Category Archives: National

The Clintons, In the Rear-View Mirror

Great post from Andrew Sullivan. This is not a man who is hoping for a Clinton cabinet appointment. I wish I could write as well as he does (though, would if I wrote as well as him, would I choose to write so much? It’s a question we’ll never answer.)

Will I re-read this post in the first week of November and bemoan my sense of optimism? Maybe. I promise not to be ashamed of it. I’m confident that I won’t look back and wish I’d pulled for Clinton II.

I’m still unsettled and ambivalent about Obama. But I have a clear opinion on Hillary: send her back to the swamps of NewYarkansas.

House to Bush: Get a Warrant!

I’m delighted that the House found the backbone that was so mysteriously missing in the Senate.The “Protect America Act” has been a continuing source of horror and amazement to me.  I mentioned this last month. To review:

  1. The government wants information that it isn’t legally entitled to demand.
  2. The government asks the telephone companies to provide that information.
  3. The telephone companies break the law and breach the privacy of their customers.
  4. The Senate thinks this is a fine thing.
  5. The Senate votes to prevent lawsuits against the telephone companies.
  6. The House refuses to go along and does not approve the bill.

I think the Senate is horribly wrong.  I want those companies to stand up and say “No, we won’t break the law.”  When the government overreaches, when the government tries to violate the law, I want every citizen and corporation to reject the request.  I want the citizens and corporations who break the law brought to justice.  Last month when the Senate voted to delay and consider amendments, I was greatly encouraged.  My hope proved false as senators on both side of the aisle failed their constituents, not to mention their oaths to the Constitution.

The other part of this bill, of course, is that it would extend the permission to engage in warrantless wiretaps on Americans.  The Senate also approved the extension of this unconstitutional law.  The Senate caved to Bush’s bullying: “If you don’t approve this, FISA will expire.”  The House correctly identified this as crap; more importantly, it was willing to bet that the American public will also identify it as crap.  FISA did not expire.  Warrantless wiretaps on Americans expired.  And a get-out-of-jail-free card was not granted to telcoms that should have know better than to break the law.

It’s also worth noting that the House offered a 21-day extension of the current law.  This was rejected by the White House.  If this law is as important as Bush thinks it is, why would he reject an extension?  The obvious answer is that he’s trying to pressure and hurry Congress into a rash decision.  The Senate fell to this tactic, but the House did not.

The Ides of February have passed.  The PAA was not extended.  The government continues to investigate terrorists.  And when it wants to wiretap and spy on Americans?  They should do exactly what the Constitution instructs them and the FISA law permits them to:  get a warrant.

Fearmonger in Chief

A co-worker pointed me to this colorful description of the “Protect America Act.”  I don’t endorse his partisan rhetoric, but it is nonetheless a good exposition of the foolishness of the PAA and the deplorable tactics employed by the current administration.

While we’re on the topic: Why on earth is the Senate granting immunity to companies that broke the law and handed private information to the government?  Where I come from, when you break the law, you go to jail.

Why I’m Not Voting for Hillary Clinton

I don’t think I’ve ever voted in a meaningful presidential primary. I’ve assumed that my primary vote wouldn’t matter unless I moved back to New Hampshire. But here I am, 10 days away from the primary, and the outcome is in question for both parties. I’m a registered Democrat these days (I know that’s news to some of you, but I changed parties a while ago). So who am I voting for? I can tell you I’m not voting for Hillary Clinton.

I strongly believe that politics today and the culture of Washington is broken. I believe that both parties are guilty of playing positions for the sake of victory. They’re not fighting for what is best. They are fighting for a victory. They tell their supporters that “best for the country” and “victory” are the same thing, but this is not the case. The world is not divided into simple black-and-white, us-versus-them issues. No party has a monopoly on good ideas. No party is right on every issue. Anyone who claims they have all the answers is not to be believed.

I think Hillary Clinton represents the ugly side of partisan politics. I recognize that she has been demonized by the ugly side of the conservative movement, but that does not absolve her of blame. But she hasn’t just stooped to their level. She has embraced the “politics of destruction” as her own.

Furthermore, I am unconvinced that her positions are her own. I’ve listened to her talk and read her statements for years. I’m left with the impression that she only speaks after consulting her pollsters. If it won’t get her elected, she won’t say it.

I recognize that these statements are subjective and hard to prove. Let me offer a few examples.

First up is her attacks on Obama for talking about Ronald Reagan. Clinton claimed that Obama “said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last ten to fifteen years.” Her husband went farther, saying “[Obama] said President Reagan was the engine of innovation and did more, had a more lasting impact on America than I did. And then the next day [Obama] said, ‘In the ’90s the good ideas came out from the Republicans.'” And then there is the radio ad Clinton ran in South Carolina that accuses Obama of endorsing ” . . . ideas like special tax breaks for Wall Street. Running up a $9 trillion debt. Refusing to raise the minimum wage or deal with the housing crisis.”

These attacks are distortions. You can hear Obama’s statements, in his own words, here and here. He was not endorsing the policies of Reagan. He was speaking, in a historical sense, of Reagan’s legacy. He did not endorse the policies that the Clintons vilified. Clinton apparently did not think that her ideas were enough to win over voters. She felt that she needed to distort her opponent’s position in order to win votes. And, she thought that the distortion was justified. The ends justified the means.

We should be choosing our next president on the basis of their ability to govern well. I’m deeply suspicious of a candidate that thinks the best way to demonstrate leadership is to distort the statements of her opponent.

My second example is Clinton’s use of terrorism and fear of terrorism to scare voters. I believe that President Bush has repeatedly used this tactic to push his policies. I want voters to make a rational choice at the ballot box. They shouldn’t make their choice out of fear. Clinton said “And look what happened in Great Britain. Tony Blair leaves, Gordon Brown comes in, the very next day, there are terrorist attacks. Thankfully, they were unsuccessful, from London to Scotland. So, you’ve got to be prepared on day one with everything ready to go.”

Obama correctly recognized this as the scare tactic that it is: “When Senator Clinton uses the specter of a terrorist attack with a new prime minister during a campaign, I think that is part and parcel with what we’ve seen the use of the fear of terrorism in scoring political points.”

My third example is older, but serves to support my claim that she is a slave to her pollsters. March of last year, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace said “I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that [the U.S. military] should not condone immoral acts.” Clinton was already a candidate for president. Her first answer was very weak: “Asked on ABC News on Wednesday if she agreed with General Pace’s view that homosexuality was immoral, Mrs. Clinton said, “Well, I’m going to leave that to others to conclude.””

The next day she had a new take on the issue. I can only assume this was after consulting with her presidential advisors. It would be hard for her to win the Democratic nomination without support from gay and lesbian voters: “‘I disagree with what he said and do not share his view, plain and simple,’ she said. ‘It is inappropriate to inject such personal views into this public policy matter, especially at a time in which there are young men and women in such grave circumstances in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in other dangerous places around the world.'”

I ask, if it was so plain and simple, why didn’t she say so herself? Why did she need a spokesman to say it?

I’m not sure who I want to be our next president. I’m sure I don’t want it to be Hillary Clinton.

Small Handful of Small States

Ned ranted about silly parts of the presidential election.  I agree with 90% of what he says, but that last 10% . . . I started to respond in a comment on his blog, but the comment got long-winded enough that I decided to post here instead.  “The whole focus on early primaries seems completely out of whack to me, where a small handful of small states get to make big choices for everyone.”

My response is: If not New Hampshire. . . then which state?  What’s the alternative?  It’s an interesting question.  (And yes, I grew up in New Hampshire.)

I agree with another commenter, Dave, that one of the good parts of having New Hampshire pick first is retail politics.  The voters in New Hampshire, I’d argue, are less biased by the 30-second commercial or, god forbid, the 6-second newsbite quote.  They get to meet the candidates, listen to them for extended periods of time, and answer their questions.  Money matters, of course, but it matters less when you are there to shake people’s hands.

It’s a level of interaction that is inconceivable if you haven’t participated in it.  I went skiing with Bob Kerry and his one leg.  I joked with Elizabeth Dole.  I nearly grabbed Bob Dole’s pen by mistake.  I met every president from Reagan to Bush I (Clinton was elected while I was in college, and he broke my streak).

If not New Hampshire, then where?  A southern state?  A western state?  California is bigger and more diverse, but doesn’t it get decided by the television commercial, and thus the dollar?  If you look at small-population states, they’re all pretty white, just like New Hampshire.  Delaware, maybe, has a case to make; it’s small enough and more diverse than most.  But Nevada?  North Carolina?  Pick your biases, no matter which one you choose.

Another option is to have a national primary – no order of voting, just everyone vote the same day.  Again, I think that favors the best-funded candidates.  The dark-horse candidate doesn’t have a chance to make a run.  The current system permits candidates to rise and fall over time.  During each primary a new scrutiny is applied to the new frontrunner.

I agree with Ned that we have to break out of the two-party rut.  It’s just a matter of where to start.

Is Ron Paul Running for President?

I’m not going to vote for Ron Paul. He’s wrong on too many issues. Still, I’m glad he’s running. He talks about issues that make most candidates uncomfortable. They’re issues that deserve to be debated. The problem is, he also makes the press uncomfortable. He scares the press, and then they try to pretend he doesn’t exist.

Read this New York Times story about the Iowa straw poll. It tells you who placed first, second, third, sixth, seventh, eighth, and tenth.

Did you know that Ron Paul came in fifth? Only if you read it somewhere else.

Free Speech is Academic

An untenured professor in Boston, apparently directed by college administrators to “engage” students about the massacre at Virginia Tech, did exactly that. As he relates the story, he “opened the discussion by summarizing nonviolent philosophies before holding up a marker and asking the class to acknowledge that it was not a weapon.”   Nicholas Winset went on to re-enact part of the shooting, using his marker to ‘shoot’ people.

The result? He got fired. I’ll be the first one to say that Emmanuel College can fire whomever it wants to. In the same breath, I’ll say that any college that stifles non-conforming and/or controversial ideas is, in fact, not a college at all.

On Fire in Cheshire

The Globe wrote earlier this week about a Homeland Security grant to Cheshire, MA. The town wanted a new firetruck, but instead got money for salaries – $626,000, to be more specific. The Globe cites that as 26 times the annual fire department budget. To put that in perspective, that would be like Arlington getting $16 million, but not being allowed to spend it on rebuilding firestations – personnel only, please!

I started several different paragraphs attempting to quantify and qualify how foolish the feds look and how little faith I have that my federal tax dollars are spent wisely, but they all fell short. Just read the Globe article, including these quality excerpts:

Asked about Cheshire’s grant, Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman Val Bunting said yesterday that the town “presented a multifaceted project proposal.” She said the grant could be spent over four years, but she would not elaborate .

Cheshire — the smallest town in Massachusetts to get a grant, but the recipient of the largest amount.

But now that that’s off the wish list, Sweet said he might use some of the money to recruit high school students. Or he might put some of the windfall into a marketing campaign to lure volunteers to Cheshire.

“It’ll be on billboards, TVs, and radio stations, and that kind of stuff,” he said. “We’ll have to spend it wisely.”