Politics, Government & Public Policy: February 2008 Archives
Based on this piece about Barack Obama and Tony Rezko by Rick Moran I was about to post about how well the two knew each other, but it looks like Moran got some otherwise juicy information wrong. He writes:
If you listened to Obama, you would think that he barely knows Rezko. He has told the press he had lunch with him “a couple of times a year” and that he and his wife socialized with the Rezkos “2 to 4 times a year.”
That sounds like a lot of socializing! Obama has been active in Chicago politics for some 17 years, which would mean he, his wife, and the Rezkos went to dinner together up to 68 times! That's no casual acquaintance... how many couples have you and your wife gone to dinner with 68 times? However, the NYT story actually says this:
When Mr. Obama first fielded questions about Mr. Rezko last fall, he said they had had lunch once or twice a year and had socialized with their wives “two to four times.”
That's "two to four times" in total, not per year. Big difference. Did the NYT change its story after Moran wrote his? Or did Moran not read his source material closely enough? Heck, I've done that before myself, which is why it's great that Moran posted a link to his source. If the MSM did the same I bet we'd catch a lot more of their mistakes too.
The site On The Issues has great summaries of the positions of John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama on various issues, supported by their own words and links to the quotes. What a great resource.
Looks like Congress recently changed some pension laws in a way that makes it extremely important for anyone who has the option to take a lump-sum from their pension to do it ASAP:
Are you now or have you ever been covered by a defined benefit pension, the kind that pays so many dollars per month? Would you prefer to take your benefits in a lump sum?Then pay attention: The lump sum benefit you've already earned is likely to shrink over the next five years. In 2006, in response to complaints from corporations that the old method for calculating minimum lump sums was too generous, Congress created a new, less generous one. It's being phased in over five years, beginning in 2008. Younger workers take the biggest hit; by 2012 lump sums for today's 35-year-olds are projected to be 44% lower than they would have been under the old law. And since this was Congress' doing, the Internal Revenue Service has ruled that employers don't even need to warn employees about the change.
Not me, more than 11 million Americans will be affected by this change in law.
Based on the timeline, I don't think there's going to be much substance to the charge of plagiarism that Hillary Clinton is leveling at Barack Obama.
Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson, during a conference call with reporters, pointed to a speech Obama delivered at a Democratic Party dinner in Wisconsin Saturday that lifted lines from an address given last year by his friend, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.The Associated Press reported in January that Obama had borrowed ideas and speech points from Patrick, often without attribution. But with Obama now leading in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton's campaign is using this example in an attempt to chip away at the premise of his candidacy.
If this information has been out there since January, then there's only one reason why the Clinton camp has held it for so long: they've done the research and couldn't find any more examples of plagiarism by Obama. If they had more than one arrow in their quiver they would have been shooting them for weeks, not saving it up for the news cycle before the March 4 primaries in Texas and Ohio.
That said, Obama's mis-step highlights once again his inexperience and naivity. Will this plagiarism swing enough votes to let Hillary win in Texas and Ohio, as she needs to do to save her candidacy? Who knows. It won't swing any black voters, but it might dampen enthusiam among his supporters. I'll be very surprised though if further research at this point turns up more instances of stolen words.
These videos are absolutely priceless. Sean Hannity asks two different groups of Barack Obama supporters, a week apart, to name just one significant accomplishment by their favored candidate.
A sampling of answers:
- "Pass"
- "He's a great orator, like Jesse Jackson"
- "He's inspirational"
- "He served in the Senate"
- "He votes in the Senate"
- "He gave a speech to not go to war in Iraq"
- "Pass"
- "He's the only African American senator in the Senate"
Basically, he hasn't accomplished anything and is in no way qualified to run a gas station, much less a country.
(HT: Allman and Crane.)
John Tabin explains how the Democrats are heading for a no-win convention that is doomed to alienate their eventual nominee from some important constituency.
The Democrats seem to be on a collision course toward an ugly fight. The proportional allocation rules they adopted in the '70s will make it very difficult for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to secure a majority of delegates on the strength of electoral success alone. An internal Obama campaign memo that was leaked earlier this week projected that after the last primary vote is cast, Obama will have 1806 delegates and Clinton will have 1789. Neither figure would constitute a majority, which means that the nomination would have to be decided by appeals to the superdelegates -- 796 Democratic leaders and elected officials who can vote at the convention however they like -- or even by a fight over whether to seat the Florida and Missouri delegations.Duncan revealed that Howard Dean has called him up and asked if the RNC would be enforcing their sanctions on states that scheduled caucuses or primaries earlier than RNC rules allowed. Duncan told him that they would be ("we're the law and order party," he joked). Republican candidates may end up bringing their alternate delegates to St. Paul, and those people may get to attend as guests, but probably not as voting delegates. ...
The same isn't true of the Democratic sanctions. By adopting those draconian rules, the DNC put itself in an impossible position; if they don't enforce the sanctions, particularly if it turns out to matter, Obama's supporters will be furious -- they agreed not to campaign in Florida and Michigan, and weren't even on the ballot in the latter state. If the DNC does enforce the sanctions, they'll alienate not just the Clinton faction but also two battleground states.
More details about the problems with Michigan and Florida:
There is a growing sense of urgency about the need to deal with the Michigan-Florida issue, but no easy resolution. What happens could decide whether Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Obama becomes the party's presidential nominee.The Democratic National Committee sanctioned Michigan and Florida for moving up their nominating contests in violation of party rules; it declared their primaries unofficial and denied them the right to seat their delegations in Denver. At the time of the sanctions, there was a widespread assumption that the eventual nominee would relent and allow both states full participation at the convention.
That was when it was also assumed that there would be an early outcome to the Clinton-Obama contest and that the winner could appear magnanimous toward two states with pivotal roles in the general election. That was when it was assumed the delegates wouldn't matter in the nomination battle. Today, it's clear they could.
The decision to seat the Florida and Michigan delegates could be the decision that chooses the nominee. If that happens, supporters of the losing candidate will obviously feel angry and disenfranchised... that after all the millions of votes cast, the selection will come down to some old, rich, white men in a smoke-filled room. What's more, if the delegates from Michigan and Florida aren't seated, those important states could be driven away from the Democrats during the general election.
Finally, the superdelegates will have to vote, and if their pick doesn't line up with the rest of the Democrat voters, watch out. Just imagine a scenario in which Barack Obama wins more votes and more delegates than Hillary, but not enough to make a majority. If the superdelegates then break towards Hillary and give her the victory, as is widely expected, there could be riots.
I love it. I've been looking forward to 2008 for a long time!
(HT: Jules Crittenden and Glenn Reynolds.)
Largely because of the electability and supreme court issue I filled in the bubble for John McCain this morning. Ehhhh.
Interesting note: when I approached the sign-up table the lady there reached for a Democrat ballot until I told her I wanted the Republican one. Do I look like a Democrat? Or were there just so many Democrats voting this morning that she was acting by reflex?
I keep wavering between my general distaste for John McCain due to his positions on free speech and campaign finance reform and my general belief that he has a much better shot of winning than does Mitt Romney. This Wall Street Journal op-ed explains why a Republican victory is important for the Supreme Court... and it's a very persuasive argument for nominating the imperfect McCain. (And Romney is perfect? Hardly.)
We believe that the nomination of John McCain is the best option to preserve the ongoing restoration of constitutional government. He is by far the most electable Republican candidate remaining in the race, and based on his record is as likely to appoint judges committed to constitutionalism as Mitt Romney, a candidate for whom we also have great respect.We make no apology for suggesting that electability must be a prime consideration. The expected value of any presidential candidate for the future of the American judiciary must be discounted by the probability that the candidate will not prevail in the election. For other kinds of issues, it may be argued that it is better to lose with the perfect candidate than to win with an imperfect one. The party lives to fight another day and can reverse the bad policies of an intervening presidency.
The judiciary is different. On Jan. 20, 2009, six of the nine Supreme Court justices will be over 70. Most of them could be replaced by the next president, particularly if he or she is re-elected. Given the prospect of accelerating gains in modern medical technology, some of the new justices may serve for half a century. Even if a more perfect candidate were somehow elected in 2012, he would not be able to undo the damage, especially to the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, for judicial conservatives electability must be a paramount consideration. By all accounts, Mr. McCain is more electable than Mr. Romney. He runs ahead or even with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in the national polls, and actually leads the Democratic candidates in key swing states like Wisconsin. Mr. Romney trails well behind both Democratic candidates by double digits.
I must confess that I'm swinging towards McCain at this late date. Thanks to this editorial I might plug my nose and vote for him tomorrow.
