists and waved signs saying "Ban the Washington elitists, not our guns" or "The NRA helps criminals and terrorist buy guns."

Members of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence chanted "guns kill" as followers of the Second Amendment Sisters and Maryland Shall Issue.Org shouted "more guns, less crime."

A line to get into the Court for the historic arguments began forming two days earlier and extended more than a block by early Tuesday.

The high court's first extensive examination of the Second Amendment since 1939 grew out of challenge to the District's ban.

Anise Jenkins, president of a coalition called Stand Up for Democracy in D.C., defended the district's prohibition on handguns.

"We feel our local council knows what we need for a good standard of life and to keep us safe," Jenkins said.

Genie Jennings, a resident of South Perwick, Maine, and national spokeswoman for Second Amendment Sisters, said the law banning handguns in Washington "is denying individuals the right to defend themselves."

The Court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment in the 216 years since its ratification. The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

Even if the Court determines there is an individual right, the justices still will have to decide whether the District's ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws. This issue has caused division within the Bush administration, with Vice President Dick Cheney taking a harder line than the administration's official position at the Court.

The local Washington government argues that its law should be allowed to remain in force whether or not the amendment applies to individuals, although it reads the amendment as intended to allow states to have armed forces.

The City Council that adopted the ban said it was justified because "handguns have no legitimate use in the purely urban environment of the District of Columbia."

Dick Anthony Heller, 65, an armed security guard, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home for protection. His lawyers say the amendment plainly protects an individual's right.

The 27 words and three enigmatic commas of the Second Amendment have been analyzed again and again by legal scholars, but hardly at all by the Supreme Court.

The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The last Supreme Court ruling on the topic came in 1939 in U.S. v. Miller, which involved a sawed-off shotgun. Constitutional scholars disagree over what that case means but agree it did not squarely answer the question of individual versus collective rights.

Chief Justice John Roberts said at his confirmation hearing that the correct reading of the Second Amendment was "still very much an open issue."

 

 

New Google service for Florida and Hurricane Zones

We few, we happy few, who find ourselves in harm’s way for major parts of the year in the Hurricane zones of Florida and the Atlantic and Gulf Coast states may want to be watching for a new service coming from Google.

The director of the National Hurricane Center said today that they are planning to couple a Google application with storm surge data in the hands of meteorologists to permit Americans in the potential danger zones to view storm surge probabilities to the local address level for user input storm forecasts.

Storm surge - the wall of water carried ashore ahead of the storm - is considered to be the most dangerous element of the storm. It is hoped that the availability of storm specific warnings providing information to residents who otherwise might not evacuate ahead of the storm could save lives.

Additional info can be found < here >

Mr Obama's Problem - and Mine

It has not been a slow news cycle lately and I have barely had time to digest the flow of events to bring the level of analysis needed to the issues presented.  Really interesting issues like Bear Stearns and the Second Amendment will just have to stand in line, I guess. As always I preface my comments about Senator Obama with the disclaimer that I am not likely to be voting for the man – I do not like his policies or his voting record.

I listened to Senator Obama’s speech this morning [complete text link here] concerning his association with Jeremiah Wright.  It should be noted that Pastor Wright is not a convicted felon and is not accused of anything more that speaking in a manner that is offensive to outsiders – to whom he was not directing his words at the time. 

I am appalled at the statements made by Pastor Wright which seem to be unamerican, factually incorrect and offensive to me.  But in MY America – he has the right to say what he thinks – even if it may be offensive to me. 

So we have two issues presented here.  First, how Senator Obama plans to deal with the issues of race in America and, second, whether he has displayed good judgment, as a candidate for President, by being associated with Pastor Wright. 

At a bit over sixty years of age I have gained some wisdom (the kind you get from being around a while) and have been an eager student and observer of history’s forces and events that have shaped the last half of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21^st.  I have been proud to live in a time of giants in the social changes that have occurred in our country.  In the American Civil Rights movement I have been inspired by Martin Luther King and Thurgood Marshall (civil rights attorney who rose to Supreme Court Justice) who both saw as their goal a color blind society that offered respect and opportunity to members of all races. 

But the next generation of Black leaders after the sixties, in my opinion, was not cut from as fine a cloth.  I have heard more racism and bigotry flowing from the self appointed black leaders than from segregationists.  The churches have been central to the Black communities and have preached hatred for the white power structure that oppressed and victimized their people for generations as a way to connect with their congregations.  In tapping into these emotional issues in this way, I believe they have perpetuated the very problems they sought to address – but the plain fact is that I do not have a damn clue what it was like to be a black man living in an urban center city or in the deep south in my country – and I will not judge Pastor Wright or the other community leaders that have had to fight and beg and claw their way just to obtain simple justice for their communities and for members of their race. 

Barack Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School and was, I believe, the head of the Harvard Law Review – a title of considerable academic achievement.  The normal career path would have been a year as a law clerk for an appellate judge and then a year as a clerk for a Supreme Court Justice.  Barack Obama went back to Chicago where he had worked as a community organizer to take a job running a voter registration drive and ultimately worked as a civil rights attorney.  He met Pastor Wright as a young man (prior to Law School) working in the neighborhoods of Chicago while Wright was doing the work of his Church in the same neighborhoods.  And I would expect that in addition to the spiritual comfort that Barack Obama found in the Trinity United Church, he also found a political structure that could help him with his work and his political ambitions on a local level.  Their subsequent association of more than twenty years gave spiritual comfort to Barack Obama and his family who have lived in Church and personal relationship with their pastor in much the same way as others who have long standing relationships with their ministers.  In addition the social and political work of both men flourished as well.  I would have been surprised if there were not a strong personal bond between these two community leaders and I am sure they are both proud of the accomplishments of the other. 

I see the public persona of Senator Obama but I have little knowledge of Pastor Wright.  The list of books authored by Pastor Wright include such urban terrorist manuals as Sermons of Joy and Strength by Jeremiah Wright, Africans who shaped our Faith, Good News: Sermons of Hope for Today’s Families and Why most Black Men do not go to Church.  I have not read these books – but the titles suggest that there is more to the man than what is being presented on the news this week.

So how does all this bear on the two questions I asked at the beginning of this article. 

So far in the campaign, Senator Obama has avoided racial issues as a distraction from the issues he has preferred to feature in his presentations.  As of this morning, he has met the race issue head on.  He describes the racial problems of our country as an unfulfilled promise that a new nation made to its citizens at its founding.  I agree.  He condemns the language of the last generation of Black leaders – specifically the questioned sermons of Pastor Wright, as devisive when what is needed is unity and and not as a static remnant of the past but as an inspiration that recognized the progress that has been made and seeks to move into the future for the benefit of all Americans. 

As to the question of his association with Pastor Wright – Senator Obama condemns his racial and antisemitic language but refuses to disown the man whom he regards as family.  I respect him for it.  Mrs Clinton would have cut his throat and left him by the side of the road.  I do not view Senator Obama’s actions as weakness – I view them as loyalty, which I prize. 

But there is another issue here, and please forgive me my cynical view.  Obama is not really free to throw away Pastor Wright who is a well known part of the Black community.  To put it bluntly, he needs the votes and cannot afford at this point (shortly before the Pennsylvania primary) to insult millions of black voters that he will need in the general election. 

The new media will determine how this story plays out.  I am certainly looking forward to the first tracking polls that factor todays Obama Speech into their considerations.  I urge the readers to view Senators Obama’s speech in its entirety < link here >.  The American public will have to decide this issue.  But it appears to me that Senator Obama will enter the convention with a majority of the committed delegates. and the superdelegates will have to make a difficult decision.  Undo the results of the state elections and turn to Mrs Clinton or send forth a wounded candidate in the form of Senator Obama into the general election.  It is certain that we have not heard the last of Pastor Wright and his church. 

I wonder who is being served by the media firestorm on this topic.  Pastor Wright’s clips are offensive but not dangerous.  We objected to Muslim leaders blaming 9/11 on American actions because we were attacked by radical Muslims.  I am not sure that those words have the same impact coming from Pastor Wright.  He is wrong – but he is not advocating the overthrow of the government by force and violence. 

It is late (actually early) and I have not gone to sleep yesterday yet.  I have many friends at AR who will disagree with me on what I have said here and I would like to have time to polish this article.  But I want to present a contrarian view to what seemed to be coming from the pundits last night on the cable channels.

 I value the rhetoric of Senator Obama and the message of hope and change that he brings to the electoral process.  I value the inspiration that he brings to younger voters.  The opinions of his Pastor should not be the deciding factor about the Obama candidacy.  I take issue with his voting record and liberal beliefs which mirror Mrs Clintons – but believe his candidacy is good for America and its cultural and ethnic communities. 

 

Mr Obama's Problem

I have previously written with great respect for Senator Obama as a man and as a candidate – and I continue to hold those views.  I do not agree with his politics and am not a likely voter but he is a remarkable and exciting candidate for President. 

But he is beginning to have a problem which raises new issues for his campaign.  And it is possible that it is being orchestrated by Senator Obama’s political opponents.

Senator Barack Obama Jr has been that rare political figure in our culture – a man of color who transcends color.  He is not the Black Senator from Illinois, he is the Senator from Illinois, who happens to be black.  He is charismatic, articulate, educated and persuasive.  His candidacy has turned the Democrat party on its ear.

I remember my first introduction to Barack Obama.  I watched the Democrat Convention in 2004 and watched a young, black Illinois State Assemblyman give the keynote address.  My reaction ? “Wow ! I wish he was a Republican.”  He spoke of people in need, spoke of politics, and spoke of unity as follows:

“The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into red states and blue states; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America”

So I have been dismayed to watch this remarkable young man under attack for his race.  And the indication is that the strategy has been put in place by the Clintons.  First there are Mr Clinton's comments to the press before the South Carolina primary disparaging Obama’s progress as merely being a black candidate.  Then Geraldine Farraro seeks to dismiss Obama by saying that he would not be where he is if he were not black.  Now the press is in a feeding frenzy at the racially charged sermons of Jeremiah Wright, the minister of Barack Obama’s church in Chicago. 

The impact of these events has been to polarize Obama support in recent primaries.  He is gaining support in black voters and losing support in white voter groups.  As the democrat nomination will be decided at the convention by uncommitted superdelegates (party leaders and elected officials) the perception of electability in the general election will be significant. 

Dick Morris, for Newsmax.com, discusses these issues in the attached article. 

I am not decided as to the impact of Minister Wright.  Clearly his sermons quoted in the media are racially charged and contain some of the  language of hatred and victimization of blacks by whites that have characterized the more radical black leaders.  The long standing personal relationship between Obama and Wright is an important force in Barack Obama’s life.  Can Obama rise above the negative messages of his close friend and advisor ?

Barack Obama has an opportunity to provide an incredibly positive role model for so many people in this country and around the world.  He is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School.  He has worked within the system to solve society’s problems in the urban areas of Chicago. 

Dr Martin Luther King, Jr spoke of his dream that his children would live in a society where they would be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.  It is time, America.

My source: http://www.newsmax.com/morris/hillary_ferraro/2008/03/17/80946.html

Hillary Sends Ferraro After Obama
Monday, March 17, 2008 8:44 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Geraldine Ferraro, a pioneer and trailblazer in American history, has done more to ruin a sterling reputation in the past few days than anybody but Eliot Spitzer.

By claiming, I think falsely, that Obama would not be where he is if he were white or a woman, I think she totally overlooks the impact of his charisma, eloquence, demeanor, message, use of the Internet, focus on caucus states, and his refusal to take special interest money as factors in his sudden rise.

She betrays a stunning inability to look more than skin deep for reasons for his success.

But this begs the real question: Why is she now so unable to peer into the deeper reasons for Obama's success and stopping at skin level? Ferraro is no racist. Her entire career speaks to the contrary.

The blunt fact is that Geraldine Ferraro would not make a statement like this one without at least the tacit knowledge and acquiescence of the Clintons and their campaign. Ferraro is an old pro and would know enough not to shoot off her mouth without making it part of a carefully conceived strategy to discredit Obama based on race.

As such, her comments need to be seen as a piece with the attacks on Obama's minister and his endorsement by Farrakhan. With Hillary now almost totally dependent on older voters, the race card may be the only way to produce the kinds of margins she needs in the future primaries to offset Obama's large and widening lead among elected delegates.

The fact is that Obama cannot and should not be held accountable for the ranting and raving of his minister, unless he fails to disavow these remarks. He has done all he needs to do in distancing himself from the likes of Farrakhan. And is success is due to his imaginative use of the political process to achieve what he has earned.

Obama out-organized Hillary by focusing on the small caucus states in February, by which time Hillary confidently expected the race to be over.

Obama out-messaged Hillary by refusing special interest PAC or lobbyist money, giving him a way to paint Hillary as the candidate of the Washington establishment.

Obama out-fundraised Hillary by understanding the potential of the Internet to raise quick and clean money and to permit reloading quickly.

Obama out-positioned Hillary by using her claim to experience (faux as it was) to paint her as just another cycle in the oscillation between Bushes and Clintons which has dominated our politics for two decades now.

Obama out-spoke Hillary by showing and eloquence and elegance that she cannot hope to match.

Obama out-targeted Hillary by focusing on young voters and grasping the amazing insight that in an election with a black and a woman, that age would be the decisive variable.

And now Hillary is trying, through her surrogate Ferraro, to make it appear that all Obama had to do was show up, show some skin and win.

Even for the Clintons, this is a new low.

 

 

The problem of Michigan and Florida

Regular readers will know that I am a fan of Dick Morris.  He is knowledgeable and articulate and has spend time in the trenches of election warfare for a variety of candidates – including Bill Clinton.

But I disagree with him in his March 13 article appearing in Newsmax.com.  His premise is that Florida and Michigan primary elections should be rerun to prevent the “travesty” of disenfranchising 27 million citizens in the selection of the President.  Very noble sounding indeed.  But where were these people when the Democrat National Committee stripped these states of their delegates because the lawful actions of their respective legislatures failed to adhere to the schedule set forth by the DNC for primary contests and all of the candidates agreed. 

In an amazing display of federalism the party organizations in the individual states are given wide latitude in the times, place and manner of the selection of the party nominees.  But the party rules are frequently unfair and are certainly uneven from state to state.  In Florida, where we have a closed primary, a voter who is registered independent does not have an opportunity to participate in the party candidate selection process.

How do you put the genie back into the bottle for a redo election.  There were several Republican candidates for whom Florida was crucial to their plans and marked the political demise of several of the candidates.  Maybe they would like another chance too. 

With the proportional distribution of delegates in the Democrat primaries, it is unlikely that a redo in Michigan and/or Florida will decide anything.  In my view, this is political fluff with a cost of millions of dollars for no purpose. 

It would clearly be unfair to seat the delegates from those two states based upon their original primaries when the candidates were prevented from campaigning in those states and Senator Obama was not even on the Michigan ballot – because he played by the rules that all had agreed to  (obviously he has not run against Mrs Clinton before).  But the option of holding new delegate selection elections in the two states would be costly and would serve no purpose.  Nobody is being disenfranchised as all will be able to participate in the general election in November.  The party structures and their delegate selection methods are not subject to the same guarantees for voter rights which attach to actual elections. 

My source: http://www.newsmax.com/morris/michigan_florida/2008/03/13/80109.html

Michigan, Florida Deserve Do-Overs
Thursday, March 13, 2008 9:16 AM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Despite their apostasy in holding early primaries in defiance of the powers that be in the Democratic National Committee (DNC), Michigan and Florida both deserve to have do-over primaries.

It is ludicrous to suggest that their current delegations should be seated and equally inappropriate to disenfranchise the nation's fourth- and eighth-largest states. The obvious and only fair solution is to hold do-over primaries.

In Michigan, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's name did not even appear on the primary ballot.

He obeyed the national rules and pulled out of the contests, while N.Y. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton chose to keep her name on the ballot. It is obviously unfair to take the results of a contest between Hillary and “uncommitted” as a fair measure of the relative strengths of the two candidates.

In Florida, both did appear on the ballot, but the talk surrounding the primary emphasized how it would not count. The result was that the Democratic primary turnout was about the same size as that for the Republican primary, though Florida tradition has the Democratic primary drawing substantially more votes.

Clearly, large numbers of Floridians took the party at its word and did not vote.

To deny these states representation would also be totally unacceptable. What was their sin?

The national committee was craven in bowing down to the pressure from the tiny and unrepresentative states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, which sought to prolong their time in the sun by monopolizing the early-primary selection process.

They did so at the urging of the presidential candidates who were outdoing one another in currying favor with the voters of these states by ostentatiously backing their pretensions. But since when did the need to cotton to the desires of four states with a combined population of 10.6 million outrank the rights of two states with 27 million residents — 10 percent of America — to be represented in choosing their president?

Under the proportional representation system, which has made it almost impossible for any primary to be decisive, neither do-over will be likely to affect the final result in any major way. One candidate or the other will win by a few points — a big margin is unlikely — and the lead that will accrue in delegates is not likely to be decisive.

It is worth noting that the additional delegates Hillary won in the Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island primaries on March 4 have been totally offset by Obama's victories in the Texas and Wyoming caucuses and the Vermont and Mississippi primaries. When all the votes in all the contests are finally counted, Obama can expect to maintain his lead in elected delegates of between 100 and 200 votes.

The superdelegates, honorifics who represent only themselves, do not dare defy the will of the electorate and deliver the nomination to Mrs. Clinton. If they do so, they will provoke exactly the same kind of reaction that destroyed the Democratic Party's chances in the streets of Chicago in 1968.

It took the party two and a half decades to recover its popularity among the baby boomer generation. If Hillary steals the nomination by manipulating the superdelegates, the party will alienate blacks and young people for decades.

No superdelegate can permit this to happen. But neither can the party sanction the violation of the process, which seating the rump delegations from Florida and Michigan would entail, nor can it deny representation to two such large states.

The Credentials Committee, composed of three members from each state and 25 named by DNC Chairman Howard Dean, will be pro-Obama. With Obama carrying about two-thirds of the states — and with Dean at odds with the Clintons — the committee cannot be expected to look favorably on Hillary's efforts to steal the nomination. Without Florida or Michigan seated, the convention floor will doubtless sustain the committee. A new election might be the best deal Hillary can realistically hope for.

 

 

 

The Liberal Mindset

We used to have a saying, “if you are under 30 and are not a liberal – you have no heart.  But if you are over 30 and you are still a liberal – you have no brain”.  Simplistic and unnecessarily insulting, perhaps – and not intended for that purpose. But there is an element of truth which should be looked at in this expression. 

When young people leave home and go to college or enter the workplace and become more aware of the world around them, it is not possible to not be moved by the pain and suffering that surrounds us in our own country and in the world.  I hope that that compassion never leaves us at any age.  But what happens as we enter the workplace and become interested in having a family of our own is that we begin to see the amount of our paycheck that is withheld for taxes, social security and other insurances. 

It is a starting point for most of my political discussions that in order for government to give me a dollar, they have to take that dollar from you by force.  So is there a point where we begin to think that maybe some of the good works done by government at your expense could be better accomplished in the private sector with voluntary contributions from individuals interested in that particular problem. 

Another trite saying is that the liberals think that government is the solution to all problems while conservatives think government is the problem.  At least there is a readily apparent difference between the candidates of the Republican party and those of the Democrat party.  It will be up to the voters to choose in November which party philosophy they wish to accept. 

Burt Prelutsky, appearing on Townhall.com, lampoons liberal icon Franklin Roosevelt in his article this week.  Both Democrat candidates for President fit well into the new Federal program for any problem category, so his commentary is timely. 

My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2008/03/14/the_high_cost_of_a_free_lunch

The High Cost of a Free Lunch
By Burt Prelutsky
Friday, March 14, 2008

Growing up, as I did, in the home of Russian Jewish immigrants, it figures that I’d start out thinking that, by all rights, FDR belonged on Mount Rushmore. But, all these years later, I have concluded that most of America’s woes can be traced back to his presidency, and that the best reason for his being up there along with Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington and Teddy Roosevelt, is that his head was already made of stone.

Although FDR is often, mistakenly, credited with bringing the Great Depression to an end, as Amity Shlaes made clear in her book, “The Forgotten Man,” his policies, which can best be described as Socialistic and anti-business, in reality prolonged America’s misery. The mere fact that he and his economic advisors thought it made perfect sense to keep raising taxes during the 1930s suggests that their primary motive wasn’t to lift the country out of its economic morass, but to take advantage of the situation to inflate the power of the federal government.

The end result of his 12 years in the White House is a hodge-podge of Washington bureaucracies and an economy that finds the federal government being far and away the single largest employer in the U.S. Couple that with his personal fondness for Joseph Stalin, his filling his administration and the State Department with like-minded idiots, and you have a perfect blueprint for disaster. For as Thomas Jefferson recognized, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have.”

It should be no surprise that we now have tens of millions of Americans, not to mention several million illegal aliens, who seem to believe that the feds should guarantee their home loans, turn their schools into liberal indoctrination centers with a bias against religion and traditional values, and, for good measure, pay for their health insurance.

I’m not sure if they think that the government magically pays for all these things out of its own non-existent pocket or if they understand that all of this largesse is only made possible by taking it from others in the form of taxes. But it probably makes no difference to them, for, as some cynic once observed, when you rob Peter to pay Paul, don’t expect Paul to object too strenuously.

Recently, thanks to Michael Medved, I learned that the federal government spends well over eight billion dollars a year supplying over 30 million school children with “free” lunches and another two-and-a-half billion on “free” breakfasts. And what I, as a concerned citizen, would like to know is why they’re forcing the parents to be responsible for putting dinner on the table. Okay, I admit I’m joshing. But how long will it be before the leftists demand to know why the feds are shucking their obvious responsibility just because the sun has gone down? And just how long before FDR’s heirs in Washington launch their own version of the New Deal called Three Square Meals?

What I’d really like to know is: why haven’t public services removed those millions of kids from their homes? I mean, if parents can’t afford to give their children a couple of eggs or a banana and a bowl of cereal in the morning or an apple and a peanut butter-and-jelly sandwich for lunch, what other essentials can’t they afford to provide for their kids? A bed? A blanket? Shoes? A tooth brush? A semi-automatic?

The truth is, if I were running for president as a Democrat, I wouldn’t be a piker like Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Why stop with universal health care? I’d promise universal car, fire and life insurance. I’d promise four weeks paid vacation for every workingman and workingwoman in America, and eight weeks for every non-working man and woman. Why not? They have more time to kill and even greater incentive to get out to the polls on election day. On top of all that, I’d promise to give any person who voted for me $5,000, a lifetime supply of Viagra and free lottery tickets, besides.

Hey, I’m a Democrat! I can afford to be generous. It’s not my money, after all. It’s yours.

 

History at the Court next Tuesday

The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments in the DC gun case which may decide the meaning of the Second Amendment for next Tuesday, March 18, 2008. It is a remarkable case for many reasons - not the least of which is that the Court is writing on a relatively clean slate about one of the amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. The crux of the matter, whether the Second Amendment creates an individual right or merely addresses some vague collective right of the states, has never been directly addressed by the Court in more than 200 years - and the issue is of vital interest to millions of citizens and political candidates as gun control is a hot topic in American politics.

Robert Novak, whose article today appears at Townhall.com, asserts that the case is unusual for another reason - that it is another example of "who's watching the store" in the Bush administration. The administration position, in theory represented before the Court by the U.S. Solicitor General, was ill served by the brief submitted by Paul Clement who took a very weak position on a matter where Republicans in general and the President in particular have very strong beliefs and preferences. Neither the White House nor the newly appointed Attorney General Michael Mukasey were aware of the Solicitor General’s position prior to the brief being filed.

In an unprecedented action, Vice-President Cheney, in his role in the legislative branch as President of the Senate, joined with a large group of Senators and Congressmen in submitting an Amicus brief to the Court which strongly advocated for a finding of individual rights in the Second Amendment.  I wrote of the Cheney brief at the time that it was seen as a very unusual departure from the President’s position.  Mr Novak states in his attached article that Cheney was, in fact, giving voice to the President’s position – that the DOJ brief was contrary to the administration position.  Bizarre behavior, to say the least. 

The oral arguments may give some clues as to the outcome of the case, expected to be announced in June.  The usual suspects are expected to align  with the four conservative Justices (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito) on one side and the liberal Justices on the other (Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer).  The swing vote which will decide the meaning of the Second Amendment is Justice Kennedy.

The political impact of this question is hard to overstate.  Gun control is a political hot button for millions of voters (many of whom vote Democrat).  It will be difficult for the Presidential candidates, for example, to be pro-gun rights while arguing for nomination and confirmation of liberal Justices to the Court. 

My personal opinion on gun control has been written here on several occasions.  To me gun control laws are an impermissible intrusion by government into the regions of private property rights and a citizen’s right to defend himself and his family in a violent and lawless world. But more than that, the idea that a mere recitation of a State’s right to organize a militia should occupy the second position in the Bill of Rights is unacceptable and defies logic for scholars of the Constitution and the history of the Bill of Rights.  One would expect that the Second Amendment would contain the kind of ringing declaration of individual rights and limitation on government power that shines from the other Bill of Rights amendments.  It looks like one man in a black robe gets to decide – and maybe the Oral Arguments and the questioning of the attorneys at the Bar will give clues as to how this critical issue will be decided. 

My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2008/03/13/ws_gun_battle

W's Gun Battle
By Robert D. Novak
Thursday, March 13, 2008

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Preparing to hear oral arguments Tuesday on the extent of gun rights guaranteed by the Constitution's Second Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court has before it a brief signed by Vice President Cheney opposing the Bush administration's stance. Even more remarkably, Cheney is faithfully reflecting the views of President George W. Bush.

The government position filed with the Supreme Court by U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement stunned gun advocates by opposing the breadth of an appellate court affirmation of individual ownership rights. The Justice Department, not the vice president, is out of order. But if Bush agrees with Cheney, why did the president not simply order Clement to revise his brief? The answers: disorganization and weakness in the eighth year of his presidency.

Consequently, a Republican administration finds itself aligned against the most popular tenet of social conservatism: gun rights that enjoy much wider support than opposition to abortion or gay marriage. Promises in two presidential elections are abandoned, and Bush finds himself left of Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama.

The 1976 District of Columbia statute prohibiting ownership of all functional firearms a year ago was called unconstitutional in violation of the Second Amendment in an opinion by Senior Judge Laurence Silberman, a conservative who has served on the D.C. Circuit Court for 22 years. It was assumed Bush would fight Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty's appeal.

The president and his senior staff were stunned to learn, on the day it was issued, that Clement's petition called on the high court to return the case to the appeals court. The solicitor general argued that Silberman's opinion supporting individual gun rights was so broad that it would endanger existing federal gun control laws such as the bar on owning machine guns. The president could have ordered a revised brief by Clement. But under congressional Democratic pressure to keep hands off the Justice Department, Bush did not act.

Cheney did join 55 senators and 250 House members in signing a brief supporting the Silberman ruling. While this unprecedented vice presidential intervention was widely interpreted as a dramatic breakaway from the White House, longtime associates could not believe Cheney would defy the president. In fact, he did not. Bush approved what Cheney did in his constitutional legislative branch role as president of the Senate.

That has not lessened puzzlement over Clement, a 41-year-old conservative Washington lawyer who clerked for Silberman and later for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Clement has tried to explain his course to the White House by claiming he feared Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court's current swing vote, would join a liberal majority on gun rights if forced to rule on Silberman's opinion.

The more plausible explanation for Clement's stance is that he could not resist opposition to individual gun rights by career lawyers in the Justice Department's Criminal Division (who clashed with the Office of Legal Counsel in a heated internal struggle). Newly installed Attorney General Michael Mukasey, a neophyte at Justice, was unaware of the conflict and learned about Clement's position only after it had been locked in.

A majority of both houses in the Democratic-controlled Congress are on record against the District of Columbia's gun prohibition. So are 31 states, with only five (New York, Massachusetts Maryland, New Jersey and Hawaii) in support. Sen. Obama has weighed in against the D.C. law, asserting that the Constitution confers individual rights to bear arms -- not just collective authority to form militias.

This popular support for gun rights is not reflected by an advantage in Tuesday's oral arguments. Former Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, an old hand at arguing before the Supreme Court, will make the case for the gun prohibition. Opposing counsel Alan Gura, making his first high court appearance, does not have the confidence of gun-owner advocates (who tried to replace him with former Solicitor General Ted Olson).

The cause needs help from Clement in his 15 minute oral argument, but not if he reiterates his written brief. The word was passed in government circles this week that Clement would amend his position when he actually faces the justices -- an odd ending to bizarre behavior by the Justice Department.

 

Mrs Clinton to the Woodshed, Please

It is difficult to know whether to criticize the Democrat candidates until they pick a nominee – since the Republicans will then have to run against the survivor.  And clearly in the next six months before the convention, both Democrat candidates will come under much closer scrutiny and be much more aggressively attacked by their opponents.

But they do not hesitate (particularly Mrs Clinton) to take shots at Senator McCain while they are in the process of taking each other apart – and it is going to get worse. 

Clearly, most Republicans would prefer to have Mrs Clinton as the Democrat candidate.  This year Republicans are not participating in the system – voter turnout rates have not matched the Democrats, fundraising has been difficult as many Republicans have given up our chances for this election cycle and are willing to let the Dems take it.  Long time Republican office holders are retiring in droves.  Wealthy contributors perceive our chances in November as slim and are not pouring money into the Republican war chests like they used to.

But Mrs Clinton is so unpalatable to most Republicans that she could unite the party and galvanize their support of Senator McCain just avoid Clinton III from happening.

So it may be useful to look at the Clinton campaign and examine her weaknesses – just for practice. 

First, her claim of experience is just not credible.  This is an easy one because I do not believe that the US Senate is good experience for anything.  I have had a preference for governors who at least have had the experience of being the chief executive of a large political organization – but then we only have Senators to choose from this year.  But her claim of executive experience while she was first lady while Nero fiddled about in the White House is ludicrous. Her only relevant claim is that she has spent most of her adult life living in public housing.

She has been tested ? She has had adverse times, its true – while her husband dragged her through scandal after scandal and spent his second term behind barricaded doors at the White House while the Republicans tried to impeach him (inappropriately, in my opinion, but that is another story).  And Hillary survived her own scandals by just griting her teeth and refusing to answer charges or release documents – just like she is doing now.  Did she answer charges about Vince Foster, travelgate, Rose Law Firm billing documents or FBI files in the White House ?  NO !

Mrs. Clinton has delivered personal money to her own campaign in the amount of five million dollars in the form of loans.  Where does that money come from.  She refuses to release her tax returns – and Bill’s.  Nor do they release the donor information for their various foundations such as the one that funds his Presidential library.  Allegations are made that they have received questionable donations from corporate sponsors and shady characters who may appear to have interests in the executive pardons Bill approved or other actions of the former President. 

She claims to be the smartest woman alive – but cannot release her tax returns because it is too complicated and takes so long.  She claims to be ready on day one to manage the government – but her campaign has been woefully mismanaged.  She ignored small states initially - allowing Obama to gain his advantage in delegates which she cannot overcome in the large states.  She had no campaign structure in place after February 5 Super Tuesday – because she arrogantly didn’t expect to need any.  But listen to her complain about the lack of planning in Iraq after the brilliantly successful military campaign. She has squandered most of her resources and advantages in her campaign and is being defeated by a political newcomer.  Her only defense has been to whine that she is the victim as a woman – interesting argument to make while being opposed by a Black man who is pointedly not the candidate of Black grievances.

Hillary is a polarizing figure in American politics and will do more to get out the Republican contributors and voters than John McCain can do.  But McCain can appeal to the independents, moderates and disappointed Obama supporters who will not support Mrs Clinton.

The irony is not lost when New York gives us another sex scandal this week with the governor just to remind us how it really felt to watch the Clinton years. 

Bring it on Mrs Clinton – we are pulling for you all the way.

Cal Thomas addresses some of the candidates shortcomings in his current article for Townhall.com.

My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2008/03/11/hide_and_seek

Hide and Seek
By Cal Thomas
Tuesday, March 11, 2008

The campaign manager for Sen. Barack Obama has a point. David Plouffe wants Hillary Clinton to release her income tax returns for the last several years and couple that with a speedier process for releasing papers from the Clinton White House years. That's so voters will be able to judge whether Mrs. Clinton's claims of experience are justified by what she says she did as a virtual "co-president."

Plouffe told reporters last week that Mrs. Clinton is "one of the most secretive politicians in America today." Who would disagree, other than Mrs. Clinton? There does seem to be some inconsistency, if not outright duplicity. On one hand, we are supposed to accept at face value that she is, as former Rep. Dan Rostenkowski is said to have once called her, "the smartest woman in the world." On the other hand, we are to think nothing of her inability to find records, or produce records in a timely fashion, or get records released from the Clinton Presidential Library.

One would think that if the records validated her claim of experience in being part of so many international and domestic policy decisions, she would rush to produce documents that back up those claims. And if her income tax returns contain nothing that could cause embarrassment, those, too, should be coming off the copying machine at Kinko's to be handed out to reporters.

The Clintons have always had a fascination with money and how to make more of it. According to Forbes.com, on his 1986 return, "Bill Clinton deducted $6 for three pairs of underwear and $75 for a suit with ripped pants given to the Salvation Army." Neither Clinton has to worry about money now, but the country ought to know where the millions they have vacuumed up in recent years came from, and if that money has strings attached.

Last week, The Washington Times reported that in May 2006 (the spring before his wife began her campaign for the White House) Bill Clinton made "$700,000 for his foundation by selling stock he had been given from an Internet search company that was co-founded by a convicted felon and backed by the Chinese government." Mr. Clinton had received the non-publicly traded stock from Accoona Corporation in 2004 as a gift for giving a speech at a company event. His windfall came when he sold the 200,000 shares to an undisclosed (naturally) buyer. Clinton got $3.50 a share at a time when the company was reporting millions of dollars in losses.

Perhaps Mrs. Clinton should start invoking her husband's name when she criticizes CEOs for their golden parachutes, as they flee sinking companies or layoff employees. Too bad Mr. Clinton wasn't among those testifying before a Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hearing last week about huge salaries and bonuses paid to corporate CEOs, while their employees suffer layoffs.

In a related story, USA Today reports archivists at the Clinton Presidential Library are blocking release of hundreds of pages of White House papers related to pardons approved by the former president. These include clemency documents for the fugitive commodities trader Marc Rich.

There are the familiar explanations - there always are with the Clintons - about why they can't be more forthcoming with documents and records. When asked about her tax returns during a recent debate, Mrs. Clinton said she hadn't gotten it done yet because she's "a little busy right now." The question was not about the 2007 return, but those from previous years. Surely those earlier returns are available, or have they been misplaced like disappearing documents at the Rose Law Firm, which magically materialized in the White House residence after Ken Starr and a Senate committee subpoenaed them?

As for the documents at the Clinton Presidential Library, both Clintons say they have asked the library to release materials as quickly as possible. But when the Clintons' agent, former Deputy White House Counsel Bruce Lindsey, chooses not to review the withheld documents, it makes one question their sincerity.

This game of they hide while everyone else seeks is familiar to all Clinton observers. Barack Obama should take advantage of the questions of character that have always been asked of the Clintons and the public doubts about their honesty and sincerity in anything that does not promote their personal, political and financial interests.

 

 

More on the Bumpy Ride

There continues to be no clear outcome in the Democrat run for the roses.  The remaining primaries are not helpful in clearing the mists because of the same proportional representation rules that got us here.  Neither candidate will gain substantially over the other because they will nearly split the votes in those states as they have coming up to this point.  It is interesting that the two Democrat challengers would evenly split the support of the voters when the policy positions of the candidates are nearly identical. 

It is also interesting to note that both candidates have received more primary votes than any Democrat primary candidate in history and still we are deadlocked.  It should be noted that the brains that brought you these primary rules that got us here are the same folks that want to design a health care system for us all. 

Now we are fighting on how to have do-over elections in Florida and Michigan at a cost of millions of dollars without any expectation that the issues would be resolved.  (nice touch of irony to think that the result of the Democrat primaries could hinge on legal action in Florida – who would have thought)

Note that the so called super delegates – the party leaders and elected officials – come to the convention without being bound to vote for any candidate, stated support for one candidate or the other notwithstanding.  So anything can happen on the first ballot. 

The Clintons are, of course, willing to do or say anything to get the votes Hillary needs.  So, believe me, when I say – its not over.

Witness the amazing statements from the last week.  Mrs Clinton states that she has the experience, Senator McCain has the experience, but Mr Obama has only the speech he gave in 2002.  This is a remarkable statement in which Mrs Clinton actually says that if you don’t vote for her, you would be better off to vote for McCain than Obama.  I am sure the party leaders were on the phone about that one - and I wouldn’t expect many more statements from Hillary endorsing Senator McCain.  (but it will be a nice sound bite for McCain ads in the general election)

But this week both she and Bill have come up with the fantastic suggestion that Democrats should annoint Hillary for President, she would pick Obama for her running mate and everybody would get what they want.  Not a bad campaign strategy by the Clintons – except Hillary just got through repeating many times that Obama was not qualified to be President because he has no experience – now she wants him as Vice President – a heartbeat away.  Since neither Clinton has ever demonstrated any close ties to the truth, it is just possible that they do not realize what a contradiction this is.   (which is why I fear this strategy more than most)

Paul Jacob, for Townhall.com, discusses some of these points and talks about what could happen after the first ballot at the convention.

My source: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PaulJacob/2008/03/09/zero_sum,_negative_sum_%e2%80%94_some_campaign

Zero sum, negative sum — some campaign
By Paul Jacob
Sunday, March 9, 2008

All of John McCain’s Republican competitors have dropped out of the race. Well, Ron Paul will still participate in some sort of low-key way (which may include a non-low-key march on Washington!), but Paul has conceded that he hasn’t the proverbial snowball’s chance to knock McCain from the running. McCain has all the delegates he needs; the nomination is sewn up.

Too bad. For if ever a candidate needed unstitching, it’s McCain.

But if you are looking for hope from a Democratic alternative, you might as well dash it right now. There’s nothing particularly freedom-loving, republican, or even democratic about the three major Democratic candidates.

Three, you ask? I must mean two, no?

Nope.

Think Al Gore. You can’t keep a good corpse down.

In a recent column, Eleanor Clift fantasizes about the possibility of dragging Al Gore back from his political Afterlife as a PowerPoint presenter on global warming, to run again for the Number One Spot. Ms. Clift insists that there is no way for either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to get the delegates needed for the nomination. That means the super-delegates will decide.

The first thing to say about this is: how amusing! Democrats picking their candidate by the least democratic method possible — behind, as Clift puts it, “closed doors” — is just too rich.

As a person who’s stumped for democratic reforms around the country, I can say that, generally speaking, Democratic politicians tend to be the least interested in democratic reforms like initiative and referendum. They tend to deeply despise them, while Republican politicians — perhaps against one’s expectations — tend to see merit in these tools for reform. At least, more than their Democratic colleagues.

So, the party’s name notwithstanding, the idea of a non-democratic Democratic nomination process isn’t exactly the acme of hypocrisy. It’s just politics as usual.

But Democratic constituents are nowhere near so lockstep anti-democratic as their leaders are. And anything these super-delegates do will not be seen as very “super” by close to half of activist Democrats.

Selecting Hillary? Hillary is a player, as was her husband. The Clinton’s have been courting movers and shakers in the Democratic Party for decades upon decades now. All those Renaissance Weekends might pay off.

But it would surely elicit righteous indignation, even white-hot anger, from Obama supporters, who might very well view the Anointed One as the next worst thing to the Antichrist.

So, might a sort of canny wisdom come into play, as if a Political Muse were to whisper into hundreds of ears, saying Pick Obama?

It might very well happen. Obama may be as unreconstructed a Big Government Liberal as you could fear, but he sounds as if he’s ushering in a new Millennium, with utterly new ideas.

The newness of any one idea is of course not merely open to question, but open to challenge on sanity grounds. But that doesn’t matter for Democrats. Any group that could pick Al Gore and then John Kerry as their standard bearers in the last two elections hasn’t demonstrated a great deal of judgment.

And here we come to the third scenario, where Eleanor Clift’s years of political insidery incite her to insight: If enough super-delegates hold off on deciding, there could be no clear winner on the first ballot. After that anything could happen. And the most likely “anything”? Al Gore.

Gore won the popular vote back in 2000, and if you listen to Democrats, he would have won the Electoral College, too, had the sneaky Bush supporters not nabbed Florida, with the help of a partisan Supreme Court, and snuck in. So selecting Al Gore again could be seen as recompense.

It also seems like a new species of insanity itself.

Gore didn’t seem very likable as a politician. And, for all of his pretense to knowledge, he made a lackluster debater (George W. Bush) seem likable to more people than would have otherwise. Gore now seems to have lightened up, now that he’s no longer seeking office, and has only the future of civilization and life itself on his mind. He can crack jokes. He can smile comfortably.

I guess that’s what most Afterlives are supposed to look like. And, after losing his grip on the presidency, he couldn’t help but seem more human.

So, calling Al Gore back might make for at least a good show . . . at least to viewers of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. If Willow Rosenberg can slaughter a deer and regurgitate a snake to get Buffy back, the super-delegates can do something of the same for Al.

What Obama supporters and Hillary supporters would say, I’m not sure. What America would say I have a better idea: John McCain for President!

But that’s the danger of any course the Democrats take. The campaign has become internecine. The Democrats could be staring a Pyrrhic victory in the face. Clinton has crossed the line, says Gary Hart, she’s all but stated that John McCain would be a better candidate than Obama. And Obama has had to let at least one adviser go for saying really nasty things about Hillary. (It is generally held to be bad form to call a member of your own party a “monster.”)

This is the trouble with zero sum games. Too often they become negative sum games.

A zero sum game — in the trendy nomenclature of economists and other fancy dialecticians — is one where there is a winner and a loser. A positive sum game is one where all win. A negative sum game is where all lose. One reason I like freedom so much is that, in communities and in markets, we can all win. But politics runs on zero sum principles. You take from some, give to others. Zero sum. You elect one candidate from a field, and only one can win — the others must lose.

And the prospect of a big win versus a big loss puts us mere mortals into a dangerous mode: kill or be killed. A panic. A willingness to do or say darn near anything . . . like Hillary’s backhanded endorsement of McCain. We can even speak truths that aren’t supposed to be spoken . . . like calling Hillary a monster.

The real proof of this theory of zero sum games — that they too often lead to negative sum games — would be the selection of Al Gore.

Some Democrats might like it. For a while.

But if Gore gets elected, we would all surely lose. Anyone who predicts a catastrophic climate future with global sea level rises, and feels certain about it all, is certain to be a disaster.

The sad note is, with John McCain as the Republican alternative, we will all surely lose anyway. There’s nothing that can be done, now. Go home. Tend to your gardens . . . and your state and local governments. Prepare for the next time. Because this election offers lovers of liberty scant hope.