“Aw, We Didn’t Mean It”

     The rules committee of the Democratic Party must decide whether to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan.  The two states’ leaders held primary elections earlier than they were allowed to under Democratic Party policies, and so last year the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the Democratic Party voted to strip those states of their delegates as a penalty for holding their primaries too early.  Now some Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, want to seat the delegates anyway.

     Apparently the lawyers for the Democratic Party have told members of the Rules Committee that the rules of the party require that the errant states lose at least half their delegates.  They also concluded that the party was within its legal rights to bar all the delegates from voting.  Their analysis shows that it would be illegal for the party to allow all the delegates to vote at the national convention.  Last December was when party officials decided that delegates from Florida and Michigan would not be seated at the convention, and among those voting to disqualify those delegates was Harold Ickes, and adviser to Hillary Clinton.

     But now Harold Ickes says that all the delegates should be allowed to vote at the convention. 

      And so does his boss, Hillary Clinton, although her husband Bill Clinton said last week that he thinks an appropriate penalty would be to count each delegate’s vote as half a vote.

     What bothers me is how people think that any counting of the primary votes in Florida would be fair.  By agreement, none of the candidates campaigned in those two states.  Turnout was low, most likely because people realized that their votes wouldn’t count.  Obama, among others, had even withdrawn his name from the ballot in Michigan, and voters there were urged to write in “uncommitted” if they wanted to vote for one of the withdrawn candidates.

     Under those circumstances, there’s no way to consider the results of those primaries accurate or fair.

     Have the people in those states been disenfranchised, as some are saying?  Well, yes and no.  They still have full voting rights in any government election, inculding the presidential election in November.  What must be remembered is that the nomination process is a party function.  Voting in a primary is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the political parties.  It would be like taking a vote at work for the “staff member of the month,” and you disqualified two people because they turned in their ballots earlier than they were allowed to.  It doesn’t mean that they lost their rights as American citizens.

     The DNC Rules Committee will meet this Saturday to decide the fate of the convention and the delegates from Florida and Michigan.  I predict that they will adopt the compromise of counting each delegates vote as half a vote, although I wish that they wouldn’t.

     I wish that the Democratic Party would have the integrity to stick to their rules and what they’ve decided.  I wish that they would realize that the rules and procedures are in place to make things as fair as possible, and that a decision that backs one of the candidates over the other (for reasons stated above) is not a fair decision.

     Of course the ballot recounts of 2000 don’t give me confidence that they will do the right thing.  And they propmt me to ask, “What’s up with Florida, anyway?”

SOURCES:

“DNC Lawyers: Florida, Michigan Delegates Cannot Be Fully Seated” by AP

“Bill Clinton:  Florida, Michigan Penalty ‘Appropriate’” by ABC

 

Race and Gender in Politics

     I would like to believe that we have gotten beyond race and gender in our political discourse and our political activities.  I have watched the Democratic nomination process with a lot of amusement.  What is a liberal party to do when its two main choices are a white woman and a black man?  If they support the black man, then they must be sexist.  If they support the white woman, then they must be racist.  At least that’s what they say about Republicans whenever they support a white man–that they are both racist and sexist.

     They really need a black female candidate.  And it would be all the better if she were an acknowledged lesbian.

     Why can’t we just seek the best possible person to be President of the United States?  For me that person is Alan Keyes, a black man.  Some people have tried to draft Condoleeza Rice, a black woman.  I think she would make a fantastic President, although I’m not sure her I would like her platform completely.  What’s significant about my saying that I would support these two people as President, is that I am a very staunch Conservative (or Libertarian, according to ”The Shortest Political Quiz in the World.”  I’m one of those white guys who supposedly would never vote for either a black person or a woman.  Yet, here I am saying in all sincerity that our black, female, unmarried Secretary of State would make a terrific president.

     But so would Fred Thompson, and he’s as white as white could be, and he’s also all man, as his romantic history shows.  Does the fact that I would support Mr. Thompson as President mean that I’m racist and sexist?  No, particulary in light of what I wrote above.

     So why are Obama backers accusing Clinton supporters of being racist?  And why are Clinton backers accusing Obama supporters of being sexist?  And where’s the unity and tolerance in that?

For further reading:

“Race, Gender Permeate Presidential Race” by Bonnie Erbe

“Obama, Clinton, Misogyny, Racism” by Doug Feaver

“Women Supporters Blame Clinton’s Imminent Defeat on Sexism” by Tim Harper

“In ’08, Place, As Well As Race, Is a Divide” by Chuck Raasch

Is McCain Stupid Enough to Pick Clinton?

     Mike Gallagher and Ann Coulter were discussing the current presidential election process on Gallagher’s  radio program the other day.  Gallagher mentioned something that one of his callers said, which was that it’s possible McCain will pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate.  Think about it.  Everybody is touting bipartisanship, and he would certainly pick up more than a few votes with such a maneuver.

     When Gallagher asked Coulter what she thought, she was speechless for a moment.  Then she said that “McCain is just stupid enough to do it.”  She also pointed out that he has said that Hillary Clinton would make a good president and that Clinton is the most conservative candidate in the race.

     Check it out:

Editorial by Mike Gallagher about the Ann Coulter interview

Radio clip of Mike Gallagher and Ann Coulter

Shared Prosperity: What’s Yours Is Mine

     Johnny had just gone trick-or-treating on Halloween night.  His brother and sister had gone too, but they had not been as successful.   Johnny had actually stayed out a bit longer and had gone to more houses than his brother and sister.  In addition, the people of the neighborhood liked Johnny because he was always friendly and helpful to them.  Some of them gave him an extra piece of candy.

     Johnny’s younger brother and sister thought it would be a good idea to pool the candy.  “Let’s just share it,” they suggested.  Johnny was too trusting and naive to understand their real motive.  Since he was the younger brother, he didn’t mind contributing more candy to the pot, although he did realize that he was entitled to keep the candy he had gathered. 

     Over the next two weeks, Johnny enjoyed one treat each day from the candy jar.  He wanted to save the candy for as long as possible.  But the candy dwindled rapidly as Johnny’s sister took two pieces every day and Johnny’s brother took three pieces.    When Johnny complained, his brother and sister reminded, “You agreed to share!”

     Johnny was pretty dismayed when the candy ran out so quickly.  He never pooled his candy with his brother and sister again.  In later years, his siblings would run out of candy before him, and he willingly shared his with them–one piece per day.  Although he didn’t have to do it, it made him feel good to give some of his extra candy to them.

     What kind of society do we want?  (1)  A society in which we “share” our resources? or (2) a society in which every person is entitled to keep whatever he gains through his own ingenuity and effort?  In America we still mostly have the second kind, but we are becoming more and more like the first kind.

     Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton say that they favor the first kind, but they live as though they favor the second kind.  Vote for them if you want to “share your prosperity,” but realize that they have millions of dollars that they are keeping for themselves and living nicely on.  I prefer a bit of consistency and integrity in my leaders, thank you very much.  When Obama and Clinton talk about the have’s and the have not’s, do you ever stop to realize that they are the haves?

For further reading and consideration:

“Obama, Clinton, and Capitalism” by Austin Hill.

Pay As Much As You Want

     John Campbell has a great idea.  He thinks that the IRS tax forms should be revised to make it easier for anyone to pay more to the government than they are required to.  That way, people who think that they are not already paying enough can just pay more.  Since Mrs. Clinton said that she didn’t ask for President Bush’s tax cuts and doesn’t wan them, I’m sure that she will be making a voluntary contribution of several million dollars.  Of course, I suppose that there is already a way that she could do so, if she really wanted to. 

     What do you think?

Mrs. Clinton and Me

     What do you think?

• Do you think that Mrs. Clinton has ever had to scrounge for coins in order to buy enough gasoline to get to work?  I have.
• Do you think that she has ever wondered if she would get to eat the next several days?  I have.
• Do you think that she has ever sold her blood plasma to get a bit of money for food?  I have.
• Do you think that she has ever found an envelope of money slipped anonymously under her door by a person who felt sorry for her?  I have.
• Do you think that she has ever been contacted by bill collectors because she could not make a payment on a hospital bill for several months in a row?  I have.
• Do you think that she has ever felt the shame of receiving a government “benefit” that she did not even claim or request?  I have.

     I don’t think Mrs. Clinton has any idea what it is like to be poor. I don’t think she can identify with me or even understand what I have gone through in my life.  As I said in my piece two posts below this one, I don’t envy her or resent her.  I just wish that she and her fellow Democrats were more sincere.  It really irks me to have them say to my face that they empathize with me.

     Also, I wish that they would respect my freedom.  Let me, and other lower- and middle-class people, overcome our economic difficulties through our own ingenuity and effort.  Let us be proud of our own accomplishments instead of humiliated by living off other people’s labor.  Just give us economic opportunities, and then leave us alone.  Don’t try to “help” us by first killing the economy and then giving us handouts when we lose our jobs or can’t afford the high cost of living.

     Therefore, I wish that they would stop supporting platforms and policies that stifle economic growth.   Economic opportunities are created in a booming economy that is unhampered by overregulation and overtaxation.  During my poorest days, it would have helped for me to have higher wages and lower prices, and that doesn’t come about by taxing employers to death or regulating them practically out of business.

     I wrote this post because I probably come off as a “privileged white dude who has no business attacking the Clinton’s for their economic status.”  The truth is, I think I have every business doing so–and the moral grounds for it, too.  I have really been poor; I have the right to say who speaks for me and who doesn’t.  And Bill and Hillary Clinton do not.

Fully Named

Here are the full names of the Presidential candidates.

• Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton
• John Sidney McCain III
• Michael Dale Huckabee
•  Barack H—–n Obama, Jr.

I would list Obama’s full name, but apparently that would be a dirty trick.  I hope Wikipedia doesn’t get into trouble for including it in their entry on Barack Obama.

Feminists and Mrs. Bill Clinton

     How do you like that?  I was under the impression that feminists admired Hillary Clinton. 

     Here are a few articles that indicate otherwise:

     “Why Women Hate Hillary” by Susan J. Douglas

     “Hillary’s Feminist Problem” by Lakshmi Chaudry

     “Feminist Leaders Oppose Hillary, Endorse Obama” by Jon Wiener

     The articles above attribute anti-Clinton sentiment mostly to her position on the Iraq action.  I can understand that, as most feminists are anti-war in general and anti-Iraq-war specifically.  Of course, I wonder if it’s her position today or her position tomorrow that they oppose; her positions do change about that often. 

      What I still don’t understand is why women in general, and feminists in particular, seem not to care that Mrs. Clinton tacitly condoned her husband’s infidelity to her and his sexual harrassment of Monica Lewinsky.  I could overlook it, were it not for the outrage over Clarence Thomas’s alleged harrassment of Anita Hill.  Can anyone explain the double standard?

     When I have raised the question before, I usually get these answers:

1.  It’s none of our business.  (Then neither was it our business in the Clarence Thomas case.)

2.  It’s admirable that she forgave him.  (Yes, if that’s what happened.  But is that the feminist line usually?  Be honest.)

3.  She’s a remarkable woman.  (Huh?  What does that have to do with the question?)

4.  I like the Clintons, no matter what.  (Okay.  That’s sound reasoning.)

Conservatives vs John McCain

Here’s more talk of conservatives voting for somebody other than John McCain.

 

Was Ann Coulter Joking?

Apparently Ann Coulter wasn’t joking when she said that she would vote for Hillary Clinton instead of John McCain. 

 

Have you looked at John McCain’s record? 

Are you willing to vote for him simply because he has an R after his name?