Very, very tired in fact. Since I've been back, things have only gotten harder. College and work have coalesced into a burden that's turning out to be back-breaking. Anyone who reads this and I'm fairly certain that number is about equal to zero should know that my posts will be fairly erratic until this three-class summer palooza to get my Associate's Degree is over.
Until then, Senators Dan Patrick, John Cornyn, Kay Bailey Hutchinson and everyone who attended are awesome. Including Wayne, if he ever reads this, although no doubt, that man has better things to do than read a college guy's blog. Senator Dan Patrick received my letter of thanks for that awesome radio stint I was allowed to do. I even got a call back from secretary! Yeah, it was awesome.
But since I'm here, I might as well talk a bit about politics. Let's do a snippet; that GI bill that Senator McCain and Cornyn derided in favor of their own, less generous version (albeit, they had credible reasons) has been signed into law as of, what, today? I got a letter back from Senator Cornyn about the bill, which I was very happy about. Well, it was an e-mail, which doesn't have the same distinct coolness but it was still pretty awesome. It was so cool that it almost made me forget that I didn't support their version of the bill...only almost. One of the added benefits of this bill is the transferability of GI benefits; at least, I could have sworn Dana Perino mentioning that in her press briefing today. If that's true, then maybe I could actually benefit (even more, to be frank) from Dad's service.
Now, for more substantive talk; the FISA bill has been passed, the Heller case has been passed as well. A lot of things have happened, in short. The FISA bill peaks my interest, not that I'm not entranced by the Supreme Court descison, but it went the way I was expecting it to. I honestly didn't expect the Court to uphold the ban on handguns. It is startling that the Supreme Court, rather than issuing a decision that was ambiguous or shirking away from going "too far" finally stated unequivcally that we as individuals have a right to gun.
Yes. I could have already told you that. Courts like to buy their time. It's as if the Wild West didn't already demonstrate that folks have a right
I jest somewhat, but it's an important, nay, revolutionary decision. The beauty of the decision is that it is truly pragmatic in it's view of gun control. It gave us the right to have a gun and sealed it as an individual right but realized that that's not an excuse to carry around assault weapons.
So..now I'm tired again, but I've got plenty more to say tomorrow.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Be Good
Ah, I'm tired but content. The convention was certainly an experience. I also discovered that Houston is best city in all of the state of Texas, but I will have to consolidate my thoughts and words at another date to explain how I discovered this fact in an eloquent fashion; I have another scholarship I have to tend to so this will have to be short - although I might edit it later.
Of all the things I learned during the Convention one presiding philosophy takes precedence and defines my modified outlook on the Republican party; the true conservative officials of the as well as those grassroot supporters all want one simple thing which is perhaps not so easy to achieve - a good government.
Google has a motto that serves as the antithesis to the corporate legacy of corruption immortalized by scandals wrought by Enron and Worldcom; Be Good. Not do good, but be good. I'm not calling for a good government that doesn't do anything but I'm recognizing that the best way to complete an action in a competent fashion is to be good at it. If the government is dysfunctional to begin with it is nearly impossible for it to provide the people with the services it was designed to distribute amongst the people. Being good at what you do is a preresquite for creating good things. If one reads the writings of Aristotle and other philosophers concerning what is "good" in the aspect of actions, then you find the same sentiment being echoed. FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina is a prime example of what happens when the government is not focused on being good but just on doing; bureaucratic fallout hinders real progress from being achieved and precious lives can be lost.
The government too often tries to do everything and the Democrats seem to believe that having the government do everything for the citizens of America is a healthy proposition. As a conservative, I'm proud to say that I don't want the government to be involved in every iota of my life. This doesn't mean that the government doesn't have a place in our lives; we need border security, we need national security, we need equal protection under the laws (at times, federal law must intercede in order to make certain that this occurs when state law fails; Truman's response to the Little Rock Nine incident for example), we need government intervention in the financial sector at times as well.
However, the Democrats have a disheveled view; to them, the government must tell us that we must all have healthcare and have ours provided by the government. Healthcare is important, but it is the belief that we must be forced to do so that worries me. A competent and compassionate government does not mean an inflated government that believes it knows better than the people who allow it to exist.
From Micheal Williams to Dale Wainwright, to Mike Huckabee to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, this is the principle of republicanism I sensed; that as American individuals we have control over our destinies and the right to be protected by our government not dogged or harrassed by it. We have the right to demand that our government be good and not be so focused on doing good in a self-righteous fashion. Government must be chained by the good sense of the people so it does not run amok.
As George Washington stated, government is like fire; I'll admit to not remembering the full quote exactly, but I remember reading it and coming to the conclusion that government can be both an asset and a detriment to our liberties. We cannot bow to the siren song of larger government - we must instead confront issues like social security and healthcare with a pragmatic view, one which doesn't answer each and every problem with a new department of the government or, for conservatives, leaving it up to the market to fix in some occassions. One of the biggest examples to me is social security, which will be bankrupt and yet Democrats wish to cash the check and are disturbed when the President tries to find a solution in lieu of a better option. It's as if they prefer inaction to action if they don't come up with the idea.
It's quite perplexing.
Of all the things I learned during the Convention one presiding philosophy takes precedence and defines my modified outlook on the Republican party; the true conservative officials of the as well as those grassroot supporters all want one simple thing which is perhaps not so easy to achieve - a good government.
Google has a motto that serves as the antithesis to the corporate legacy of corruption immortalized by scandals wrought by Enron and Worldcom; Be Good. Not do good, but be good. I'm not calling for a good government that doesn't do anything but I'm recognizing that the best way to complete an action in a competent fashion is to be good at it. If the government is dysfunctional to begin with it is nearly impossible for it to provide the people with the services it was designed to distribute amongst the people. Being good at what you do is a preresquite for creating good things. If one reads the writings of Aristotle and other philosophers concerning what is "good" in the aspect of actions, then you find the same sentiment being echoed. FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina is a prime example of what happens when the government is not focused on being good but just on doing; bureaucratic fallout hinders real progress from being achieved and precious lives can be lost.
The government too often tries to do everything and the Democrats seem to believe that having the government do everything for the citizens of America is a healthy proposition. As a conservative, I'm proud to say that I don't want the government to be involved in every iota of my life. This doesn't mean that the government doesn't have a place in our lives; we need border security, we need national security, we need equal protection under the laws (at times, federal law must intercede in order to make certain that this occurs when state law fails; Truman's response to the Little Rock Nine incident for example), we need government intervention in the financial sector at times as well.
However, the Democrats have a disheveled view; to them, the government must tell us that we must all have healthcare and have ours provided by the government. Healthcare is important, but it is the belief that we must be forced to do so that worries me. A competent and compassionate government does not mean an inflated government that believes it knows better than the people who allow it to exist.
From Micheal Williams to Dale Wainwright, to Mike Huckabee to Kay Bailey Hutchinson, this is the principle of republicanism I sensed; that as American individuals we have control over our destinies and the right to be protected by our government not dogged or harrassed by it. We have the right to demand that our government be good and not be so focused on doing good in a self-righteous fashion. Government must be chained by the good sense of the people so it does not run amok.
As George Washington stated, government is like fire; I'll admit to not remembering the full quote exactly, but I remember reading it and coming to the conclusion that government can be both an asset and a detriment to our liberties. We cannot bow to the siren song of larger government - we must instead confront issues like social security and healthcare with a pragmatic view, one which doesn't answer each and every problem with a new department of the government or, for conservatives, leaving it up to the market to fix in some occassions. One of the biggest examples to me is social security, which will be bankrupt and yet Democrats wish to cash the check and are disturbed when the President tries to find a solution in lieu of a better option. It's as if they prefer inaction to action if they don't come up with the idea.
It's quite perplexing.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Why
Next Wednesday, I will be attending the Republican State Convention. My parents are not enthused. The reasons behind their disdain have merit; I've never driven so far (the Convention is in Houston) and if I wreck my car the only choice I have is to go to the military. My transportation options are that limited; Texas is not known for it's mass transit system at this point. My Dad might have mentioned the military only to push how important it is for me to be careful (I've tried joining before; they can't take me anyway).
There's also the money. Four days in a hotel in Houston is not inexpensive. I managed to find a place for the cheap. Albeit, two hundred dollars is not exactly cheap for a college student, even one who's been as successful in his frugality as me. I found someone I can carpool with as well, which limits the worst that can happen to me being involved in an accident but still having a car to return to; not too shabby.
Even after this, I notice that my parents are still mildly ambivalent about the whole affair. A major complaint is about the worth of the trip in question; my Dad rightly notes that the GOP has more money than me and should be paying for it but conservatives are about free-trade, right?
More to the point, the main issue seems to be what I'll gain from attending the convention when compared to the cost. I'll miss two classes at least, which I don't believe my parents realize. My bronze tongue was not able to fully communicate my ideals to them, or perhaps there is a wall between use partially arising out of our differentiating political standings. One of my Dad's favorite sayings is if it doesn't make sense don't do it. It's a pun you see - sense and cents.
Why does it make sense? It makes sense for the same reason why I hold onto my conservative ideals on economics as well as domestic and foreign policy. It makes sense for the same reason why I stand true to those ideals even though I'm ridiculed for it. I need to do this. My Dad went to Iraq and my family suffered for it a great deal; the reverberations of his absence have only recently begun to quell. We sacrificed as a family. I cannot allow Obama to be elected and leave Iraq for politically expedient reasons. My Dad thinks we should leave Iraq, he believes that we should have never been there in the first place. That much is true, but too much has been sacrified and too large a massacre will occur if we were to leave.
It makes sense for me to attend because it makes sense for me to try to fulfill my duty to my country in any shape or fashion.
There's also the money. Four days in a hotel in Houston is not inexpensive. I managed to find a place for the cheap. Albeit, two hundred dollars is not exactly cheap for a college student, even one who's been as successful in his frugality as me. I found someone I can carpool with as well, which limits the worst that can happen to me being involved in an accident but still having a car to return to; not too shabby.
Even after this, I notice that my parents are still mildly ambivalent about the whole affair. A major complaint is about the worth of the trip in question; my Dad rightly notes that the GOP has more money than me and should be paying for it but conservatives are about free-trade, right?
More to the point, the main issue seems to be what I'll gain from attending the convention when compared to the cost. I'll miss two classes at least, which I don't believe my parents realize. My bronze tongue was not able to fully communicate my ideals to them, or perhaps there is a wall between use partially arising out of our differentiating political standings. One of my Dad's favorite sayings is if it doesn't make sense don't do it. It's a pun you see - sense and cents.
Why does it make sense? It makes sense for the same reason why I hold onto my conservative ideals on economics as well as domestic and foreign policy. It makes sense for the same reason why I stand true to those ideals even though I'm ridiculed for it. I need to do this. My Dad went to Iraq and my family suffered for it a great deal; the reverberations of his absence have only recently begun to quell. We sacrificed as a family. I cannot allow Obama to be elected and leave Iraq for politically expedient reasons. My Dad thinks we should leave Iraq, he believes that we should have never been there in the first place. That much is true, but too much has been sacrified and too large a massacre will occur if we were to leave.
It makes sense for me to attend because it makes sense for me to try to fulfill my duty to my country in any shape or fashion.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Experience and Judgement
I have plenty to say about Obama's historic victory, but it must be stated with the right approach and with the grace and charity that this moment deserves. I'm not going to do that at a time past midnight when I've got scholarships to do.
But I do want to note a response to an exchange which occured between a former Mitt Romney spokesperson and a reporter from The Nation newsmagazine. The individual from the suspended Romney campaign noted that Obama lacks executive experience in each category mentioned by the reporter; the economy, national security, etc.
The response? A catch-all that's been used before; Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had experience and they've ruined the country. The counter point? Not memorable enough for me to...well, remember.
So, I've got one for you:
Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney,, had experience but lacked judgement in their decision to enter Iraq. Their foreign policy in Iraq failed because they applied the wrong judgement to their experience. McCain's foreign policy experience over the last twenty years and his record for bipartisanship demonstrate that he posseses experience as well as the necessary judgement to determine when he should follow his party line, or object in an effort to choose what's best for America. Obama has no such record and possesses neither experience, nor the judgement which can put that experience to use.
McCain has both.
There. Not so hard.
But I do want to note a response to an exchange which occured between a former Mitt Romney spokesperson and a reporter from The Nation newsmagazine. The individual from the suspended Romney campaign noted that Obama lacks executive experience in each category mentioned by the reporter; the economy, national security, etc.
The response? A catch-all that's been used before; Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had experience and they've ruined the country. The counter point? Not memorable enough for me to...well, remember.
So, I've got one for you:
Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney,
McCain has both.
There. Not so hard.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
US - Iraq Security Agreement
The Players:
Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight
Chairman William Delahunt D-MA
Noted Representatives:
Ron Paul R-TX
Dana Rohrbacher R
Jeff Flake R
Walter Jones R-NC
From Al-Fadhali - Nationalist Shiite party based in Southern Iraq
Nadeem Al-Jaberi.
From the National Dialgue Council - Nationalist Sunni Islamist political party
Sheikh Khalaf Al-Ulayyan.
Congressional Research Service Specialist in Middle East Affairs
Kenneth Katzman.
Color me confused.
Both of these individuals, representing the Iraqi Parliament, have stated that a timetable is necessary. Indeed, it is the presence of U.S. troops, it can be inferred from thier statements, which is driving the insurgents and gangs to attack. Al-Jaberi stated that if a timetable is announced there would be a calm and the militias would soon stop since they would have no reason to fight against their compatriots.
...
What I fail to understand is how that is true, considering what occured in Sadr City. That was a case of Iraqis fight against their compatriots, seperated by their loyalties. What's even odder is the fact that they admit that the militias are divided by loyalties which only makes their statement that U.S. forces in the are responsbile for the formation of militias and the sectarian violence that has flashed up at times seem contradictory. They mention Paul Bremer's foolish decision to integrate militias into the Security Forces, which dilluded the discipline of the forces
Kenneth Katzman came in and saved my sanity to some degree by explaining underlying agendas involved in both testimonies by Al-Ubayyan and Al-Jaberi. He depicts the Iraqi Parliament as being represenative of the Haves and Have-Nots with the representatives being part of the Have-Nots (I may be incorrect with this, but I believe he stated the representatives as being as such) and thus pushing for a withdrawal. Those Shias and Sunnis who have money and are in power, like Prime Minister Al-Maliki, want the U.S. forces to stay in order to protect their assets and maintain the status quo. Those like Al-Sadr, are against the U.S. presence for their own interests; if the U.S. is maintaining the status quo there is less power for other forces to nab with a stabilizing force in place like the U.S. in place to keep the power in the hands of those who already hold it. Al-Sadr, Katzman notes, represents the discord and discontent felt by the Shia masses that are in poverty or dire situations. He has garnered his political strength as a result of this and created his militia. In the case that the U.S. military would leave, his militia would be able to possibly overthrow the current government and grow the Iranian sphere of influence.
The status of militias is another important matter. Katzman seems to color the situation in a way which favors the perspective that Prime Minister Al-Maliki declared his "War on Militias" in a disingenuous manner not to rid Iraq of militias but in order to quell dissent near elections. This would explain the declaration against militias and the standoff in Sadr city not as a matter of national security for Iraq but as a political ploy. Katzman does not explain the militias in terms of the Sadr milita standoff against Iraqi security forces but in much broader and more worrisome ways.
According to Katzman, PM Al-Maliki's interpretation and reasoning in defining what an illegal militia is has been based off of legal documents that define any militia in existence after Saddam was overthrown as being illegal while using the Iraqi security forces as a "legal" militia. The Security forces are not an institution that is loyal to the idea of a united Iraq but a division of militias that are united under PM Al-Maliki raher than the country itself. By this analysis a horrifying truth is revealed, a disturbing understanding of the present situation; as Representative Delahunt stated as he concurred with Katzman, the US is funding a militia in the Security Forces since there is not a cultivation of the idea of Iraq as a nation rather than a group of militias. This is the irony, that Al-Maliki is fightng militias and yet is using a militia to consolidate power. The identity of Iraq, of a military that is united around the survival of a nation rather than of loyalty to an individual is missing. How can a democracy flourish without the essential ingredient of pride in one's nation above pride in political leaders?
What will happen if we leave and PM Al-Maliki lacks the U.S. presence necessary to protect the status quo? The Security Forces will fracture and Al-Maliki will not be able to hold onto his power. There will be fighting in Baghdad and relative peace in the North and South because of large concentrations of specific sects (I believe this is about the jist of what he said). Also, Iran has been the greatest benefactor of the US involvement in Iraq.
What I have gleaned from this is just how complicated Iraq is. Ordinarily, we jus break it down between leaving and staying but the subtlties and drastic changes which can occur with either decision have not been fully vetted by the media and must be spoken about. Perhaps in those town hall meetings McCain's been talking about we can have an honest debate about what we need to do.
Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight
Chairman William Delahunt D-MA
Noted Representatives:
Ron Paul R-TX
Dana Rohrbacher R
Jeff Flake R
Walter Jones R-NC
From Al-Fadhali - Nationalist Shiite party based in Southern Iraq
Nadeem Al-Jaberi.
From the National Dialgue Council - Nationalist Sunni Islamist political party
Sheikh Khalaf Al-Ulayyan.
Congressional Research Service Specialist in Middle East Affairs
Kenneth Katzman.
Color me confused.
Both of these individuals, representing the Iraqi Parliament, have stated that a timetable is necessary. Indeed, it is the presence of U.S. troops, it can be inferred from thier statements, which is driving the insurgents and gangs to attack. Al-Jaberi stated that if a timetable is announced there would be a calm and the militias would soon stop since they would have no reason to fight against their compatriots.
...
What I fail to understand is how that is true, considering what occured in Sadr City. That was a case of Iraqis fight against their compatriots, seperated by their loyalties. What's even odder is the fact that they admit that the militias are divided by loyalties which only makes their statement that U.S. forces in the are responsbile for the formation of militias and the sectarian violence that has flashed up at times seem contradictory. They mention Paul Bremer's foolish decision to integrate militias into the Security Forces, which dilluded the discipline of the forces
Kenneth Katzman came in and saved my sanity to some degree by explaining underlying agendas involved in both testimonies by Al-Ubayyan and Al-Jaberi. He depicts the Iraqi Parliament as being represenative of the Haves and Have-Nots with the representatives being part of the Have-Nots (I may be incorrect with this, but I believe he stated the representatives as being as such) and thus pushing for a withdrawal. Those Shias and Sunnis who have money and are in power, like Prime Minister Al-Maliki, want the U.S. forces to stay in order to protect their assets and maintain the status quo. Those like Al-Sadr, are against the U.S. presence for their own interests; if the U.S. is maintaining the status quo there is less power for other forces to nab with a stabilizing force in place like the U.S. in place to keep the power in the hands of those who already hold it. Al-Sadr, Katzman notes, represents the discord and discontent felt by the Shia masses that are in poverty or dire situations. He has garnered his political strength as a result of this and created his militia. In the case that the U.S. military would leave, his militia would be able to possibly overthrow the current government and grow the Iranian sphere of influence.
The status of militias is another important matter. Katzman seems to color the situation in a way which favors the perspective that Prime Minister Al-Maliki declared his "War on Militias" in a disingenuous manner not to rid Iraq of militias but in order to quell dissent near elections. This would explain the declaration against militias and the standoff in Sadr city not as a matter of national security for Iraq but as a political ploy. Katzman does not explain the militias in terms of the Sadr milita standoff against Iraqi security forces but in much broader and more worrisome ways.
According to Katzman, PM Al-Maliki's interpretation and reasoning in defining what an illegal militia is has been based off of legal documents that define any militia in existence after Saddam was overthrown as being illegal while using the Iraqi security forces as a "legal" militia. The Security forces are not an institution that is loyal to the idea of a united Iraq but a division of militias that are united under PM Al-Maliki raher than the country itself. By this analysis a horrifying truth is revealed, a disturbing understanding of the present situation; as Representative Delahunt stated as he concurred with Katzman, the US is funding a militia in the Security Forces since there is not a cultivation of the idea of Iraq as a nation rather than a group of militias. This is the irony, that Al-Maliki is fightng militias and yet is using a militia to consolidate power. The identity of Iraq, of a military that is united around the survival of a nation rather than of loyalty to an individual is missing. How can a democracy flourish without the essential ingredient of pride in one's nation above pride in political leaders?
What will happen if we leave and PM Al-Maliki lacks the U.S. presence necessary to protect the status quo? The Security Forces will fracture and Al-Maliki will not be able to hold onto his power. There will be fighting in Baghdad and relative peace in the North and South because of large concentrations of specific sects (I believe this is about the jist of what he said). Also, Iran has been the greatest benefactor of the US involvement in Iraq.
What I have gleaned from this is just how complicated Iraq is. Ordinarily, we jus break it down between leaving and staying but the subtlties and drastic changes which can occur with either decision have not been fully vetted by the media and must be spoken about. Perhaps in those town hall meetings McCain's been talking about we can have an honest debate about what we need to do.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
House and Bylaws Committee
5/31/08 - Saturday
As I type this, the house and bylaws committee has yet to make their decision. Senator Arthenia Joyner and Senator Robert Wexler have contributed their thoughts to the deliberations, presenting for the Clinton and Obama campaigns respectively. These were very impassioned presentations and I was especially motivated by Senator Joyner. There was a little tussle between Harold Ickes of the Committee (who is also serving as Senior Campaign Advisor of the Clinton campaign) and Wexler. Nothing that’s of consequence I’m certain. What’s interesting is how everyone is asking almost exclusively for one-hundred percent representation of the delegates being counted. With Florida, I’m more sympathetic about this approach; it was a Republican legislature that intervened into the timing of that primary – which was wrong on my party’s part. I need to investigate it further, but if that is true, then I would say that it’s enough to give the people of Florida at least fifty percent of the delegation. After hearing Bill Nelson, if his story plays out, I’m only stronger in my conviction that this was the case but who knows.
Michigan’s primary has the distinguished honor of accumulating a great deal of my ire. Carl Levin is now speaking on behalf of the Michigan Democratic Party and let it be known that their sense of entitlement to seating all the delegates is not persuasive to me; it is the tone and manner in which he is trying to veil the fact that the Democratic Party in Michigan broke the rules in this case by their own accord that is an issue of discord with me. It was self-righteous for Mr. Levin to state that sense New Hampshire got a waiver of the new party rules to remain as the second in the nation to contribute to the nomination process that Michigan should receive the same preference or indulgence. It was disingenuous for Mr. Levin to place his argument in the context of representation of minorities in the primary process; that was a larger issue, and in my important, a much more important and lasting issue than the issue being deliberated – yes, Iowa and New Hampshire are predominantly states with a white majority and minorities do not have a large say in terms of the first two primaries. Was it a great idea to have two states that were more representative of the nation’s minorities involved? Yes. Was it commendable to give Nevada and South Carolina the right to have their primaries between Iowa and New Hampshire to diversify the votes? Yes. As a means to veil the fact that Michigan’s violation of the rules, it fails miserably.
Then there’s Mark Brewer’s alleged allocation idea which was deemed as An Alice in Wonderland by a few Committee members. Besides being a great Republican talking point it’s quite a credible label; both Brewer, Michigan Democratic Party Chairman, and David Bonior, Presenter for Barack Obama if I recall correctly, support the view that because everyone but Clinton, Kucinich, and Gravel, dropped out of the Michigan primary race the only fair way for the delegates to be seated is for the those uncommitted delegates to go to Obama. What Harold Ickes mentioned was that if their plan is followed, Clinton would be stripped four delegates for no reason. There was also the thorny issue (as if everything about the Michigan primary isn’t) about precedent. I’m glad that the Democrats considered the precedent they would be setting if they adopt this plan. The allocation of the delegates would be determined by assertions rather than concrete facts.
What are these assertions that Brewer and Bonior subscribe to in order to determine the delegate allocation? They were based off of exit polls and an assumption about how the 300,000 write-in votes which were not counted would have gone; primarily for Obama according to Brewster, but the Democrats weren’t drinking from that well and rightly so. If the Convention can come in and decide how the uncommitted delegates should vote based off of exit polls that’s a dangerous precedent. What’s even more egregious is the obvious problem with exit polling, which Ickes, I believe, was quick to recall. If exit polls were correct than New Hampshire would have been cited as the death knell for the Clinton campaign and Kerry may have won. It was simply too much of a manipulation and violation of the rules.
Donna Brazil was right and provided one of the best quotes of the day. After congratulating the presenter for Clinton in the case of Michigan on behalf of his mother’s birthday, Brazil mentioned that she was sure that his mother had taught him to play by the rules, and that when you change the rules mid-game or end-game, that’s called cheating.
The really sad thing about this is if the Democrats had simply taken a move out of the Republican playbook to begin with this would have been settled months ago. We handled Wyoming, Florida and Michigan by only giving them half their delegations. All three primaries were pivotal points of the primary season as well despite their delegations being halved. Wyoming was the first state Romney won. Michigan was Romney’s last chance to lend credibility to his campaign and if he had lost the state his father had been governor after a string of losses, his campaign would have ended much sooner. Florida was the death knell for Guiliani and gave McCain’s campaign the closed primary victory it needed to send a signal to conservatives that McCain was capable of coalescing the base and winning states even when independents could not lend him support.
Finally, there was one person on C-SPAN who called in to say that this shows how disorganized the Democrats are that they can’t follow their own rules and that this whole process demonstrates that. I’m a bit more hopeful; I think this is democracy at work. I just think it was a bit unnecessary.
Note: I need to find out what that whole “fair reflection” business is.
P.S. I loved how the presenters used the veil of “unity” when someone threatened their view. Carl Levin used this technique; the Michigan Democrat party is already unified, don’t de-unify us! Yeah, well, maybe if you had followed the rules to begin with…
As I type this, the house and bylaws committee has yet to make their decision. Senator Arthenia Joyner and Senator Robert Wexler have contributed their thoughts to the deliberations, presenting for the Clinton and Obama campaigns respectively. These were very impassioned presentations and I was especially motivated by Senator Joyner. There was a little tussle between Harold Ickes of the Committee (who is also serving as Senior Campaign Advisor of the Clinton campaign) and Wexler. Nothing that’s of consequence I’m certain. What’s interesting is how everyone is asking almost exclusively for one-hundred percent representation of the delegates being counted. With Florida, I’m more sympathetic about this approach; it was a Republican legislature that intervened into the timing of that primary – which was wrong on my party’s part. I need to investigate it further, but if that is true, then I would say that it’s enough to give the people of Florida at least fifty percent of the delegation. After hearing Bill Nelson, if his story plays out, I’m only stronger in my conviction that this was the case but who knows.
Michigan’s primary has the distinguished honor of accumulating a great deal of my ire. Carl Levin is now speaking on behalf of the Michigan Democratic Party and let it be known that their sense of entitlement to seating all the delegates is not persuasive to me; it is the tone and manner in which he is trying to veil the fact that the Democratic Party in Michigan broke the rules in this case by their own accord that is an issue of discord with me. It was self-righteous for Mr. Levin to state that sense New Hampshire got a waiver of the new party rules to remain as the second in the nation to contribute to the nomination process that Michigan should receive the same preference or indulgence. It was disingenuous for Mr. Levin to place his argument in the context of representation of minorities in the primary process; that was a larger issue, and in my important, a much more important and lasting issue than the issue being deliberated – yes, Iowa and New Hampshire are predominantly states with a white majority and minorities do not have a large say in terms of the first two primaries. Was it a great idea to have two states that were more representative of the nation’s minorities involved? Yes. Was it commendable to give Nevada and South Carolina the right to have their primaries between Iowa and New Hampshire to diversify the votes? Yes. As a means to veil the fact that Michigan’s violation of the rules, it fails miserably.
Then there’s Mark Brewer’s alleged allocation idea which was deemed as An Alice in Wonderland by a few Committee members. Besides being a great Republican talking point it’s quite a credible label; both Brewer, Michigan Democratic Party Chairman, and David Bonior, Presenter for Barack Obama if I recall correctly, support the view that because everyone but Clinton, Kucinich, and Gravel, dropped out of the Michigan primary race the only fair way for the delegates to be seated is for the those uncommitted delegates to go to Obama. What Harold Ickes mentioned was that if their plan is followed, Clinton would be stripped four delegates for no reason. There was also the thorny issue (as if everything about the Michigan primary isn’t) about precedent. I’m glad that the Democrats considered the precedent they would be setting if they adopt this plan. The allocation of the delegates would be determined by assertions rather than concrete facts.
What are these assertions that Brewer and Bonior subscribe to in order to determine the delegate allocation? They were based off of exit polls and an assumption about how the 300,000 write-in votes which were not counted would have gone; primarily for Obama according to Brewster, but the Democrats weren’t drinking from that well and rightly so. If the Convention can come in and decide how the uncommitted delegates should vote based off of exit polls that’s a dangerous precedent. What’s even more egregious is the obvious problem with exit polling, which Ickes, I believe, was quick to recall. If exit polls were correct than New Hampshire would have been cited as the death knell for the Clinton campaign and Kerry may have won. It was simply too much of a manipulation and violation of the rules.
Donna Brazil was right and provided one of the best quotes of the day. After congratulating the presenter for Clinton in the case of Michigan on behalf of his mother’s birthday, Brazil mentioned that she was sure that his mother had taught him to play by the rules, and that when you change the rules mid-game or end-game, that’s called cheating.
The really sad thing about this is if the Democrats had simply taken a move out of the Republican playbook to begin with this would have been settled months ago. We handled Wyoming, Florida and Michigan by only giving them half their delegations. All three primaries were pivotal points of the primary season as well despite their delegations being halved. Wyoming was the first state Romney won. Michigan was Romney’s last chance to lend credibility to his campaign and if he had lost the state his father had been governor after a string of losses, his campaign would have ended much sooner. Florida was the death knell for Guiliani and gave McCain’s campaign the closed primary victory it needed to send a signal to conservatives that McCain was capable of coalescing the base and winning states even when independents could not lend him support.
Finally, there was one person on C-SPAN who called in to say that this shows how disorganized the Democrats are that they can’t follow their own rules and that this whole process demonstrates that. I’m a bit more hopeful; I think this is democracy at work. I just think it was a bit unnecessary.
Note: I need to find out what that whole “fair reflection” business is.
P.S. I loved how the presenters used the veil of “unity” when someone threatened their view. Carl Levin used this technique; the Michigan Democrat party is already unified, don’t de-unify us! Yeah, well, maybe if you had followed the rules to begin with…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)