The Abuse of Power

In thinking of Rep. Charlie Rangel (cheating on his taxes), Gov. Bill Richardson (special favors for campaign contributions), Timothy Geitner (tax cheat), Sen. Tom Daschle (tax cheat), Rep. William Jefferson (bribes), Sen. Ted Stevens (bribes), Gov. Rod Blagojevich (pay for play), etc., it is apparent to me that what I wrote in an earlier entry about staying in politics too long being too corrupting is true. I can’t take credit for that being an original idea.

In Federalist 6, Alexander Hamilton wrote about situation leading to conflict between neighboring states and the motives of their leaders, “And there are others, not less numerous than either of the former, which take their origin entirely in private passions; in the attachments, enmities, interests, hopes, and fears, of leading individuals in the communities of which they are members. Men of this class, whether favourites of a king of a people, have in too many instances abused the confidence they possessed; and assuming the pretext of some public motive, have not scrupled to sacrifice the national tranquility to personal advantage, or personal gratification.”

In both Geitner’s and Daschle’s cases, I believe President Obama was duped by those individuals. Geitner received compensation from the International Monetary Fund and was reimbursed for taxes he owed to the United States. Every fiscal quarter, he received notification of those taxes and reimbursement and had to sign an acknowledgment form. He cannot credibly claim that he did not know he owed those taxes. This is a man billed as a financial wizard. Even more damning is that when he was audited back through 2002, he paid past due taxes for 2002 and 2003 pointed out to him by the Internal Revenue Service. He did not pay the same taxes due for 2000 and 2001 despite the situation being identical. Once again, it is not credible for him to state he didn’t know he owed the taxes. He is a tax cheat and now runs the Internal Revenue Service.

Daschle received free use of a limousine and a driver for four years. He received them from a man who was also paying him $1,000,000 a year in salary. I believe he could have afforded a car. Daschle says he made an inadvertent mistake. If that is true, why did he find out in July he owed the taxes from his accountant but not pay them until two days before his confirmation hearing for Secretary of Health and Human Services were to begin. The taxes were about $148,000. A regular person would have criminal charges filed for an amount like that. Daschle additionally “advised” health care companies which he would have had to regulate in the cabinet post. He is a Washington insider, a knowing tax cheat, and was forced to withdraw his nomination despite his statements and the Obama administration’s comments to the contrary.

The biggest lie in Washington is that “I am resigning because I desire to deal with personal issues and spend more time with my family”. That is Washington code for “I just got caught”.

Judicial Nominations and Politics

Let's start with a couple of references from the United States Constitution:

Article 1 Section 1 - All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Article 3 Section 1 - The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

By legislative powers, in addition to funding and other duties, the constitution means to create and modify law, subject to ratification by the Executive Branch, in the person of the President of the United States. By judicial power, the constitution gives courts the power to try federal cases (including disputes between states) and to interpret the constitutionality of laws. It is very clear to any reader that these powers do not include any provision for the judiciary to create law. In the last few decades, a slick way of writing unpopular law has emerged. Any party who has an agenda which will not be supported by the elected legislators can bypass the legislative process by filing a legal action with a sympathetic judge. The judge then issues an opinion that favors the plaintiff and it essentially becomes law. Even worse, the judge can strike down existing law and tell the legislature what kind of interpretation the judge will allow to stand, which makes the legislators redundant and powerless. It that case, the judge is clearly creating the law. Since the constitutionality of law is subject to review of the judiciary, and the judiciary is making the law, it should be fairly obvious that a judge is not going to strike down his or her own interpretation of the law. This process is usually referred to as “judicial activism”. It allows judges to do whatever they want to without regard to precedent or the desires of the elected representatives of the people. One needs to look no further than the historically astonishing opinions of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California for many examples. Not coincidently, the Ninth Circuit has more opinions reversed by the US Supreme Court than any other circuit.

Judicial activism has been responsible for a number of liberal causes becoming law. The recent same sex marriage opinion in California was created despite a 61% recent defeat of same sex marriage by the population of California in a vote. Roe versus Wade, the famous abortion decision, was decided based on a constitutional right to privacy which was created out of thin air by the Supreme Court. Under the theory of judicial activism, judges are free to do anything they want and, unlike elected legislators, there is nothing voters can do about it once they are in office. In fact, the legislature becomes powerless and useless.

Part of the Democratic push for the White House is that Justice John Paul Stevens is 88 years old and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75 years old. In fact, the liberal justices are significantly older than the conservative justices. With a Democratic majority in the Senate and a Democratic President, the liberal wing of the Democratic Party will push for extremely liberal activist replacements should those justices retire or pass away. Additionally, the Democratic majority has been “running out the clock” by refusing to hold hearings of dozens of nominated judges so that if the next President is Democratic, all those nominations can be squashed and replaced by activists. Since the liberal agenda cannot be supported by legislation, the judiciary is used to create it.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are pushing for the Presidency so that more “strict constructionist” judges will be in place. Conservatives feel that by replacing even one of the liberal justices (Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, or Souter), the direction of the court will be shifted. Chief Justice Roberts and both Justices Alito and Thomas are in their 50s. Only Justice Scalia, of the conservatives, is significantly older (72). Justice Kennedy, thought to be in the middle, is 71.

Since the court is currently thought to be four liberal, four conservative, and one swing vote, one new appointment could make a substantial difference to the make up of the court. Liberals are more anxious because of the ages of the liberal justices.

The choice in candidates is pretty clear. Barack Obama said in a recent statement, "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges." Therefore legal expertise and experience apparently have no place in evaluation of judicial nominees, as long as they support his political beliefs. John McCain said that he thought that "abuse of judicial authority" had continued unchecked. "The result, over many years, has been a series of judicial opinions and edicts wandering farther and farther from the clear meanings of the Constitution,"

It is interesting that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted against the confirmation of both Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts despite their stellar credentials and qualifications. Clearly their votes were agenda driven on not based on qualifications. John McCain voted to approve both nominees.

Despite the little political and media attention paid up to this point, judicial nominations might be the single most lasting result of the next President.

The Republicans Join the Suicide Pact

I have written previously that the Democrats have taken an election that should have been theirs in a walk and managed to screw it up enough to make the contest competitive in the general election. Now, not to be outdone, the Republicans are attempting to destroy themselves, as well. The truth is that no staunch conservative had a chance to win the Presidency in the current political environment given the war, the current economy, the Republican incumbent retirements, and the fact that a two-term President is leaving office. John McCain came along at the only time he could have been nominated as a Republican in recent history. Although he will be painted as “George W. Bush II” by the Democrats, anyone familiar with politics knows better. That being said, some contemptuous conservatives would rather leave the country to ultra-liberals than have a candidate that is not the “perfect” conservative. When I hear people like Ms. Coulter openly rail against John McCain, I cannot help but think of the ages and health of Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The conservatives whining about McCain cannot possibly be thinking if they do not consider twenty more years of judicial activism a problem. In the current climate, the Democrats will likely pick up seats in the Senate. Therefore, a Democratic President will be able to nominate and confirm any flaming liberal activist judge and the Republicans will just have to grin and bear it. If McCain is elected and nominates a conservative justice, the Democrats can not possibly stall a Supreme Court nomination for an entire four years, like they are doing to the Appeals Court justices now. The Democrats have been holding up hearings on judicial nominations “running out the clock” until the next election. The nomination of the next two or three Supreme Court justices and having hearings on the Appeals Court justices may be the single most important legacy of the next President. It is mind-boggling to think who Barack Obama might nominate, not only for the Supreme Court but also to the Appeals Court positions currently held in limbo. That alone has the potential to change the country more over the next two decades than any elected official. Republicans better wake up to reality before the entire country is San Francisco.

Recap of Recent Political Events

Where do we stand? Barack Obama does not have enough pledged delegates combined with super delegates to go over the top to the nomination. Hillary Clinton isn’t about to go away. John McCain is consolidating. It is quite a mess for the Democrats. Let’s look at some of the individual issues.

Florida and Michigan: First, let’s look at the electoral map. The way that the country is divided by historically Republican and Democrat states means that to win the Presidency, the candidates have to win two out of three of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, assuming they win all the normal red and blue states. That the Democrats have managed to upset the people in Florida and Michigan is pretty poor strategy. John McCain, because of his record of support for Israel and other issues, will run strongly in Florida. The last thing the Democrats need to do is irritate the voters there. Florida has elected Republican governors and has a Republican Senator. Except for the famous “hanging chad” areas of West Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade Counties, the state is primarily conservative. The Democrats are trying to blame the Republicans for the dilemma but the original piece of legislation introduced to change the date of the primary was introduced by a Democrat. That makes the “Republicans are to blame” argument hard to sell. Michigan will likely go Democratic unless they feel disrespected by the national party. There are currently no plans by the Democrats to revote. Therefore, any seating at the convention will be a non-representative appeasement, thus telling the voters that we can vote in your stead. It is bad politics all around. Howard Dean is looking remarkably ineffective as Democratic Party leader.

Hillary Clinton: The Clintons (you have to bunch them together) never cease to amaze. One the one hand, you have to give them credit for relentlessness going back throughout their entire public life. On the other hand, organized crime is relentless. The Clintons have historically complained about the “politics of personal destruction” but it has paradoxically always been their favorite weapon against their opponents. In the last day, she has again begun to plant more racial wedges by stating to USA today that, to paraphrase “the white voters are moving away from Obama and that makes me the stronger general election candidate”. There is a theory by Dick Morris that she is weakening Obama so that she can run in 2012. It looks more like she is using the scorched Earth strategy and will never bow out. It does lend credence to Morris’ argument that if she does manage to wrest the nomination from Obama on some sort of technicality, she is likely to lose in November anyway because several traditional Democratic constituencies would never support her. Therefore, wresting it away doesn’t seem to make sense.

Barack Obama: He is in an interesting position. He claims to be the candidate that will “cross party lines and bring people together” although he has a record diametrically opposed to doing that. He is the single most liberal Senator in the Senate and routinely refuses to join bipartisan coalitions. He also wants to change “politics as usual” but has himself and his representatives constantly lying about McCain’s statement about the security force in Iraq despite knowing better. He is going to have a hard time running as a moderate when nothing in his record remotely suggests he would ever take a moderate position. Obama should get a bump in the polls after he clinches the nomination and after the Democratic convention. Obama always seems to poll higher than he actually does in the voting. It is an interesting phenomenon.

John McCain: McCain has always been an independent thinker. It some cases (Iraq, federal judges) he is very conservative. On others (immigration, environment), he is moderate. The conservatives are complaining that he is not going ultra-conservative to please “the base of the party”. To win the general election, that would be a huge mistake. Why anyone expects him to change from the last twenty-five years is silly. Additionally, we won the primaries running as himself. Why would he make a disingenuous change at this point after watching how “flip-flopping” hurt John Kerry, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton?

Issues: The economy – Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax despite the fact that every time the capital gains tax has been lowered, government revenue increases because the economy expands. McCain wants to lower the tax to keep industry in the United States. Obama keeps speaking of how opportunity exists in the United States but if you do manage to get rich, the government will take your money away in taxes on the rich.
Health Care – Obama wants universal care through a government program which will raise taxes and will not affect prices. McCain wants to have individuals buy their own policies so there will be competition and prices will lower. Additionally, this allows portability of policies between jobs.
Iraq – Obama wants to remove troops from Iraq regardless of the conditions there; McCain wants to continue the fight until we win.
Judges – Obama conforms to the Democratic position that since they cannot get the liberal agenda through elected legislatures, they will appoint activist judges who will create law through judicial fiat. McCain want to appoint judges who will interpret law rather than create it. Of course, that is what the United States Constitution says should happen.

One of the Democratic “strategists” Robert Zimmerman stated on CNN last night that the race would be between a “conservative Republican” and a “main-stream Democrat”. There is a load of manure if you ever heard it. McCain is a well-known moderate whom the conservatives are complaining about and Obama is the single most liberal Senator in the United States Congress. It is disgusting to hear both the right wing and left wing commentators spit out their vitriol. I almost e-mailed Bill O’Reilly about that. He calls his show the “no spin zone” but after every interview, he always has two “strategists” from either side who come on the show to do nothing other than “spin” the interview answers shamelessly.

How to Effectively Moderate a Debate

I was fantasizing about moderating a Presidential debate the other evening and thought I would reveal portions of my formula for an actually informative debate which, of course, the candidates would hate. I believe people get tired of lame generalities and talking heads waiting for the right opportunity to get in a good sound bite. Of course, that is fueled by the media only talking about the good sound bites in their post-debate analysis.

First, at the beginning of the debate, I would have the candidates stipulate that none of the others were trying to bring down the world as we know it and that the others were not inherently evil people. I would also have them stipulate that THEY, not their respective spouses, were running for office and that whoever won, the spouse would be fine as first whatever. I would have them agree that no one was supporting bad education, less health care, a weaker military, etc.

Second, I would have them agree I could cut them off when they drifted into talking points instead of answering questions. When they answer with "We need a President who can.... (list of generic issues they can spout on about)", the microphone gets turned off. Additionally, no meaningless sound bites (e.g., "We are not going to balance the Social Security system on the backs of the elderly", which sounds great but doesn't mean anything and just wastes time).

Third, I would make them answer questions specifically. When they say "We have to fix the Social Security system", I stop them and make them spell out their specific steps to do it. When they say, "I will bring our troops home", I stop them and ask specifically how and what they will do in Afghanistan and Iraq which will make that possible, or will they just leave those people in the lurch after we committed to them as a country. When they talk about "experience", experience doing what specifically? What did you accomplish or did you you just hang around a long time? "I worked to... (fill in the blank)" is a lot different than "I actually did something". The object is to point out the specific differences in what they propose to do.

Fourth, when they claim a statistic or make an accusation, I stop and ask them to provide proof of their statement. No more made up statistics or vague accusations.

Fifth, no personal stories. When the candidates get a hard question, they always respond with "I met Jane Doe in Smalltown, North Some State, and she... (heart wrenching story)". That is like the news media who, no matter how strong the economy is, can always find someone not doing well so they can criticize the administration. It contributes nothing and allows the candidate to avoid the question.

Sixth, no redirecting questions. None of the "That is a good question but what we should really be talking about is... (stump speech points)". Answer the question or quit wasting our time and shut up.

Final point (to the audience), as soon as the debate is over, turn off the television or change channels. Do not listen to the opposing spin-meisters talk about how great their candidate did. You watched the debate, you heard the candidates, you know what they said. That should be enough.

The Rhetoric of Electioneering

The buzzwords currently flying around about the current election cycle are "experience" versus "change". After an eight year term by any President, the election is always about change. Eight years always tires the public of whoever the sitting administration happens to be.

It is interesting to watch the Democrats. particularly Hillary Clinton going down in flames as she argues for herself on the "experience" side. In fact, the candidates with actual experience have all failed to gain any traction. For a resume, you can't get much better than Bill Richardson (Governor, Ambassador, Cabinet-member, etc.) but he never made it out of single digit poll land. Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd were long term Senators and received little support. The fact that they sounded like raving maniacs trying to attract the attention of the media that they never received probably didn't help. The media long ago decided that the Democratic race was Clinton, Obama, and Edwards and basically didn't cover anyone else.

Clinton constantly touts her experience. What experience? She was an attorney in an apparently disreputable law firm. Then she was the wife of an elected official who managed to screw that up. Finally, she is a second term Senator in the carpetbagger tradition who has no significant legislative accomplishments. How does that translate into experience? Simply put, it is the best argument her campaign could come up with to put up against Obama. Obama shouldn't even be a Senator except that his opponent who would have beaten him dropped out of the race. He won against Alan Keyes (essentially a forfeit). He has done nothing in the Senate. Therefore, Clinton thought she could use that argument against him. Big mistake. After an eight year administration, having a nothing record is probably an advantage. Edwards is not really a factor. There is virtually no chance of him being elected. The reason he didn't run for re-election in North Carolina is that he knew there was no chance he would win.

On the Republican side, Huckabee has emerged in Iowa to the surprise of most. He will get little support in New Hampshire but may do well in South Carolina. If he does, it could represent a sea change in American politics. Mitt Romney continues to decline in popularity because he represents the status quo (big money, negative campaigning). While studies show negative campaigning works, the public dislikes it intensely. Romney is creating the impression that he is trying to buy the election, and will do anything, no matter how smarmy, to win it. It is not a way to get popular. Huckabee's strategy of not answering with attack ads may not work, but if it does, it could change future elections to the positive. McCain has taken a page from Huckabee's book and stayed a bit more positive than usual, despite the fact he is well known as (to put it mildly) an acerbic character. Basically, he is a prick. However, that could serve him well as President. Giuliani decided to tank Iowa and New Hampshire. The problem there is that if you get off the media radar, it is hard to get back on it. It will take a big showing somewhere else soon to get back in play when you have a lot of negatives. Thompson is both figuratively and literally a non-starter. You can't make an announcement on the Leno show than never show up again. Ron Paul comes off as your nutty old uncle who no one ever takes seriously. He has no shot.

New Hampshire is today. It will be interesting.

Fooling Them Most of the Time

An interesting Zogby poll came out in the last couple of days which shows some of the influence of the main stream media and in some ways how it causes results it doesn’t desire. While the networks and cable outlets have been trashing the Bush Administration for years and managed to get the approval rating for the President down to the lower 30s, the approval ratings for the Democrat-led Congress they favor is down to a historically low 18%. The House of Representatives under Nancy Pelosi has effectively done nothing and the Senate is the same under Harry Reid. Both leaders spend all their time making speeches about how bad the current administration is but never seem to offer more effective alternatives. In the public’s view, the Democratic Party is determined to lose the war without regard to consequences and they plan to lose it as a way to gain political power. This is clearly not the way to win in November 2008. The latest stay up all night and debate Iraq stunt was seen for the inane political theater it was and the public does not seem to be pleased. I have no idea who is advising Harry Reid but, whoever he is, his former career as a grocery bagger seems a safe bet in the near future. Reid, one of the two Senators from “the state which shouldn’t even be a state” (almost all federal property), is the poster child for inability and distasteful politics. The best thing for the Republicans to do between now and November 2008 is to have Reid and Pelosi on television as much as possible. By constantly giving coverage to these two shrill whiners, the networks have created a result they clearly don't want.

The other interesting item from that poll is how about 60-70% of people polled were quite content with their personal finances. However, despite all-time record high stock market closings, low unemployment, record home ownership, etc., only 20% thought the US economy was doing well. Let’s see if I have that straight: most feel they are doing well, almost everyone has a job and has a place to live, stocks are booming but the economy stinks. That demonstrates the mainstream media in action. They rave about how good the economy was at the end of the Clinton presidency, which was not nearly as strong as today’s, but at the same time say today’s economy stinks. These are the same people who lambaste Fox News and claim that they themselves have no political agenda. There are a lot of ill-informed and gullible people in this country but I don’t think there are enough for the Democrats to pull this off. At least I hope not.

Politics as usual and bad actors

It never ceases to amaze. Democrats who stood in line to approve removing Saddam Hussein from power now selectively remember that they were never for the war. Hillary Clinton says she wouldn't have voted for the authorization if she thought the President would actually use it. Liar or moron? You make the call.
Hillary also says "if I knew then what I know now, I would have never voted for the authorization." Hmmm If Abraham Lincoln knew then what he knew later, he wouldn't have gone to Ford's Theater. What an incredibly inane argument.
The same people who were all for removing Saddam now say the President "recklessly" got us into a war and "misled the American people." Funny how they looked at the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion but where they are pure as Ivory Soap, the President is an evil plotter. I am not sure Obama has a snowball's chance in Hell but at least he said he was against it before it happened. Speaking of Abraham Lincoln, Barrack Obama is portraying himself as the second coming of Lincoln. As was once said, "I knew Abraham Lincoln, I worked with Abraham Lincoln, and YOU are no Abraham Lincoln."
I always thought Dan Quayle should have replied to Lloyd Bentsen, "You are right, I am no John Kennedy, I sleep only with my own wife", but you can't criticize someone once they are shot. It is an American rule.
Here is a question: other than to look at the classified ads and sports page, why would anyone with two neurons to make a synapse buy the Washington Post or New York Times? Those papers could burst into spontaneous flame, which would be fine if they kept opinion on the editorial pages. The economy is so good there is a surplus predicted. No credit to the administration. The White House says the Pelosi plane story is ridiculous (which it is), no credit.

Here is a random thought. Some actors (i.e., George C Scott, Tom Hanks, Harrison Ford, Morgan Freeman) are an almost ironclad guarantee that a movie will be good, or at least interesting. I have my own list of guarantees that a movie will stink on ice. Here is a partial list (nothing personal, folks):
Jean Claude Van Damme, Shannon Tweed, Steven Seagall, Shannon Whirry, and my favorite wood carving of a human being, David Carradine. He was perfect for Kung Fu because he was supposed to barely speak. He has been doing Kung Fu ever since. I will admit I did like Kill Bill but it was despite, not because of.