As I listen to Senator Barack Obama's acceptance speech at Invesco Field in Denver, Colorado, the thought that crisscrosses my mind is my wish that John McCain had won the Republican nomination for president in 2000.
Had Republicans had the sense to give McCain that victory, hopefully followed by a McCain win in the general election, I strongly suspect that Barack Obama would not now have the opportunity to score easy points against his Republican opponent--whoever that opponent would have been--by stating simply that the latter had voted with the incumbent president ninety percent of the time, for even if that statistic were true, it would not have been such a political liability. Obama's fellow Democrats could not have lambasted the GOP for exacerbating the federal budget deficit and national debt, for a President McCain would not likely have pushed through unnecessary tax cuts, signed a massive new entitlement program into law and allowed federal spending to spiral out of control, as the current occupant of the White House has. Obama would not have been able to push his Iraq withdrawal strategy on the back of the success of the troop surge, either because the surge would have come at the time it should have--during the initial invasion of Iraq--or because, as I suspect, a President McCain might not have invaded Iraq at all.
Had Republicans not put their party's reins into the hands of a swaggering simpleton, they would not have handed the Democrats an opportunity to defeat the GOP candidate simply by associating him with the current president. Had they not relied on kneejerk cultural conservatism and gung-ho jingoism to narrowly win elections, then stupidly predict a "permanent majority" for their party, they would not have unwittingly placed a political parvenu with barely any governing experience and zero legislative achievements to speak of within spitting distance of the presidency. Had they done a better job of choosing their battles abroad--avoiding biting off more foreign wars than they could chew--and of adhering to true small-government conservative principles at home, they would not have put the Grand Old Party's faithful in a position in which they simply cannot point to substantial recent accomplishments, or impressive empirical results of their policies, to bolster their candidate's claim to the White House.
This is why I cannot wait to hear what the heirs to Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan plan to offer American voters at the Republican convention next week. Frankly, I am dreading the spectacle. This president's on-the-job performance has been abysmal in almost every respect, and those ideas of his administration that were arguably sound in theory, he has executed with the most atrocious incompetence. He has left his party's congressional cohort in tatters; even with the current Democratic Congress' subterranean approval ratings--less than half the president's, if that can be believed--the Dems are still expected to reinforce their grip on both houses of the nation's legislature this November. He has left conservative principles discredited in the eyes of most ordinary Americans, at least for the time being. He has robbed his partisans of any chance of regaining political advantage in the foreseeable future. He has left them in a position in which only the party's most notorious maverick would have made a viable presidential candidate--in which the Republican nominee's only hope in hell of winning this election depends on treating his own party's leader like a leper escaped from the colony.
Poor Republicans. What are they to do in such chilly climate? I, for one, suggest they take advantage of their current (and quite well-deserved) spell in the penalty box to train the new generation of rising stars in the party--the Jindals, the Sanfords, and the rest--for future leadership, wise leadership of the kind that will not leave the GOP so humiliated and disgraced in Americans' eyes ever again.
They must confront the increasing economic inequality in American society, the difficulties faced by the middle class and their disenchantment with Republican doctrine--face up to these issues and address them with coherent policies to combat them. They must discover new and innovative means of reducing the size and spending of the federal government--without abdicating Washington's basic social responsibilities to the people--before cutting taxes, rather than choking off crucial revenue streams while borrowing Chinese renminbi to make up the shortfall.
They must develop policies to empower Americans to bounce back from economic tribulations and adapt to economic evolution, rather than shielding them from global competition or propping them up in ways that diminish their incentives to work. They must find ways to rein in avaricious corporate executives and reckless Wall Street moneylenders, preventing them from bleeding their workers dry or derailing the economy without penalizing the entrepreneurial elan on which any society's prosperity is truly built. And they must learn how to wield American wealth and power more prudently and shrewdly on the world stage while continuing the tough work of gradually setting more and more captive peoples free, and without rewarding unscrupulous global actors (both state and non-state) for the dirt they do or sacrificing America's security on the altar of internationalism.
Quite the mouthful, this laundry list. Yet it is only a taste of the Herculean task that awaits today's beleaguered Republicans. If the party that abolished slavery and defeated the Soviet Union is to redeem itself from its current dishonor, then the sooner it begins the 21st-century overhaul it so desperately needs, the better.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Tempest on a Magazine Cover
What bizarre bedfellows and blood enemies this presidential election campaign has made. Each week seems to produce some new episode that, far from stoking the smoldering embers of partisan warfare, actually pits one faction of the American Left against another, causing them to fall upon each other like so many frenzied hyenas while non-liberals gaze on with bemused smirks, sometimes even lending a kind word of support to one side or the other. Like all entertaining spectacles, the primary clash of those two Democratic titans, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, had to come to an end eventually; but it was not long before America’s knack for crass bacchanalia stepped in to pick up the slack. In the past month alone, the 2008 campaign has brought us quadrennial shit-disturber Ralph Nader accusing Senator Obama of “talking white”—for failing to propose nationalizing the banking industry or abolishing unearned incomes, one imagines—as well as corporate shake-down artist Jesse Jackson’s stated wish to amputate the good Senator’s gonads for the principal sin of “talking down to black people”.
The third week of July has thus far treated us to the hue and cry over the cover art of The New Yorker’s latest issue. Its depiction of a turban-wearing Senator Obama fist-bumping a camouflage-clad, assault rifle-toting, fully-Afro’d Michelle in the Oval Office, with a wall-hanging portrait of Osama bin Laden overlooking a star-spangled banner merrily roasting in the fireplace:
...has sent America’s chattering classes into their latest fit of outraged conniptions. “The New Yorker may think…that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create,” lamented Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton. “But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.” It was not long before McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds and, eventually, Senator McCain himself hopped on the bandwagon, adding that they could see how many would find the cover offensive. Several months ago, the de facto Republican nominee commended Hillary Clinton, claiming she had indeed been the victim of sexist smears during the Democratic primaries. Now Senator McCain repeats that feat, defending one liberal voice from the purported mud-slinging of another. Meet Pair of Strange Bedfellows #1.
A frankly disturbing number of observers appear to have taken the magazine’s cheeky cover at face value. Does no one do any homework before passing political judgments anymore? Does no one realize that the New Yorker is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal publication, one that is openly sympathetic to the Democratic Party in general and to Senator Obama in particular? Indeed, the magazine is emblematic of the very same wealthy, white, college-educated, intellectually haughty, insufferably self-satisfied “limousine liberal” demographic that happens to constitute a pillar of Senator Obama’s electoral base. True to this form, The New Yorker has been harshly critical of the nonsensical caricatures of the Senator and his wife peddled by some of his less scrupulous conservative detractors. Given the content of the magazine’s cover, the track record of the publication itself and the context surrounding this whole situation, it is plainly obvious that the creator of this latest cover was taking aim at Senator Obama’s least reputable critics, not at the Senator himself. Yet that has in no way deterred legions of professional hand-wringers from braying over this latest faux pas. Now, here I am, implicitly defending the same temple of supercilious liberalism I lambasted in an earlier screed of mine. Say hello to Pair of Strange Bedfellows #2.
Needless to say, no such outcry was ever raised over the caricature of a caged, trussed-up John McCain being poked with sharpened bamboo sticks by President Bush and Senators Clinton and Obama, clad in Viet Cong-style black pyjamas, featured in last month’s issue of Rolling Stone magazine:
Surely I needn’t point out how grotesque and disgraceful this cartoon was, especially when one considers that Rolling Stone—the hip, youthful, sex-drugs-and-rock-n-roll, rage-against-the-machine liberal counterpart to the effete New Yorker—unquestionably meant for it to be taken quite literally. I am unsure when half a decade spent being tortured by communist jailers in the service of one’s country became an appropriate object of mockery and derision. What I am reasonably certain of is that Senator Obama himself has shown a great deal more good sense in his own personal response to the flap over the New Yorker’s cover than have his throngs of disciples. In his interview with CNN’s Larry King tonight, Obama coolly commented, “It’s a cartoon...and that’s why we’ve got the First Amendment. And I think the American people are probably spending a little more time worrying about what’s happening with the banking system and the housing market and what’s happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, than a cartoon. So I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking about it…I’ve seen and heard worse. I do think that…in attempting to satirize something, they probably fueled some misconceptions about me instead. But, you know, that was their editorial judgment.”
As tempted as I am to dismiss this reaction—unimpeachably lucid and sagacious to the untrained eye and ear—as just so much good-goody posturing, I have to conclude that it is sincere, given that it suits the generally unflappable demeanor of the Democrats’ newly minted nominee. If only the good Senator’s followers would take a page from his book on this matter.
The third week of July has thus far treated us to the hue and cry over the cover art of The New Yorker’s latest issue. Its depiction of a turban-wearing Senator Obama fist-bumping a camouflage-clad, assault rifle-toting, fully-Afro’d Michelle in the Oval Office, with a wall-hanging portrait of Osama bin Laden overlooking a star-spangled banner merrily roasting in the fireplace:
...has sent America’s chattering classes into their latest fit of outraged conniptions. “The New Yorker may think…that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create,” lamented Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton. “But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.” It was not long before McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds and, eventually, Senator McCain himself hopped on the bandwagon, adding that they could see how many would find the cover offensive. Several months ago, the de facto Republican nominee commended Hillary Clinton, claiming she had indeed been the victim of sexist smears during the Democratic primaries. Now Senator McCain repeats that feat, defending one liberal voice from the purported mud-slinging of another. Meet Pair of Strange Bedfellows #1.
A frankly disturbing number of observers appear to have taken the magazine’s cheeky cover at face value. Does no one do any homework before passing political judgments anymore? Does no one realize that the New Yorker is a dyed-in-the-wool liberal publication, one that is openly sympathetic to the Democratic Party in general and to Senator Obama in particular? Indeed, the magazine is emblematic of the very same wealthy, white, college-educated, intellectually haughty, insufferably self-satisfied “limousine liberal” demographic that happens to constitute a pillar of Senator Obama’s electoral base. True to this form, The New Yorker has been harshly critical of the nonsensical caricatures of the Senator and his wife peddled by some of his less scrupulous conservative detractors. Given the content of the magazine’s cover, the track record of the publication itself and the context surrounding this whole situation, it is plainly obvious that the creator of this latest cover was taking aim at Senator Obama’s least reputable critics, not at the Senator himself. Yet that has in no way deterred legions of professional hand-wringers from braying over this latest faux pas. Now, here I am, implicitly defending the same temple of supercilious liberalism I lambasted in an earlier screed of mine. Say hello to Pair of Strange Bedfellows #2.
Needless to say, no such outcry was ever raised over the caricature of a caged, trussed-up John McCain being poked with sharpened bamboo sticks by President Bush and Senators Clinton and Obama, clad in Viet Cong-style black pyjamas, featured in last month’s issue of Rolling Stone magazine:
Surely I needn’t point out how grotesque and disgraceful this cartoon was, especially when one considers that Rolling Stone—the hip, youthful, sex-drugs-and-rock-n-roll, rage-against-the-machine liberal counterpart to the effete New Yorker—unquestionably meant for it to be taken quite literally. I am unsure when half a decade spent being tortured by communist jailers in the service of one’s country became an appropriate object of mockery and derision. What I am reasonably certain of is that Senator Obama himself has shown a great deal more good sense in his own personal response to the flap over the New Yorker’s cover than have his throngs of disciples. In his interview with CNN’s Larry King tonight, Obama coolly commented, “It’s a cartoon...and that’s why we’ve got the First Amendment. And I think the American people are probably spending a little more time worrying about what’s happening with the banking system and the housing market and what’s happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, than a cartoon. So I haven’t spent a lot of time thinking about it…I’ve seen and heard worse. I do think that…in attempting to satirize something, they probably fueled some misconceptions about me instead. But, you know, that was their editorial judgment.”
As tempted as I am to dismiss this reaction—unimpeachably lucid and sagacious to the untrained eye and ear—as just so much good-goody posturing, I have to conclude that it is sincere, given that it suits the generally unflappable demeanor of the Democrats’ newly minted nominee. If only the good Senator’s followers would take a page from his book on this matter.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Aha...
Today's Washington Post featured an article by E.J. Dionne that began by asking, "If the long conservative era that began with Ronald Reagan's election is over, will the judges appointed during the right's ascendancy be able to block, frustrate and undermine the efforts of a new progressive majority?" In a nutshell, Mr. Dionne spends the next thirteen paragraphs answering this question with a resounding "probably".
He may very well turn out to be right, and I share his belief that unelected conservative judges have no business thwarting the clearly expressed democratic will of the American people based on their own personal ideological biases. Almost needless to say, however, Mr. Dionne entirely ignores the myriad cases with which the jurisprudential landscape is littered in which liberal judges did just that. This is not to mention the, shall we say, rather overstated litany of potential horrors he fears a more right-leaning Court may perpetrate which he parades in front of the reader.
"It's not hard to imagine the cases that conservatives would bring against laws passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a President Barack Obama," Dionne writes. "Why wouldn't a movement that has tried to eviscerate wetlands laws and the Endangered Species Act challenge cap-and-trade legislation aimed at dealing with global warming? If Congress ever passed a "card-check" law to make it easier for unions to organize, those who never much liked the minimum wage or collective bargaining would certainly try to overturn the new labor right in court. And what would be the legal fate of new regulations on banking called forth by the economic devastation of the subprime mess, or bank bailouts that may be necessary to keep capitalism on track, or mandatory mortgage renegotiations to keep people from being thrown out of their homes?"
It's quite the doomsday scenario our friend has painted for us, isn't it? Well. While I wouldn't quite put it past legions of fulminating right-wing lawyers to mount constitutional challenges to many, or perhaps even most, or perhaps even all of the afore-enumerated liberal policies, I rather suspect that the odds are against the Court's striking down many, if any, of them on constitutional grounds. Let us disregard the obvious riposte that few or no such challenges could honestly be said to be grounded in the Constitution's written strictures--after all, this would prove no great obstacle to truly activist judges, even those of a conservative bent. Mr. Dionne, I think, has greatly overestimated the conservatism of today's Supreme Court. There are still only four reliable, consistent conservatives on the Court today: the boilerplate-spewing Thomas, the old originalist warhorse Scalia, and the new kids on the block, Roberts and Alito. As last week's decision rejecting the death penalty as punishment for the unspeakably brutal rape of a young girl showed, this right-wing cohort is more than effectively counterbalanced by the aging liberal luminaries Stevens, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg. Chief Narcissist Kennedy, meanwhile, ricochets between liberal and conservative positions with merry abandon. Today's Court isn't right-wing; it's polarized, is what it is.
That may change, of course, should John McCain pull off the remarkable feat of winning the presidency--and the right to make Supreme Court nominations for at least the next four years with it. I say "may change" rather than "will change" simply because it is not unheard of for a president to grossly misperceive the true ideological leanings and judicial philosophy of one of his appointees to the Court. (The incorrigibly liberal David Souter was, after all, appointed by the first President Bush on the mistaken expectation--fed by Souter's own nomination hearing testimony--that he would hew to the conservative, "originalist" wing of the bench.) Nonetheless, even this possibility hardly gets Mr. Dionne off the hook, since as the above excerpt from his article shows, the scenario he draws presupposes the accession of a certain apostle of Audacious Hope to the Oval Office.
Even if McCain should beat the odds and win the White House, however, and eventually dispatch more conservative gavel-pounders to One First Street Northeast, Washington, D.C., and said Justices do deep-six a slew of liberal pet projects, it will still prove my essential argument. Because if this (unlikely) scenario does play out, we can rely upon Mr. Dionne and his co-ideologues to condemn said jurisprudence, in the strongest terms, as a form of "judicial activism" or "judicial overreach"--which is precisely what it would be. It would be a golden opportunity for right-wingers to puff up their chests and say, "So, you liberals want to appoint judges who'll legislate from the bench? Well, two can play at that game!" This would be just the rude awakening liberals need as to how judicial activism lends itself just as well to right-wing causes as to left-wing ones, and prove that the intrinsic principle on which such activism ultimately rests is neither liberalism nor conservatism, but quite simply the raw, virtually unchecked power of the judges themselves. May such a turn of events finally open liberals' eyes to the folly of allowing unelected and unaccountable judges to remake the Constitution in their own ideological image and likeness. Now that is an audacious hope indeed.
He may very well turn out to be right, and I share his belief that unelected conservative judges have no business thwarting the clearly expressed democratic will of the American people based on their own personal ideological biases. Almost needless to say, however, Mr. Dionne entirely ignores the myriad cases with which the jurisprudential landscape is littered in which liberal judges did just that. This is not to mention the, shall we say, rather overstated litany of potential horrors he fears a more right-leaning Court may perpetrate which he parades in front of the reader.
"It's not hard to imagine the cases that conservatives would bring against laws passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a President Barack Obama," Dionne writes. "Why wouldn't a movement that has tried to eviscerate wetlands laws and the Endangered Species Act challenge cap-and-trade legislation aimed at dealing with global warming? If Congress ever passed a "card-check" law to make it easier for unions to organize, those who never much liked the minimum wage or collective bargaining would certainly try to overturn the new labor right in court. And what would be the legal fate of new regulations on banking called forth by the economic devastation of the subprime mess, or bank bailouts that may be necessary to keep capitalism on track, or mandatory mortgage renegotiations to keep people from being thrown out of their homes?"
It's quite the doomsday scenario our friend has painted for us, isn't it? Well. While I wouldn't quite put it past legions of fulminating right-wing lawyers to mount constitutional challenges to many, or perhaps even most, or perhaps even all of the afore-enumerated liberal policies, I rather suspect that the odds are against the Court's striking down many, if any, of them on constitutional grounds. Let us disregard the obvious riposte that few or no such challenges could honestly be said to be grounded in the Constitution's written strictures--after all, this would prove no great obstacle to truly activist judges, even those of a conservative bent. Mr. Dionne, I think, has greatly overestimated the conservatism of today's Supreme Court. There are still only four reliable, consistent conservatives on the Court today: the boilerplate-spewing Thomas, the old originalist warhorse Scalia, and the new kids on the block, Roberts and Alito. As last week's decision rejecting the death penalty as punishment for the unspeakably brutal rape of a young girl showed, this right-wing cohort is more than effectively counterbalanced by the aging liberal luminaries Stevens, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg. Chief Narcissist Kennedy, meanwhile, ricochets between liberal and conservative positions with merry abandon. Today's Court isn't right-wing; it's polarized, is what it is.
That may change, of course, should John McCain pull off the remarkable feat of winning the presidency--and the right to make Supreme Court nominations for at least the next four years with it. I say "may change" rather than "will change" simply because it is not unheard of for a president to grossly misperceive the true ideological leanings and judicial philosophy of one of his appointees to the Court. (The incorrigibly liberal David Souter was, after all, appointed by the first President Bush on the mistaken expectation--fed by Souter's own nomination hearing testimony--that he would hew to the conservative, "originalist" wing of the bench.) Nonetheless, even this possibility hardly gets Mr. Dionne off the hook, since as the above excerpt from his article shows, the scenario he draws presupposes the accession of a certain apostle of Audacious Hope to the Oval Office.
Even if McCain should beat the odds and win the White House, however, and eventually dispatch more conservative gavel-pounders to One First Street Northeast, Washington, D.C., and said Justices do deep-six a slew of liberal pet projects, it will still prove my essential argument. Because if this (unlikely) scenario does play out, we can rely upon Mr. Dionne and his co-ideologues to condemn said jurisprudence, in the strongest terms, as a form of "judicial activism" or "judicial overreach"--which is precisely what it would be. It would be a golden opportunity for right-wingers to puff up their chests and say, "So, you liberals want to appoint judges who'll legislate from the bench? Well, two can play at that game!" This would be just the rude awakening liberals need as to how judicial activism lends itself just as well to right-wing causes as to left-wing ones, and prove that the intrinsic principle on which such activism ultimately rests is neither liberalism nor conservatism, but quite simply the raw, virtually unchecked power of the judges themselves. May such a turn of events finally open liberals' eyes to the folly of allowing unelected and unaccountable judges to remake the Constitution in their own ideological image and likeness. Now that is an audacious hope indeed.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
"Mexicans and Machines"
I'm no fan of Drew Carey's comedy--I still consider his sitcom the unfunniest one that ever sullied my TV screen--but I have to say, the man makes a righteous political commentator. Just take a look at this latest missive on Reason TV, in response to certain politicians'
and prime-time talk show gasbags'
rampant anti-NAFTA demagogy:
http://www.reason.tv/video/show/451.html
Seriously! Ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-check it out!!
and prime-time talk show gasbags'
rampant anti-NAFTA demagogy:
http://www.reason.tv/video/show/451.html
Seriously! Ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-ch-check it out!!
A Breath of Fresh Obamair
Senator Barack Obama, today: “I disagree with the decision [i.e. the recent Supreme Court decision striking down the death penalty for child rapists as cruel and unusual punishment]. ...I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances, for the most egregious of crimes. I think that the rape of a small child--six or eight years old--is a heinous crime, and if a state makes a decision that, under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances, the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution. Now...had the Supreme Court said ‘We want to constrain the ability of states to do this to make sure that it's done in a careful and appropriate way’, that would have been one thing. But it basically had a blanket prohibition and I disagree with that decision.”
Fascinating.
It's nice to hear a prominent Democrat finally showing a willingness to disagree with a Supreme Court decision that happens to adhere to his party's orthodoxy. It is safe to presume that liberals, many of whom oppose capital punishment in toto, pretty much all oppose it as punishment for any crime other than murder. A five-Justice majority has just endorsed this position. I actually personally share this particular view; I'm just not sure that the (unelected and unaccountable) Supreme Court is justified in forcing it on (democratically elected and accountable) American policymakers, given the vagueness of the Constitution's “cruel and unusual punishment” clause. (I especially can't abide this “evolving standards of decency” bovine excrement—definitely one of the most ludicrous excuses for a constitutional test the Court has cooked up since the
Can it finally have dawned on Senator Obama that the Justices on the Court—even the liberal ones!—cannot be trusted to substitute their own judgment, heavily colored as it is by their ideological predilections, for the guidance provided by the written text of the Constitution itself? That activist interpretations of that august eighteenth-century parchment—with their dubious distortions of the Constitution’s meaning that go far beyond what the Framers and their successors enshrined in writing—are no more legitimate when they happen to suit his liberal policy agenda than they are when they happen to suit his opponents’? That the Constitution means only what it actually says—nothing more, nothing less?
Of course, I have my doubts, and even if this salient fact has dawned on the esteemed Senator, I imagine he wouldn’t dare risk unnerving his base even more than this latest statement probably already has by saying so in public. Suffice it to express my own personal pleasure at seeing Obama’s display of a modicum of political courage in critiquing a decision handed down from on high by the Gnomes of Foggy Bottom that must have warmed most liberals’ hearts. Obama seems to have be on the cusp of the realization that there is more to being a solid interpreter of the Constitution than “having empathy for the powerless” or “knowing what it’s like to be black, or female, or poor, or gay”, to paraphrase the criteria based on which he has claimed he would select his Supreme Court nominees as president.
The hell of it is that this particular decision needn’t have been the catalyst for this potential epiphany, for as stated above, the Court’s opinion in this case may not necessarily be a case of judicial activism per se. At least this majority opinion actually had a textual leg to stand on—namely, the Eighth Amendment—and the Justices may arguably be on solid ground in using their own judgment to interpret the unhelpfully vague Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, lest this crucial star in the constitutional firmament go completely unenforced. If only the Court would discard such deeply flawed tools as the fatuous “evolving standards of decency” test, I might actually side with the Learned Elders of First Street against the Democratic Party’s newly christened Boy Wonder.
Monday, June 9, 2008
"Screwing the Pooch"...
...as I while away my days looking for post-graduate employment, the above-mentioned naughty little expression crosses my mind. When did bestiality become a metaphor for idleness anyway?
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Obama & Hillary's Debt
Just a quick post to express my amusement at recent proposals, made most prominently by inveterate Clinton supporter and former vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, for the Obama campaign and its supporters to donate money to the Clinton campaign to help defray the latter's debt. Only liberal Democrats could come up with such a jokey scheme. God forbid Senator Clinton should assume full responsibility for running her own campaign into the ground and deal with the consequences of her ineptitude. Does the mind really not rebel against any scenario in which the fair-and-square winner of a political contest owes the loser compensation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)