SMITH ON POLITICS

New Website

noreply@blogger.com (About Nick) — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:12:00 +0000

This site is now an archive. Acccess the new posts/blog at the same website, www.smithonpolitics.com. I've decided to switch services.

See you there!

-Nick

GOP Talk Radio Host Experiences Waterboarding, Calls It Torture

noreply@blogger.com (About Nick) — Sat, 23 May 2009 01:37:00 +0000

Attempt to take up the Dick Cheney/ Sean Hannity mantra that waterboarding is not torture, Chicago conservative radio host Erich Muller agreed to prove that waterboard was in fact not torture. The only problem is, he came out stating, unequivocally, that it is torture.

"It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that's no joke," Mancow said. "It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back... It was instantaneous... and I don't want to say this: absolutely torture."

"I wanted to prove it wasn't torture," Mancow said. "They cut off our heads, we put water on their face... I got voted to do this but I really thought 'I'm going to laugh this off.' "

Report: Cheney speech contained "exaggerations," "omissions," "misstatements."

noreply@blogger.com (About Nick) — Sat, 23 May 2009 00:50:00 +0000

Reporter Johnathan Linday and Warren Strobel have found, after an analysis of Dick Cheney's recent speech on national security several crucial inaccuracies that further erode any credibility that Mr. Cheney had.

"Former Vice President Dick Cheney's defense Thursday of the Bush administration's policies for interrogating suspected terrorists contained omissions, exaggerations and misstatements.

In his address to the American Enterprise Institute , a conservative policy organization in Washington , Cheney said that the techniques the Bush administration approved, including waterboarding — simulated drowning that's considered a form of torture — forced nakedness and sleep deprivation, were "legal" and produced information that "prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people."

He quoted the Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair , as saying that the information gave U.S. officials a "deeper understanding of the al Qaida organization that was attacking this country."

In a statement April 21 , however, Blair said the information "was valuable in some instances" but that "there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means...

See the rest of the article here.

Tonight: White House Correspondent's Dinner

noreply@blogger.com (About Nick) — Sun, 10 May 2009 05:06:00 +0000

Every year, the press have a get together featuring the President of the United States and a comedian as the evening's entertainment. Tonight, comedienne Wanda Sykes brought down the house with her quips about Rush Limbaugh's addiction, Michelle Obama's arms, Barack Obama's gift of an I-Pod to the Queen, and Joe Biden's many gaffes.

Must see teevee!

Democrats: Dump Arlen Specter, Support Admiral Joe Sestak in 2010.

noreply@blogger.com (About Nick) — Sat, 02 May 2009 18:57:00 +0000

Here is my open letter to Congressman-Admiral Joe Sestak, encouraging him to launch his campaign for the United States Senate from the State of Pennsylvania.

Dear Admiral,

Sir, please run for the United States Senate. When I first heard the news about Senator Specter's party switch, I was elated, and even looked past his admittedly pure political calculus in switching. I initially supported him.

After a day or two, I more fully considered the long term implications of having Specter in the Democratic caucus. I started thinking, if the 60th Democratic vote can be used to fulfill the President's agenda, should we go half way on change, or all the way ? We must go all the way. I am not suggesting that you are anyone's "rubber stamp." No one would make such a ridiculous accusation of a three-star like yourself. But I know that you are in line with the mandate for change that the American people overwhelmingly voted for last November.

I understand that should you choose to run for the United States Senate, you could lose your House seat. I think this is a risk that you must assume. I do want you to become PA's next Senator. Therefore, I highly recommend that you announce your candidacy soon and align yourself with the President's agenda. Specter can't align himself with the agenda for change. The most he can give us is, as he said during his press conference, "some assistance" to the President.I disagree with President Obama's and Vice President Biden's coronation of Specter as the Democratic nominee. Why they would endorse a candidate who will support merely some of the change agenda, whereas they could support a candidate who is a better ideological fit remains a mystery.

Congressman, I encourage you to announce your candidacy for the United States Senate. Democrats across the country would help fund your campaign. You would certainly have my support.

"100 Days In Office" Nonsense

noreply@blogger.com (About Nick) — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 22:15:00 +0000

I think judging any President of the United States on accomplishments garnered in the first 100 days is largely pointless. It is even more pointless considering that the current President's largest accomplishment has been the passage of the fiscal stimulus package, which will take years to determine whether it was successful.

Interestingly though, the President has accomplished in 100 days what George Bush, George HW Bush, Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower, and virtually any other Republican President never did. Abraham Linoln may be the exception, having signed the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. Barack Obama, a popular Democratic President, passed "the biggest tax cut in American history." Somebody should have told that to the many "tea partiers" that ranted against the government several weeks ago.

Tax cuts are the signature of the Republican Party platform. So, now that Obama has gone farther on this issue than any other Republican President has, why should voters even consider voting for a Republican?

Oh, that's right, not enough tax cuts went to the wealthiest Americans who certainly don't need them.

Gov. David Paterson (NY) Introduces "Gay Marriage" Bill

noreply@blogger.com (About Nick) — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 03:32:00 +0000

One of the great benefits of taking courses in constitutional law is that I've gained a greater understanding of the rights it confers to us as citizens and residents. Among several issues that I've grappled with over the years, I've finally resolved my thinking with regard to "gay marriage."

As far as the government is concerned, I don't believe in gay marriages. I don't believe in heterosexual marriages either. In fact, I don't think government should have been in the marriage business in the first place.

Most marriages are defined by religion and "legalized" by government. Others have no religious basis; these are typically called civil ceremonies. Most of the marraiges we hear about are heterosexual and have the backing of some religious institution. These institutions often preclude the union of same sex couples. If government substantiates such heterosexual marriages, is it doing so at the constitutional expense of homosexual couples?

Yes.

The debate among religious folks such as myself has been misguided. The argument has been that government should not compel religious communities to accept gay marriages. I agree. Save for the Vatican, the Dalai Lama, and maybe the Church of England, religions are mostly non-governmental undertakings controlled by private figureheads. Many countries distinguish between government leaders and religious leaders, although some policy pursuits have religious grounding. However, the intersection of religion and politics in the United States, for example, fails when religious leaders argue that government should be used to preclude the marriage of homosexual couples.

Said differently, some argue that government should not, in the case of Christian marriages, alter 2000 years of history in favor of a minority of people who want it changed. I agree. While this is a sound argument, using government to realize this point is wrong.

In fact, in the context of government, I don't even like to call these unions "marriages." They should simply be called unions. the definition of marriage should be left for the church.

In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court established that "marriage" is a constitutionally protected fundamental right. Measures that curtail this right are presumptively invalid, and they won't be upheld unless one shows an overwhelming government interest. In error, our government has rejected this analysis when it comes to gay unions. By recognizing both heterosexual and homosexual unions, government would not redefine religious marriage, but would define the legal civil union. There should be a separation between the two: private marriages and civil unions. Otherwise, government is likely to discriminate against homosexuals with regard to Equal Protection and the Full Faith and Credit clauses of the Constitution.

This dilemma exemplifies there should be a greater separation between church and State, and why I'm proud to call David Paterson my Governor. Last week, it was revealed that the Governor introduced a bill to recognize both heterosexual and homosexual unions. The bill would confer the same rights no matter one's gender. It is about time.

Previous efforts at the Federal and State levels have been a total embarassment, including President Clinton's signing of the so-called "Defense of Marriage Act." The law, passed in 1996, shields the federal government from having to recognize gay unions. In other words, Democrats have supported legal discrimination against gays trying to receive the various privileges and benefits of a legal union.

I can't help but think of the ridiculous argument that goes something like this, "You've now given marriage rights to homosexuals. Where is the line drawn? Should we be giving rights to pedophiles? Polygamists?" Such backward thinking deserves no response, at least not from me.

Surprisingly, my view has support from an unlikely source: Steve Schmidt, a manager of John McCain's Presidential effort. Schmidt's recent quote: "It cannot be argued that marriage between people of the same sex is un-American or threatens the rights of others...On the contrary, it seems to me that denying two consenting adults of the same sex the right to form a lawful union that is protected and respected by the state denies them two of the most basic natural rights affirmed in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence - liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

He concludes, and so do I,

"That, I believe, gives the argument of same sex marriage proponents its moral force."

United States' Best Ambassador?

noreply@blogger.com (About Nick) — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 03:55:00 +0000

The response to the President and First Lady at this week's "G-20" summit has been nothing short of spectacular.

The President appeared commanding at a press conference, where in response to an inquiry as to why he hadn't gotten everything he wanted, he responded, "If it's just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy, you know, that's an easier negotiation...But that's not the world we live in."

The President's only visible error appears to be his bow before the King of Saudi Arabia.

The First Lady was equally well received, if not even more so. Check out this video of her visit to a girl's school. Notice the Secret Service reaction to her being swarmed:

Hypocrisy Watch: Rep. Eric Cantor

noreply@blogger.com (About Nick) — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 03:46:00 +0000

On Today's Meet the Press, Republican Congressman Eric Cantor failed to explain to the American people why they should shift allegiance to the Republican party after eight disasterous years of their party ruling government. His seems to ask Americans' to ignore the financial mismanagement, among other mistakes, carried out by his Party during the last eight years, yet indict the Obama administration for their spending to stabilize the economy.

"REP. CANTOR: Well, well, listen, David, if you're asking could we have done better, absolutely. If you're asking us did we blow it in terms of restoring fiscal sanity into this system, absolutely. But that doesn't give now the Democrats in power in this town to go in and repeat the mistakes that perhaps we may have committed in the past. You know, you look at this budget, how can it be that they claim that they're balancing the budget when they are doubling the debt, when they are increasing the deficit to record levels of a trillion, seven hundred billion dollars this year? How is it that, that that is a fiscally sane plan? We've got to remember...

MR. GREGORY: Did you oppose President Bush's budgets that increased the deficit or the debt?

REP. CANTOR: Well, David, we were in a time where I think the priority then was to make sure that we could deliver the money for our troops. (Translation: No, because I thought it was a good idea to invade Iraq, and thus supported spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars there.) And I joined along with Democrats on, on the other side of the aisle as well as my colleagues on mine to say the most important thing we needed to do at the time was to support the efforts of our military to insure our national security. (Translation: Even though my vote for the Iraq war and war funding was wrong, the Democrats did it too! See? Does that make me less culpable? No?)

MR. GREGORY: So it was OK to, to support deficit spending at wartime, but it's not OK now during an economic crisis, when Warren Buffett calls that the equivalent of Pearl Harbor?

REP. CANTOR: Listen, I, I, I--there is no question that priority one has to be to restore the confidence in this economy, and, and we must do that which we have to do. But when you're talking about the type of budget--and look, look, over the last 50 days we have passed the stimulus bill, we have passed the omnibus spending bill. And it is striking to see the lack of change in that bill, the type of waste and pork barrel spending, the earmarks that exist in that bill. (So you support the change that Obama's campaign was premised on, change from your party's rule?) You've got that train from Disneyland to Las Vegas, you have, you know, you have other things like the, the money that goes to remove pig, pig odor.

MR. GREGORY: All right.

REP. CANTOR: I mean, come on."

Michael Steele on Abortion: States AND Women Have A Choice. Right?

noreply@blogger.com (About Nick) — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 16:16:00 +0000

Michael Steele's tenure as Chairman of the Republican National Committee is off to a rocky start. First, he was trashed by powerful radio host Rush Limbaugh, then he was called to resign by an RNC member, than he battled rumors of a "no-confidence" vote, now he's confused his own party on his abortion stance.

In an interview yesterday, the Chairman is quote as saying,

"Steele: "[C]hoice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other."
DePaulo: "Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?"
Steele: "Yeah. I mean, again, I think that's an individual choice."
DePaulo: "You do?"
Steele: "Yeah. Absolutely."
DePaulo: "Are you saying you don't want to overturn Roe v. Wade?"
Steele: "I think Roe v. Wade--as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter."
DePaulo: "Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?"
Steele: "The states should make that choice. That's what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide."

If anyone know exactly what Steele is saying, past the first line-talking point, let me know. I can't interpret a clear policy statement.

George W. Bush's Legacy Unfolding at Whitehouse.gov

noreply@blogger.com (About Nick) — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 23:03:00 +0000

This evening, MSNBC David Schuster anchor did a story about how the White House apparently changed a line in George Bush's official biography to read
"President Bush has worked to extend freedom, opportunity, and security at home and abroad."

The issue with this statement? Compare it to the original: "President Bush worked with the Congress to create an ownership society and build a future of security, prosperity and opportunity for all Americans."

Whoever edited it must have been thinking as I was about several things, principally that:

Bush's policies didn't increase prosperity for Americans, largely. I'd support such a view with the caveat that the White House website seems to be correct in pointing out tax cuts [probably played a part] lead to months of straight job creation. However, let's not forget that at the bill signing, Bush included a sunset provision whereby the tax cuts would automatically expire. But, one can't look at the "increase" more fully: the President failed on economic circumstances by spending billions on a war of choice. This fact ALONE seals his legacy on economic issues. My great-grandchildren will be paying for the war in Iraq

President Bush passed the buck in solving the current economic crisis. Symbolically, he waited a week or so after the collapse of Lehman Bros (I believe) to address the nation about the coming economic tsunami. Substantively, he foolishly committed billions to banks to "unfreeze the credit market" and get banks lending to Americans again, let alone to themselves. What happened as a result? NOTHING. Banks still aren't lending, but they are hoarding money and buying other banks that fail.

Americans can't claim that there were better of than they were at the beginning of President Bush's eight years. Some people call this onerous regulation, but the President wasn't excited about raising the minimum wage. In fact, in a span of three weeks in 2007, Bush vetoed the minimum wage increase and then signed it...because it was attached to an Iraq war funding bill.

Did he successfully extend security at home? Somewhat. There is no doubt that some of the measures Bush took after 9/11 increased our security, principally data sharing across the intelligence agencies. He has my respect for that. However, Democrats AND Republicans should point out the fact that in the months prior to 9/11, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice received a report from the intelligence community entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S." This begs the question, did the Bush team fail us?

Let's be clear: I am not suggesting that 9/11 could have been prevented. I think their sophisicated multi-pronged attack would have lead to at least one incident. However, when it comes to government response to such national security issues, it is of utmost importance to ask how our leadership responded, proactively and reactively. Did Bush and his people (and to some degree, Clinton) do everything possible in his power to "protect and defend" the United States from radical elements in the run up to 9/11? I pray so.

Did he extend freedom abroad? Yes. Iraq will weigh heavily on Bush's legacy, because it was a war of choice, but their is no doubt that ridding the nation of a leader who gassed his OWN citizens freed them from his grip. I don't think you'll find one Republican or Democrat who will disagree with me on this. I'm glad Saddam is gone. The issue for me is, could the mission have been accomplished through different means? I KNOW the answer is yet. If United States Marines could (allegedly) overthrow Jean Aristide from the Presidency of Haiti, the same could have been done with Saddam.

I think what the White House change really suggests is that Bush was simply a failure as President. I couldn't agree more.

Bobby Jindal: I Have No New Ideas. Can I Be President Anyway?

noreply@blogger.com (About Nick) — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 06:54:00 +0000

So much for the long anticipated “coming out” party for Governor Bobby Jindal. Republicans tapped the youngest Governor in the nation to give his Party’s response to President Obama’s message to Congress. In some respects, his selection makes sense. He is an immensely accomplished public servant, having served as a Congressman and President of the State University system, all before the age of 35.

Unfortunately, his national debut was largely a flop. After an odd entrance, Jindal delivered a spirited response to Obama’s personal biography and policy prescriptions. After identifying the history that both have made, he being the first Indian-American Governor, Jindal said that Republicans had “lost their way” with excessive spending. He then encouraged Americans to regain their “trust” in his party again.

Governor, that's a tall order when your message doesn’t square with American’s everyday lives. You failed to mention that your party wasted billions for tax dollars on a war of choice in Iraq, one that you supported as a Congressman.

Some of your other lines from the evening:

Republicans are ready to work with the new president to provide those solutions.

Really? Let’s recall the events of the past thirty days of Obama’s administration, in part. The President invited Republican Congressmen to the White House to discuss and debate details of the economic stimulus package. Then, he traveled to the Capitol building to privately meet with the House Republican conference. Finally, he made several phone calls and held meetings with numerous Republicans, including leader John Boehner. What did the President get in return? Hardly anything; not one Republican Representative voted for the stimulus package, even though it contained tax cuts, plenty of them. As the President said, the stimulus cuts taxes for 95% of us.

Here in my state of Louisiana, we don't care what party you belong to, if you have good ideas to make life better for our people. We need more of that attitude from both Democrats and Republicans in our nation's capital.

At a minimum, this is empty rhetoric; at worst, pure hypocrisy. In view of the above, how can you argue for idealist politics when your party had ample opportunity to practice what you’re preaching, Governor? Let’s not forget that some House Republicans support the stimulus even though they voted against it. There’s numerous examples of Republican Congressmen sending out press releases gloating that they’d secured millions for pet projects in their districts.

The strength of America is not found in our government.

Then why do you want to lead it?

… Republicans put forward plans to create jobs by lowering income tax rates for working families, cutting taxes for small businesses, strengthening incentives for businesses to invest in new equipment and hire new workers, and stabilizing home values by creating a new tax credit for home-buyers…Instead of trusting us to make wise decisions with our own money, [Democrats] passed the largest government spending bill in history.

Governor, I appreciate your focus on middle and lower class Americans, but we both know that you’ve left out a major plank from your platform: massive tax cuts and other incentives for large corporations and those earning over $250,000 per year. George H.W. Bush called this approach voodoo economics. He was right. Since when have corporate executives taken these incentives, en masse, and turned them into jobs? We’re both hard pressed to find examples, particularly in light of junkets by AIG and Northern Trust. Is this what you mean by “making wise decisions” with taxpayer dollars?

…The president warned that our nation is facing a crisis that he said "we may not be able to reverse." Our troubles are real, to be sure. But don't let anyone tell you that we cannot recover. Don't let anyone tell you that America's best days are behind her.

When I heard this, I didn’t know whether to be insulted, or whether to dismiss these words as more empty rhetoric, Governor. You seem to paint Obama as inherently pessimistic about the future of this country on the very night when he introduced a small-town Mayor whose town was destroyed, but whose citizens have banded together to rebuild.

Mr. Jindal, you are an accomplished public official who has made your share of history. Congratulations. However, it does neither of us any good for you to recycle discredited ideas. The American people aren’t fooled any longer, they understand that when your party had the chance to lead, it didn't. If you hope to beat him at the polls, save for some bizarre distraction on his part, you’ll have to come up with something better than the trickle-down solutions you’ve presented this evening. You'll have to show the American people why conservative values and policies are better for them than the policies of the Obama administration.

Must See: Obama Rips GOP

noreply@blogger.com (About Nick) — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:50:00 +0000

Endorsement: Howard Dean for Secretary of HHS

noreply@blogger.com (About Nick) — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 08:22:00 +0000

I’m not much for political patronage and payback. In all seriousness, the word “patronage” seems to conjure images of smoke filled backroom deals between fat cats who couldn’t care less what anyone thinks about their goings-on. These images should be relegated to undergraduate courses in political science, never to be made practical again. Never were the results of such deals more apparent than in the previous administration. No one will soon forget that the Vice President’s own company was awarded the central contract to engage in Iraq reconstruction.

Conflict of interest, maybe?

Come to think of it though, isn’t there a good side to patronage? For example, what if someone toils in the weeds for a couple of decades, and gets much accomplished merely for the sake of legitimate change? (Yes, I know “change” has become quite the rage.) Shouldn’t folks with the power to appoint consider them for positions, even if some in their inner circle dislikes them for petty reasons? What if their work benefitted the country?

If there is any kind of patronage politics I can support, it’s this kind. It’s why I strongly supported Senator Tom Daschle for Secretary of Human Services and Governor Bill Richardson for a foreign policy post of President Obama’s choosing. Both of these gentlemen had proven themselves to be dedicated public servants who, despite relatively minor blemishes in both their dealings, never benefitted from the kind of patronage and scandal reminiscent of, say, Senator Ted Stevens.

Daschle did a wonderful job in his various stints as Majority Leader of the United States Senate. He’s widely praised as an effective Senator, even without the trappings of his leadership post. Governor Richardson has had a long and distinguished career a Congressman, Ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of Energy and most significantly, as the Governor of the State of New Mexico.

But, due to various events that have been reported at length, both Daschle and Richardson have been ejected from consideration for a spot in President Barack Obama’s cabinet. However unfortunate these losses are, there are still many talented and accomplished Americans from which to choose. There is one man who has worked very hard for the people of his State and the people of his country. He’s waiting in the wings to ably serve once more. That’s Howard Brush Dean, former Governor, Presidential candidate, and former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Like Daschle and Richardson, Dean has led a successful public life, with little to no evidence of any aims at personal enrichment at the public’s expense. His tenure as Governor was a productive one. As the 79th Governor of Vermont, Dean balanced several State budgets that had fallen in to arrears; he led the State back to fiscal health after a nasty recession hit the State. Most importantly for these times, Dean signed a Children’s Universal Healthcare bill into law.

So, unlike the unfair caricature of him as a flaming, liberal, radical Presidential candidate, Governor Dean proved to be a pragmatic and effective chief executive. Additionally, he is a compelling speaker, which is why he rocketed from the relatively unknown Governor to almost winning the Presidential nomination in 2004.

These traits could be effective if Dr. Dean was given the chance to serve as this nation’s next Secretary of Health and Human Services. The Secretary’s most important job over the next several years will be to write, lobby for, and help pass a universal healthcare bill through the Congress. The Department needs a Secretary who has national prominence, a compelling voice, and attention to detail. The Governor has exhibited all three characteristics in his various roles.

With all due respect to the other persons being considered for the post, none match Dean’s qualifications. This voter strongly urges the White House to appoint Governor Howard Dean, M.D. to the post of Secretary of Health and Human Services. Dean’s already gaining support from elected officials, including Senator Tom Harkin and Congressman Raul Grijalva.

Our new President won’t regret it, no matter what his Chief of Staff tells him. He surely didn’t regret adopting the Dean fundraising model in the 2008 Presidential election!

One Term for Obama?

noreply@blogger.com (About Nick) — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 17:03:00 +0000

I'm sure many Americans have been thinking about the success of Obama's economic package and what it bodes for a second term. I am conflicted; I think Obama's honeymoon, contrary to popular belief, will last into the next couple of years (if his message is right), versus thinking that Americans will demand immediate results.

Obama acknowledged as much himself. In response to the possible failure of his economic plans:

“If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition,” he said. “And I welcome that responsibility, because I think now’s the time for us to start shifting and thinking about long-term economic growth.”

Yea or Nea on Senator Kirsten Gillibrand? Nea.

noreply@blogger.com (About Nick) — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 06:00:00 +0000

I am a big fan of Governor David Paterson of NY. He's seems to be an honorable public official who took the Governorship at a time when NY State government needed fresh leadership.
Like President Barack Obama, Paterson brings a sense of thoughtfulness to his decisions. For example, in dealing with the budget crisis, the Governor proclaimed that this is not the time to reach into the traditional Democratic goodie bag and throw a tax increase upon his people.

He was right. Particularly, since New Yorkers, more than other citizens, are taxed up the wazoo. I mean, at the City level, those living under Bloomberg's tenure now have to pay for a tax on trans-fats and trash bags. I support these policies, but as a wider effort to raise revenue that goes back into services for those taxed. However, taxing isn't the solution to everything.

But, I digress.

Having agreed with the Governor on most of his most controversial moves, I must say he's over-analyzed his pick for the United States Senate and erred. A huge mistake? No, but a mistake to be sure.

Senator-designate Kirsten Gillibrand, appointed by the Governor during a press conference that featured many liberal New Yorkers -- including Speaker Sheldon Silver, NY Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, and Congressman Gregory Meeks-- is running into opposition from many in her party.

Gillibrand's story is nothing short of amazing, and her meteoric rise rivals that of President Barack Obama. Elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2006, she defeated a 20-year incumbent Republican in a traditionally Republican district. One would think she'd be a one termer? Nope.

She went on to win re-election in a landslide. Again, this is a Republican district.She probably won so big because she's a conservative Democrat. She's got a 100% rating from the National Rifle Association.

While I support diverse ideologies in our elected bodies, as Governor, I would not have appointed someone so out of step with New Yorkers on key constitutional issues.

Namely, she supports a strict constructionist --misguided -- interpretation of the second amendment's "Right to Bear Arms" clause. During the press conference before all those liberals who support a rational interpretation, Gillibrand proclaimed that hunting is a great part of her culture, and although she'll not change her position, she'll listen to what the other side has to say.
Don't call me cynical about vague pledges by politicians, but whenever they stake out firm positions and then promises to have an open mind, the opposite usually occurs.

While Gillibrand offered this as a response to a reporter's inquiry, I noticed the Governor's facial expression. Blank. I wondered what was he thinking? I have an idea.

He probably thought that he appointment was ideal because she's young, a woman, widely seen as a rising star, previously defeated a Republican incumbent, and might help him win re-election in 2010. Therefore, the thinking goes, this one issue won't stop her from winning election in 2010 and 2012. (She has to run in 2010 to finish Clinton's term, and then run again during the regular re-election period of 2012.)

While the Governor is correct on many of these characteristics, I still think he made the wrong pick. While the second amendment isn't typically an issue in New York State politics (because most leaders are boiler-plate Dems), it will be in 2010. Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) announced that she will challenge Gillibrand in the primary in 2010. Why? Gun control.
McCarthy's husband was killed and son injured when a gunman opened fire on a train on which they were riding. This event seemingly caused McCarthy to stake out her position.

I think McCarthy is a better pick. Although not as young as Gillibrand, she is passionate about a core political issue, so much so that she was pushed to run because of it. However, McCarthy is conservative on several issues. She voted for the Iraq war and then voted for a Republican resolution in support of the invasion. Not good.

Even better than McCarthy and Gillibrand? Rep. Carolyn Maloney. Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown. I think with the right campaign, these two could survive a primary and win the general election.

So, while I don't support litmus tests, this seat is too important to risk to a Republican win in 2010.

Impossible? Tell that to a gentleman named Al D'Amato, former United States Senator from New York. Republican. Tell that to another gentleman named George Pataki, former Governor of New York. Republican.

Snatching Defeat From The Jaws of Victory?

noreply@blogger.com (About Nick) — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 05:22:00 +0000

I've noticed in a few days that key Democrats have criticized President-Elect Barack Obama and his team's plans and nominations in a public fashion.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, on the nomination of former WH Chief-of-Staff Leon Panetta as CIA director: "I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA director..." "My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time."

On Barack Obama's plans for an economic stimulus, parts of which even I have issues with:

Sen. Kent Conrad: "I'm very skeptical that [Obama's plan to give families $1000 refunds] is going to make a differnce. For the average family, it's going to add $20 a week -- I mean, how much lift is that going to give?"

Sen. John Kerry on plans to give employerss $3,000 tax breaks to hire new workers: "I'd rather spend the money on the infrastructure, on direct investment, on energy conservation."

Sen. Tom Harkin: "To me it still looks like more of the trickle-down. If someone gives you a tax break you're going to save that money, you're going to salt that away -- you're not going to spend it."

While I share many of the concerns expressed, particularly that there should be more direct aid to Americans, and less focus on tax breaks for corporations - one only needs to look at the first 1/2 of the TARP/bailout to know it's risky to just GIVE AWAY tax dollars - it seems that Democrats should make these concerns known in a more private manner.

According to many, Obama has been consistetly in touch with Congress about the econnmic stimulus, the vast majority of his nominations, and other matters, a far cry from the battle waged on Congress by the current White House.

Instead of trying to prove that Congressional Dems FINALLY have the gumption to stand up to a President, maybe they should realize that in trashing a President of THEIR OWN PARTY, and by having a concurrent majority in BOTH houses, they could be get alot of what they want done with cooperation. They should have stood up to George Bush on many issues, including the war, the Patriot Act (parts), and other ridiculous policy pursuits.

But, as you know, Democrats have a tendency to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. Consider the last two Democratic Presidents: Jimmy Carter (who I love) could not get along with Congress, even with majorities; Bill Clinton: couldn't get the Congress to move on healthcare, even though he also had great numbers.

Will history repeat itself? At its peril!

Best said by "texstorm", a commenter at the SF Chronicle:

"And once again we see the Democratic Party's uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Even if you don't agree with the policies he's proposing 100% it is not in any Democratic member of Congress' best interest to come out swinging against the leader of their party, especially when (1) he's as charismatic as Obama and (2) when this is the first time in 15 years that your party has controlled the White House and had majorities in both houses of Congress."

A Sign Of The Times

noreply@blogger.com (About Nick) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 03:32:00 +0000

These images may be a welcome relief to at least 55% of the American public. These were taken today, on the occasion of the President-Elect's official arrival to Washington DC, thanks to CNN and Getty Images.

Burris Files Petition To Enforce Senate Appointment

noreply@blogger.com (About Nick) — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 02:15:00 +0000

Today, former IL Attorney General Roland Burris filed a petition with the Illinois Supreme Court to force Sec. of State White to certify his appointment. Secretary of State White said he will not affix neither his signature, nor the State seal, to any appointment made by Gov. Blagojevich.

Here is the petition:

Notice the absence of the seal and White's signature. Burris argues that State law requires White to act, but I think White will argue that it's within his discretion to do so.

My guess? The State Supreme Court will side with Burris on this one. The applicable statute seems pretty clear, that the Secretary "shall" certify appointees made by the Governor, pursuant to applicable laws.

Senator Roland Burris? Maybe.

noreply@blogger.com (About Nick) — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:21:00 +0000

Updated.

Today, scandal-plagued Governor Rod Blagojevich (D-IL) appointed former State Attorney General / Comptroller Roland Burris to Obama's Senate seat.

At the press conference, the Governor said, "Please don't allow the allegations against me to taint an honest and good man."

President-Elect Obama's response? "Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant," but that the Senate should reject his appointment. I'm inclined to agree with Obama, although it's a close call.

Legally Blagojevich has the right to name a replacement for the seat. However, the United States Senate apparently has the constitutional authority to determine the "qualifications" for it's members, meaning it is free to reject anyone duly elected or appointed to the body. (Any con. law scholars, feel free to "revise and extend.")

So, although Blagojevich chose a man with unquestioned integrity, it still strikes as ironic that any appointee would be accepted at this point. Plus, Senate Majority Harry Reid has vowed to reject any such appointee. The plan is to allow Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn to succeed to the Governorship, and accept his appointment.

As far as Burris, I think he wasn't going to be appointed by Quinn anyhow, so he figured go ahead with Blagojevich. Some have already questioned Burris' integrity for even accepting, but I can understand his reasoning. However, I would have rejected out of principle. I would not associate with such a blatantly scandalous public figure.

In the end, I believe that Burris won't be seated by the Senate, and has disqualified himself from an appointment by future Governor Quinn.

Too bad, so sad.

Update: According to some constitutional law folks, there is case law, Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, that interprets the "qualifications" clause to mean that the Senate can only reject candidates who were elected/appointed to office in less than legal circumstances, primarily. So, if there is a denial to seat, both by the Sec. of State and the U.S. Senate, there will be litigation and this case may save Burris.

Update 2: More legalese for you! There's something called the "political question" doctrine, meaning that the courts cannot hear issues that are either 1) committed to another branch of government, 2) don't have uniform justiciable standards for resolving the issue, or 3) the court would think it best not to get involved. Senate lawyers have said that the Senate could block court interference if they launched an investigation into the appointment process, thus making it a non-justiciable political question, for which the courts would not get involved. Result? The blocking of Burris from being seated.

Flashback: 2004 Op-Ed to Norm Coleman: They Say Annan Is Scandalous?

noreply@blogger.com (About Nick) — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 04:24:00 +0000

As we know, it's likely that MN Senator Norm Coleman is likely to lose his seat as a result of the Democratic gains. Franken has taken a slim lead in the recount that's unlikely to disappear. Here is the Op-Ed, published in 2004 , aimed at the outgoing Senator.

They Say Kofi Annan is Scandalous?

By NICHOLAS SMITH, Commentary
Friday December 17, 2004

It has been revealed that Saddam Hussein has exploited the United Nations’ “Oil for Food” program, which allowed him to sell oil in exchange for humanitarian supplies. Apparently the dictator channeled much of the money into his personal coffers at the expense of the Iraqi people. To make matters worse, Secretary General Kofi Annan’s son Kojo was allegedly being paid by a Swiss firm, Cotecna Inspection Services, which bought Iraqi oil through the U.N.’s “Oil for Food Program.” It seems that the firm was granted a “no-bid” contract of sorts.

In response to these and other allegations, freshman U.S. Senator Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) has called for the secretary general to resign his post because the scandal occurred “on his watch.” The good senator says that “over the past seven months, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which I chair, has conducted an exhaustive, bipartisan investigation into the scandal surrounding the U.N. Oil-for-Food program” and “. . .[a]s long as Mr. Annan remains in charge, the world will never be able to learn the full extent of the bribes [and] kickbacks. . .that took place under the U.N.’s collective nose.”

This particular United States senator seems to be very serious about eliminating fraud that occurs this particular government body. This is a highly admirable goal. If indeed the secretary general or anyone else is found to have committed fraud, resignations should be of the first order. However, the senator from Minnesota and his friends seem to salivate at the chance to dethrone Annan, but they aren’t practicing their own assertions.

Since Coleman is a United States Senator, it seems that he should also be concerned with fraud that occurs right here in the United States, right? Well, it seems that Coleman would answer “no” judging from his absence on blatant fraud occurring inside the U.S.

Has the man ever heard of Halliburton? Coleman’s Senate Boss, Dick Cheney, was CEO of Halliburton, as is well known. Halliburon allegedly inflated its profits with respect to cost overruns in Iraq, and has been accused of overcharging American taxpayers for services rendered there. In addition, they received their contract in terms that can be describes as “no-bid.”

Somehow, the company that Cheney left in order to become (vice) president was the only qualified corporation to do reconstruction work in Iraq, a country that we should not have destroyed in the first place.

If one needs another example of corruption in the highest levels of government, there are a plethora of them. A few of them are: The vice president’s meeting with Enron officials to write the energy policy of this nation behind closed doors, the name-leaking of a CIA agent’s wife, and the reliance on false intelligence which has lead to the deaths of thousands of our American troops. With respect to the illegal war, John Kerry said it best: “How can you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”

These scandals are only a few of the many that have been committed on the watch of George W. Bush. We’ll see what happens in the next four years.

Norm Coleman and his fellow Republicans have somehow not warmed up to the idea of rooting out corruption within the White House, but they sure are adamant about resignations in the preeminent international body, the United Nations. World leaders left and right are coming to the Secretary General’s defense, rightly. “I believe Kofi Annan is doing a fine job...I very hope much he is allowed to get on with his job, “ says British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Take it from Blair and not an ideologically driven freshman conservative.

If Coleman and his ideological colleagues want Annan to resign because of scandal that occurred on Annan’s watch, logic dictates that they would have called for the resignation or impeachment of George W. Bush long ago. They haven’t, thus their efforts to dethrone the secretary general is a continuation by conservatives of lacking something needed to be successful in the long term: credibility.

Originally published in the Berkeley Daily Planet.

JP Morgan Chase: Where'd the 25 Billion Go? Who cares!

noreply@blogger.com (About Nick) — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:16:00 +0000

This is OUTRAGEOUS.

Remember the $700 billion dollars we gave to "unfreeze the credit market"? Yeah, um, so... the plans have changed.

First: Somehow, part of that $700 billion isn't actually going to be used to "unfreeze the credit market," but instead bail out auto-makers who refuse to make their cars more attractive to American buyers.

Second: The part of the money that went to JP Morgan Chase is, um, unaccounted for. Asked by the press what they'd done with the 25 BILLION dollars given to them, JP Morgan Chase said, "We've lent some of it. We've not lent some of it. We've not given any accounting of, 'Here's how we're doing it,"' said Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for JPMorgan Chase, which received $25 billion in emergency bailout money. "We have not disclosed that to the public. We're declining to."

How about SunTrust Banks? "We're not providing dollar-in, dollar-out tracking." (3.5 Billion!)

Or, Regions Financial Corp? "'We manage our capital in its aggregate,' said Regions Financial Corp. spokesman Tim Deighton, who said the Birmingham, Alabama-based company is not tracking how it is spending the $3.5 billion it received as part of the financial bailout."

Worst of all? "The Treasury Department, which doles out the money, never asked banks how it would be spent."

What in the HELL is going on with these people? Pardon my French, but in such fragile economic times, can't we at least TRACK where all this money is going? I think we're paying for a few more expensive junkets to exotic locations again.

Yep, taxpayer dollars + private jets + presidential suites + the works. This is insanity. Whoever approved such moves should be fired immediately. I don't care what party they belong to.

GET RID OF THEM.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,470824,00.html

Bush Attacked By Iraqi

noreply@blogger.com (About Nick) — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 22:18:00 +0000

An Iraqi journalist threw his shoes at the American President. Oh boy.
Why did it take the Secret Service so long to get to the President? Unacceptable.

Romney and Fiorina - Spewing Economic Nonsense - Meet the Press

noreply@blogger.com (About Nick) — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:05:00 +0000

Remember that liberal Governor named Mitt Romney? Remember that fired but "bonus-ridden" CEO Carly Fiorina? Yeah. They appeared on Meet the Press, spewing pure non-sense regarding the state of the economy.

Both were apart of a roundtable that included Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott.

Stunningly, both said that the credit market is still "frozen." Fiorina said that conglomerates are not lending, despite our infusion of 700 billions dollars to "unfreeze the credit market." (My emphasis.) Romney agreed, and recommended spending in response.

If Henry Paulson rammed through 700 Billion to, in part, stabilize the economy by getting banks to lend again, WHY hasn't this money been used? Why is it even POSSIBLE for Bush to send part of this money to the auto-industry?

Cost of Higher Education: Lost In The Shuffle?

noreply@blogger.com (About Nick) — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 19:26:00 +0000

In the debate about the many challenges we face, we ignore the role of education access and quality to our detriment. I thought I'd post part of testimony that I gave before the U.S. Dept. of Education in 2006.
________________________________

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
PUBLIC REGIONAL HEARING ON
NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING
Lipman Room, Barrows Hall University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.

NICHOLAS SMITH: Thank you so much. Members of the panel, good afternoon. My name is Nicholas Smith, and I am a fourth-year student at Berkeley, and also a city policymaker working with the city council. I would love to speak off the top of my head like everyone else did, but I think my statement here is so well-written [interrupted by laughter] that I will try to kind of summarize it, with your indulgence. Thank you.

As a senior at the University of California, Berkeley and as someone involved in local — but certainly interested in national — policy I want to take the time to thank you, first of all, and your department for taking the time to have this public hearing regarding student loans across the country. I think they are crucial, considering the fact that many current and future students will have increased loan burdens and that approximately $12 billion, as you know, federal aid has been reduced. For the sake of our students, the leaders of our country — the future leaders of our country, that is — I highly encourage the Department to do what it can to create fair student loan repayment rules. And here is the thrust of my statement.

The Chancellor of Berkeley, Robert Birgeneau, is quite known for saying that Berkeley has one of the highest levels of federal Pell grant recipients across the country compared to other universities — and this is a fact that I am actually very proud of, because it proves that your Department, the federal government, acknowledges the expensive nature of higher education and the burdens that could possibly be placed on students without this help. For that, again I thank you.

However — there’s a caveat — I think it is incumbent upon me to point out that while these efforts have indeed gone a long way to opening up the doors of higher education to a wider array of American citizens, the action taken in the previous respect is only one part of that solution. I would like to give you the perspective as this affects students on a general basis, and then share with you my personal anecdote. I hope that after being imparted this information which I am sure is not necessarily new to you, that the Department will make the changes that I suggest at the end of the letter, and of course that other students have made as well.

The nature of public education in America is to produce students who are well informed about the world around them and thus understand more about themselves. This system — esteemed worldwide — has produced leaders of all stripes; from presidents of the U.S., to composers of symphonies and jazz, to the greatest inventors. As time goes on the cost of the education system has increased as well. And there are many a grandparent — I’m sure in the room, maybe — who has imparted upon young people like myself that tuition used to be in the range of hundreds of dollars. And as you know, those days are long gone.

Today’s college students face new and difficult financial challenges. And I’m sure as you know, Berkeley is America’s — and arguably the world’s — finest public educational institution. Behind this phrase, “public educational institution” is the word access. In the early 1900s college used to be an exclusive enterprise attended by a seemingly monolithic sector of American citizens, and in recent decades the system has been opened up greatly. Diversity as we have never seen before. Good diversity, should I say. While students of yesteryear represented the upper class elites, students of today don’t necessarily reflect the same typology.

I opened with Chancellor Birgeneau’s statement about Pell grants to show that we want to pursue higher education, but with the increasing cost of attending college it’s getting less and less financially feasible. While the student loan program is without a doubt the vehicle by which so many American citizens are able to afford to attend college — and it’s been a benefit since its inception — the new challenge confronts all borrowers in terms by which money is paid back. And at this point I find it appropriate to give you my personal perspective, after giving you the general perspective here.

I have always been an ambitious young man never knew anything else but attending university. My parents from day one instilled in me the importance of gaining a quality education with the ultimate end of not simply sustaining myself financially, but as a means of uplifting those who need a voice — whether in my hometown of Los Angeles, or in the distant fields of Darfur, Sudan. Attending college has allowed me to realize my true place in the world, and given the sense that although mankind faces a seemingly never-ending stream of difficulties — not discounting its benefits — with the right knowledge about the world around me, many of these problems can be cured.

I mention my parents as an allusion to the issue of money. Without the assistance of the federal government’s Pell grants and student loans, I may not have been able to attend such a world-class institution. And I’ve got to throw in an endnote here from my friend, Barack Obama, who says that, “my presence here is unlikely.” Love that line.

I mentioned that my generation’s grandmothers and grandfathers tell us that that their tuition was in the hundreds of dollars and ours has not only doubled, tripled, quadrupled . . . you get the point, but it has increased almost to an unimaginable amount. This amount is an extremely large price tag to bring about academic achievement in this country. The cost of education can mean the difference between continuing to earn a professional degree — as I wish to — and ending one’s academic career at the undergraduate level. I have heard many times about the heavy risk of even considering law school — or any graduate school, for that matter — on the sole grounds of its cost.

But I believe that you know that there is a problem, and will do what you can to fix this problem. While your Department nor any of us here today has the ability to reduce the cost of higher education, I know you have the power to make repayments of student loans more manageable and more fair. For myself, this means choosing a career path which I am most passionate about — public service and politics — or choosing a career that simply lines my pocketbook so that I can even in part repay the huge loan that I will have accrued by 2010. I would love nothing more than to engage in a career that I love most, without the excessive burden placed on me by the repayment schedules of loans. I am sure that my colleagues have the same feeling.

And I’m sure you’ve heard this earlier, but I want to simply recommend the five-point plan that the Project on Student Debt has recommended. And the five-point plan reads, in part, that limit student loan payments to a reasonable percentage — between 10 and 15 percent of income; recognize that borrowers with children have less income than others for loan payments; prevent added interest from making the problem even worse when facing hardship; possibly cancel remaining debts when borrowers have made income-based payments for 20 years; and simplify the process for applying for hardship deferrals.

For the sake of not only students, should I say, but for the sake of our country that we love so dearly — please do your part to make our jobs that easier. I know you will do the right thing. I thank you for having these hearings across the country, and Godspeed. Thank you very much.

DAVID BERGERON: Thank you, Nicholas.