Perils of an unwritten constitution

In the US, we have a Constitution that is a written document. While there are a lot of unwritten constitutional rules, the formal written text of the US Constitution sets the ground rules, by which everything is run. And in 2000, when there was some question about the result of the Presidential Election, this fact meant that everything was settled (even if it took some time) in a way that could not be contested.

Contrast Britain, which has a "constitution" that includes some Parliamentary laws (which can be changed, however, by simply passing another law, unlike our difficult amendment process!) but is mostly an accumulation of traditions. Right now they are trying to sort through the results of an election in which their House of Commons (which combines the role of a house of Congress here with that of the Electoral College) is without a majority.

According to one of those traditions, the sitting Prime Minister is given the first chance to try to "form a Government" (he has to put together a Cabinet and first have it approved by the House of Commons, unlike our system, where the Cabinet, though requiring Senate approval for each individual position, need not be in place for the President to take office).

On the other hand, there is the strongly-held belief that the leader of a party which has won the largest number of seats in the Commons, particularly if that party received the largest vote in a general election, should be given the first chance. And in this case, the incumbent Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, leads a Labour Party (that's how they spell it there), which has finished a rather distant second in seats (306 to 258), and was also far behind the Conservatives in votes. Furthermore, the third place (Liberal Democratic) party leader, Nicholas Clegg, is on record as agreeing with ths second proposition, that the leader of a party which has won the largest number of seats in the Commons, as well as the largest vote in a general election, should be given the first chance. And Clegg's position is important, because the Conservatives can get a majority if they join with the Liberal Democrats. So both Gordon Brown and the Conservative leader, David Cameron, believe they deserve the first chance.

Well, the way it works now is that Cameron has sent emissaries to talk with Clegg's people, but Brown's resignation has not taken place. And in fact Brown is fulminating that he deserves a chance first. But in fact, the Labour and Liberal Democratic parties together do not have enough seats (Labour's 258 plus the Liberal Democrats' 57 make 315, and 326 are necessary) to make a majority. So even if Brown could convince Clegg to join him, he would still need support from some small minor party.

And further complications ensue because a lot of British Conservatives feel they should not make any concessions to the Liberal Democrats to make a majority, but should try to govern without a majority. British practice permits such a minority government, but only if enough small parties agree not to oppose the Prime Minister's party to prevent its defeat on a no-confidence vote. And the Liberal Democrats' size is such that this is the only party that could provide this non-opposition in sufficient numbers, and Clegg is not likely to agree to do it without concessions. So that solution is a non-starter.

Isn't it great to have a written Constitution?

Arizona's new anti-illegal-immigrant law

It is interesting to see left-wingers railing against Arizona's new anti-illegal-immigrant law (or as they like to call it "Arizona's new anti-immigrant law," ignoring its direct targeting of illegal immigrants).

Of course, many of the left are simply pandering to Hispanic voters, who sympathize with the illegal immigrants because many of them (even if they themselves have become U. S. citizens) have illegal immigrant relatives).

And in turn those Hispanics seem to feel that this country ought not to enforce its own laws. Though, I wonder what they would think if the country refused to enforce its other laws, and countenanced, say, the discrimination of people against Hispanics in violation of its anti-discrimination laws!

All Arizona has done is to say that, if you're in violation of U. S. law by your presence in this country, and if you're in the State of Arizona, you are also in violation of Arizona State law, as well. And no sensible person should have any objection to this.

But some people say that jurisdiction over immigration law is preempted by the Federal Government under the Constitution. It is true that Article VI Clause 2 of the Constitution establishes the supremacy of Federal law over State law in matters under Federal jurisdiction (and the Federal government, by virtue of the Constitution's grant of power over foreign affairs, has power over immigration, even though immigration is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution), but certainly Article VI would only invalidate Arizona's law if it were in conflict with Federal law. It is not; it in fact, directly incorporates Federal law into Arizona law!

In fact, if anything, those States that have attempted to legalize "medical marijuana" like California, are the ones who should be called on the carpet for trying to nullify Federal law. (I put the phrase "medical marijuana" in quotes, because it is clear that marijuana has no valid medical purpose.) But the leftists who are taking Arizona to task would not do this to those States, because these people approve of such actions.

The facts are these: The Federal Government has refused to enforce its own laws on immigration, and Arizona has seen fit to take the law into its own hands because the Federal Government has abdicated its responsibility. People clain the new law will lead to racial profiling, as though this is worse than the current situation where illegal immigrants are burdens on law-enforcement, public health, and such.

And it is supposed to be so much of a burden to carry identification to prove one's legal presence here. Well, I'm legally in this country (I was born here!) and the number of times I've had to show identification in recent years is pretty large. If I have to carry identification, it is no great extra burden for them to do so.

Actually, there is one clue that should be emphasized more. These people often say that "nobody is illegal." Thus they talk of "immigrants," lumping legal and illegal immigration together, and totally misconstrue the purpose of the Arizona law. As far as they are concerned, the immigration laws of this country do not have any force, but this selective nullification is unjustified, and once more, I reiterate: violation of our anti-discrimination laws would not be so pleasantly received by these people!

I'm glad I don't live in Florida

There is a pretty good Republican Governor of Florida named Charlie Crist. He had expressed an interest in running for the Senate this year, and at first he seemed to be a shoo-in. Then another candidate, Marco Rubio, joined the fray. Conservatives backing Rubio have made it unlikely that Crist will be able to get the nomination of the Republican Party. So it now appears that Crist will run as an independent. (The mirror image, of course, of what happened to Sen. Joseph Lieberman in Connecticut a couple of years ago.)


Fortunately, this time, just like Lieberman, Crist seems popular enough in his state that he will probably win anyway — though a lot can happen between now and November. It would be a shame for a Republican split to give the seat to a Democrat, as happened recently in a special Congressional election in New York State.


I don't know a lot about Crist or Rubio — I suspect that if I were a Floridian I'd be closer politically to Crist, but Rubio would be acceptable — but I'm glad I don't have to choose between them. If the Democrat, Kendrick Meek (what a name!), ever got close enough that the split elected him because the Republicans could not unite, it would be a tragedy.


Once more, ideological purity is making Republicans weak.

Why I am NOT a "conservative"

On most important matters I tend to hold "conservative" positions, but sometimes I find the "conservative" position to be infuriatingly foreign to my thoughts.

Case in point: Pres. Barack Obama's recent order requiring hospitals to grant family visitation rights to partners of gay patients. We find conservative groups assailing this order as if it were destructive of the marriages of straight couples.

I for one applaud this order. If someone is hospitalized with a serious illness, he should be able to have the company of whomever he considers the most important person in his life. Without exception.

Apparently, a few conservatives are so eager to impose their own religion's concept of morality on people that they have not the slightest shred of compassion for these people.

I really would love to see any demonstration that allowing gay people to have any of the privileges of straight couples in any way reduces the rights of those straight couples.

And so, although Pres. Obama's order constitutes what is considered a liberal act, I see nothing wrong with it. And this is why I cannot consider myself a "conservative," even though I believe that conservatives are basically right on most important issues.

The successor to John Paul Stevens

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has stated that he is about to retire. And of course President Barack Obama will appoint a successor. While many conservatives are gearing up to fight if Obama appoints a very liberal successor to Justice Stevens, I'm not really going to get all agitated.

Why? Because Justice Stevens is just about the most liberal judge on the current court. And so, short of appointing a Communist, Pres. Obama cannot really affect the Court's direction, at least in a leftward turn, by his appointment. And he's not likely to try to move the Court in a rightward direction. So there is no hope that he would do that.

And thus, there is really no reason to worry too much.

Arrogance

Now Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Pres. Obama seem to have forced their health care bill through. Only a court decision that the bill is unconstitutional can derail it. It is certainly arrogance on their part to force this monstrosity through, in the face of disapproval of the American people. The House of Representatives is supposed to represent, which they certainly are not doing in this law.

It is impossible, unfortunately, to repeal the bill, as Senators James DeMint and John McCain are calling to do, at least for the next three years. Even in the wake of an election this coming November, the Republicans may win enough seats to take over the Congress, but they certainly will not have the ²/₃ majority they would need to pass a repeal bill over an Obama veto. So repeal would have to wait until at least January 2013. Only the Supreme Court can save us from this folly.

More "ideological purism"?

It seems that Senator John McCain is facing a primary challenge from a former Congressman who has since become a conservative talk show host, J. D. Hayworth. One more case of "ideological purism." For Hayworth has been characterizing McCain as someone who campaigns as a conservative but legislates as a liberal. And of course, this implies that McCain isn't "conservative enough," whatever that means. Well, (to quote McCain in another context!) I have news for Hayworth and his ilk: McCain is, by general United States standards, a conservative. The American Conservative Union has given him ratings ranging from the 60s to the 80s, and while some people argue that makes him rather liberal compared with other Republicans, it is still on balance (compared with the US center) conservative.

The thing that bothers me is that the conservatives who want to get rid of people like McCain will, if they get their way, force the United States leftward. Because hard-right conservatives will drive the American voter into the Democratic fold. Even the conservatives' hero, Ronald Reagan, understood this. (See my earlier posting from June 25, 2009.) I had hoped that the recent success of our newest Senator, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, might teach them a lesson. Brown is a Senator because the Republicans, including the conservatives, were willing to back him, even though he was hardly a far-right conservative. If they had refused to back Brown, Massachusetts would have elected Martha Coakley, and Pres. Obama would have gotten his far-left program through the Senate.

John McCain deserves re-election. And if the Republicans reject him in favor of Hayworth, this risks giving the Democrats the seat, for Arizona, no matter how conservative a state they see it as, still can elect Democrats. (How about ex-Governor, now Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano?)

Let us honor Reagan by using Republicans' energy and money to fight Democrats, not defeat genuine conservative Republicans who may simply not be "conservative enough."

I was happy to hear people like the conservative broadcaster Mark Levin proudly endorsing Scott Brown for the Massachusetts Senate seat. But his endorsement of the Hayworth challenge to John McCain is a serious mistake.

What the GOP needs

It has come to my attention that when Scott Brown, the newly elected Senator from Massachusetts, was asked what kind of a Republican — conservative or liberal, for example — he was, he responded

I'm a Scott Brown Republican.

Well, I think that's what the GOP needs — not specifically Scott Brown Republicans, but Republicans who are themselves, not somebody else's idea of what a real Republican is.

We need Scott Brown Republicans, John McCain Republicans, and it's a shame we lost Arlen Specter to the other side because some ideological purists made it hard for him to remain in the GOP.

Don't get me wrong. We need the conservatives, too. But their own hero, Pres. Ronald Reagan, recognized that you can have an ideologically pure party, or you can have a majority party, but you can't have a party that is both.

That's why, for one thing, I'm unhapy that there are people who are challenging John McCain's re-election bid in Arizona. To them, McCain is insufficiently pure as a conservative. It's people like those challengers who will ensure that the Democrats control the U. S. government!

Now, let's come up with a new health care bill!

It looks as if Scott Brown's election has finally brought the juggernaut to a halt. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has admitted she can't get 218 votes to ram the Senate bill through the House, so any bill is going to need to get through both houses again, and Brown will join the other Republicans in a 59-41 vote, at least. And the message is finally getting to President Obama: He's not going to get a health care bill at all, unless they start from scratch and write a new bill that will get some Republican votes.

So let's proceed. The government (alias "public") option already had to go to get the vote of people like Sen. Joe Lieberman. Let's also scrub the mandate that requires people to buy health insurance or pay a fine. (If you have to make them buy health insurance, there must be something wrong with the pricing, the benefits, or both!) And recognize that the way to control costs is simply to get a handle on malpractice suits and the resulting defensive medicine -- we need meaningful tort reform!

That's a start, anyway; let's get going!

Thank you, voters of Massachusetts!

It looks as if the message that Massachusetts voters sent, by electing Scott Brown to the Senate, was picked up. It took a little time, but it looks as if Pelosi et al. have given up.

He did it!

Scott Brown is now the Senator-elect from Massachusetts! If this doesn't show how big a hole Barack Obama has dug for himself, nothing will.

Brown won on one pledge — to vote against the so-called health care reform that Pres. Obama is pushing. If his win does not kill this bad bill in its tracks, our Constitution is a dead letter.

Three cheers for Sen.-elect Scott Brown!

On Martin Luther King and the holiday in his honor

Today is a holiday in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. And it seems that one risks being called a racist if one refuses to think that Rev. King was worthy of such a holiday. But here goes.

Rev. King, in the early part of his life, was a leader in the struggle for civil rights, and justly deserves praise for this. But later, he took on another cause, for which he deserves, not praise, but condemnation. He became an opponent of the fight against international Communism, particularly in Vietnam, and one must ask,

If freedom for African-Americans was worth giving up people's lives to obtain, why was freedom for Vietnamese (Southeast Asians) not worth giving up people's lives?

There are others I consider more worthy of being given a holiday to commemoriate the civil rights movement. Like Thurgood Marshall, whose work led to the Brown v. Board of Education decision, and became the first African-American Supreme Court Justice.

I suppose some might argue that African-Americans should be allowed to choose their hero. But I cannot see lionizing Rev. King.

Let's work together -- this is good for a change

In 1964, probably before many of the readers were even born, much less old enough to vote, I had my first chance to vote in a presidential election. [You had to be 21 then (unless you lived in Georgia or Kentucky), not 18, so I could not vote in 1960, though I was 18 in 1960.] The Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater, who contemptuously dismissed the moderates in the party with his famous quote:

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

I was one of many Republicans who did not vote for Goldwater that year — I felt I was being read out of the party, though this was my first year of eligibility to vote.

Several elections later, the Republicans nominated Ronald Reagan, who was just as conservative, if not more so. But his attitude was much more inclusive: he had named moderate Sen. Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania as a running mate in an earlier election year, and chose the leader of the moderate faction, George H. W. Bush, as his running mate that year. The difference was dramatic: he won.

Last year, the extremists of the GOP rejected Dede Scozzafava as insufficiently conservative and left her so peeved that she endorsed the Democratic candidate, who won the election in a disctrict that had been Republican since 1870. So Nancy Pelosi got one more soldier in her army. Did this help conservatives or the Republican Party?

I'm glad to see that this year they seem to have learned theie lesson. Last night I was listening to a conservative talk radio program hosted by Mark Levin, who seems to be fervently backing Scott Brown, the candidate who seems to the best hope for breaking the filibuster-proof 60-vote Democratic bloc in the Senate. And Brown is the type of moderate Republican they have often criticized as a "RINO" in the past. Thank you. We need to work together. Conservatives enforcing ideological purity have led to people like Arlen Specter and James Jeffords leaving the party, and you really need to ask again, "Did this help conservatives or the Republican Party?" It really did not.

Let's all work together and support people like Scott Brown, as moderates supported Bob McDonnell, who today takes the oath of office as Virginia governor.

The Massachusetts special election

Some of the polls I see show Scott Brown, the Republican, actually ahead in the special election that will fill Edward Kennedy's Senate Seat. For this to be happening in a State as liberal as Massachusetts shows that the people are clearly upset with the Obama administration's health care "reform" bill. If the State that sent Edward Kennedy to the Senate, the only state that George McGovern carried, the bluest of the blue, is close to electing a Republican to fill that seat, it gives us a sign.

The American people are saying, "KILL THIS BILL!" By any means, whatever the opposition to this bill can do, they must do all they can to hold this bill up, because even doing nothing is better than this bill.

On the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger

As this article points out, today a possibly groundbreaking "gay rights" case starts its path through the court systems: Perry v. Schwarzenegger. If it succeeds, it will lead to as fundamental a change in the legal treatment of sexual orientation as Brown v. Board of Education did to the legal treatment of race. And while I hope it succeeds, I have to worry that it might fail. Because failure might be equivalent to Plessy v. Ferguson, setting the cause back for many years.

Those who have been reading this blog know that I feel that the incremental approach, starting with gaining marriage rights, without perhaps the name, (i. e. the "civil union" approach) and then getting marriage later on after some of the resistance has been dulled by experience — the approach which has worked in Vermont — has more chance of success. I see nothing wrong with the idea of gay marriage, but why not go for the thing you really want — rights — if you can get more support for that than you can get for the word "marriage" itself?

One thing that gives me some hope is that the legal team challenging California's Proposition 8 is led by two lawyers who represent opposite ends of the political spectrum, Theodore Olson and David Boies (the two lawyers for opposite sides in Bush v. Gore.) It has always saddened me to see that the same political Right that generally acts in a "pro-freedom" direction on economic issues often takes the side of bigotry and intolerance on social issues. But here it's different.

If the pro-rights side wins here, it will make me happy. But I'm just afraid it's an awfully big "if."

Chickens coming home to roost?

In 2008, I posted a lot of reasons why Barack Obama was a bad choice for the Presidency. One of the points I made was that as a product of Richard M. Daley's Chicago machine, he was used to a style of government that would run roughshod over all opposition. Well, the American public did not choose to consider such points, and Obama now sits in the White House. And he's been governing true to form. Anone with any misgivings about the desirability of an Obama policy is simply ruled to be an obstacle to progress, and ignored. The Congress is about to pass a health care bill which the majority of the American public opposes, even believing (as I do) that doing nothing at all would be better than enacting this unfortunate bill. Because the Senate has its 60 Democrats who can override any filibuster threat, there is simply no barrier to this blockbuster, unless the differences between the two chambers of Congress turn out to be so serious that they cannot be reconciled — and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are doing their best to prevent any word of what is being negotiated behind closed doors getting out, so that secret deals will assure a bill that both chambers will approve.

It looks as if the only possibility of derailing this monstrosity is a challenge to the constitutionality of this bill's mandate (buy approved insurance or be fined!) ot another constitutional challenge over the special sweetheart deal that Sen. Ben Nelson got for Nebraska. (Even Nebraskans are embarrassed by this, saying that while they elected Nelson to get Nebraska its share of benefits, this was going too far, and recent polls show Nelson losing if he ran against a challenge by the Republican governor of the state!)

Until these objections on constitutional grounds get to the courts, of course, nobody can tell how the courts will ruled on them. Let us hope that at least in the courts, some sanity reigns.

Abortion and the health care bill

Interesting that the health care bill may founder on the issue of funding for abortions. Frankly, I don't care much one way or the other on this issue, but if it gets to the point where Ben Nelson won't vote for it because it allows Federal funds to be used in a way that indirectly pays for abortions, and it stops the bill from going through, while other Democrats won't vote for it if the Stupak proviso is added, great! It stops the bill, which is what needs to be done!

The bad things in the bill have nothing to do with abortions, of all — the requirement that you must buy insurance or pay a fine, and the "public option" (which the Senate has weakened so it looks satisfactory, but what a Senate/House conference might do I can't predict): these are the gross evils of this bill. But if it's abortion that kills the bill in its tracks, so be it. I don't really care why it fails, only that it fails.

A broadcasting slip?

Last night I heard two commercials for Meg Whitman, former head of eBay, who is planning to run for Governor of California in 2010. The problem is, I live nowhere near California. What was going on?

I just hope the Whitman campaign wasn't billed for those ads. What kind of slip-up permits an ad for a California electoral candidate to be broadcast on a Washington, D. C. radio station, not once but twice?

Perceived (lack of) intelligence?

One thing I have noticed in my lifetime is that liberals seem to be perceived as more intelligent than conservatives. Way back in the 1952 election, Adlai Stevenson was considered the "intellectual" candidate, though Dwight Eisenhower, after retiring from the Army, had been a university president. And John Kerry, in 2004, was quoted as having said "I can't believe I'm losing to this idiot!" Yet looking at Kerry's college grades and George W. Bush's (from the same institution, Yale University!) it seems that the two were about the same, with Bush's perhaps a bit higher, even!

The examples are quite numerous, extending to Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan as well. And the most recent has been Sarah Palin, the 2008 vice-presidential candidate of the Republican Party.

Well, Gov. Palin recently put out a book. And it may be possible that it was to some extent written by others, but I'm sure it represents her thoughts accurately. And I have to say that despite all the negatives I've heard about Gov. Palin, the book (at least the parts I've read; I have not gone through it all) seems to be a well-thought-out work. As I've said before, she is not my preferred choice for the 2012 presidential nomination, but I have no doubt that if she is the nominee, she would be a better President than the person now holding the job. Yes, in 2012 if the candidates are Sarah Palin and Barack Obama, there is no question that my vote goes to her.

Universal health care?

President Obama says we need "universal health insurance." And he means you buy health insurance even if you don't want it, on pain of a fine! That kind of "universality" we don't need or want.

It would be fine if "universal health insurance" simply meant that if your employer didn't want to provide it, or if you just could not afford it, you got help in paying premiums from the government, the way if you're out of work you can colledt unemployment insurance. And that kind of universality -- without the coercion of a fine -- would get my support. What Obama wants, as I said, is just not right.

Catholic Church, your name is inconsistency!

The Roman Catholic Church has been pushing hard for provisions like the Stupak-Pitts amendment to the health insurance legislation being considered by the Congress. They insist that if anyone gets federal money to buy health insurance, then taxpayers, including of course, Catholics, would be subsidizing abortion if the insurance companies write their policies to include abortion coverage, which of course is anathema to the Catholic Church. Now, in a sense this is true, in a vague, indirect way. But in the past, the same Catholic Church has been strongly in favor of Government money for students to attend Catholic schools, which in the same indirect way means that taxpayers would be subsidizing the teaching of Catholic doctrine, and that is just as much anathema to non-Catholic taxpayers.

After all, if it is against a Catholic's conscience to give taxpayer money to someone who will be using that money to buy an insurance policy that covers abortion, isn't it just as much an affront to the conscience of a Jew like myself to give taxpayer money to someone who will be using that money to send his child to a school where he will be taught that the Pope is infallible, or that Jesus was the Son of God born of a virgin?

I certainly have my problems with the proposed health-care legislation. And in fact the question of abortion coverage is of so little importance to me that the presence or absence of the Stupak-Pitts amendment language will not change my opinion on the bill. But the whole issue is somewhat laughable to me, since Catholics can get so worked up into a lather over Government money going to someone who might purchase an insurance policy that covers abortions, and yet not see how taxpayer subsidies to kids in parochial schools might bring the exact same reaction in others.

Prospects for 2012

The 2009 elections are just over, and the 2010 elections have not yet been held, but it's really time to look toward 2012. Very likely, Barack Obama will be looking to gain a second term as President, and all people who are interested in defeating this attempt must get together on a suitable opponent.

One person who is already being touted as a candidate is former Alaska Governor, and 2008 Vice-Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin, who has just put out a book, which many people consider to be the start of her campaign for the 2012 nomination. One thing she has going for her is that defeated VP canddates are often given a chance to try for the Presidency — look at Walter Mondale and Bob Dole. Another thing in her favor is that history was made in 2008 with an African-American President, and history would be made again if Sarah Palin became the first female President.

But Palin would not get the feminist vote — any more than Clarence Thomas or Alan Keyes gets support from African-American groups. Policy trumps race, and the liberals who constitute the majority of the African-American community consider Thomas and Keyes, if anything, to be traitors. And feminists would consider Palin the same.

Besides, there may by 2012 be two other viable female candidates, if either Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorina gets elected next year. Both of them are talking about running next year in California, one for governor, the other for the Senate. If either gets elected — in the biggest state of all, California — she will immediately become a hot item in the 2012 Presidential sweepstakes.

I do not consider Palin, as some did last year, unqualified. She served as a state Governor, probably the best preparation for the Presidency that our political system provides, and did, so far as I can tell, an excellent job (though quitting makes one wonder whether she could take a 4-year term in the White House). And if she does get the nomination, I would certainly vote for her against Obama. But she is hardly my choice; for one thing, there are more experienced and more highly qualified candidates out there; for another; she's more aligned with the conservative extremists in the party than would make me comfortable.

If either Fiorina or Whitman gets elected next year, she will be a good choice; both have run major corporations, but as of 2009, neither has any political experience, and if either one has, by 2012, this political experience, she will be a great choice. Mitt Romney, who was not my choice in 2008, would be a better choice in 2012, though the reasons for my discomfort in 2008 would still apply — his ideas have changed a lot in recent years, and one can not really be sure how conservative or how liberal he is on those issued where he seems to have effected a conversion. But he has the experience of being both a state Governor (and in a much bigger state than Alaska) and a corporate executive, which makes his qualifications pretty impressive.

A name often mentioned is Tim Pawlenty, like Palin and Romney a state Governor. All I can say is I don't know much about him. Possibly if I did, I'd like him, possibly not, but I can't say very much.

One former Governor I could not support — to the point that if he is nominated by the GOP, I vote third party — is Mike Huckabee. He is the personification of just about everything I oppose: left where I'm right and right where I'm left. And he is the most extreme member of the religious Right since the days of Pat Robertson. It really troubles me to see him leading in polls among Republicans thinking about the 2012 election; One can only hope that by 2012 his star fades.

Yesterday's elections

Most of the election results from yesterday make me pretty happy — especially Chris Christie's win in New Jersey, which was not at all certain to happen — but there was one very unfortunate result, which will be the subject of most of this post.

But before I go into the details, it will be necessary to explain some points about New York State's political system, which is rather unusual in some regards. Unlike most other states, New York State has something of a multi-party system, with the two major parties being joined by a bevy of smaller parties. There are two big reasons for this. First, New York's ballot access laws are rather easy to meet. A party only needs 50,000 votes in a gubernatorial election in New York State to have four years of guaranteed ballot access, with a line on the ballot reserved for them. In a state where over 4 million people voted in 2006, this is a very easy requirement to meet. Second, New York is one of a small minority of states that have electoral fusion, a system where minor parties can co-endorse major party candidates for many offices, getting their own line on the ballot for the same candidates, and saving their efforts on behalf of their own separate candidates for those limited elections where it is most important to them. (In fact, even two major parties can co-endorse a candidate, but except in races for judgeships, this is pretty unusual.) They can even do this in the gubernatorial election, so that they can get the 50,000 votes needed for the next four years of ballot access without running a separate candidate on their own, and many small parties do this.

This explanation sets the stage for the election I am about to discuss. In the 23^rd Congressional District in New York, the sitting Congressman was appointed by President Barack Obama to a sub-cabinet post, one with prestige but no power, in a shameless attempt to give the impression of bipartisanship. This left the sear vacant. In a normal situation, this would be a safe Republican seat, as the Democrats haven't elected a Congressman in this part of New York State since 1870! And the Republicans nominated a State Assemblywoman, Dede Scozzafava, for the seat. The Democrats nominated William Owens, and the Conservative Party nominated David Hoffman.

But here came the weirdness. There are people in the Republican Party who are dissatisfied whenever a person who is, in their eyes, too liberal, and they are willing to let a Democrat take the seat rather than let that sort of a Republican win. And so they poured their support, in dollars and publicity, on Hoffman, despite the fact that this risked electing Owens. I suppose they were happy last year when they caused the Democrat Frank Kratovil to win a seat in the Maryland 1st District by denying renomination to Wayne Gilchrest, a sitting Republican congressman who was another of those "not conservative enough."

Well, that was the first problem. By putting major Republican support on Hoffman's side, they weakened Scozzafava so much that she felt it necessary to withdraw from the race, though her name remained on the ballot. That would not have been so bad — Hoffman could have been elected, and he would have served as a Republican Congressman, even if not elected on the GOP line — but then Hoffman proceeded to make statements insulting Scozzafava, so that she (who had claimed to "remain a proud Republican" when withdrawing) felt obliged to endorse Owens! (I don't know whom to consider the worse villain here: Hoffman for refusing to bury the hatchet with Scozzafava, or Scozzafava for letting her pique at Hoffman overshadow her loyalty to the Republican Party.)

So this is how it ended. The combined vote for the two Republican candidates (Hoffman, who was in fact a Republican, and Scozzafava) would have won the seat for a Republican, but Scozzafava got 6% and Hoffman 45%, so Owens won it for the Democrats with 49% of the vote. And Bill Owens gets a seat that should have been a safe GOP seat, just as did Kratovil last year in Maryland.

Who is the villain of the piece? National GOP conservatives, for building up Hoffman? Hoffman, for refusing to make peace with Scozzafava when she withdrew? Scozzafava, for letting her pique at Hoffman override the need to keep the seat in GOP hands? I think all 3 deserve a share of the blame.

Sen. Roland Burris and the "public option"

Sen. Roland Burris, the man who was appointed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich to fill Pres. Barack Obama's Senate seat, has said that he will not support a health plan without a "public option."

In a sense, that's good news, though the whole idea of a public option is anathema to me. The reason? Because there are a lot of Senators who won't support a bill with a public option. And so the more who won't support a bill without one, the more likely it will be that no bill will get passed this year. And, really, it would be better to have no bill at all than any of the bills being considered now.

More on the Peace Prize

There was a column which I saw today entitled "Nobel panel mad about Bush" (click on the title of this piece to see it) which deserves reading. Its thesis is that the award given to President Barack Obama is just the latest of a series of expressions of the committee's dislike of the previous president, George W. Bush.

I didn't think of this point when I wrote yeaterday's blog post, but that is probably true to more of an extent than I might have thought. After all, the political left really despises Bush. I'm not sure why they do even more than other conservative presidents like Reagan — perhaps because he won on the electoral vote while losing the popular (though that's just the way the Constitution works); perhaps because he had the temerity to insist on playing by the rules rather than letting Gore's people insist on recount after recount until the results got changed to Gore's liking (which Al Franken was able to do because of a sympathetic Minnesota court system let him). But for whatever reason, the left hates Bush more than any political group has hated any president lately. And, as I said yesterday, the Nobel Committee has become the left wing's own property.

Rush Limbaugh and the NFL

It seemsthat Rush Limbaugh wants to buy a team in the National Football League, but the NFL's commissioner and at least some of the team's owners object.

I don't understand what the problem is. I'm not a big fan of Limbaugh— when he's right, I agree strongly, but when he's wrong, I disagree just as strongly. But why is he a bad choice for an owner? One of the owners quoted as opposing him, the Indianapolis Colts' Irsay, thumbed his nose at the fans in Baltimore a few years ago by moving his team out in the middle of the night. Limbaugh— who comes from Missouri— will probably never do that to the fans in St. Louis! Is it a crime to be politically outspoken? Teams in major sports have been owned by Ted Turner, for example. But only right-wing politically-outspoken beliefs seem to be a problem. Apparently Ted Turner's outspokenness is OK because he's of the political left.

Of course, he's been critical of the NFL itself. I suppose that this is his crime.

Well I hate football, really; it's far too violent for my taste. But I thought I had to comment on this.

The Nobel Peace Prize

President Barack Obama was just awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. It's a little ridiculous; he hasn't done anything to advance the cause of peace. But RNC Chairman Michael Steele's e-mail to the mailing list has it wrong. He refers to how low a once-honorable prize has fallen. In fact, the Nobel Prize Committee has been a left-wing extremist group for quite a while.


Anyone remember Linus Pauling? He got a Nobel Peace Prize too, for doing nothing but trying to sabotage the war effort in Vietnam. I believe that Pauling's Chemistry Prize was well deserved. But the Peace Prize? Another example of the Nobel Committee's left-wing bias. (See my post on Monday, October 15, 2007 as well.)


No, the prize for Obama was certainly undeserved. But I can't really call it a big surprise.

Abortion, murder, non-kosher slaughter, cruelty to animals, ...

While writing a letter to someone last night, it occurred to me that I had the perfect rejoinder to those who use the "abortion is murder" argument to insist that all abortions be outlawed.

According to the Catholic Church (and some other religious groups as well), a person begins his life at conception. So an abortion, according to those religions, is a murder. But this position is only held by certain religions, and most importantly, not by all. So let us take another example of something which is differently considered in different religious traditions.

One of the justifications given by orthodox Jews for Kosher slaughter is its greater humane-ness. And in fact, the Orthodox Jew would insist that other slaughtering procedures constitute cruelty to animals. So, suppose that orthodox rabbis and others were to insist that all non-Kosher slaughter be banned, on grounds of preventing animal cruelty. How many would support this?

Nobody favors murder, nor does anyone favor cruelty to animals. Where we differ is what constitutes murder, or cruelty to animals. And to ban all abortions on the grounds that it is murder is to establish one religious group's definition of murder, or of a person, at the expense of others' beliefs.

And that brings in the First Amendment, which trumps the "abortion is murder" argument.

What happened to the First Amendment?

Today I saw a headline in the Washington Times which astonished me.

I am absolutely certain that this family's religious beliefs would appall me, but they certainly have a right under the First Amendment to ensure that the kid gets an education in their religion. How could the judge ignore this?

The Health Care Debate -- more on the "public option" question

There are people like Howard Dean and the "progressive coalition" who are taking the position that no health-care bill without a "public option" will get their vote. Since there are others who have stated that no health-care bill with a "public option" will get their vote, the far-out left, by taking this position, may be doing us a favor, even if their position is diametrically opposed to mine. For it looks like a guarantee that no health-care bill, with or without a "public option," will pass this year.

And this may, in fact, be the best way to go. Ideally, we need more discussion. We need a plan that really guarantees people the right to have insurance at least as good as what they have already -- The bills that are before Congress, regardless of what President Obama says, do not. And we need limitations on malpractice awards (alias "tort reform") which Obama has refused to implement -- he's trying to make insurance companies the villains, while the real villains are trial lawyers who force medical doctors to institute all sorts of unnecessary defensive actions to prevent frivolous lawsuits, and who force insurance companies to raise their malpractice insurance rates to cover outrageous awards. But Obama and the Democrats won't do anything to curb those malicious trial lawyers: they are too big supporters of Democratic candidates!

So probably the best thing to do is make sure that no health care legislation gets passed in 2009, so that a real reform can be enacted later! And we can thank the Howard Deans of this country for making this more likely!

The "Public option" -- what a fraud!

President Barack Obama has said that people who are happy with their current health care plan can keep it. But he is also advocating the so-called "public option" -- setting up a government-owned plan which would compete with private insurance companies, and which would be able to operate without paying taxes and would have many other things tilted in its favor. Certainly it's not going to be a level playing field. Saying that people who are happy with their current health care plan can keep it is such a fraud that Pres. Obama needs to have his feet put to the fire about this.

This is not Mayor Daley's Chicago!

President Barack Obama has lately been fulminating about people who want to look at the health care situation before being steamrollered into passing a bill. Ideas like forcing people to buy an approved health insurance plan or pay a fine, for example, are giving some of his supporters heart attacks. And the debate between those who insist we must include a "public option" and those who insist we must not include such an option is certain to prevent a broad agreement.

Well, this is the way things work under our Constitution.We have checks and balances to prevent anyone, including a President hell-bent on changing things, from accomplishing anything unless there is a broad consensus. It is not Mayor Daley's Chicago, where Obama got his political start!

And, really, thank God it is this way. We don't put through serious fundamental changes just because a President wants them. There are over 500 members of two houses of Congress that Pres. Obama will have to persuade (or at least persuade a majority of).

President Obama has to learn that he is not Mayor Daley. Even Lyndon Johnson, probably the most shilled President we have ever had at dealing with the Congress, took time getting his program through Congress, and this with a Congress that was trying to do right by the memory of the then-recently-assassinated John F. Kennedy.

Sarah Palin's future (second post by that title!)

Sarah Palin's resignation was, of course, as much of a surprise for me as for everyone else. What does this mean for the future?

In her speech, she said:

...I'll work hard for others who still believe in free enterprise and smaller government; strong national security for our country and support for our troops; energy independence; and for those who will protect freedom and equality and LIFE...

This is pretty important. She is certainly among those who call themselves "pro-life" (which really means "against all abortions," though saying it that way would not sound as good). And on that, she and I differ. But all the other things she mentioned there are mainstream Republican ideas with which I agree, so I can hardly call her the theocrat that I think Mike Huckabee is.

So what I think of Sarah Palin is: She is certainly not my preferred choice for the 2012 presidential nominee. But if she is nominated, and runs against a re-election-seeking Barack Obama, I would certainly vote for her.

And with the troubles that Sen. Ensign and Gov. Sanford have just been going through, she just might be the nominee!

Mark Sanford, John Ensign, and Bill Clinton

The recent announcements by Sen. John Ensign and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford are causing many comments, and are considered to be serious scandals, which probably will end both politicians' careers or seriously impair them. Certainly it will mean that neither has much chance to be nominated as the Presidential candidate of the Republican Party in 2012.

Of course, Bill Clinton still retains a lot of popularity. The obvious reason is that ex-Pres. Clinton is a liberal Democrat, and most of his support comes from people who have not been sexually moralistic towards others. By contrast, both Ensign and Sanford draw their support (or much of it) from so-called "social conservatives," who do tend to be overly moralistic about others' sexual conduct. So in a sense the chickens are coming home to roost.

But let us be frank here. Though Clinton's sins have not harmed him the way that Ensign's and Sanford's almost certainly will, it is Clinton who committed the worse acts. Clinton committed perjury (even if he was neither indicted nor successfully impeached for his conduct). He lied to a grand jury, and whether it was about sexual transgressions he wished to keep private or anything else, I maintain that this, not the original sexual escapade, is what the real case against Clinton was. What Ensign and Sanford did may have been a violation of marriage vows, but many other Presidents (certainly FDR, Eisenhower, and JFK) are known to have done this, as well as many lower level politicians. It did not end their careers, nor should it have. Unfortunately, it will hurt Ensign and Sanford because their supporters tend to be moralizers, while Clinton gets away with something much worse.

What would my cure be? Simply this: Let us concentrate on real misfeasance, not on sexual misadventures.

Ronald Reagan, as quoted by Newt Gingrich

Truer words were never spoken:

...Mr. Gingrich, as he did several times during the hourlong interview, quoted former President Reagan.
"As Reagan would have told them, 'You can be a majority, in which case you're going to have arguments set inside the room, or you can stay a minority. But what you can't do is have a majority that's only people you understand and agree with.' "

This is the only route the GOP can follow.

Iran's election

The protests in Iran make it clear. The election was rigged; most Iranians do not believe that two thirds of their number supported Ahmedinejad. Now the only question is, will the riots in the streets bring down the current government, as they brought down the Shah way back when?

The DC court and gay marriage

A court in the District of Columbia has decided that a referendum on a bill that the DC Council had passed recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions could not be held, as requested by petition. The court held that the city's Human Rights Law prevented the referendum. And the petitioners are crying "Save Marriage between a Man and a Woman!"


What puzzles me is the question: How does allowing same-sex couples to marry endanger marriage between men and women? I have never understood what the people opposed to same-sex marriage mean by this claim. And I wish someone would enlighten me.

More on Sotomayor

It is interesting that when Sonia Sotomayor was a prosecutor, she took on a child-pornography case that others in her office would not. Obviously, on First Amendment issues, she is far short of what I consider ideal.

The more I find out about this nominee, the more I dislike her. But that's the cost of electing Barack Obama. He gets to pick the judicial nominations for the next four years.

A choice, or innate?

There seems to be a debate going on as to whether homosexuality is a choice, or is innate. Obviously, the decision depends, in fact, on what one means by "homosexuality."

It is certain that people are born with various characteristics: some people are lactose-intolerant, others go bald at a young age, etc., etc. And being physically responsive to the opposite sex is almost certainly in a similar category.

On the other hand, how one responds to these impulses is a choice. Just as a heterosexual need not give in to those impulses, (think of Catholic priests, for example) so the same applies to homosexuals.

The question of whether they should is another thing.

If you believe, as some do, that homosexual behavior is a sin, then you are obligated to try to avoid it. On the other hand, not everyone believes this; and those who do have no business imposing their religious beliefs on others. You should live according to your own beliefs. But in this country we have freedom of religion, and others must be afforded the right to live according to theirs, as long as it harms nobody else.

Let us compare the attraction to same or opposite sex to, for example, tastes in food. Some are born with a tendency toward lactose intolerance. Others just don't like the taste of milk (myself, for example). Should either be forced to drink the stuff? If you agree with me that neither should be, why does it matter which homosexuality is?

There does appear to be a worry among some heterosexuals that homosexuals will try to engage them in sex against their will. But is every heterosexual a rapist? Obviously not. So why should the same be expected of gay people?

Too liberal, or too conservative?

Sometimes I run across people who are liberal where I think the conservative position is right, and conservative where the liberal position is right. Last year this was exemplified by Mike Huckabee. This year it looks like Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the new Obama nominee for Supreme Court Justice.

It seems that liberals love her, but I've seen at least one decision she made as a judge that could have come from Rush Limbaugh: Take a look at Mehdi v. United States Postal Service.

Two Muslims challenged the constitutionality of having Christmas trees at post offices, but no Muslim symbols. The trial court judge was Sotomayor, and she dismissed the complaint. Exactly what I would have expected of Limbaugh and his "Christian America" types. Do we really want this sort of judicial decision?

The Sonia Sotomayor nomination

President Barack Obama has nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court vacancy that will come about with the retirement of Justice David Souter. An unfortunate, but expected, nomination, and one that appears to be one we'll have to live with.

President Obama, as usual, has made sure his nominee is eminently qualified for the position for which he has nominated her. But unfortunately, the "empathy" which Pres. Obama thinks is a desirable quality in a Supreme Court Justice is just what a Justice should not have. A Supreme Court Justice should be impartial and bound only by the law, and "empathy" is an obstacle to this impartiality.

But yet, there is not much one can do. A President is not going to appoint someone who fails to meet his criteria, and if Judge Sotomayor is rejected by the Senate, Pres. Obama will send up another nominee just like her.

All the Senate can do is reveal just what kind of judge she is, and we can all hope that Barack Obama does not have a lot more Supreme Court appointments.

Colin Powell, Tom Ridge, Rush Limbaugh, and Dick Cheney

The quarrel between (on the one hand) Colin Powell and Tom Ridge and (on the other) Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney warrants comment. While I was very unhappy with Powell's support of Barack Obama for the presidency last year, and said as much, if he says he is still a Republican, we must take him at his word. After all, even Obama is willing to accept Joe Lieberman as a Democrat, and he certainly would have reason to harbor a grudge.

The fact is that there must be room in each party for variation in opinion. Our system provides for only two parties, and there cannot be a monolithic position that all Republicans (or all Democrats) must hold. It was the threats from some Republican circles to remove Arlen Specter, one of the best Republican Senators, that led to his declaring himself a Democrat. And the Cheney/Limbaugh assaults on moderate Republicans can only hurt the party.

If I had to choose between Tom Ridge's brand of Republicanism and Rush Limbaugh's, there is no question which way I'd go. And I disagree with Limbaugh on so many issues that it's hard to be in the same party with him. But yet, of course, I'd have more in common with Limbaugh than I do with Barack Obama, so I stay in the GOP. (Apparently, despite endorsing Obama, Gen. Powell thinks the same way.)

Let us insist on an inclusive Republican Party. Anything else concedes the USA to the Democrats.

The furor regarding Miss California

Carrie Prejean, who holds the title of Miss California, made some comments on the subject of gay marriage that have led to quite a controversy. Now that she is opposed to gay marriage may be a fact, but the important facts are:

• She is a beauty contest winner, not a politician who may be running the country,
• She is an American citizen, with First Amendment rights, and
• She is clearly a homophobic bigot.

Nobody need apologize for calling Carrie Prejean a bigot. She has clearly expressed herself, and demonstrated this. But calls for her to give up her Miss California title, which I saw after she had made the comments, are clearly unjustified. To my knowledge, the only qualifications for the title she holds are beauty and perhaps some entertainment-related talent. That she is a bigot doesn't disqualify her.

On the other hand, this doesn't make her a great person. She is (I hope you do not mind my repetition of these words) a homophobic bigot, and she deserves criticism over this. Anyone criticizing her has, just as much as she does, a First Amendment right to express himself.

This blog has not advocated gay marriage, and in fact I believe that at present a civil-union option is probably the best idea, but not because I oppose the idea of gay marriage. I merely think that the rights and privileges of a married couple are far more important than the actual word you use. And it is going to be easier to get civil unions in a lot of states than marriage by that name. If there are people who (for Biblical or other religious-based reasons) cannot support gay marriage but will accept civil unions, it's better to have them on your side than opposed to what you're trying to do. So this is my reason, and certainly the actual institution of marriage in states from Maine to Iowa gets no opposition from me; if you have the votes to get marriage legalized in your state, go for it. But a lot of effort was spent getting marriage in Vermont, which already had civil unions, and I think it would have been used to better effect getting civil unions in states that had no recognition of gay unions at all.

The nanny state?

There's a place I frequently go to on Sunday mornings because they have an all-you-can-eat buffet, with reasonably-priced breakfasts on weekends. I used to be especially fond of their corned beef hash; I really like corned beef hash, and theirs was good, and so many places you can't order hash without getting an egg on top, and I absolutely despise eggs, so this was a big treat for me. But a couple of months ago they stopped having the hash. I asked a manager, and he told me that since the County had a no-trans-fats law, they couldn't serve it; they were hoping they could come up with a recipe without trans fats, but until then, it was off the menu. Another thing I liked there was the hash brown potatoes; they still have them, but not as good -- instead of crispy and tasty, they are soggy-textured and much less flavorful. I didn't check on this, but I suspect the same rule led to this change. The government cares so much about "healthy food" that it mandates food that doesn't taste good. I'm sorry -- for me taste is important. I'm not going to die tomorrow if I ingest some hash with trans fats in them. Why couldn't they leave things alone?

Tom Ridge - contd.

Looks like, despite the stories I'd been reading, Tom Ridge is not going to run for Arlen Specter's seat. Oh well -- it would have been an interesting contest. I suspect Ridge probably would rather see Specter continue in office, but obviously, with the political facts being what they are, he no more could endorse him than anyone active in politics can endorse someone out of party and retain his own party's support.

Tom Ridge

Now that Arlen Specter has become a Democrat, some people have been boosting the idea of Tom Ridge running against him next year. That sounds like a great idea. Ridge would be far more the kind of Republican that I like to see in office than Pat Toomey, and if it's Ridge on the GOP side and Specter on the Democratic, Pennsylvania would be faced with a win/win choice. I'm not living in that state, but if I were, I'd vote for Ridge just to support the GOP; however, Specter (even if he calls himself a Democrat now) is close to me politically, and should he beat Ridge I could not be all that unhappy. Let's hope that Ridge does run!

An evaluation of Obama's first days

The media have decided that Obama's 100-day "anniversary" is the time to evaluate his administration. 100 days is probably not enough time to come up with a real picture of what kind of president Barack Obama is or will be, but I will join the others in evaluating the administration. It started out with some promise, because most of his nominees looked to be at least very qualified, even if further left than I would like to see. But one of those apparently very qualified nominees, Timothy Geithner, turned out to have serious tax problems (not a great thing for someone who is going to be running the department that incluses the IRS!) And just as Bill Clinton needed three tries to come up with an attorney general, Obama needed three tries to come up with a Commerce Secretary (admittedly, not quite as important a Cabinet position).


It is quite clear that Obama is governing not quite as far to the left as I feared, but still pretty far over. He's backed down on some of his more extreme proposals regarding Iraq, for ecample. But his version of the economic stimulus has clearly been a socialist's dream: even governors who stand to benefit have turned parts of it down because it comes with strings attached that they cannot accept.


His foreign policy looks successful at first; we now have more pleasant comments directed toward us than we did under George W. Bush. But this is at the cost of American values. They like us more, because we're deferring to their ideas more. This is a minus, not a plus!


The economy is starting to recover; how much of this is due to anything Obama's done is questionable, though.


All in all, Obama's not done as badly as I feared, but I'd hardly say it was starting well. It looks as though I'll have a lot more negative to say about his administration over the next three years.