In defense of Hillary!

I'm going to buck the crowd. Get ready for this...I support Hillary Clinton in her fight for the Democratic Nomination, not with my vote, but in spirit. And no, its not because it hurts the Dems. I support her because I think she's right.

This is the biggest prize in the whole world. Period. And it matters who wins. You shouldn't quit on it. I mean, isn't that what we want, "not quitters" as President. I mean as a nation we get mad when teams don't go for the Hail Mary before the half of a close game, and we all want her to just quit.

Not only that, but the rules of the game give her hope. If Obama continues to fade, and she continues to build, the rules of the Democratic Party give Superdelegates the ability to alter prior outcomes. Yes, it lacks elegance, but its like Hack-a-Shaq. If it puts you in position to win, do it. If Shaq can't hit his freethrows, that's his problem. If Obama can't put away Hillary, that's his problem. The reality is that Hillary's not the problem, Obama is. He's the one fading, he's the one ducking debates, he's the one allowing this to happen, NOT Hillary. She's just doing what she's supposed to do, try to win. All this stuff that's come up would and will come up in the general election. His "pretty words-no substance" and "don't make a mistake" approach is costing him. Yes, I'm going to another sports analogy, but he's put in the prevent defense, and everyone knows the only the prevent does is prevent you from sealing the deal. If Obama cannot put Hillary away, and this causes the Superdelegates to wonder about him in the General Election, the rules clearly give them the option to give the nod to Hillary. And Hillary's right to try to create that scenario.

Will it destroy the Democratic Party? Who knows. Would it hurt in any worse than losing again (which is a real possibility of an Obama nomination-the guys fading badly and lots of unhelpful things about his past keep coming up)? Again, who knows? I do believe that fear of the unknown should never rule the known. Besides, she has a strong point in thinking that she would have won FL and MI. Those are two states filled with her voters, and two states the Dems must have.

Hillary's found a path to victory, slim yes, but its a fair path well within the rules. She's not my candidate, but I fully endorse what she's doing.

NYC finally understands taxes, freaks out and quits

NYC Councilman Peter Vallone Jr (Democrat, hold on read that again its important. This is a story about a Democrat from one of the most liberal areas in the Nation) wants to secede from NY State. Why you ask?

This is where it gets good. See NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg testified in Albany that NYC pays $11 billion more in taxes than it gets back from the state. This ticked Mr Vallone off.

Welcome to the world of taxation and wealth redistribution Mr Vallone. Surely, as a Democrat you are passingly familiar with these concepts. But maybe not when it applies to you. Anyway, lets look at some fun quotes.

somebody please tell me what other options we have if the state is going to continue to take billions from us and give us back pennies.

Ummm, this is the exact concept of wealth redistribution. The wealthy give lots get little. Maybe its not fair, but I'm assuming as a Dem that you've voted to "redistribute" the wealth many, many times.

Next.

They take $11 billion from us and give us back a mere pittance and they make it seem like they're doing us a favor to give that pittance back. Somehow they missed the point that that is New York City's own tax money and we deserve it.

Wait, you feel that its your money and you "deserve" it? Capitalist pig! Seriously, are you new to your party? This sounds like the mad rant of a greedy capitalist, what with earning and keeping money and all. Railing at the government and feeling upset that they took a lot from you and gave you little. Mad that they want to take the money you earned and give it to...to...others. Don't they "deserve" a better life on your dime? Isn't this what your team wants? How can you sleep at night with all those billions under your mattress? Maybe you missed the point, its not your money, its your obligation.

But who are the problem according to Mr Vallone?

It would be much, much simpler to be able to govern 8.5 million people without having to ask legislators who represent villages on the Canadian border for permission before we do anything.

Oh, now I understand, the problem is the poor. Very egalitarian of you Mr Vallone.

What do other Councilmen think of this raving conservative and his idea to choke the poor? Let's go to Mr Simcha Felder a Brooklyn Democrat.

It certainly has merit. Why in the world should New York City be held hostage to the state? It just doesn't make sense...I think the people in New York City are very interested for the most part in it. The question is the people outside New York City in New York State who have been eating the fruits of our labor for all this time. They aren't going to be ready to just say forget about it." (italics mine).

What the? Am I living in some kind of Bizzarro world where Liberal Democrats are shouting Conservative Philosophy.

My only question is how did these Conservative Republicans get elected Councilmen for Queens and the Brooklyn? I mean they clearly favor letting the wealthy keep their wealth, not only that but they're so mad they want to opt out. They clearly can't stand the idea of forced wealth redistribution. They clearly disdains the poor. So much so that they feel wronged even giving them a say. By their own words they just want to be left alone with their money to do what they want. I don't see any difference between this platform and the most conservative Republican's I know (Shout out to Stalin).

What I can't accept is that Mr Vallone is some kind of hypocrite. Happy to give away other people's money, but not his own. Because a NY liberal Democrat decrying disproportionate taxation on the rich and forced wealth redistribution would just be too much.

*On a more serious note, and just to be clear, while I am definitely mocking these two Councilmen, I am not intending to mock liberal ideas in general. While I have a different, some would say "much" different, view of taxes and free markets, I firmly believe that the conflict between the "liberal" and "conservative" views on economic policy are crucial to our nation. I have never held that "liberal" views on taxation and economy are anything other than intelligent people doing what they think is best for America. What I cannot stand are hypocrites (see the above Councilmen). If one really believes that high taxes and wealth redistribution are the best policies, then those policies should also, happily, apply to oneself.

Thank you, and now we can all return to my lame attempts at comedy. sarcasm and wit (yes, yes I am aware that what I mostly achieve is tragedy, chasm, and sh...(nope, my mommy reads this here blog).

Swing and a Miss

No wonder congress is home to the only politicians less liked than President Bush. (34.3% approval for Bush, 23.5% approval for Congress) The Democratic Senators who tried to make hay out of comments made by Rush Limbaugh played themselves right into his hands. The "controversial" talk jock (do I sound mainstream now?) who, if anything, practically worships the military was accused of "calling into question" the service of our troops in Iraq. How so? By using the term "phony soldiers". Of course, in context this term referred to soldiers like Jesse Macbeth who have lied about what they did in Iraq to gain notoriety and feed the anti-war crowd's need for proof that they are right. I'm sure Dan Rather will soon speak out in defense of Mr. Macbeth since even though his "facts" are lies his "position" is correct. But I digress...so the Democrats try to outmaneuver the biggest American military/Iraq war cheerleader by saying he doesn't respect our troops in harms way. As Confucius says, "What is the sound of wood hitting nothing?" (he didn't actually SAY that, but it's in line with his positions. You got my back, Dan?) And playing this utterly impotent attack off as a joke is absolutely the right move. Wow, this was like watching a Patriots v. Dolphins game...no contest.

Kill the Messengers or The Mouse That Didn't Roar

Let me tell you why this country, despite lilting significantly in their direction, will not get behind the Democrat's plan to cut and run from Iraq...their spokesmen. War fatigue is a fact of democracy. It is inevitable. America has it. Therefore, there is no easier position than the one staked out by the Democrats. And still they can't muster enough support to accomplish anything on that issue. And all you need to do is listen to the somnolent droning of Jack Reed or the shrill whining of Nancy Pelosi or the prissy preaching of John Kerry to understand why. It is so pathetic that the Democrat leadership thinks just because Jack Reed has some kind of military background (bugle player?) his wimpish delivery of liberal tough talk will resonate with people who want to be kept safe from terror. It won't. The only reason Hillary has a chance to be Pres is because she IS the ice queen...and she seems tough. When nothing is going on you can sell us a non-threatening dough boy like Billy Clinton, but when there's murder afoot it's going to take more than jittery Jack Reed to win over this country. Tonight the Democrat rebuttle didn't and now you know why.

I hate hate crimes? Is that a crime?

President Bush is threatening to veto a new piece of legislation expanding Federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to cover gender and sexual orientation...on the surface. Underneath all the media hype about a double standard for not protecting homosexuals and trans-gender types, the bill actually greatly expands the reach of the Feds into "hate" crimes. I know, I know, who would have thought that the Federal government would do something to expand their power under the guise of doing the right thing, and if you're really paying attention you would also not be surprised that the media missed that and focused on "W hates gays" (which may be true, or not, I don't know. I do know that there's no way I'm buying the "I don't want to expand federal power " line, not from the biggest fan of big government since FDR). However, I too would veto this legislation.

Bottom line? This bill will actually expand federal powers far beyond their current reach and I'm not a fan. However, Congress could actually do what they're saying by simply amending the 1969 federal hate-crimes law to add protection for sexual orientation. The Volokoh Conspiracy does a nice job distinguishing between this bill and the 1969 law (for some reason Volokoh and many other sources have it as a 1968 federal hate-crimes law-Wikipedia says 1969). Also, here's a quick take from Sarah Scanlon, Regional Field Director for the Human Rights Campaign.

I think, again, that the Dems just do not think strategically. Simply doing what they say has the obvious benefit of being a pleasant change from any political body, it also puts W under pressure. If he vetoes a simple amendment to the 1968(9) law, then it forces him to veto it to appeal to his base and further harm his standing with mainstream America (helping the Dems), or allow it (helping the Dems). W wouldn't be able to hide behind "expanding federal powers" and would find himself in a no-win situation, and the Dems would be helping their base in the process. Lose-lose for W, win-win for the Dems. Sometimes simple is better.

Hate Crime legislation is a whole nother ball-o-wax. Personally, I bounce back and forth, but generally settle in against them. I do think motive matters, as does circumstance. I also think that most of motive and circumstance can be handled in the sentencing process. If a crime has a 3-5 year sentence guideline, then I think you get five if your motive was particularly heinous, and three if not. However, with more things like mandatory sentencing and leeway being taken away from judges and juries by the legislative branch, then we will find ourselves in the position of having to think through and legislate things like "hate crimes."

Is Congress a "Potted Plant?"

Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA) made the following statement about Congress,

"We are not a potted plant watching the administration function, we are part of the decision-making process"

Proving once again, that when you have to tell people you're important, you're not. A little history.

In 2002 Congress passed HJ 114 and SJ 45, or as their collectively known, the "Congress is a potted plant" bills. See these were the bills that gave W unobstructed ability to do whatever he feels necessary as long as its a "national security" issue. And what are the parameters of national security? Let's take a look at the docs. "National security" is hereby defined to include the pursuit (by military force and invasion) of "international peace and security", and such interests will now include the entire "Persian Gulf region."

So Rep Lantos, Congress is, in fact, a potted plant. Like the old saying, if it sits and does nothing like a plant and if its as smart as a plant, its a plant. Your a plant. You gave up all your rights to advise, consent, shape, command, etc when you passed those bills. My bet is that, like the Patriot Act, few in congress actually read the bills (absolutely kills me), but someone wrote them, and whoever did (I'm looking at you White House) knew what was in them.

I'm pretty sure SOH Nancy Pelosi didn't read them. She keeps running around saying,

"I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran."

The way I read the above bills, he does. See Iran lies within the area called "The Persian Gulf" and W has unfettered authority to do whatever in that region. I get that US high schoolers are famous for not knowing geography and low reading scores, but I expect better from the SOH. Maybe no president before could go into Iran without explicit congressional consent, but no president before was lucky enough to have a congress filled with one group of people who put party above all and would never dream of countering W, and another who were so incompetent and afraid that they would never dream of countering W. And as I pointed out in earlier post, it will take 2/3 votes to over-ride W's veto of any bill taking this authority away.

To make matters worse for the dems, if possible, is that every week or so they get all vocal about taking control, setting time-lines, linking progress, holding back money, limiting W's ability to go into Iran, and every week they back off all that and just pass the bill the White House wants. It seems like the only courage they have is the courage to continually go through this humiliating song and dance.

The latest retreat, where the dems stripped a bill of language requiring W to come to congress before attacking Iran sums up how confused they are about what W can and can't do given previous bills.

One, if, as Pelosi asserts, W doesn't have the authority to act without congress' consent, why was this language even necessary? Second, its yet another example of the Dems talking tough, then retreating when it looks like it won't be a cake walk. So either Pelosi is running around trying to sound like her congress is relevant when it isn't, or she enjoys pulling tough sounding provisions out of bills, maybe even both. I dunno, maybe she likes looking weak and uniformed to the American public and to the White House. Bottom line, the Democratically controlled congress has yet to put any pressure on either its Republican members or the White House. When the GOP had control they did a masterful job of putting pressure on the dems, and the dems always caved. Maybe my conservative friends are right. Maybe the dems have no guts. They didn't have the guts to stand up to GOP pressure when they were the minority, and they haven't shown the guts to withstand any pressure from the GOP now that the dems are the majority. It just looks like anything that resembles a "stumbling block" causes the dems to retreat.

Maybe Lantos is right. Maybe the dems aren't a potted plant, a potted plant can at least get in the way occasionally. The dems are more like mice. Just scrambling to stay alive, nibbling the left-overs in the pantry, and running whenever something enters the room.

Dems learn a lesson in politics

They want desperately to gain authority on Iraq, the problem is they can't. They've tried non-binding resolutions which failed, and now they're looking to put some kind of timetable on the war, and pull in some of W's powers. But political reality is stuffing them. Say's Hill,

"It's a very frustrating time right now. We still don't have the votes."

And that's just for the 60 needed to bring it to the floor, when W veto's that sucker, they'll need 66.

So what's the lesson? It's much, much harder to undo a law you don't like than to let it pass in the first place. Too many people feel that its OK if a bad law passes because you can just change, but they don't understand the math. It takes 51 to pass a law without real opposition. It takes 60 to pass it with opposition, and 66 to pass it with a veto. Said differently, something that barely squeaks by and passes with a marginal vote of 1 (51) needs 9 more votes to undo, or 15 with a veto (you have to garner 30% more votes to override a veto) its just not that easy, and is hugely important in political strategy. The extra vote hurdle is why you have to fight bad laws in the beginning, before the hurdle of the extra votes kicks in. If the Dem's had the moxie they could have worked to keep the War powers provisions where they belong, with Congress, and they could now be acting on both their promises and the peoples expectations. But that would have required making a stand, which just isn't their strong suit.

As it stands, their earlier cowardice is leading to their current impotence.

The GOP's big Slur

Been reading of late about W's big "slur" against the Democratic members of congress in his State of the Union Address.

During his speech, Bush congratulated what he called the "Democrat majority" while welcoming the "new," "changed" Congress, even though the prepared text of the speech reportedly called for Bush to recognize the "Democratic majority."

Apparently referring to members of the Democratic party as the "Democrat" party is some kind of big insult.

There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. “Democrat Party” is a slur, or intended to be—a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but “Democrat Party” is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams “rat.” At a slightly higher level of sophistication, it’s an attempt to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation.

Furthermore, while the word dates back to at least the Hading Administration, use today is all the fault of Newt Gingrich and pollster Frank Luntz

In the early 1990s, apparently due largely to the urging of then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and Republican pollster Frank Luntz, the use of the word "Democrat" as an adjective became near-universal among Republicans.

But here's the thing, both my parents (Hi Ma, Hi Pop) are members of the Democratic Party and I grew up a Democrat...(ic?) (before making the big switch to Libertarian), and I just don't see the insult. Sorry. I dunno, maybe I'm tougher than I thought, or, more likely, I've been called much worse. When I try to place, "Called Democrat Party instead of Democratic Party" on the big list of slurs, well, it doesn't even make the list of things to be listed. Seriously, it just feels silly. But after reading the first article, I did a search and this really bugs people. Well at least some people. From The Huffington Post,

"Those two letters actually do matter," Luntz said the other day. He added that he recently finished writing a book--it's entitled Words That Work--and has been diligently going through the galley proofs taking out the hundreds of "ic"s that his copy editor, one of those partisan Dems, had stuck in.

What Michelle Pilecki leaves out is just who the those two letters actually matter to. Preceding that paragraph was another in the original.

Luntz, who road-tested the adjectival use of “Democrat” with a focus group in 2001, has concluded that the only people who really dislike it are highly partisan adherents of the—how you say?—Democratic Party.

And now you get it. No one really cares, except those are so wrapped up in party politics, on both sides, that they share little with the rest of America. I never knew it was a slur and I'm not new at this game. So when members of the Republic Party (hah-suck on that Gingrich, how's it feel now?) say "Democrat Party," I never knew they were trying to hurt my feelings. Not really the best insult when the insultee doesn't know they've been insulted. Ironically, since the Dems have brought so much attention to it, now I know, and honestly, I think the Dems are the ones looking silly.

Finally, from what I've been able to ascertain, "Democrat" is OK when referring to one member of the Democratic Party. "Democrats" is OK when referring to several members of the Democratic Party (or at least I assume so, the Democratic Party web site is www.democrats.org), Dems are OK as short-hand (Whew, I use that a lot). In fact, the only time this slur is a slur is when referring to the whole of the Democratic Party.

Not to be nitpicky, but this is another example of how the Dems don't get it. Rather than just mocking this as the all-time worst insult, they actually get all hot and bothered by it. Just completely the wrong way to handle it.