73 posts tagged “politics”

ENOUGH!

Clinton-Bush-Kennedy-Cuomo-Franken-Schwartzenegger.

Nothing more than celebrities from either the world of politics or the world of entertainment. A name is not a qualification for office although name recognition is most certainly a huge advantage.

Truth be told, none of these people are any more qualified for high political office than you, me or that lawyer behind the tree. The only positive thing that can be said about most, but not all of them is that they are not attorneys. Their names are their advantage, not their talents. In fact, it may be the final measure of how far our system of governance has degenerated to have a United States Senate candidate like Al Franken still in contention for a seat in that formerly august body. Seating Franken would be, on a number of levels, a real joke.

The article below examines the prospects of Caroline Kennedy as the next Senator from the State of New York, so designated by appointment, not election. The fact is that she is no more or less qualified than any of the long time hack pols that have served in Congress for decades.

It is rather amusing that some of them denounce her potential appointment based upon her lack of experience. Should we note that constantly being reelected to Congress is absolutely no qualification to serve either? It not only is not a special qualification, but a case can easily be made that once someone has served a term or two, they should automatically be disqualified from returning to office. Familiarity does, in fact, breed contempt, not to mention corruption, dishonesty and a serious disconnect from constituents which often coincides with an ever more beneficial association with lobbyists, special interests and identity groups.

Ms. Kennedy could serve as well as anyone else. And that is the most important point. Our form of governance was originally designed to be based upon public service provided by citizen legislators. There was no special emphasis on a need for attorneys, political royal families, celebrities or professional career politicians. We have sort of evolved in that direction over time and, as a result, we now find ourselves facing a failure of government on all levels in this country. Very few of the people we elect to serve the best interests of the nation and the people do so. Instead they more often than not serve themselves.

The Kennedy clan is one of our political royal families. Anyone who can list the reasons why the Kennedy's are irreplaceable, raise your hands. Like all politicians, they come and they go, leaving behind them nothing that could not have been accomplished by others. Caroline Kennedy just might make an excellent Senator but so would millions of other New Yorkers. She has no special credentials or amazing powers. As a matter of fact, she is somewhat suspect since she chose not to run for the office via the regular elective process but she does seek to be appointed to the office, a much easier and less intrusive path to follow.

America, we all need to get past the idea that celebrities, political royalty, professional career politicians or entertainers are required in order to conduct the business of government. As we know all to well, they are not very good at it. In reality, we not only do not need them, they have screwed things up beyond any one's wildest expectations.

What we need is concerned, engaged and dedicated Americans, interested in the greater good, who would be willing to serve only a term or two and thereafter return to their prior lives and careers, making way for the next generation of citizen legislators. NO Schwartzenegger, NO Cuomo, NO Franken, NO Kennedy, NO Bush, NO Clinton and most especially NO-NO-NO-NO professional career politicians.


Caroline Kennedy's credentials debated in Senate bid
By David M. Halbfinger

She has not held a full-time job in years, has not run for even the lowliest office, and has promoted such noncontroversial causes as patriotism, poetry and public service. Yet Caroline Kennedy's decision to ask Governor David A. Paterson to appoint her to Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate seat suggests that she believes she is as well prepared as anyone to serve as the next senator from New York — and is ready to throw her famously publicity-averse self into the challenge of winning back-to-back elections in 2010 and 2012.

Already, some columnists, bloggers and even potential colleagues in Congress have begun asking if she would be taken seriously if not for her surname. Representative Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat, told a radio host on Wednesday that he did not know what Kennedy's qualifications were, "except that she has name recognition — but so does J. Lo."

Aside from a 22-month, three-day-a-week stint as director of strategic partnerships for the New York City schools, her commitments generally involve nonprofit boards: the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., the American Ballet Theater, the Commission on Presidential Debates and the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation.

But friends and associates say that Kennedy, 51, is no dilettante, and that her career is replete with examples of the kind of hands-on policy work and behind-the-scenes maneuvering that could serve her well.

Last spring, she joined the search committee for a new director of the Harvard University Institute of Politics, where she and Senator Edward Kennedy, her uncle, are members of an advisory panel. The university wanted a big-name politician. But Ms. Kennedy argued for someone who would view the post as a career maker, not a career ender, others involved said.

Her choice was Bill Purcell, a two-term Nashville mayor. Her uncle, whose voice carried the greatest weight on the board, had fallen ill with brain cancer, and might have gone in a different direction, one insider said. But over six weeks, she patiently made her case and eventually won over members of the institute's board and Harvard officials.

"She's not shy about pushing people in a direction, and very good at doing it in a way that people don't even realize they're being pushed," said Heather Campion, one board member.

As one might expect, she is also the consummate insider: When Rupert Murdoch's young daughter was applying to the Brearley School, Kennedy, a board member who had attended the school and sent her two daughters there, wrote a letter of recommendation, a News Corporation spokeswoman confirmed.

Kennedy's work with the city's public schools has won much attention, but has not been widely understood. Hired in October 2002 (her $1 salary meant she did not have to fill out financial disclosure forms) to overhaul the schools' private fund-raising, she took on a haphazard operation and gave it a new mission: privately raising seed money to test new reforms, while trying to persuade New Yorkers to get involved in the schools in meaningful ways.

A rock concert in Central Park raised $2 million; a tag sale there drew tens of thousands of bargain hunters. (Some of them, unwittingly, walked off with evening bags that had belonged to her mother, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, according to Ann Moore, the chief executive of Time Inc., which sponsored the event.) By the time she left in August 2004, she had raised more than $70 million for an academy to train reform-minded principals. Nearly 200 city school principals are graduates, the majority in high-poverty schools.
Schools Chancellor Joel Klein credited her with bringing in a $51 million gift from Bill Gates's foundation despite lingering ill will over Klein's battles with Microsoft while he was at the Justice Department.

"She's good in the room, but she's also good at getting people to focus and come together quickly," Klein said. . Kennedy is now vice chairwoman of the schools' nonprofit fund-raising arm, but she continues to visit schools across the city, with no entourage or press aide.

Indeed, one of the more interesting hurdles Kennedy faces would be in telling her story to voters, and to interviewers. Like her mother, she has carefully guarded her privacy.

Yet Kennedy spent about six weeks barnstorming battleground states for Barack Obama and took to it with gusto: An aide recalled her strolling into a Republican headquarters near Ocala, Florida, and peppering voters with questions at every turn.

But in brief interviews during the Democratic National Convention, and on "Meet the Press" after she had helped Obama vet his potential running mates, Kennedy easily deflected the few serious questions she was asked. She deadpanned to Tom Brokaw that his own name had come up in the vetting. And she dryly told Wolf Blitzer, "I just want to be with the best political team on television as much as I possibly can."

As a candidate or senator, she would presumably have a tougher time dodging questions.

Away from the cameras, Kennedy immersed herself in the vice-presidential search, joining Eric Holder, now Obama's choice for attorney general.

"Eric was the quiet one, and she was the one that, really, when I said something, asked, 'Who? Why? How come?' " said Representative Joe Baca, chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, who met with them to analyze the contenders. "She did most of the talking."

Kennedy also took it upon herself to write a lengthy memo for Obama, a senior campaign adviser said. "I think she sized up the field in a way that was thoughtful and sophisticated and right," he said. "And I think it weighed heavily with him."

True to form, Kennedy declined to be interviewed for this article. But she did cooperate indirectly, freeing a few friends and associates, through an intermediary, to discuss her.

They and several others, described a woman who is surprisingly down to earth: who carried sensible shoes in her bag for the walk home from a dressy event at Tavern on the Green; who declined a lift downtown when caught without an umbrella in a rainstorm, instead heading for the subway in a baseball cap; who does not shirk her periodic safety patrol duty, with its reflective vests and walkie-talkies, as a Collegiate School mom; who is an assiduous e-mailer, if not so fast at returning voice mail; who has a personal assistant, but does not use her as a gatekeeper the way so many not-so-famous people do; and who loves to play Running Charades, a version of the popular parlor game.

"There's nothing at all pretentious about her," said Jane Rosenthal, the co-founder of the Tribeca Film Festival and a longtime friend of Kennedy and her husband, Edwin Schlossberg.

Kennedy has said that it was her children who got her to give Obama a look last year. Elaine Jones, a retired head of the NAACP fund, speculated that Kennedy's children — her two daughters are in college and her son is in high school — were also the reasons she had not entered public life sooner.

"A fishbowl can adversely affect a child," Jones said. "Her mother found a way to keep her children real. Caroline, I think, wanted that for her children. So I think, without knowing it, subconsciously, she was trying to get her kids to this point."

Copyright © 2008 The International Herald Tribune www.iht.com

Sphere: Related Content

Some auto worker union members remain caught in the dying cycle of UAW propaganda and, as a result, are manipulated by politicians and their union leadership bosses to continue to have faith in a cause with no future. The AP article attached documents that sad reality.

While the federal government, the big three auto makers, the UAW and a host of politicians wrestle around about bailouts-loans-converted tarp funds or whatever the moniker of the day might be, the underlying truth is simply that American car companies cannot effectively compete in the US market, which happens to be the largest motor vehicle market on the planet. Foreign headquartered car companies have consistently dominated Detroit with our own consumers because they provide a more desirable product at a price buyers are willing to pay.

The harsh reality is this: it is not possible to rescue manufacturers that produce a product that consumers do not want. GM, Ford and Chrysler make cars that have less appeal with car shoppers than does Toyota, Honda, Lexus and a host of other foreign companies. Apparently, that is a message that does not register with UAW members, politicians and big three executives.

Who or what is at fault for the collapse of the American big three would seem to be a somewhat esoteric consideration at this point in time. The fact is, they are failed operations. They cannot continue to do business as they have in the past. The future, whatever it turns out to be, will not even closely resemble the way things have been done. Future automobile manufacturing in this country will look very, very different from what it has ever been before. Yet that obvious message is lost on those companies on both management and labor levels.

Message to domestic automakers: it is time to get in the game with your competition, most of which are located right here at home, or you will become a footnote in history. Message to the UAW: the old days are gone. Adjust or be forgotten. Articles like the one that follows only serve to illustrate that auto industry unions and their political allies are playing a very old game in an entirely new world.

Although greatly diminished as a major component of the American economy, manufacturing continues to play an important role in the future of this nation. Certainly, a lot of what formerly was made here is now made elsewhere. But there is another important development in the world of American manufacturing: productivity. That has improved immensely in our domestic workplace, so much so that one worker now produces close to what four workers used to produce. Expect that trend to continue.

Should our automakers wish to be a part of the future of manufacturing here, management and labor will need to implement ways to diminish expenses, improve productivity, manufacture a product that meets market demands and, most importantly, abandon their old operational models. In other words, they need to remake their industry so that they can be competitive and profitable.

The pointing of the finger of blame and the tin cup in hand begging for taxpayer funded rescue packages is not only unseemly and pathetic, it is symptomatic of a failure to let go of a now dysfunctional past.

Change behavior or die: with or without bailouts.


Angry UAW members lash out at Southern senators
UAW lashes out at senators in Southern states with foreign car plants after auto aid bill dies
Tom Krisher and Kimberly S. Johnson, AP Auto Writers

DETROIT (AP) -- Festering animosity between the United Auto Workers and Southern senators who torpedoed the auto industry bailout bill erupted into full-fledged name calling Friday as union officials accused the lawmakers of trying to break the union on behalf of foreign automakers.

The vitriol had been near the surface for weeks as senators from states that house the transplant automakers' factories criticized the Detroit Three for management miscues and bloated UAW labor costs that lawmakers said make them uncompetitive.

But the UAW stopped biting its tongue after Republicans sank a House-passed bill Thursday night that would have loaned $14 billion to cash-poor General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC to keep them out of bankruptcy protection. The Bush administration later stepped in and said it was ready to make money available to the automakers, likely from the $700 billion Wall Street bailout program.

Still, autoworkers remain angry with the senators who tried to negotiate wage and benefit concessions from the union, then scuttled the House-passed bill that would have granted the loans and set up a "car czar" to oversee the nearly insolvent companies and get concessions from the union and creditors. Their top targets were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who led negotiations on a compromise; and Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., who has been a vocal critic of the loans.

Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama all house auto assembly plants from foreign automakers, and union officials contend the senators want to drive UAW wages down so there would be no reason for workers at the foreign plants to join the union.

"They thought perhaps they could have a twofer here maybe: Pierce the heart of organized labor while representing the foreign brands," UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said at a Friday morning news conference in Detroit.

Republicans in several Western states -- where unions are often shunned -- joined the Southerners in opposition.

But lawmakers and their spokesmen said the criticism is off base. Jonathan Graffeo, Shelby's spokesman on the Senate Banking Committee, said the senator has consistently opposed taxpayer-funded bailouts.

"He opposed the Chrysler bailout in 1979 when there were no foreign auto manufacturers in Alabama, and he opposed the recent $700 billion bailout of the banking industry," Graffeo said.

"Bailouts generally don't work, and this is a huge proposed bailout, and I fear it's just the down payment on more to come next year," Shelby said on the Senate floor Thursday night. "These companies are either already failed or failing, and that's a shame. These aren't the General Motors, Ford and Chrysler I knew."

Corker said the alternative he tried to develop would have provided federal money in exchange for restructuring the companies' debt and making the UAW more competitive in wages with workers at U.S. plants of Japanese competitors.
"Our members wanted to know that the UAW was willing to be competitive," Corker said.

"I basically pleaded with them to give me some language by some date certain that they were competitive with these other companies," Corker said. "That's where it broke down."

Hourly wages for UAW workers at GM factories already are about equal to those paid by Toyota Motor Corp. at its older U.S. factories, according to the companies. GM says the average UAW laborer makes $29.78 per hour, while Toyota -- generally viewed as the main competitor of the Detroit Three -- says it pays about $30 per hour. But the unionized factories have far higher benefit costs.

The union, GM and Chrysler have contended that the companies have restructured and the UAW has granted concessions that would make them competitive in 2010, but the economy went south this year and forced them into trouble. A third Detroit automaker, Ford Motor Co., asked for loans in case of emergency but says it has enough cash to make it through 2009.
Union officials also accused the senators of retaliating for the UAW's overwhelming support of Democratic candidates in federal races. The union gave $1.9 million to Democrats but only $11,500 to Republicans in the 2008 election cycle.

Many Democrats support the Employee Free Choice Act, which would take away employers' rights to demand a secret ballot on whether workers will join a union. Instead, workers could form unions by getting a majority of employees to sign a card in support of it.

"There's a lot at stake. If Republicans think now they can tarnish labor, it's going to be difficult to pass the Employee Free Choice Act," said Gary Chaison, professor of labor relations at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. "The unions are going to say that a strong labor movement is good for America. One of the things Republicans are trying to show now is that a strong labor movement isn't good for America."

Other union officials joined Gettelfinger to form a chorus of anger and frustration with the senators.

"What this is is the Southern conservative senators trying to destroy the United Auto Workers, trying to destroy unions," said Mike O'Rourke, president of a UAW local at a GM factory in Spring Hill, Tenn., Corker's home state. "It's a sad day in America when the senators turn their back on Main Street."

In an effort to help the auto companies get federal aid, the UAW last week offered to delay company payments into a union-run trust fund that will take over retiree health care costs starting in 2010. It also agreed to end the controversial "jobs bank" program in which laid-off workers get most of their pay and benefits after unemployment pay runs out.

Most Southern U.S. auto plants run by Toyota, Honda Motor Co., Nissan Motor Co., BMW AG, Daimler AG and other manufacturers are nonunion. The UAW has tried numerous times without success to organize workers at the foreign-owned factories.

Spokesmen for Toyota and Nissan declined comment, but Honda spokesman Ed Miller said in a statement the company did not lobby against the bill.

"Honda has been encouraging initiatives that would maintain the short- and long-term viability of the U.S. auto industry, including the hundreds of the shared supplier companies in the United States," he said.

As the Detroit Three have declined and ceded market share to the foreign nameplates, the UAW's membership has plummeted 69 percent, from a peak 1.5 million in 1979 to 465,000 at the end of 2007.

Associated Press Writer Ken Thomas in Washington and AP Business Writer Ellen Simon in New York contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

Sphere: Related Content

Here on the country's "left coast", us native Californians are in mourning over the "Late, Great Golden State". Our state government is in full collapse and our future indicators are not very rosy.

Governance on most all levels in California has been dominated by Democrat party liberals for a whole lot of decades. This state, which is something in the neighborhood of the seventh largest economy in the world among all the nations on earth, represents what a leftist utopia looks like when liberal Democrat party politicians are put in charge over long periods of time. The rest of America can get a clear and unambiguous view of the result of the real time implementation of liberal doctrine and leftist policies.

Where that track record is most instructive is when the current state of affairs in California are compared with what used to be the reality on the ground before this state was almost entirely surrendered to the political left. The outcome of that comparison could not be more clear. The downward trend in so many different arenas is stunning. A once great state is being reduced to a whimpering shell of it's former self. What follows are some examples that illustrate our current reality.

STATE GOVERNMENT: Both the nation and the world is well aware of the yawning deficits we face today in California. A severe fiscal emergency is at hand in a state with close to the highest taxation rate in the country. The Democrat party has dominated the state legislature for what seems like forever and the result has been wild spending on social programs that remain almost unprecedented in state history. From subsidized housing, to free health care, to no cost food stamps and including just plain welfare, the cost of our giveaways is staggering and constantly growing. All the while, legislators cannot come up with a workable solution for completely upside down budget. The bottom line: state government is in a failure condition.

INFRASTRUCTURE: This state used to have the finest system of roads, highways and bridges anywhere in America. Today, that infrastructure is crumbling. There is little chance that it will be improved much in the foreseeable future. State infrastructure now ranks amongst the worst in the nation.

POPULATION: In modern times, California has always been a state with a healthy rate of population growth. Residents migrated from everywhere in the country if not the world. This state has long had a diverse and burgeoning population. But that trend is in reverse. In the past few years, the population of American citizens residing here has diminished year over year. That continues to be the case. It is true that the total population of California has continued to grow but that is exclusively the result of illegal immigration. The number of American citizens living in the state follows a downward trend and will continue to do so as residents flee a failing state.

BIG BUSINESS: California has evolved into one of the least business friendly states in the union. Corporations and other big businesses have fled the state in droves and continue to beat a path to other states which welcome them with open arms. High taxation, onerous regulation and an ever increasing cost of living have forced businesses elsewhere. Gone are any number of corporations founded in California that are now headquartered out of state. The record is clear and the exodus continues.

SANCTUARY CITIES: Most certainly the Golden State leads the world in terms of the largest number of sanctuary cities. Such places are set up to allow illegal immigrants to live and work theoretically free from federal pursuit and prosecution. Further, local law enforcement officials are not allowed to ask, let alone determine or act upon, the legal status of people under arrest. There have been instances of the murder of American citizens by illegal immigrants in sanctuary cities here that could have been prevented had federal and local officials been allowed to pursue and deport known criminals allowed to live under sanctuary protection.

EDUCATION: The public school system in this state is in full free fall. With few exceptions, quality education has been abandoned in favor of teachers unions, political correctness, liberal curriculum, trial lawyers and identity group interests. Parents have abandoned and continue to abandon government schools wholesale. Alternative education like charter schools, private schools, parochial schools and home schooling are booming. Several local school districts have gone bankrupt and have been taken over by the state. The drop out rate has mushroomed. High school seniors consistently perform below grade level on standard testing. Worse, an ever growing percentage of freshman entering the California State University system cannot qualify for frosh level English and math courses and must begin in remedial programs. The bad news: it all continues to get worse.

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS: Governments on all levels including state, county and municipal are, in California, wholly owed subsidiaries of the public employee unions. The primary force, although not the exclusive cause, behind the fiscal difficulties of governance here are those unions. Although paid well, regular salary is not the real problem. What drives governments, particularly on the local level, into bankruptcy are the realities of overtime pay, truly off the charts benefit packages (not matched in the private sector) and fabulous retirement compensation. The fact is, our government systems can no longer afford these incredible giveaways to public employees. The pending mandates relative to this issue will, in fact, break the bank for government entities on all levels. It is a disaster in the making that is just around the corner. All the while, keep in mind that California has among the highest tax rates in the country already in place.

The reality is that this liberal Shangra-la is rapidly imploding. Government by unions, special interests, identity groups, liberal Democrat party doctrine, over regulation, over taxation, and Hollywood elites does not work, is in a downward spiral of failure and cannot correct itself as currently composed.

Pay attention America, the rest of you are next.


California budget woes worsens

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California's budget crisis is growing worse as its shortfall for its current fiscal year has increased to an estimated $14.8 billion from a previously estimated $11.2 billion, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said on Wednesday.

During a press conference broadcast on his office's website, the Republican governor said he would call top lawmakers into a meeting to stress the need for fast action by the Democrat-led legislature on balancing the budget of the government of the most populous U.S. state because it may be out of cash by the end of February.

Schwarzenegger's new budget shortfall estimate comes a day after state Controller John Chiang reported the state's general fund revenues in November were $1.3 billion, or 18.5 percent, below expectations.

California's shrinking revenues and swelling budget shortfall reflect the severity of its housing downturn, rising unemployment and weak consumer spending as both the state and national economies slow.

Schwarzenegger has urged lawmakers to balance the state's budget with a combination of deep spending cuts and new revenues, including revenues from increasing the state's sales tax.

(Reporting by Jim Christie, Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)

Sphere: Related Content

Anybody buying the 'team of rivals' line of pablum being put forward in some quarters (e.g. the biased media) as the reason why President-Elect Obama has selected Ms. Clinton as the nominee for Secretary of State? Those that do likely do not have a clue about the high stakes game of political poker being played in government on the Cabinet level.

It would be impossible to have paid even the slightest attention to the political careers of both Bill & Hillary Clinton and, at the same time, believe that this appointment is all hearts and flowers (such would require the "suspension of disbelief"). The Clinton's are noting if not bright and calculating pols who do nothing by accident or without regard to their futures in government. Their track record is clear and unmistakable.

Take a moment to think back to the pre-Democrat party convention in Denver. Obama had the delegate lead but the nomination was not yet secured. Hillary had the momentum, particularly in big states with real election primaries rather than the easily manipulated small state caucuses. Obama had peaked a bit early and Hillary was on the come.

Much of the electorate was either deeply concerned or highly giddy over the prospect of a long and bloody convention floor fight over the nomination. It appeared that the supposed party of the common working man, the little guy, was going to have it's nominee determined in the back rooms, out of sight of party regulars, by the "super delegates" and the party hierarchy. Hillary's troops were determined and dedicated to her cause. The fear of the party tearing itself apart on national television was palpable. Republicans rejoiced while Democrat party types sweat blood.

At a key moment, the two major contenders and their senior staff met to try and determine a path of solidarity and victory. Clinton brought momentum and highly committed delegates on her side. Obama had the delegate lead and the sympathies of the world at hand. But he also had the advance benefit of the most important wild card: super delegates. As the convention loomed, increasing numbers of super delegates began to publicly proclaim their support for Obama. Although certainly a powerful advantage, it was not necessarily an impossible to overcome advantage. Hillary had Bill and a host of high profile, powerful figures who could pressure and arm twist super delegates to reconsider their positions.

Is simple surrender by Hillary really a believable scenario? Not at all. Most certainly she went into her key meeting with Obama with the intent and with the ability to cut a deal that would continue to advance her political career beyond the dead end of the United States Senate. Most probably a range of options were discussed but it is highly likely that Hillary had her eye on a high profile Cabinet position from the get go. Making a deal was obviously in the best interests of both Obama and Clinton, not to mention saving their party a high profile public embarrassment.

It is important to note how long the public dance leading to the formal announcement of this deal took. Details had to be worked out and agreed to by both parties. In that process, it appears Hillary came out ahead. She gained clearance to name her own senior team at State, without needing the approval of the Obama team. That is a very unusual development. Further, she was able to publicly establish herself as an independent voice who will advise the President, not a role player who will automatically follow policy as dictated by the White House. She gained the capability to run her own shop, leaving her with wide latitude to promote her career and appear as a decision maker.

It will be fascinating going forward to watch how the Obama White House will articulate with the State Department. Obama advertises in advance that he invites dissenting voices around him in order to better inform his decision making process. That sounds good. But we are talking the Clinton's here. Hillary arrives with a train load of old baggage, not the least of which is her husband, as well as with a career promoting agenda and plan. That may or may not work out well for Obama. One thing for sure, Hillary and her devotees will never settle for Secretary of State as her final stop.

She cut a deal to move up the political ladder. Do not bet against her.


Hillary of State
How much will this cost the Obama administration?
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

One rule of employee relations? Never hire someone you can't afford to fire.
Barack Obama's offer to let Hillary Clinton be secretary of state has already been marked down as a brilliant co-option of his former rival. But nothing comes for free, and the question is just how big a price Mr. Obama will pay in the end.

For now, he is getting only praise for his surprise pick. The move fits neatly into the media narrative that Mr. Obama is drafting a team that will challenge his thinking. It's also being described as a gesture that could heal party wounds and mollify Clinton supporters Mr. Obama never won to his side.

The actual motivation? Short term, Mr. Obama understands his real struggles are going to be in the Senate, where he will need 60 votes. Left there with nothing but a potential future run against Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton would be tempted to use her position to highlight her differences with the sitting president. Even as a junior senator, she could gum up his works. Mr. Obama does not need that.

The job at State all but eliminates this threat. As the nation's top diplomat, Mrs. Clinton will be barred, both by law and by custom, from partisan politics.
She'll have to dismantle her extensive political operation, and end the patronage that has earned her continued loyalty.

There's arguably also not enough time for Mrs. Clinton to make her mark as secretary of state, and find a reason to break with her boss, and piece back together her empire, and get into a presidential race. They both know that in taking this cabinet post, Mrs. Clinton is clearing herself from Mr. Obama's political path.

Having lived with, up close, the Clinton political threat, Mr. Obama might be forgiven for agreeing to just about anything to forestall a repeat. But no one should forget that this is Mrs. Clinton we are talking about -- with all her ambitions, all her frustrations, all her family relations and all her past. The price of neutralizing Mrs. Clinton as an outside rival, by bringing her inside, could make today's bailouts look cheap.

The early media pronouncement is that Mr. Obama is getting, for this post of top diplomat, a woman with great "experience." Oh, how short memories are. Mrs. Clinton staked her early primary claim on foreign policy. So determined was she to out-tough Mr. Obama that she walked into wild exaggerations -- Bosnian sniper fire and Northern Ireland peace, to name a few.

Egged on by former Clintonite Gregory Craig (Mr. Obama's newly picked White House general counsel), the media reported on just how little "experience" she'd had as the former first lady. Mrs. Clinton worked hard on foreign policy in the Senate, but it still remains far from clear how talented she'll prove at this job. Mr. Obama is taking a flyer on one of his bigger promises -- that of changing American foreign policy.

His onetime rival will also have plenty of leeway to go rogue. The State Department is traditionally hard to rein in, and Mrs. Clinton has insisted she also be free of traditional constraints. She's demanded the right to staff her department with her own people. And while national security advisers are often more powerful than secretaries of state, she wants the ability to circumvent that position and go directly to Mr. Obama.

This is the stuff ugly internal disputes are made of.

As for the issues, there are plenty on which the rivals disagreed in the primaries, from how tough to be on Iran to how strongly to stand with Israel. And let's not forget any differences between Mr. Obama and Bill Clinton -- since no matter how many promises to the contrary, he will be co-secretary of state.

Speaking of Bill, Mr. Obama famously noted during the primary that it was time to move beyond the Clinton era. Instead, he's dragging that baggage back into the White House living room. The Obama team is combing through the hundreds of thousands of donors to Mr. Clinton's foundation. Those papers surely contain compromising conflicts. There was good reason the Clinton's have always refused to make that information public.

Mr. Obama can now sit on those documents, renege on his pledges to be one of the most "transparent" presidencies in history, and endure the rightful outrage that will follow. Or he can release them, and guarantee a feeding frenzy. Either option will prove an unpleasant side story to his more pressing policy concerns.
And that's just the immediate issue. There are also the 1990s Clinton documents, which remain under wraps at the Clinton library, but not forever.

Having made the grand gesture, Mr. Obama can now only get rid of Mrs. Clinton at risk of another party rift. The president-elect now owns Mrs. Clinton's past, and future, behavior. That could turn out to be some deal.

Write to kim@wsj.com
Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Sphere: Related Content

The arena of public education will be one of the greatest domestic tests of the incoming Obama administration.

The President-Elect has repeatedly emphasized education as one of his top priorities throughout his primary and general election campaigns. But as the article that follows highlights, the teacher's union support of the Democrat party puts Obama into the middle of a major dilemma. Will he do what is right for children or will he surrender, as most Dem politicians do, to the will of the unionized adults who spend huge amounts of time, energy and money on Democrat campaigns?

The challenge here is significant. In many states and in most large metropolitan areas, public education is a totally failed system. Under the care and feeding of the Democrat party constituents, public schools have significantly lowered standards, wholly dumbed down the curriculum, fully introduced leftist policies and politics into the classroom and imposed an environment of political correctness to such a complete degree that America's publicly educated kids cannot handle previously normal grade level academic work and have literally no hope of competing with their counterparts from other industrialized nations in the workplace of the future.

In other words, our public schools are in total collapse. And not only academically. Government funded education struggles to finance it's very existence in many parts of the country. Here in California, entire school districts have gone bankrupt which has required the state to take over day to day operations of every aspect and function of such entities. Parents in most states are routinely and regularly asked to pay for supplies, activities, events and all matters of things that formerly were funded exclusively by the schools. Most schools have developed foundations and continually solicit donations from throughout their communities in order to meet their equipment and operations needs.

While teachers, and particularly administrators, continue to earn increased salaries in such an environment, our children receive an education that keeps on diminishing in quality and quantity. So as the Dem party supporting, unionist adults protect and grow their compensation packages, families and kids regularly lose ground in their attempts to gain a decent degree of academic training.

The challenge for Obama will be this: does he have the commitment and the courage to take the political hit from unionized government school employees that will actually benefit the children of this country? He claims he cares about the young and their schooling. He has promised to fix the problem, which is immense. It will require new and innovative approaches that generate systemic change to our current public school debacle. Collective bargainers will not like the idea of real change.

Kowtowing to educators unions will not get the job done. It has, to date, only caused the ongoing demise of government controlled schooling. Parents have long been voting with their wallets and their feet as they have turned to alternatives such as private schools, parochial schools, charter schools and home schooling to name the most popular. Families are abandoning public schools in ever increasing numbers and will continue to do so unless administration Obama drives real change into the existing disaster that is our public system of sub prime education.

Systemic change is the only answer and some of the most notable suggestions are reviewed in the aforementioned article below. Keeping in mind that it is those with the least resources among us that suffer the most from the current state of affairs, it is incumbent on the President-Elect to unravel the completely counterproductive loyalties of his own party and fix this mess without delay.

The nation's future is at stake.


Change Our Public Schools Need
Obama and the Democrats should put kids before unions.
By TERRY M. MOE

Can Barack Obama bring change to American education? The answer is: Yes he can. The question, however, is whether he actually will. Our president-elect has the potential to be an extraordinary leader, and that's why I've supported him since the beginning of his campaign. But on public education, he and the Democrats are faced with a dilemma that has boxed in the party for decades.
Democrats are fervent supporters of public education, and the party genuinely wants to help disadvantaged kids stuck in bad schools. But it resists bold action.
It is immobilized. Impotent. The explanation lies in its longstanding alliance with the teachers' unions -- which, with more than three million members, tons of money and legions of activists, are among the most powerful groups in American politics. The Democrats benefit enormously from all this firepower, and they know what they need to do to keep it. They need to stay inside the box.

And they have done just that. Democrats favor educational "change" -- as long as it doesn't affect any one's job, reallocate resources, or otherwise threaten the occupational interests of the adults running the system. Most changes of real consequence are therefore off the table. The party specializes instead in proposals that involve spending more money and hiring more teachers -- such as reductions in class size, across-the-board raises and huge new programs like universal preschool. These efforts probably have some benefits for kids. But they come at an exorbitant price, both in dollars and opportunities foregone, and purposely ignore the fundamentals that need to be addressed.

What should the Democrats be doing? Above all, they should be guided by a single overarching principle: Do what is best for children. As for specifics, here are a few that deserve priority.

They need to get serious about accountability. The unions want it eviscerated, and many Democrats are eager to sing their tune: denouncing No Child Left Behind, excoriating standardized tests, opposing consequences for poor performance, and demanding more money.

Real accountability is about standing up for children. The adults are supposed to be teaching kids something, and accountability demands hard, objective measures -- through sophisticated testing and information systems -- of how well they are actually doing that. Good performance needs to be rewarded. But poor performance needs to be uprooted: Schools need to be reconstituted, teachers need to be moved out of the classroom, jobs need to be put at risk -- because if they aren't, children continue to be victimized.

Democrats also have to get serious about school choice. The unions oppose it because they don't want one student or one dollar to leave the regular public schools, where their members teach. So the Democrats have been timid and weak in putting choice to productive use -- even though their constituents are the ones trapped in deplorably bad urban schools, whose futures are being ruined, and who are desperate for new educational opportunities.

If children were their sole concern, Democrats would be the champions of school choice. They would help parents put their kids into whatever good schools are out there, including private schools. They would vastly increase the number of charter schools. They would see competition as healthy and necessary for the regular public schools, which should never be allowed to take kids and money for granted.

The Democrats also need to get serious about the downside of collective bargaining. They have long looked the other way as labor contracts impose page after page of onerous work rules -- basing teacher assignments on seniority, for example, or making it virtually impossible to dismiss anyone. These rules fundamentally shape -- and distort -- the organization of schooling. Because of them, schools are organized to promote the interests of adults, not children.
This needs to change.

The Democrats are a party of noble ideals, with a proud history of fighting for the underdogs. So far, their Faustian bargain with the unions has prevented them from living up to what they truly believe. Yet there are two grounds for optimism.

The first is Barack Obama, the party's new leader. He has hinted at a willingness to break with the teachers' unions, and his massive success at decentralized fund raising and recruiting volunteers may enable him to do that. He talks -- vaguely -- about removing mediocre teachers, holding educators accountable, basing pay on performance, and expanding school choice. But his positions on these scores are hedged with qualifications, and his education agenda as a whole is mainly (not entirely) a laundry list of typical Democratic ideas.

The second basis for optimism is that two new groups that speak for disadvantaged kids -- the Education Equality Project and Democrats for Education Reform -- have finally stood up within the party and spoken out against the unions. Including key figures such as Cory Booker, Joel Klein, Michelle Rhee and Al Sharpton, these groups want real accountability, they want more school choice, they want to end restrictive work rules -- and they insist that children come first. This internal rebellion is one of the most important developments in modern American education.

It all boils down to a simple question. Will President Obama have the courage to unite with the rebels inside his party, champion the interests of children over the interests of adults, and be a true leader who really means it when he talks about change? We can only stay tuned. And have the audacity of hope.

Mr. Moe is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the William Bennett Munro professor of political science at Stanford University.
Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Sphere: Related Content

It is really of no significance in the larger scheme of things if President-Elect Obama regularly attends church or not. He is a declared Christian. He is free to practice his faith as he chooses. It is not the business of the rest of us how he goes about expressing his personal faith in God.

But you can count on one thing for sure. If he begins to catch any notable amount of criticism for not openly attending church as an example for the general public, he will attend church regularly. Why? If there is one thing his campaign for the presidency clearly taught us, it is that he will do whatever is necessary to appease the greatest number of people. Such is the standard operating procedure of a lot of politicians.

Given that America is by and large a Christian nation and given that an huge percentage of our population claims that they actively attend the church of their choice, Obama will pick a church in Washington DC and he will attend with his wife and daughters. He is a smart politician after all. There is no way he will risk off putting a very large segment of Americans by not modeling faith in public.

However, do not expect him to be attending a black, primarily Afrocentric, house of prayer. He may attend a church with a largely black congregation but it will no longer be a religious institution that promotes radical, race based, antisocial ideology as was the case with Trinity United, his chosen house of worship in Chicago.

In the past, Obama very successfully utilized his attendance at Trinity Union for political gain. He resigned his membership there when it became a political liability. Like some of our past presidents, anticipate that he will do the same as the nation's chief executive.

He will play the faith card expertly.


Obama skips church, heads to gym
By: Jonathan Martin and Carol E. Lee

President-elect Barack Obama has yet to attend church services since winning the White House earlier this month, a departure from the example of his two immediate predecessors.

On the three Sundays since his election, Obama has instead used his free time to get in workouts at a Chicago gym.Asked about the president-elect's decision to not attend church, a transition aide noted that the Obamas valued their faith experience in Chicago but were concerned about the impact their large retinue may have on other parishioners.

"Because they have a great deal of respect for places of worship, they do not want to draw unwelcome or inappropriate attention to a church not used to the attention their attendance would draw," said the aide.

Both President-elect George W. Bush and President-elect Bill Clinton managed to attend church in the weeks after they were elected.

In November of 1992, Clinton went to services in Little Rock, Ark., on the three weekends following his election, taking pre-church jogs on the first two and attending on the third weekend a Catholic Mass with the Rev. Jesse Jackson, with whom he was trying to smooth over lingering campaign tensions.

In the weeks after the contested 2000 election, Bush regularly attended services at Tarrytown United Methodist Church in Austin, Texas, and Al Gore was frequently photographed arriving at and leaving church in Virginia.

On his first day as president-elect, following weeks of Florida recounts and court hearings, Bush went to church with his wife, Laura. They attended an invite-only prayer service on Thursday, Dec. 14, at Tarrytown United Methodist Church. About 300 people attended, including top campaign staff and visiting clergy. During the service, the Rev. Mark Craig, senior pastor at Highland Park United Methodist Church in Dallas, told Bush, "You have been chosen by God to lead the people."

Obama was an infrequent churchgoer on the campaign trail, though he did make a series of appearances in the pews and pulpits of South Carolina churches ahead of that heavily religious state's primary.

The issue of where he worships is, of course, fraught. For about two decades, Obama and his family attended Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. But, with the public disclosure earlier this year of incendiary sermons at Trinity by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama and his wife, Michelle, in June resigned their membership in the large South Side congregation.

At the time, the then-Illinois senator said that he didn't want his "church experience to be a political circus" and expressed regret for the unwanted attention members of the congregation had received, noting that some reporters had taken church bulletins only to call sick members and shut-ins.
During the campaign, Obama returned to Chicago to attend the South Side's Apostolic Church of God on Father's Day Sunday to give a speech aimed at the black community on the importance of fatherhood and family.

A number of Washington, D.C., churches of different denominations and traditions are now competing to become the spiritual home of the new first family.The Obama aide said the family "look[s] forward to finding a church community in Washington, D.C."

© 2008 Capitol News Company, LLC

Sphere: Related Content

What is moveon.org, the Daily Kos and their ilk to do? They worked their fingers to the bone for the Democrat party only to be disappointed by the early on post electoral moves by the both the Dems in Congress and by Obama as well. How should radical leftists handle such news?

They should follow their nature, of course. That would be the pattern of any number of leftist radical idols such as a Bill Ayers, just to name one. Riot, destroy, bomb, scream, yell epithets, throw blood, be shockingly obnoxious, condescend and insult, make false claims, avoid cleanliness so as to appear wholly unkempt, live and travel in large packs, intimidate by the sheer force of numbers and noise, scream down any and all opposition, and, whenever the media is present, burn the flag.

The beauty of being on the far left extreme is that having and presenting convincing and logical arguments in order to influence opinion is not required. Fringe leftists know they are in the right, facts, evidence and debate be damned. In their rather narrow view, might makes right and the rest of society had just better well fall into line. Immediately.

Should one need a current example, simply observe the gay marriage madness on display in large cities across the country. The radicals behind that cause believe that wild, threatening, angry behavior will convince the general public that their cause is worthy of support. There is a total and complete disconnect between what they think is working and how the public views their activities. Many votes have been taken on the matter and the results have all been the same. Yet in this democracy, extremists continue to view the will of the people as wrong when it does not match their cause.

Which brings us to the Democrat party. The forces of the more radical left, as opposed to the center left, have taken over the levers of power in that party. The Soros financed end of the party is in charge. That is why the far leftists have been so energized by the election of Obama, the Soros choice for President. Most certainly Pelosi in the House and Reid in the Senate are close to as far left as an elected politician can get on the national level. As to Obama, his discernible background, what little of that there is, has been far left as well.

So what happens in the immediate aftermath of the election? As is addressed in the piece below, moderate and longtime Democrat Senator Joe Liberman, who was an open and enthusiastic supporter of McCain, is allowed to keep his committee chairmanship in the midst of adamant demand by the far left that he be drawn and quartered. Worse, even Joe acknowledged that Obama had a hand in that decision. The radicals have been in a tizzy ever since. When they want blood, Obama and the party give them cake.

It is, at this point, hard to tell how things will progress going forward. Obama tossed the far left a bone by stating he plans to close Gitmo. But the how and when of that loom as major questions and formidable obstacles. Further, we had plenty of examples during the campaign of the Obama crowd abandoning whoever and whatever was required in order to insure election. Goodbye, Reverend Wright. See ya, Trinity church. So long, immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. The list is extensive. It is the mark of a practical politician, willing to go anywhere on the map to succeed.

The problem for extremists of the left is just that: Obama is a smart and focused politician. He knows that going to the extreme holds no water with the vast majority of Americans. As a practical matter, he will govern more to the center because that is where the bulk of American political sentiment lies. Most people in this nation have political views that fall somewhere within the shortened spectrum running from center left to center right. The far left may now control the Democrat party and the far right is most certainly trying to regain control of the Republican party (and are likely to succeed), but the mass of people in America fall into the political center, regardless of party affiliation or no affiliation.

To govern, Obama must move toward that middle. He will be able to continue to throw bones to the radical left but most of what he must do to succeed will tend to lean to the center. Moveon and the Kos will be mostly abandoned and largely left behind.

Expect that they will be themselves.


The Lieberman Pardon
Democrats decide they still need the Connecticut Senator.

Bygones will be bygones -- at least when the future of the Senate is at stake. Yesterday, Democrats decided not to boil Joe Lieberman in oil after all.

Mr. Lieberman's colleagues are still seething about his support for John McCain and his more heretical defense of President Bush -- and many were intent on post election retribution. But they ended up voting 42-13 for rapprochement. The Connecticut independent will not be stripped of his most powerful committee chair but rather of his post on the Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection Subcommittee. This is punishment via feather duster.

At a press conference, Mr. Lieberman singled out an "appeal by President-elect Obama himself" as the main reason he's staying put. It was a shrewd move by Mr. Obama. Democrats picked up six Senate seats this year, with Minnesota, Georgia and Alaska still undecided. If they prevail in all three, they will have the 60-vote majority needed to quash any GOP filibusters -- but only provided that Mr. Lieberman continues to vote with his former party.

As with his sit-down with John McCain on Monday, Mr. Obama is obviously trying to assemble the votes he needs to beat Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on domestic priorities such as labor, health care and climate change. The Internet left and other liberal activists are in full meltdown because a bete noire was not sent to the guillotine. Even so, Lieberman alive is of more use to the new President than Lieberman banished.

Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Sphere: Related Content

The far left, manifest through their radical minions in Congress, are on a path to embarrass, drag down and ultimately destroy the yet to get to office Obama administration.

Not on purpose by the way. In fact, the far left as represented by the likes of moveon.org and George Soros have very high hopes that President-Elect Obama will fully back their agenda once in office. After all, they raised for or donated multiple millions to the Obama campaign. But given that Obama is no body's fool, that is not likely. He will throw them bones while he holds them off. To do otherwise would insure him just a single term in office and he knows that.

The problem for Obama is the likes of John Conyers Jr. who hold leadership positions in Congress and are fully owned by and committed to the far left agenda. They are and will continue to be in pursuit of the ends that the radicals in our midst have paid for and voted for in this recent election campaign. The Congress is hungry to play far left hardball and they will make every attempt to force the Obama administration to comply. Can there be any doubt why Obama chose the established Congressional pit bull and Chicago-style politics raised Rham Emanuel as his Chief of Staff? We can anticipate some ugly backroom infighting and nasty deals between legislative and executive branches. Time to get a ringside seat.

High on the priority list of the Soros funded forces is the investigation of members of the Bush administration, with both Bush and Cheney as the prime targets, as the article below indicates. George W. Bush has frustrated and held off the moveon.org gang for so long, and they are so angry and spiteful by nature, that they cannot help themselves. They have their swords out and literally cannot wait for the chance to figuratively cut off the heads of their political nemesis. They pant and drool at those prospects, not to mention put heavy pressure on the lefty politicians in government that they own 'lock, stock and barrel'.

What no one in that lynch mob understands is how isolated they are in those hateful emotions. The mass of Americans are very focused and extremely concerned, not about the soon to fade into history Bush administration, but on the bread and butter issues of home, jobs, health, the economy and the market instability all around us. Pursuing politically motivated hate is not on their radar screen and those who push that agenda forward, so as to draw attention and effort away from those prime concerns, will be rejected out of had. Both in the immediate time frame as well as at the next election. Bush hate has been satiated by the election of Obama and no longer has much traction. Americans have moved on to other, far more critical, fears they want addressed.

If Congress goes forward with such witch hunts, guess who will pay the largest price? It will be Barack Obama. The POTUS is always the highest profile target in what is the target rich environment of national politics. Congressional politicians always run for the shelter of their long ago gerrymandered districts where the rig is in their favor. The President has no such cover. He must answer to all the people, not just the radicals in say Berkeley, CA for instance. So while the far left in Congress go for the radical gold, the Obama administration is on track to pay the price.

In other words, radical far left politicians in Washington are the most likely force to destroy the "Yes We Can" bipartisan proclaimed presidency of Barack Obama. How ironic!


Bush, Out of Office, Could Oppose Inquiries
By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON — When a Congressional committee subpoenaed Harry S. Truman in 1953, nearly a year after he left office, he made a startling claim: Even though he was no longer president, the Constitution still empowered him to block subpoenas.

“If the doctrine of separation of powers and the independence of the presidency is to have any validity at all, it must be equally applicable to a president after his term of office has expired,” Truman wrote to the committee.

Congress backed down, establishing a precedent suggesting that former presidents wield lingering powers to keep matters from their administration secret. Now, as Congressional Democrats prepare to move forward with investigations of the Bush administration, they wonder whether that claim may be invoked again.

“The Bush administration overstepped in its exertion of executive privilege, and may very well try to continue to shield information from the American people after it leaves office,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, who sits on two committees, Judiciary and Intelligence, that are examining aspects of Mr. Bush’s policies.

Topics of open investigations include the harsh interrogation of detainees, the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, secret legal memorandums from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and the role of the former White House aides Karl Rove and Harriet E. Miers in the firing of federal prosecutors.

Mr. Bush has used his executive powers to block Congressional requests for executive branch documents and testimony from former aides. But investigators hope that the Obama administration will open the filing cabinets and withdraw assertions of executive privilege that Bush officials have invoked to keep from testifying.

“I intend to ensure that our outstanding subpoenas and document requests relating to the U.S. attorneys matter are enforced,” said Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. “I am hopeful that progress can be made with the coming of the new administration.”

Also, two advocacy groups, the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First, have prepared detailed reports for the new administration calling for criminal investigations into accusations of abuse of detainees.

It is not clear, though, how a President Barack Obama will handle such requests. Legal specialists said the pressure to investigate the Bush years would raise tough political and legal questions.

Because every president eventually leaves office, incoming chief executives have an incentive to quash investigations into their predecessor’s tenure. Mr. Bush used executive privilege for the first time in 2001, to block a subpoena by Congressional Republicans investigating the Clinton administration.

In addition, Mr. Obama has expressed worries about too many investigations. In April, he told The Philadelphia Daily News that people needed to distinguish “between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity.”

“If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated,” Mr. Obama said, but added, “I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.”

But even if his administration rejects the calls for investigations, Mr. Obama cannot control what the courts or Congress do. Several lawsuits are seeking information about Bush policies, including an Islamic charity’s claim that it was illegally spied on by Mr. Bush’s program on wiretapping without warrants.

And Congressional Democrats say that they are determined to pursue their investigations — and that they expect career officials to disclose other issues after the Bush administration leaves. “We could spend the entire next four years investigating the Bush years,” Mr. Whitehouse said.

But if Mr. Obama decides to release information about his predecessor’s tenure, Mr. Bush could try to invoke executive privilege by filing a lawsuit, said Peter Shane, a law professor at Ohio State University.

In that case, an injunction would most likely be sought ordering the Obama administration not to release the Bush administration’s papers or enjoining Mr. Bush’s former aides from testifying. The dispute would probably go to the Supreme Court, Mr. Shane said.

The idea that ex-presidents may possess residual constitutional powers to keep information secret traces back to Truman.

In November 1953, after Dwight D. Eisenhower became president, the House Un-American Activities Committee subpoenaed Truman to testify about why he had appointed a suspected Communist to the International Monetary Fund.
Truman decided not to comply and asked his lawyer, Samuel I. Rosenman, for help. But there was little time for research.

Edward M. Cramer, a young associate at Mr. Rosenman’s law firm, recalled being summoned with two colleagues to their boss’s office at 6 p.m. and told to come up with something. The next morning, they helped dictate Truman’s letter telling the panel he did not have to testify — or even appear at the hearing.
“I think, legally, we were wrong” about whether Truman had to show up, Mr. Cramer, now 83, said in a phone interview from his home in New York.

But the committee did not call the former president’s bluff. It dropped the matter, and Truman’s hastily devised legal claim became a historical precedent.
In 1973, President Nixon cited Truman’s letter when he refused to testify or give documents to the committee investigating the Watergate scandal.

Mr. Cramer recalled, “Nixon used it, and we said ‘Oh, Jesus, what have we done?’ ”

The first judicial backing for the idea that former presidents wield executive privilege powers came in 1977, as part of a Supreme Court ruling in a case over who controlled Nixon’s White House files. The decision suggested that Nixon might be able to block the release of papers in the future. But it offered few details, and Nixon never sought to do so.

In 1989 and 1990, judges presiding over criminal trials related to the Iran-contra affair blocked requests by defendants to make former President Ronald Reagan testify and release his diaries.

But the Supreme Court has never made clear how far a former president may go in trying to block Congressional demands for documents and testimony — or what happens if a president disagrees with a predecessor about making information public.

“There is no relevant precedent on the books,” Mr. Shane said.

Sphere: Related Content

Senator Chuckie Schumer (d-NY), in a pitch to become the icon of the far left, is out promoting the adoption of the "Fairness Doctrine" as the article below notes. Schumer is playing a fools game, which fits his profile, and this latest headline grab could create blow back that would cost his party dearly.

The far left in America wants to shut down any and all dissent that is at odds with their political point of view. The goal is to use the "Fairness Doctrine" to unfairly, unjustifiably, not to mention unconstitutionally, shut down conservative talk radio in particular, primarily because it is wildly popular and therefore both successful and profitable (unlike the failed, far left talk radio). Not to mention it tends to promote politics which is exactly opposed to their own.

Schumer, a Harvard Law 'Fool' graduate, compares talk radio to pornography. No wonder he is in politics rather than arguing before a jury. In case he hasn't noticed, porn is virtually everywhere except on the radio. This argument is so specious and illogical as to escape understanding. Broadcasting porn on television is wholly unrelated to listening to a political point of view on the radio, and any reasonably sane, normal human being can grasp that obvious point.

To try and fall back on the "fair and balanced" argument is further silliness in action. Is every broadcast outlet in the electronic media going to be subject to providing each and every viewer or listener with both sides of every issue, every opinion and every story? Of course not, and of course that is not what he means. He is not interested in that approach being applied to NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR or public television. No. The "fair and balanced" fiat is only to be applied to conservative talk radio. Why? Because Chuckie doesn't agree with what much of that programing speaks to and advocates. Trained as an advocate himself, he does not want to tolerate any advocacy different from his own. Sound sort of tyrannical or dictatorial? Maybe something Stalin or Chairman Mao might do were they in charge?

An honest and courageous stance, like that noted in the cartoon above, is clearly in line with the founding American traditions of freedom and liberty. It is an important and substantive concept. We live in a freedom loving country that has, throughout it's history, stood up for and sacrificed lives for the right to be a free people. Americans know they have the freedom to listen to, watch, speak about and read whatever they choose. Including porn, NPR, Chuckie Schumer or Keith Olbermann. Conversely, any of us can choose not to be exposed to any of that or anything else for that matter.

Unlike those in many other countries, we are free to choose. Should we hear, see or read something with which we agree or disagree and we wish to know the opposing view, we are free to seek that out, wherever we may find it. No one has to spoon feed us one way or the other. Americans are fully capable of taking care of themselves. If we are not interested in the opposing view, we are free to ignore it. In other words we can change the channel, set down the book, periodical or newspaper, or walk out of the speech.

There is no need for a "Fairness Doctrine" that would, in fact, take away or liberty to do what we choose to do without interference from our government. Our political leaders have no right to limit our God given, Constitutionally granted freedom. Democrat politicians like Schumer, along with their far left masters, are acting like nothing more than cheap, tin horn tyrants, trying to dictate how the rest of us live our lives.

But the real nub of this issue is the pending blow back should these radicals attempt to move something like the "Fairness Doctrine" into law. The reaction by the mass of Americans to such an effort would be swift and powerful. The Democrat party would pay a brutal price for such foolishness. The people of this nation will not sit idly by while their freedoms are under attack. The price to be paid by those making such an attempt would be very high indeed.

Keep in mind that something in the neighborhood of 27% of voters, in this most recent election, identified themselves in exit polling as politically liberal. That leaves over 70% in the moderate and conservative political categories. In other words, most of our fellow citizens are centrist by nature. Those are the folks who will not tolerate the far left undermining their liberties.

Most certainly, Democrat President-elect Obama does not want this kind of useless distraction on his radar screen as he assumes office. Given a world literally full of chaos, he hardly needs further grief coming his way because some Senator from his own party wants to pretend he has some sort of weighty significance. The future is challenging enough without upsetting over 70% of America's voters. One does not become President-elect by lacking sound political instincts. Schumer and his fellow lefty's will likely find themselves stranded out on a limb.

The "Fairness Doctrine" is a fantasy for fools. Should misguided Dems pursue it, they will wish they hadn't. It is a ticking time bomb.


Schumer on Fox: Fairness Doctrine ‘fair and balanced’
By Bob Cusack

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday defended the so-called Fairness Doctrine in an interview on Fox News, saying, “I think we should all be fair and balanced, don’t you?”

Schumer’s comments echo other Democrats’ views on reviving the Fairness Doctrine, which would require radio stations to balance conservative hosts with liberal ones.

Asked if he is a supporter of telling radio stations what content they should have, Schumer used the fair and balanced line, claiming that critics of the Fairness Doctrine are being inconsistent.

“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”

In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told The Hill, “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”

Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”

Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so significantly that radio executives would opt to scale back on conservative radio programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from the FCC.

They also note that conservative radio shows has been far more successful than liberal ones.

In his Fox interview, Schumer, who heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, also weighed in on the election, predicting that Democrats will end up with between 56 and 58 seats in the Senate.

He also defended “card check” legislation, claiming there is a strong need to allow workers to cast a public ballot on whether they support the formation of a union.

Schumer said “there has to be some counter” to the leverage businesses have, claiming “employers have every leg up on people who want to organize and that’s why union workers have gone down from about 25 percent to 6 percent [in the private sector].”

Business groups adamantly oppose the card check bill, which passed the House and fell short of the necessary votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.

Sphere: Related Content

In the aftermath of November 4th, there are a number of notable results and trends worth mentioning. Broken into categories, what follows is a close-in-time evaluation.

GENERAL:

1. The much anticipated and widely reported huge turnout did not, as the article below attests, materialize. Even with millions of newly registered folks on voting rolls across the nation, the turnout this time around was basically the same as that of 2004, in terms of total numbers and percentage of registered voters. Interestingly, since the population of the United States has increased over the intervening four years, that means a lower percentage of the total population voted in 2008. To put it another way, the more things are supposed to change, the more they stay the same.

2. The Obama win puts the lie to the concept of race based victimization in this country going forward. If a black man can be elected President of the United States, anyone can achieve virtually anything in this, the greatest nation on earth. There are no longer artificial limits imposed or end of the line discrimination exercised based upon race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. That old reality is dying fast. Ours is the most non-discriminatory diverse large nation ever, and this election put the final nail in the coffin of practicable racism.

3. Notably, the electoral win by Obama eliminates any prerequisite for a experienced based resume in order to become President, for better or for worse. He came forward with the thinnest resume among all of the leading primary candidates in either party, and he was given the job. The lesson to be learned: if you can speak inspirationally and thereby show promise, no other experience is necessary.

4. Public financing of presidential campaigns died in election 2008. The Obama campaign model of Internet fund raising has become the obvious illustration of the folly of public financing. In spite of a past focus on campaign finance reform to attempt to control the degrading impact of money in politics, more money was raised and spent in this election by at least a factor of two over any prior election.

5. The Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton claims to any kind of meaningful leadership role in the black community is now moot. Obama along with his surrogates and supporters have taken that role and it is highly unlikely that it will return to those former, longtime pretenders to the throne.

6. Apparently the dual canard's of voter fraud and it's twin voter suppression were both strangled in their cribs. Although there were localized problems and issues with the voting process on Tuesday, there was no massive corruption of this election. As our voting systems continue to improve in the future, this kind of concern will vanish off the national radar. The good news: we are getting closer to a virtually incorruptible system for national elections.

7. The structure of Presidential debates continues to evolve. The more we move away from a media star centered moderator system, the more valuable these debates will become. There is no need for Tom Brokaw or any of his fellow big media celebrities to be involved. As a matter of fact, the less they are a part of this process, the more the public will have the opportunity to learn something meaningful about the candidates. The ideal model boils down to this: a debate should in fact be a debate, not a dueling press conference.

The McCain Campaign:

1. Although appearing to be a bit of a Keystone Cops operation, this campaign did surprisingly, and in fact amazingly, well in circumstances that so fully and completely favored his opponent. Clearly the McCain resume holds some sway with American voters given the burden of a very low rated in-office party and the implosion of the economy near the end of the campaign. Those two factors alone should have buried the McCain candidacy. Then throw in the big biased media being fully in support of his opponent. In the face of such insurmountable obstacles, the battling McCain campaign fared well indeed.

2. The post election internal finger pointing by McCain campaign staffers leaves observers with a strong gut feeling that maybe it was better that such a team did not get their hands on the reigns of power. The sliming of VP candidate Palin by the McCain people is shameful, cowardly and without merit. Further the ongoing internal blame game is a clear indicator that these people were bound to fail. Don't expect too many of them to be hired by future campaigns given their depraved behavior at the finish of this race, not to mention their failure to gain the goal.

3. McCain hurt himself to some degree with his bogus 'suspend the campaign' gambit early on in the economic meltdown. It came across as a stunt and, as it turned out, it was indeed a gamble to raise his profile in an area of admitted weakness. It did not work and, as information emerged showing this move as all hat and not cattle, he further hurt his image relative to economic issues, the most important concern among voters.

4. Ironically, the success of his called for surge in Iraq ended up taking his best issue off the campaign table. The Iraq war became an unspoken non issue. McCain's national security credentials, his greatest strength, were lost as any kind of meaningful advantage.

5. The truth is that the choice of Sarah Palin for the bottom of his ticket was advantageous to McCain on a number of levels. But the huge advantages of her presence were so mismanaged by his campaign as to leave her in a hole that took weeks for her to escape. Whether that was because of naivete or because of incompetence, it seemed like a case of shooting oneself in both feet. It was another sign that these folks should probably not be put in charge.

6. McCain/Palin won more than 57.1 million votes, an impressive number to be sure. What that total really means, removing consideration of the candidates, is that close to half of voters could not bring themselves to vote for Obama/Biden. It is impossible to claim a blowout or a mandate when 57 million voters supported your opponents. In the final analysis, the McCain campaign was proof positive that America remains politically divided. That is a lesson not to be ignored by politicians on both sides of the political divide as we head toward the next campaign season.

The Obama Campaign:

1. Like the outcome or not, the quality of this very successful campaign must be acknowledged. In many ways, it has set a new standard for national political campaigns and has changed the rules of the game from here on out. Barack Obama may have never really run anything meaningful in his life prior to his run for office, but he did in fact run a brilliant, almost flawless, winning campaign. It will be studied and mimicked well into the foreseeable future.

2. One of the great advantages repeatedly demonstrated by Obama was a settled and cool composure under every kind of conceivable condition. When combined with an exceptional ability to speak in public, in front of large crowds, his image became an inspiration to millions. Whether that is a good for the nation or not will be debated as reality sets in over the next few years. Nevertheless, it was a big advantage for the candidate this time around.

3. One aspect of his campaign that may in fact turn into a major hurdle to his presidency is the power of expectations. Not only did Obama promise most all Americans a better life, he left people with the belief that whatever the problem is or might be, he will fix it. Hope, change and "yes we can" can excite and inspire voters to line up on your side, but it also leads to the expectation on the part of those very same voters that you will deliver on your numerous promises. Therein is the problem for Obama. It is not possible to do everything he promised people he would do on their behalf. The higher the expectations, the farther the fall from grace. Dialing down those expectation will work in the short term, in fact it started today, but in the long run supporters will turn on their savior when things don't change much.

4. Obama has demonstrated solid informed judgment in his selection of Rham Emanuel as his Chief of Staff. Should he continue along that line in naming a Cabinet, a National Security team and a team of Economic Advisers, he will be off to a strong start. We shall see how this rather important duty proceeds. It will tell us a great deal about how an Obama administration will govern. But the Emanuel selection is a good start. Frankly, the same cannot be said for the Biden Vice Presidential selection, but that is another discussion which has more to do with politics than with governing.

5. With more than 65.1 million votes, Obama demonstrated a broad appeal across a wide swath of the American voting public. Most of his margin, that is about 75%, was gained in California, New York and Illinois. His greatest advantages were among blacks, single women and the young. His weaknesses lay with seniors, married voters as well as center-right moderates. While McCain held strong with conservatives and Obama did the same among liberals, Obama did better among moderates. In fact, he won this election because of his appeal to moderates. His challenge will be to hold his current constituents which is where the expectations issue will come into play. Conversely, if he can draw support from seniors and marrieds, he can easily serve for two terms.

Congress:

1. Ironically, voters returned most all the incumbents to the lowest rated Congress in the history of the republic. The Democrat party, in control of both sides of Congress over the past two years, added to both majorities. In fact, the far left of the Dem party controls the levers of power in Congress and is loaded for bear relative to their leftist agenda. In a fundamentally centrist nation, that could easily become problematic for the Obama administration.

2. Republicans barely managed to hang onto enough seats in the Senate to mount filibusters when necessary to counter an otherwise uni-party government. The margin is razor thin so Republicans will need to keep their powder dry so that they can oppose that legislation which they consider fundamentally flawed or not in the national interest.

3. Congress is by far the most dysfunctional branch of the federal government. It not only did not improve that status coming out of this election, it got worse. Watch for the Pelosi/Reid led majorities to turn to the extreme in the next Congress.

Social Issues:

1. The elephant in the room regarding social issues was the three 'protection of marriage' propositions on the ballot in three states. All three passed, making a 30 for 30 win record when this issue has been presented to the voters of this nation during current and past elections. The voice and will of the people on this matter are very clear. Most notably, the State of California, a hotbed of liberalism and home to the far left, passed an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman. It rose to the level of a constitutional amendment because the California courts reversed a previous vote by citizens to the same end. If it can still pass in California, the nation remains strongly set about the protection of marriage.

2. The other interesting ballot issues outcome was the general failure of environment related propositions across the country. Given the overwhelming push over the past several years about global warming, it would seem that anything promoting the environment would pass with flying colors. That was not the case. Apparently, global warming and related environmental concerns remain a 'no sale' in spite of all the best efforts of the celebrity studded Al Gore crowd.

At the end of the day, this election will hopefully prove the collective wisdom of the will of the people.

We shall see. All fingers crossed.



Report: '08 turnout same as or only slightly higher than '04
From CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart

WASHINGTON (CNN) – A new report from American University’s Center for the Study of the American Electorate concludes that voter turnout in Tuesday’s election was the same in percentage terms as it was four years ago — or at most has risen by less than 1 percent.

Click here to read the entire report.

The report released Thursday estimates that between 126.5 and 128.5 million Americans cast ballots in the presidential election earlier this week. Those figures represent 60.7 percent or, at most, 61.7 percent of those eligible to vote in the country.

“A downturn in the number and percentage of Republican voters going to the polls seemed to be the primary explanation for the lower than predicted turnout,” the report said. Compared to 2004, Republican turnout declined by 1.3 percentage points to 28.7 percent, while Democratic turnout increased by 2.6 points from 28.7 percent in 2004 to 31.3 percent in 2008.

“Many people were fooled (including this student of politics although less so than many others) by this year’s increase in registration (more than 10 million added to the rolls), citizens’ willingness to stand for hours even in inclement weather to vote early, the likely rise in youth and African American voting, and the extensive grassroots organizing network of the Obama campaign into believing that turnout would be substantially higher than in 2004,” Curtis Gans, the center’s director, said in the report. “But we failed to realize that the registration increase was driven by Democratic and independent registration and that the long lines at the polls were mostly populated by Democrats.”

Some experts also note that national turnout trends may mask higher turnout in swing states with more intensive attempts by both campaigns to get their supporters to the polls. Several large states, including California and New York, had no statewide races and virtually no advertising or get-out-the-vote efforts by either presidential campaign.

According to the report, several Southern states — North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, Virginia, and Mississippi — and the District of Columbia saw the greatest increases in voter turnout.

Overall turnout was highest in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Michigan, South Dakota and North Carolina, according to the report.

In 2004, 122 million Americans voted in the general election.

Sphere: Related Content