AmericaWantsToKnow.com

Hillary Clinton and the big refund

2008-05-09T03:18:00.000-07:00

If Senator Hillary Clinton seems unusually reluctant to read the handwriting on the wall and withdraw gracefully from the presidential race, the reason might be money.

Specifically, the money she raised for the general election.

You might remember that in the long-ago days of early 2007, Senator Clinton asked her donors for $4,600, even though federal law limits an individual's contributions for the primary election to $2,300. The second $2,300 was for the general election, the Clinton team explained to the donors, and why not collect it early and show the political world some real financial muscle?

The trouble is, the Clinton campaign is required by federal law to return those $2,300 checks for the general election campaign if Senator Clinton is not the Democratic nominee.

It's possible, of course, that the general election money is locked away in a separate account and it will be no problem at all to comply with federal law and send those checks right back to the donors who wrote them.

I think we're all in agreement that this can safely be ruled out.

It's hard to believe that Hillary Clinton loaned her campaign $11 million from her personal funds while there was a single uncashed check lying around the office.

That means she has to replace those general election funds, and fast, before she gets out of the race and the nice folks from the Federal Election Commission stop by her Senate office to say hi.

This would explain her plea for funds during her election-night speech in Indiana, and the fundraiser she attended the next day, and the conference call her husband reportedly held with donors on Thursday.

It's a pain to pay campaign debt, but it's a crime to use general election donations for a primary.

How much does she have to refund? It may be difficult to determine. This is an excerpt from Kenneth P. Vogel's story in the Politico, April 2, 2007:

Things could be particularly tricky this presidential cycle, though, since it’s the first in which multiple candidates are expected to raise money for both the primary and general election. That effectively doubles the amount candidates can accept from each donor to $4,600 -- technically $2,300 for the primary and $2,300 for the general election.

Candidates may pad their fundraising hauls by including their general election contributions in proclamations trumpeting their fundraising success. But [PoliticalMoneyLine's campaign cash tracker Kent] Cooper said it will be important for reporters to separate out such contributions, since candidates who don’t win their party’s nomination will have to refund donations for the general election.

The FEC doesn’t have a system for quickly distinguishing such funds, but it’s working on one, said spokeswoman Michelle Ryan.

So there you have it. If Hillary Clinton stays in the race all the way until the convention in Denver, she can stall the day of financial reckoning until the very moment the delegates nominate Barack Obama for president.

Between now and then, you may hear teams of political experts declare that they don't know why Senator Clinton is staying in the race, they don't know why she's risking her reputation and her political future, and they don't know why she won't listen to all the advisors who are giving her such good advice.

They may not know, but you will.

Copyright 2008

.

The Clintons knife each other

2008-05-07T14:40:00.000-07:00

Hillary Clinton's victory speech in Indiana Tuesday night included a gracious thank-you to her supporters.

The senator's daughter and husband stood behind her while she acknowledged a long list of elected officials who had endorsed her and campaigned for her in Indiana and North Carolina.

Then she talked about her family.

"Didn't Chelsea do a great job?" she asked the crowd, to a thunderous ovation.

"And I know a lot of people enjoyed seeing my husband again," she said.

Yeee-ouch!

No "thank-you", no "great job," no stream of praise for his accomplishments, no faux affection for the cameras.

She didn't even include herself among the people who enjoyed seeing him.

He didn't look any too happy about it.

Revenge was quick.

This morning, Senator George McGovern spoke to the press about his decision to switch his support from Senator Clinton to Senator Obama. He had a conversation with Bill Clinton, McGovern said, and the former president made no effort to change his mind. "He just wanted me to know that he thinks that Hillary has made a great race and it's up to her to decide when she leaves," McGovern said.

Yeee-ouch!

If Chelsea can patch them up this time, she ought to get a talk show. She'd beat Dr. Phil like a drum.

Copyright 2008

.

Tabloid update: "Obama Marriage Explodes!"

2008-04-27T08:16:00.000-07:00

America Wants To Know likes to keep you up-to-date on the latest stories from the supermarket tabloids, and this week the paper that jumped into our hands at the checkstand was the National Enquirer.

"Obama Marriage Explodes!" the cover screams in bright yellow block letters. It promises "All the shocking details," including "Wife confronts him over cheating," "Love Notes," and "Photos."

Yes, well, not so fast.

Inside, we learn from a "close source":

"When they first decided to get into politics, Barack agreed to tell all, but now Michelle wants to be sure he's been completely honest. She worries there are women from his past who could destroy them."

And then, the "close source" spills this:

"Call it women's intuition, but Michelle is locked onto this notion and isn't backing down. She's afraid there could even be pictures or love notes that could humiliate them."

The Enquirer goes on to reveal that Barack Obama insists there are no women, no love notes, and no photos.

And that is what the National Enquirer used to splash its front cover with a story that makes the Obama marriage look quite a lot like the Clinton marriage.

Gosh, who would have a motive to do such a thing?

America Wants To Know will not wake up its in-house detective on a Sunday morning for this one.

We have a "close source" -- actually it's the web site for Williams & Connolly -- to confirm that there is, in fact, a direct link between the Clintons and the National Enquirer.

His name is David E. Kendall, and he is a partner in the Washington D.C. law firm, Williams & Connolly, LLP.

Mr. Kendall's biography cheerfully admits, "He began representing President and Mrs. Clinton in November 1993, in what was ostensibly a small savings and loan matter involving Whitewater Development Company, Inc. He went on to represent the Clintons in a variety of matters, including Independent Counsel, Senate, House of Representatives, FDIC, RTC, and bar counsel investigations, civil litigation, and the 1998-99 impeachment proceedings, and currently represents them in three civil matters."

They certainly keep him busy.

But Mr. Kendall also found time, his biography reports, to represent publications including the "National Enquirer (where he supervised prepublication copy review for over a decade and a half)."

A decade and a half.

Do you think, in fifteen years of supervising prepublication copy review, he made a few contacts in the editorial offices?

Well, all right, so we're cynical.

But you have to admit, it's perfectly logical for the Clintons to want to convince voters that no politician's marriage is any different from the Clintons' marriage. You can almost hear the dinner table conversation that takes place just before the pollster calls:

"I'm not voting for Hillary because her husband cheats on her and it's going to be a zoo in that White House."

"Don't be naive, all politicians cheat and lie. Obama's no different. His wife caught him cheating and there are love notes and photos, and they're no different than the Clintons."

The fact that there are no love notes and no photos and nobody caught Barack Obama cheating will not be obvious because only America Wants To Know actually went to the trouble of reading this tripe.

For the record, we greatly prefer the Globe. When the Globe tells you "Laura Claws Boozing Bush," you can take it to the bank.

Copyright 2008

Editor's note: You might be interested in the earlier post, "What Barack Obama didn't say."

.

Curse foiled again!

2008-04-13T14:19:00.000-07:00

Today, in a corridor behind a soon-to-be restaurant in a future stadium in New York City, there was a battle of such mythic and historic proportion that Cecil B. DeMille must have turned to Charlton Heston and said, "I love you, Chuck, but the part calls for someone younger and more ethnic."

That's a picture of Frank Gramarossa, project executive for the new Yankee Stadium, holding up the Boston Red Sox jersey that construction worker Gino Castignoli buried in the concrete foundation of the stadium.

True baseball fans believe in curses.

(America Wants to Know is a Cubs fan, if you doubt our credentials on this issue.)

Mr. Castignoli's plot to put a curse on the New York Yankees by burying the jersey of their despised rival deep in the concrete under their new home field was foiled after the New York Post reported it on Friday.

Any normal person would have said there was nothing that could be done about it.

This is why normal people pay to see the New York Yankees, and not the other way around.

That's a picture of a construction worker jackhammering the foundation of the new Yankee Stadium.

That's a picture of Frank Gramarossa pulling the shredded Red Sox jersey from its mafia grave.

There will be no Red Sox curse on the new Yankee Stadium.

Don't mess with Zeus.

Copyright 2008

.

The logical conclusion of CBS News

2008-04-07T22:08:00.000-07:00

It was evident when CBS News decided to replace Bob Schieffer with Katie Couric that the people running the division did not want to be in the news business.

They wanted to attract a different audience. A wider audience. An audience of people who weren't watching news broadcasts because they don't like news broadcasts.

We predicted at the time [See "Bob Schieffer's elegant exit"] that instead of expanding the audience, CBS would lose everybody.

And when the budget skyrocketed and the ratings fell, we observed Katie Couric's great skill at distancing herself from the blame [See "The coming bloodbath at CBS News"].

Now the New York Times reports that CBS News president Sean McManus is in talks with CNN news group president Jim Walton about "a deal to outsource some of [CBS'] news-gathering operations to CNN."

This raises an obvious question: If the executives at CBS don't like the news business, why don't they just get out of the news business? Why don't they broadcast a nightly show about dancing celebrities who design high-fashion clothes on an island with Donald Trump?

No, no, no, that's not necessary, there's no reason for any of the news executives to lose their jobs.

The network will simply "cut costs while maintaining the CBS News brand, although in a much trimmed-down fashion," the New York Times reports.

CBS is paying Katie Couric $15 million a year, and she is going to sit in the anchor chair and look serious until her contract runs out.

Because nobody at CBS is going to admit that it was a mistake to kick Bob Schieffer to the curb after his ratings actually increased during the time he anchored the nightly broadcast.

And nobody at CBS is going to admit that it was a mistake to let John Roberts get away and go to work at CNN.

Instead, CBS is going to negotiate a deal that will end with the network's miscast anchor reading lead-ins to John Roberts' CNN reports.

Here's some free advice for Bob Schieffer: Set up a webcam at your kitchen table and upload a daily newscast to YouTube, where you can draw the younger viewers and have the last laugh.

See you on the Internet. Drop me a note at Susan@ExtremeInk.com and say hi when you get here.

Copyright 2008

.

Vice President William J. Fallon

2008-04-06T17:09:00.000-07:00

The Democratic nominee for president should think about putting this man on the ticket:

That's Admiral William J. Fallon, until just recently the commander of U.S. Central Command, responsible for overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Bush administration ousted Admiral Fallon after Esquire magazine published a profile of him that highlighted his opposition to a war with Iran and his desire to draw down U.S. troop levels in Iraq right now.

Where does Admiral Fallon stand on tax policy? On trade? On the environment? Is he even a Democrat?

It doesn't matter.

There is no issue more important than the war in Iraq, except perhaps the war in Afghanistan, not to mention the war with Iran that the Bush administration may be planning.

When decisions are made about whether to pull troops out of one country or deploy them to another, it would be immeasurably reassuring to have someone high in the administration who really knows what he's doing. Someone who can evaluate the intelligence and the reports from the commanders. Someone who doesn't need to build a reputation for toughness.

This is from Admiral Fallon's biography on the U.S. Navy's web site:

Adm. Fallon commanded Attack Squadron 65 embarked aboard Dwight D. Eisenhower, Medium Attack Wing 1 at NAS Oceana, Va., and Carrier Air Wing 8 aboard Theodore Roosevelt during a combat deployment to the Persian Gulf for Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Assigned as Commander, Carrier Group 8 in 1995, he deployed to the Mediterranean as Commander, Theodore Roosevelt Battle Group and commanded Battle Force 6th Fleet (CTF 60) during NATO’s combat Operation Deliberate Force in Bosnia. Adm. Fallon served as Commander, 2nd Fleet and Commander, Striking Fleet Atlantic from November 1997 to September 2000.

Shore duties included assignment as Aide and Flag Lieutenant to the Commander, Fleet Air Jacksonville, and to the staffs of Commander, Reconnaissance Attack Wing 1; Commander, Operational Test Force, and Commander, Naval Air Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet. He has served as Deputy Director for Operations, Joint Task Force, Southwest Asia in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and as Deputy Director, Aviation Plans and Requirements on the Staff of the Chief of Naval Operations in Washington. His first flag officer assignment was with NATO as Assistant Chief of Staff, Plans and Policy for Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic. He was then assigned as Deputy and Chief of Staff, U.S. Atlantic Fleet followed by assignment as Deputy Commander in Chief and Chief of Staff, U.S. Atlantic Command. Adm. Fallon served as the 31st Vice Chief of Naval Operations from October 2000 to August 2003. He was the Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command and U.S. Atlantic Fleet from October 2003 to February 2005. He served as Commander, U.S. Pacific Command from February 2005 until March 2007. Adm. Fallon is a graduate of the Naval War College, Newport, R.I., the National War College in Washington, D.C., and has a Master of Arts degree in International Studies from Old Dominion University.

His awards include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Bronze Star, Meritorious Service Medal, Air Medal, Navy Commendation Medal, and various unit and campaign decorations.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates called Admiral Fallon "one of the best strategic thinkers in uniform today."

Esquire's profile describes the grueling work schedule that Admiral Fallon maintained as commander of Centcom. "Fallon travels at least three weeks out of each month, spending, on average, two weeks in theater, meaning the Middle East, the Horn of Africa, and Central Asia," wrote Thomas P.M. Barnett, "He travels to Iraq and Afghanistan every month like clockwork."

Senator John McCain has made eight trips to Iraq and still isn't sure which militants are al-Qaeda and which ones are Iranian-backed Shiites, but he thinks the "surge" is going splendidly and believes the United States ought to have troops in Iraq for the rest of our lives, if necessary.

Admiral Fallon disagrees with that view. He thinks there is another way to protect the national security of the United States.

He told Esquire that what America needs is a "combination of strength and willingness to engage."

And he's no armchair quarterback.

William J. Fallon for Vice President.

Copyright 2008

Editor's note: You might be interested in reading "A Plan to Get Out of Iraq: Blackstone's Fundamental Rights and the Power of Property" [2004] and "Why the Iraq Policy Isn't Working," [2005] along with "The Motive for War: How to End the Violence in Iraq" [2006], and "Hearing from the Troops" [2008].

.

Bill Clinton's tax problem

2008-04-05T07:40:00.000-07:00

On March 28, a web site called Cayman Net News Online published a story about former President Bill Clinton's "substantial financial stake in three Cayman Islands-registered investment entities."

They were referring to President Clinton's investments with Yucaipa Companies, a Los Angeles-based holding company founded in 1986 by billionaire Ron Burkle. The investments, according to the report, "are believed to offer the former president a fairly risk-free potential yield in the order of tens of millions of dollars."

The Cayman Islands have no domestic taxation system, but President Clinton is still liable for U.S. taxes on income earned through Yucaipa's investment funds.

"The crucial, and as yet unanswered question," said Cayman Net News, "is whether the money in the funds represents a salary, taxed at a potential high of 35 percent, or equity compensation, which could only attract 15 percent taxation."

Yesterday afternoon the Clintons released their tax returns, perhaps answering the crucial question.

We say "perhaps," because we have no expertise in tax law.

But a cursory look at the Clintons' 2005 return finds a $5,000,000 payment from "Yucaipa Global Opportunities Fund I" reported on Schedule E, "Income or Loss from Partnerships and S Corporations."

Bloomberg News dug through the tax returns and found $15.4 million in income from Yucaipa since 2003. Reporter Ryan J. Donmoyer calculates that it was twenty percent of Mr. Clinton's income during that period.

Mr. Donmoyer got some tax lawyers on the phone and reports that they think "the Yucaipa partnership income for Bill Clinton looks to be a form of salary because it was in round numbers for most years."

Yucaipa paid the big guy $1 million in 2003, $4 million in 2004, and $5 million in 2005.

Tom Ochsenschlager, vice president of taxation at the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, told Bloomberg News that "the flat amounts received from Yucaipa are odd" and agreed with other experts that it indicated Bill Clinton was paid for performing a service.

Apparently, if that money was a salary, President Clinton owed 35 percent of it in income taxes.

Apparently that's not what he paid.

Apparently, the whole time that Hillary Clinton and her husband have been telling anyone who'll listen that they didn't want George W. Bush's tax cut and they don't need it and they should be asked to pay more, they've been evading taxes with a sketchy partnership in the Cayman Islands.

If the usual pattern holds, Bill Clinton will spend the next week thunderously denying that he did any favors for Dubai or any of Ron Burkle's other interesting partners. He'll point his finger and turn red and accuse the Republicans and the media of trying to destroy him, HIM, the most generous and charitable ex-president that he's ever seen in his lifetime.

If he thunders loudly enough, maybe everyone will be distracted from the question about the tax rate.

Everyone except NBC's David Shuster. You can't get anything by David Shuster.

Now we know why the Clintons tried to get him fired.

There's always a reason.

Copyright 2008

Editor's note: You might be interested in the earlier posts, "A Principled Walkout?" and "The Clintons play smashmouth."

UPDATE ON 4-5-08: ABC News reports on its web site, "The [Clintons' tax] returns also show that the 31 percent tax rate was applied to the $15 million in supplementary income the former president earned from his partnership in an international investment fund based in the Cayman Islands."

This only goes to prove once again that I'm not as good as David Shuster.

But if the Clintons benefited from investment returns enhanced by the tax-free shelter of the Cayman Islands, I still think they should stop calling for their taxes to be raised.

.

Bill Clinton's ambulance

2008-04-03T18:31:00.000-07:00

Former President Bill Clinton was campaigning in Indiana yesterday when he decided to tell the crowd the story of where he was and what he did the night Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated.

"I remember so well watching Bobby Kennedy here the night Martin Luther King was killed," President Clinton said. "Then, I was in Washington at Georgetown, the city exploded into flames and I turned my car into an ambulance and I took supplies to the African Americans that were burned out of their homes and were hiding in church basements basically trying to stay alive, and surrounded by national guardsmen protecting them."

He turned his car into an ambulance.

He ran supplies through National Guard lines to African Americans hiding in church basements.

Have we ever heard him tell this story before?

You'd think he would have mentioned it once or twice by now.

Maybe he just remembered it.

Maybe the next time he tells the story he'll remember the part about the sniper fire.

But he should probably leave out the part about Sinbad being in the church basement. Too easy to check.

Copyright 2008

.

What do you say to a naked lady?

2008-03-26T20:15:00.000-07:00

It's time for Americans to admit that when it comes to sex scandals, France is the world's only superpower.

Check out this photo:

That's Prince Charles kissing the gloved hand of Carla Bruni-Sarkozy at the welcoming ceremony today at London's Heathrow Airport. The man gripping Mrs. Sarkozy's elbow is her husband Nicolas, the president of France.

If President Sarkozy looks a little tense, it might be because a nude full-body photo of his wife was published in all the British tabloids today. The portrait, taken fifteen years ago by Michel Comte, will be auctioned by Christie's in New York on April 10.

Here's a different photo from Mrs. Sarkozy's modeling career that ran this week in an Australian paper:

She's Italian and her husband is Hungarian, but those boots are pure Germany.

Anyway, the point is that the newlywed Mrs. Sarkozy, seen here at an official state dinner at the Elysee Palace in Paris earlier this month...

...and the sublimely happy, if exhausted, Nicolas Sarkozy...

...were welcomed in Britain by, speaking of sex scandals, the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall...

...and everyone's perfectly happy. Completely calm. Utterly unfazed.

We just don't have anything to hold a candle to it. Look at the week we had in the sex scandal division:

-- New York Governor Eliot Spitzer was snagged by the Patriot Act and forced from office for overpaying an aspiring pop singer for unsafe sex with his socks on.

-- New York Governor David Paterson was forced by blackmailers to admit that the Quality Inn was his motel of choice for adulterous affairs.

-- Former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey insisted that his wife was lying when she denied having a threesome with his gay lover.

-- Somebody mentioned Monica Lewinsky to Chelsea Clinton and every newspaper in America wrote a story about it.

Compare these pathetic attempts at scandal to the fabulous French achievement. Nicolas Sarkozy waited until he was elected president of France to divorce his wife Cecilia and marry supermodel Carla Bruni. And if you think we've heard the last of Cecilia, guess again: earlier this week she flew to New York and married public relations executive Richard Attias in what the New York Post called a "revenge wedding" in Manhattan's "glitzy" Rainbow Room.

My fellow Americans, it is time to face up to the truth. In the Grand Prix of sex scandals, the United States is a fleet of Pintos.

It is time to set aside narrow self-interest and take the action that's needed to make the United States competitive again.

America Wants to Know calls on all Democratic party superdelegates to do the right thing for the country this summer at the Democratic convention.

Nominate Warren Beatty for president.

Copyright 2008

.

Hearing from the troops

2008-03-25T02:16:00.000-07:00

America Wants to Know recently heard from an annoyed active-duty service member and thought you'd find the correspondence interesting. The name has been changed and the e-mail address deleted. But if you'd like to respond to him, or to me, comments have been enabled on this post.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

From: Zachary Morrison
Subject: How to end the violence in Iraq
Date: Thu, March 20, 2008 11:12 am
To: susan@extremeink.com

You recently wrote an article, "The Motive of War," where you state that the *"The Iraqis are murdering each other by the hundreds every day, and the American government is flailing in the dark, looking for a way to stop the violence." *Which, if you watch and believe the strictly liberal media programs, would validate the above statement.

The truth is much different from that. I am a part of a military family, my wife and I both are active duty. Your statement and the articles splashed in local newspapers and on the news programs are well off the mark. We are not "flailing in the dark," we are systematically training more and more Iraqi citizens in the field of security. Shiite, Kurd and Sunni peoples, working together to keep their own streets safe. Now, like most Americans with blinders on, I am sure you fall in the "Pull the troops out," category. This would be the worst move we could make. We have walked into a sovereign land, changed the entire political process and given the people of that land a type of freedom that they didn't know was possible! We have put our foot in it... we must stay now until they ask us to leave. Only when the Free Government of Iraq asks us to leave will we leave. To do so before that would be a form of murder. In their eyes and in the eyes of all of us military members who have fought and watched friends die to give these people freedom.

Thank you for your time.

Zachary G Morrison

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

From: Susan Shelley
To: Zachary Morrison
Subject: Re: How to end the violence in Iraq
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 8:39 pm

Hi, Zach,

Thanks very much for writing.

I'm a little bit confused by your note, because I'm on your side. I want the Iraq policy to work, and I want the Iraqi people to live in freedom.

You mentioned my article, "The Motive for War: How to End the Violence in Iraq," but in quoting from it you didn't seem to notice that it was written on November 16, 2006. The "flailing" that I described referred to President Bush's then-upcoming change in policy, ultimately resulting in a "surge" of U.S. troops.

Frankly, I suspect that you didn't read the article at all and that you wrote to me as part of a letter-writing campaign to shut down criticism of the president's policy.

I hope I'm wrong about that.

Since 2004 I have been writing consistently that the political situation in Iraq will never be stable until the state-owned enterprises are privatized. I invite you to read "Why the Iraq Policy Isn't Working" at this link:

http://www.extremeink.com/awtk/2005/11/why-iraq-policy-isnt-working.html

And also, "A Plan to Get Out of Iraq: Blackstone's Fundamental Rights and the Power of Property," at this link:

http://www.extremeink.com/susan/iraq.htm

We are all on the same side here. We all want freedom for the Iraqi people and U.S. troops out of Iraq. I hope you'll forward my articles to anyone you know who is concerned about the situation and wondering why the policy in Iraq has not worked out the way we all hoped it would.

You and your wife have my admiration, respect and gratitude for your service.

With all good wishes,

Susan Shelley

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

From: Zachary Morrison
Subject: Re: How to end the violence in Iraq
Date: Fri, March 21, 2008 1:51 am
To: Susan Shelley

Susan,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my letter, I truly appreciate that. Firstly, I would like to say this, I am not defending President Bush. I believe that we are needed in Iraq and were needed before we attacked. Though you are right about the privatization of Iraqi businesses, which is a step that will be taken, when they are ready as a people. For thousands of years these people have been a dictatorship, they are taking the steps to Democracy as quickly as they can. The Republic system they have set up at the moment is the closest thing that any of them have seen to freedom. Ever.

Further, we will never be "out" of Iraq. Just like Germany, Japan and Italy, we will always have a base in Iraq. Which, strategically is brilliant, especially in the hotbed that is South West Asia. Not to mention the economic value to the host country, in this case Iraq, a base will bring thousands of jobs and security to the local area.

I didn't mean to seem so harsh in my first email, because I do agree with much that you are saying. The problem I have, and it is not strictly directed at you, is that so many people are so vocal in their arguments against the War in Iraq that the military men and women suffer because of it. Sometimes all you have is your morale, the feeling that you are doing the right thing in the face of such unutterable hardship. It hurts to come home and hear nothing but anger and hate directed at the actions that so many of us have died for. Its easy for all those same people to say "We love the troops!" Then in the next sentence say that this war is lost. How is it that they can't understand that by saying that, they are saying that our brothers and sisters have died in this war for no reason. That by saying such things they put lie to their own words of Love for the troops.

Susan, thank you for your time.

Very Respectfully
Morrison, Zachary G. USN Active Duty

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

From: Susan Shelley
To: Zachary Morrison
Subject: Re: How to end the violence in Iraq
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 5:35 pm

Hi, Zach,

Thanks for writing back. I apologize for thinking you were part of a letter-writing campaign in support of President Bush's policies.

I don't want to take up your time, but I feel that I have to say a word in defense of the war critics who have made you so angry.

They don't want to see U.S. troops sacrificed. They don't want you to be sacrificed in order to prove that earlier sacrifices were not in vain. They don't want another generation to be sacrificed in order to prove that your sacrifice, God forbid, was not in vain.

You're undoubtedly too young to remember it personally, but this kind of thinking is how we ended up with fifty-eight thousand names on a black granite wall in Washington D.C.

None of us want that again.

Like the Vietnam war, the Iraq war was not declared by Congress as the U.S. Constitution requires. Instead we had a deployment of troops by order of the commander in chief, followed by a series of assertions that the troops must be kept in place because to pull them out would be catastrophic.

That's not the deal we signed in 1789. The United States should go to war when the elected representatives of the people of the United States agree to go to war, not when the president mistakenly believes there's an imminent danger and then claims for five years that the decision was right for other reasons, and now can't be reversed without disastrous consequences.

Your commitment and valor deserve better support from your country. Blind allegiance by Congress to the president's policies is no substitute for a frank and ongoing debate over whether the policies are succeeding, whether the goals are attainable, and whether they are worth the sacrifice of even one treasured American life.

What I'm trying to say is that we're all looking out for you. Even the people who sound like they're not backing you up.

As far as keeping a base in Iraq permanently, that might be a good idea, but once again it's not the deal we signed. Congress must debate and authorize a permanent military presence in Iraq, it can't just be ordered by the president. Unchecked executive power is dangerous to freedom. If Saddam Hussein taught us anything, it's that.

One of the U.S. commanders said some time ago that the U.S. military is the finest hammer in the history of the world, but not every problem is a nail. If it turns out that Iraq is not a nail, no one in the United States, not even the most outspoken or obnoxious protester, will have anything but the highest regard for the hammer.

In the meantime, let's stay friends. I really am on your side.

Best wishes,

Susan

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

From: Zachary Morrison
Subject: Re: How to end the violence in Iraq
Date: Fri, March 21, 2008 6:21 am
To: Susan Shelley

Susan,

Again thank you. I agree with you wholeheartedly on the issues of Military misuse. Bush didn't have a right to take us into this war, nor does he have a right to keep us in this war. But, if you were to ask those of us fighting this war, if we wanted to pull out tomorrow, most of us would tell you no. As horrible as war is, blood is the price for freedom. Though it is our blood and their freedom, it is a price we have begun to pay and would be loathe to leave unfinished.

You are right, though, I am too young to remember Vietnam but I'm not too young to know the difference between right and wrong. It wasn't wrong to start this war in Iraq, though if it had been done through the correct process no doubt there would still be nay sayers and critics. It wasn't wrong to depose that dictator. It wasn't wrong to allow those people the chance at freedom and a government chosen by the people. Its not wrong to stand along side those same people and protect them while they finalize the acts of that government. It's not wrong for us to be teaching them the same means of security we use on our streets. It was just wrong for the President to use another war and scare tactics to get us there in the first place.

It hurts to see people whose sole opinion stems from CNN say such horrible things about this war without pausing to ask us. Those of us fighting this war. Not a single one of us expects a parade, just some honest support from our countrymen.

I do like your writing, Susan. Don't misunderstand me, just remember that there are more than two sides to this. That's all I ask.

And again, thank you for taking time to listen, whether we agree or disagree.

Zach

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

From: Susan Shelley
To: Zachary Morrison
Subject: Re: How to end the violence in Iraq
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 11:46 am

Hi, Zach,

I should have known better than to think I could win a fight with the U.S. Navy.

Would it be all right with you if I posted our correspondence on my blog, AmericaWantsToKnow.com? I know a lot of people would like to read your thoughts on this war, and I think they should.

I'll take your name and e-mail address off, of course, to protect your privacy.

Best regards,

Susan

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

From: Zachary Morrison
Subject: Re: How to end the violence in Iraq
Date: Sat, March 22, 2008 12:36 am
To: Susan Shelley

Susan,

I wouldn't mind at all. Though, I don't think it's really a fight, more a differing of opinion. I believe pretty strongly in this. I don't agree with the manner in which we went to war but I do agree with the reasons that keep us here. Many of our fighting men and women feel this way. Oh, and please don't think that I singled you out for my rants... I have made it a point to comment as much as I possibly can with as many differing authors as I can find. Not in an effort to actually disagree with the authors but in an effort to show as many of those people how we feel about this war.

Truth be told, we are winning this war, one small step at a time. Remember, we are trying to change a country from Dictatorship to Democracy. Not the easiest of tasks. Not four years ago these people had no idea what it meant to vote, to actually have a place in the process of Government, now everyone over 18 has that right, both men and women! With the help of all the clans, Sunni, Kurd and Shiite, we have trained and built a police force that is keeping the streets so much safer than it was even 7 years ago!

That's enough of my ranting though, I truly appreciate you listening to what I have to say. Thank you, Susan. All I ask is that you remember just how hard this country's men and women are working to keep every American safe at home and trying to give those same freedoms and safety to the men and women who live in other countries. Do I think we should try to force Democracy on everyone? No. But where we can, we should.

That's all I have, again, thank you, Susan.

Very Respectfully,

Zachary G Morrison

I have truly enjoyed reading your articles and look forward to reading still more and I would be proud to have my opinions posted. I don't feel that I have anything to be embarrassed about. I am a proud American.

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

.

What Barack Obama didn't say

2008-03-18T22:48:00.000-07:00

Michelle Obama sat in the front row at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia Tuesday as her husband addressed the potentially campaign-ending controversy caused by the remarks of his longtime pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Mrs. Obama was "very emotional" during the speech, ABC News reported, and was observed crying backstage afterwards.

In the speech, Senator Obama both criticized and explained the "incendiary language" of his now former pastor. The senator denounced the views that he said "rightly offend white and black alike." But he also described Rev. Wright's background, career, good works, and inspirational services. He said he could no more disown Rev. Wright than he could disown the black community.

Rev. Wright married Barack and Michelle Obama and baptized their two daughters.

Here's something to consider.

Maybe Rev. Wright is not his pastor.

Maybe Rev. Wright is her pastor.

Barack Obama is a man who is going to be happily married for a very long time.

Copyright 2008

.

Reading the mind of a superdelegate

2008-03-16T08:41:00.000-07:00

America Wants to Know is very busy and doesn't have a lot of time to waste.

So when the Sunday New York Times ran a story about the angst of the Democratic party's superdelegates as they ponder the choice between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, we made a phone call to our in-house mind reader and asked him this question:

What are the superdelegates thinking?

Mirko the Magnificent Mind Reader came right over with a suitcase full of crystals and and a bottle of Slivovitz.

Hey, whatever works.

"I see fear," Mirko said, when he had set up his gear on the coffee table. "There is profound fear."

"Fear that the Democratic party will be torn apart by a bloodletting fight between the candidates?" we asked.

Mirko squinted. "No," he said, "Fear of job loss." Then he fell silent and poured two shots of Slivovitz.

"So the issue is the economy," we volunteered, declining the plum brandy. (We have a strict policy here at America Wants to Know: nothing above 80 proof before lunch.)

"No," Mirko said. "The issue is job loss. The Democratic party's superdelegates are mostly elected officials. They're thinking about their jobs. They want to be re-elected. They don't want to lose to their Republican challengers."

"What else do you see?" we asked.

"Nothing else," Mirko said. He moved the crystals around on the table and squinted again. "That's all they're thinking. They don't want to lose their jobs in November."

"But what does that mean?" we asked. "What does that tell us about which candidate they'll finally decide to support?"

Mirko drained the second shot of Slivovitz. "You don't need a mind reader for this," he said. "They're going to support the candidate who is most likely to draw energized Democrats to the polls in November, and least likely to draw energized Republicans. They're going to support Barack Obama." He packed the crystals back into the suitcase and snapped the latches shut.

"Thanks, Mirko," we said. "You've certainly saved us a lot of time."

"Child's play," he muttered. "Call me when you need a mind reader."

Copyright 2008

.

Executive privilege: President Bush's unicorn

2008-03-11T01:09:00.000-07:00

The House Judiciary Committee filed a civil lawsuit on Monday to enforce subpoenas against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten, the former White House counsel and current White House chief of staff, respectively.

The two aides to President Bush have already been found in contempt of Congress for refusing to show up at hearings investigating the firings of U.S. attorneys, dismissals which may have been motivated by a desire to prevent public corruption prosecutions of Republicans.

The civil suit was filed because President Bush's attorney general, Michael B. Mukasey, has parroted President Bush's position that the aides are free to ignore subpoenas from Congress because the president is claiming executive privilege over everything from here to the horizon and back again.

This is going to be interesting.

There actually is no such thing as executive privilege. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to impeach the president, the vice president, and all civil officers of the United States. Inherent in the power to impeach is the power to investigate. Logically and legally, no president can have an unwritten constitutional privilege to stymie the exercise of another branch's plainly written constitutional power.

But a civil suit? Congress unquestionably has the power to impeach the attorney general for failing to execute the laws of the United States, but can Congress win a civil suit aiming to force current and former White House aides to testify?

We'll all find out together.

No doubt the Democrats in Congress have concluded that impeachment proceedings would be received by the American people with something less than complete support. But that's a political judgment. Legally, constitutionally, Congress has the power (and the responsibility) to impeach executive branch officials who refuse to execute the laws of the United States. The civil courts have nowhere near as much power. And probably even less nerve.

So we're headed toward a waffling and incomprehensible civil court ruling from a frightened judge who does not want to get in the middle of a fight between the executive and legislative branches of the United States government.

Then President Bush will spin the confusing story to make the Democrats look like political hacks who are attacking him when they should be working for you.

The Democrats are foolish to put their fate in the hands of a civil court judge. They'd be better advised to heed Napoleon's advice: "If you're going to take Vienna, take Vienna."

Copyright 2008

Editor's note: You might be interested in the earlier post, "Senate Republicans fire the big gun" and in the 1974 book by the late Harvard law professor Raoul Berger, Executive Privilege: A Constitutional Myth."

.

Sneak peek: Eliot Spitzer jokes from Argus

2008-03-10T22:48:00.000-07:00

Enjoy a sneak peek at these Eliot Spitzer jokes from Argus Hamilton's column for Wednesday, March 12.

New York Governor Eliot Spitzer admitted Monday he hired five-thousand-dollar-an-hour prostitutes working in a Manhattan call girl ring. He did it to feed his ego. There simply wasn't enough room in the presidential race for any more New Yorkers.

Governor Eliot Spitzer was caught on a federal wiretap procuring a high-priced call girl. One thing is for sure now. Democrats in Congress will reauthorize Jim Crow laws before they allow the president to conduct any more warrantless wiretapping.

Governor Spitzer was caught on a federal wiretap arranging to meet a call girl in a famous Washington D.C. hotel. It's not unusual. The number of women who came over on the Mayflower will never equal the number of women who came across at the Mayflower.

NBC News in New York reported Monday that Eliot Spitzer introduced himself to the prostitutes using the name George Fox. No Democrat can be linked to Fox and survive. If he had called himself George CNN the party would have rallied to his side.

New York politicians formed a chorus calling for Governor Spitzer to resign on Monday in the wake of his call girl scandal. The lieutenant governor who would replace him is legally blind. That's the first good news Wall Street has had all year.

If Argus Hamilton's column doesn't appear in your local newspaper, call the editors and complain, and meanwhile, read Argus every day at www.ArgusHamilton.com.

Copyright 2008
Used by permission.

Update: Find the latest Eliot Spitzer jokes from Argus right here.

.

The ineligible Senator McCain

2008-02-28T02:00:00.000-08:00

This is really starting to be funny.

First we find out that the soon-to-be Republican nominee for president has a criminal defense attorney on retainer, and now it turns out that he may not be eligible to run for president.

The New York Times reports today that Senator John McCain has asked former Solicitor General Ted Olson to prepare "a detailed legal analysis" of the U.S. Constitution's requirement that only a "natural-born citizen" can become president of the United States.

The problem seems to be that Senator McCain, the son of a Navy officer, was born in the Panama Canal Zone where his father was stationed. There's no question that he's a citizen. The question is whether someone who was not born on American soil is a "natural-born" citizen.

Well, sure, it sounds like an idiotic Internet conspiracy theory, but it turns out that the question has never been answered in a court of law.

The New York Times reports that lawyers have been unable to determine who would have the standing to bring a lawsuit, or whether a lawsuit could even be filed before the person in question was sworn in as president.

You can't make it up.

The Republicans are going to nominate a man who might not be eligible to run.

The next time Hillary Clinton talks about the sophisticated and powerful Republican machine that's coming after the Democratic nominee, pay no attention. This is a bunch of people who shouldn't ride escalators, because if the power went out, they might be trapped for days.

Copyright 2008

Editor's note: You might be interested in the earlier post, "Why John McCain needs Bob Bennett."

.

Hillary Clinton's real record

2008-02-25T19:38:00.000-08:00

Send the kids out of the room and let's talk.

Hillary Clinton has been campaigning for president for what feels like twenty years on the claim that she has a thirty-five-year record of accomplishment, fighting for and making change on behalf of women and children and fill-in-the-blank Americans.

Hillary Clinton does have a record of accomplishment, but it's not the one she's touting.

This is Hillary Clinton's record of accomplishment: She has saved Bill Clinton's ass.

Many times.

When Gennifer Flowers came forward in 1992 and revealed her twelve-year affair with the married governor of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton went on "60 Minutes" and saved Bill Clinton's ass.

When Paula Jones sued Bill Clinton for defamation and the discovery process unearthed an affair with a White House intern, Hillary Clinton saved Bill Clinton's ass.

When investigators asked questions about questionable financial links to a failed savings and loan, when the White House Counsel committed suicide and papers from his office safe vanished before investigators could get there, when FBI files of Republican opponents were improperly reviewed by White House political aides, when the White House Travel Office staff was fired and then smeared with false allegations of criminal conduct, when the Lincoln Bedroom was booked full of Democratic donors like a high-roller suite at a Las Vegas hotel, when Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice, Hillary Clinton saved Bill Clinton's ass.

If not for Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton might still be in Arkansas harassing beauty queens.

Hillary Clinton is a sharp cookie.

Too sharp to run on her real record.

So she claims to have a record of achieving children's health care and fiscal discipline and job growth and prosperity and good relations with countries around the world.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Hillary Clinton has a record of saving Bill Clinton's ass.

If you think that's a skill we need in the Oval Office, go ahead and vote for her.

You'll never find anybody who's better at it.

Copyright 2008

.

The Democrats' ludicrous health care debate

2008-02-24T10:17:00.000-08:00

If you feel like wasting your time, there must be something you can do with it that's more fun than bending your brain around the details of Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's universal health care proposals, which is what the New York Times did on Saturday.

Shouldn't somebody point out that a candidate's health care policy, no matter how detailed, does not automatically become law on Inauguration Day?

In comedian Argus Hamilton's memorable words, "By the time it gets through Congress it will be a dam in Idaho."

Wow. Argus made the headache go away.

Read his column every day at http://www.ArgusJokes.com.

Copyright 2008

.

Why John McCain needs Bob Bennett

2008-02-24T09:45:00.000-08:00

Last December 20, when the Drudge Report posted an item about Senator John McCain trying to spike a New York Times story about his close ties to a lobbyist, Senator McCain acted like a man who thought he was in serious trouble.

He could have refused to comment on the report but instead he held a press conference to address it, which became a story in itself.

"McCain responds to Drudge," headlined The Politico. "On Thursday, John McCain responded to an unsubstantiated story on the Drudge Report," Jonathan Martin and Michael Calderone reported. The writers noted that McCain had untruthfully stated he had not personally been in talks with the New York Times; in fact, he had spoken with Executive Editor Bill Keller about the paper's reporting.

The Politico further reported that John McCain had hired Washington power lawyer Bob Bennett to represent him. Mr. Bennett is a criminal defense attorney, named by Legal Times magazine as one of the top ten in Washington D.C.

You had to wonder: What did the New York Times have?

Last Thursday they finally published their report, but there wasn't anything in it to explain John McCain's reaction in December. There was certainly nothing in it to explain why the senator was spending his money on Bob Bennett. And it is his money--Mr. Bennett told The Politico he is representing Senator McCain personally, not the campaign.

You heard right.

The Republican party's all-but-certain nominee for president has a criminal defense lawyer on retainer.

When President Nixon posed for that famous picture with Elvis Presley, no one knew they would someday be the two most-impersonated celebrities in U.S. history.

Let's give Senator McCain the benefit of the doubt and assume that he's not foolish, or paranoid, or stupid.

He has hired Bob Bennett for a reason.

But why?

America Wants to Know was forced to call in its resident detective, Lieutenant Columbo, even though he charges us double-time on Sundays.

"Jack Abramoff," Columbo said.

"Jack Abramoff?"

"Jack Abramoff. The lobbyist. The man who convinced Indian tribes to give him barrels of cash which he delivered all around Washington D.C. in exchange for favors."

"Indian tribes?" we asked. "Wasn't Senator McCain the chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee for a while?"

"Yes, he was," Columbo said. "And he made sure the Indian tribes knew it, too. Once he held hearings on the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act just to remind the tribal chiefs that he was in a position to savage it. Very effective when you need to drum up some campaign contributions."

"Those puns are terrible," we pointed out.

"But not illegal," Columbo said.

"Then why is Jack Abramoff a problem for John McCain?"

"We may find out one of these days," Columbo said. "Jack Abramoff has been very cooperative with federal law enforcement authorities in their investigation into influence-peddling on Capitol Hill. Very cooperative. Last March the U.S. Attorney filed papers with the court asking for a reduction in Abramoff's sentence in a Florida fraud case. He's serving five and a half years right now. Something about a gambling boat."

"You think he could implicate John McCain in some kind of crime?"

Columbo shrugged and reached into the pocket of his trench coat for a small spiral notebook. "Jack Abramoff isn't the only one who's cooperating with prosecutors," he said. "There's a blonde."

"Not Vicki Iseman!" we said, thinking of the lobbyist that the New York Times had just linked to McCain.

"No, another one," Columbo said, leafing through the notebook. "Italia Federici. She ran a Republican environmental group which was actually a conduit for payoffs. She took money from Jack Abramoff's Indian clients and arranged access to officials in the Interior Department. Her boyfriend worked there, he was pretty high up. J. Steven Griles is his name. He went to prison."

"You don't say," we said.

"Yes," Columbo continued. "Italia Federici was convicted on tax charges and also of lying to Senator McCain's committee when he ran the Capitol Hill investigation, if you can call it that, into Jack Abramoff back in the fall of 2005. But in December, she was sentenced to just two months in a halfway house. Prosecutors told the judge she was cooperating with their investigation."

"Did you say December?" we asked.

"That's right," Columbo said. "The news that Italia Federici was cooperating with prosecutors hit the papers on December 14. That's just six days before the Drudge Report ran the item about Senator McCain trying to spike the New York Times story on his ties to lobbyists. And by that time, McCain had already hired one of the top criminal defense attorneys in Washington."

"Thanks, Lieutenant," we said, "you're indispensable."

"Wait, don't you want to hear about Susan Ralston?" Columbo asked as we pushed him toward the door, "and Rick Renzi?"

"Can't afford your weekend rates," we said. "Maybe on Monday."

Copyright 2008

Editor's note: You might be interested in the earlier post, "Shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded file cabinet."

.

John McCain's Bill Clinton impression

2008-02-21T00:20:00.000-08:00

Many moons ago, America Wants to Know worked for a high-profile Hollywood talent agent at a high-profile Hollywood talent agency and personally witnessed an astounding act of self-delusion that we thought at the time would never be topped.

The agent was attempting to convince a skeptical world that one of his clients, a certain singer, was generating the kind of excitement in the country that had not been seen since Elvis Presley broke free of the state fair circuit.

He got on the telephone to an entertainment reporter at the New York Times and fabricated a story about crowd reaction to the singer's performance at a recent live appearance. He told the reporter he had not seen anything like it since Elvis.

He was very convincing.

The next day, the New York Times carried an item about the singer that favorably mentioned the sensation her live performance had caused.

The agent showed the newspaper article to everyone in the office as if he was seeing the story for the first time. As if we hadn't all been there when he made it up. As if it was unquestionably true because it was printed in the New York Times.

By the time he finished telling us what the New York Times reporter had written, he genuinely, completely believed the fabricated story that he himself had fed him. Then he got on the phone and called a series of people to read them the article and to rave about the client. She is the next Elvis, he told everyone who would take his call. It's in the New York Times.

The point of this story is not that the New York Times doesn't check facts, but that there is a certain type of personality who is capable of convincing himself that he is telling the absolute truth when he is simply not. Not even close. Not in the ballpark.

John McCain is one of those personalities.

Today the New York Times posted on its web site a story about Senator John McCain's close relationship with a lobbyist named Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist who happens to be a woman, happens to be very attractive, and happens to be about thirty years younger than the married senator from Arizona.

These things happen.

The story says that in 1999, as Senator McCain was making a run for the presidency, his campaign aides were so dismayed by what appeared to them to be a romantic relationship with a lobbyist that they confronted him, told him he was risking the campaign and his political career, and took steps to bar Ms. Iseman from coming around to see him.

The aides told the New York Times that Senator McCain "acknowledged behaving inappropriately" and promised to "keep his distance from Ms. Iseman."

Today, the senator denies that he had a romantic relationship with Ms. Iseman, and Ms. Iseman denies that she had a romantic relationship with the senator, and unless one of them decided to telephone Linda Tripp and ask for advice, no one will likely prove otherwise.

Still, it's a fair question to ask if a married presidential candidate who is campaigning on his I-can't-be-bought-by-any-lobbyist high horse ought to be seen around town with a lovely young lobbyist on his arm, especially one who represents companies with business before the Senate commerce committee that McCain chaired.

"Recklessness" is not the answer given by many focus group participants when they're asked what qualities they're looking for in a president.

Scarier than the recklessness, though, is the self-delusion. Over and over the Times cites instances of McCain grasping for cash and free plane rides from lobbyists, then sanctimoniously sponsoring legislation to put a stop to that kind of thing. Once he set up a "Reform Institute" and funded it with hundreds of thousands of dollars in unlimited contributions from businesses seeking favor with the Senate commerce committee. Citing "bad publicity," he severed his ties to the Reform Institute, four years later.

John McCain likes to spend his time riding on a bus with reporters and telling them he's a maverick, he's a reformer, he's the only one in Washington who's going to put a stop to the lobbyist-driven pork barrel spending and the waste and the corrupt influence and... LOOK! He's the next Elvis! It says so right here in the paper!

Congratulations to the New York Times for finally having the courage to run a perfectly legitimate story that raises perfectly legitimate questions about the ethics and the judgment of a man who is running for president on his ethics and his judgment.

Too bad they held the story until everybody dropped out of the Republican race except Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul.

Ron Paul for president. If you're reading this in Texas or Ohio, buy a button and don't forget to vote on March 4.

Copyright 2008

.

The Romantic appeal of Barack Obama

2008-02-15T18:18:00.000-08:00

"Romanticism," Ayn Rand wrote, "is a category of art based on the recognition of the principle that man possesses the faculty of volition."

"Volition," the dictionary says, is "the act or an instance of making a conscious choice or decision. The power or faculty of choosing. The will."

In The Romantic Manifesto, Ayn Rand describes the two broad categories of art as "Romanticism, which recognizes the existence of man's volition--and Naturalism, which denies it."

"If a man does not possess volition, then his life and his character are determined by forces beyond his control," she wrote, "he is impotent to achieve his goals or to engage in purposeful action--and if he attempts the illusion of such action, he will be defeated by those forces."

Hillary Clinton spoke at a General Motors plant in Warren, Ohio, on Thursday. "Over the years you've heard plenty of promises from plenty of people in plenty of speeches and some of those speeches were probably pretty good, but speeches don't put food on the table," she said. "Speeches don't fill up your tank. Speeches don't fill your prescriptions or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night."

What is she really saying?

"Catch a clue, you powerless, helpless lump of a voter. Don't go thinking you can accomplish anything you set out to do. Don't start dreaming about possibilities. I'm your only hope, I'm the only one who can work the system and help you survive in an ugly world that's stacked against you."

Here it is in her words, from her victory speech in New Hampshire last month: "Politics isn't a game. This campaign is about people. About making a difference in your lives. About making sure that everyone in this country has the opportunity to live up to his or her God-given potential. That has been the work of my life. We are facing a moment of so many big challenges. We know we face challenges here at home, around the world, so many challenges for the people whose lives I've been privileged to be part of. I've met families in this state and all over our country who've lost their homes to foreclosures, men and women who work day and night but can't pay the bills, and hope they don't get sick, because they can't afford health insurance. Young people who can't afford to go to college to pursue their dreams. Too many have been invisible for too long. Well, you are not invisible to me."

Does she make you feel crushed by the unfairness of the world? It's the Naturalistic premise: your life is determined by forces beyond your control, and they are defeating you. You are impotent to achieve your goals.

This is what Barack Obama said that same night in New Hampshire: "No matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change. We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics. They will only grow louder and more dissonant in the weeks and months to come. We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope. But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope. For when we have faced down impossible odds, when we've been told we're not ready or that we shouldn't try or that we can't, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes we can."

Feel better?

Wait, there's more: "Yes we can. It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation. Yes we can. It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail towards freedom through the darkest of nights. Yes we can. It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness. Yes we can. It was the call of workers who organized, women who reached for the ballot, a president who chose the moon as our new frontier, and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the promised land. Yes we can, to justice and equality. Yes we can, to opportunity and prosperity. Yes we can heal this nation. Yes we can repair this world."

It's the Romantic premise: Men have free will, volition, control of their own destiny. You have it in your power to do great things, to overcome tough obstacles, to accomplish what other people say cannot be done.

"We are one people," Senator Obama said in New Hampshire, "we are one nation, and together, we will begin the next great chapter in the American story with three words that will ring from coast to coast, from sea to shining sea. Yes we can."

"Words," Senator Clinton said Thursday in Ohio, "are cheap."

What she pays her speechwriters is her own business.

Copyright 2008

.

Government at gunpoint

2008-02-14T15:58:00.000-08:00

"Do what I tell you, or everybody dies."

That was President Bush's message today to the United States House of Representatives. The president told the House to drop everything and pass the new Protect America Act reauthorizing expanded powers to spy on Americans without a warrant. If the House didn't pass this vital update to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) immediately, the president warned, the nation's intelligence professionals would not have the tools they need to protect Americans, and the terrorists who are plotting ever more spectacular attacks on us might exploit a deadly opening.

The House leadership was unmoved.

There is no gap in protection, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, because existing law gives the intelligence community all the tools they need to keep the nation safe. And if President Bush really believed it was dangerous to let the Protect America Act expire, he could have agreed to sign the 21-day extension that the House was willing to pass, instead of vowing to veto it.

That raises the obvious question: Why did President Bush refuse to sign an extension of an expiring law that he says is urgently needed to protect your safety?

Maybe he did it because there's no such thing as executive privilege.

All that thundering about imminent terrorist destruction may have been intended to intimidate House leaders so they wouldn't schedule a vote to hold White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers in contempt of Congress for refusing to appear before a committee investigating the firing of U.S. attorneys.

But the House leaders were not intimidated. They scheduled the vote and they held the White House aides in contempt.

President Bush was forced into his fallback position, a noisy effort to discredit and minimize the contempt citations by claiming that House Democrats were wasting their time on politics instead of doing the people's work. White House Press Secretary Dana Perino was out in front of cameras today telling anyone who would listen that the House leaders chose to vote on contempt citations instead of keeping the nation safe.

"It is astonishing and deeply troubling," Ms. Perino said, "that after months of delay on passing a bill that will help our intelligence professionals monitor foreign terrorists who want to kill Americans, the House has instead turned its attention to the silly, pointless, and unjust act of approving these contempt resolutions."

What is this really all about?

President Bush really, really, really, really doesn't want Harriet Miers to go under oath in front of a congressional committee. That's what it's about.

When Harriet Miers was a Supreme Court nominee, President Bush withdrew her nomination the moment Republican senators threatened to subpoena documents about her work in the White House [See "Senate Republicans fire the big gun"]. What was in those documents? We still don't know, but Harriet Miers was at the president's elbow when he was reviewing pre-9/11 intelligence that warned about al-Qaeda's threats. She was there when the president reviewed pre-war intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. She was there when the administration formulated its policy on interrogations and detention of terror suspects. She was there when Patrick Fitzgerald sent out subpoenas for information about the leak of a CIA employee's identity.

She was also there when the decision was made to fire a group of U.S. attorneys, which is why she was subpoenaed by Congress in this case. If the White House claim of executive privilege fails to keep her from testifying about that incident, there will be no way to keep her out of the witness chair for all the other things Congress might investigate, now or in the future.

That's the president's problem.

That's why he has labored so mightily to frighten Congress away from enforcing its subpoenas for the testimony of Ms. Miers and his other top aides. That's why last July he ordered the Justice Department not to prosecute White House aides for contempt of Congress.

But why, you might ask, doesn't the president just go to court and assert executive privilege to prevent his aides from testifying?

Because executive privilege is fiction, not fact. The Constitution gives Congress the power to impeach the president, the vice president, and all civil officers of the United States. Inherent in the power to impeach is the power to investigate. The president cannot logically or legally have an unwritten constitutional privilege to block the exercise of one of Congress' explicit constitutional powers.

Executive privilege is like the emperor's new clothes. It's only real if everybody agrees, for their own reasons, to pretend it exists.

Today, Congress refused to pretend. The House even voted for a resolution to authorize a civil suit against the administration to force Ms. Miers and Mr. Bolten to testify.

The White House may fold before the civil suit is filed. The president has less than a pair of deuces in his hand. It would be foolish to go all-in, to battle for a made-up confidential-advice privilege that will be laughed right out of the courtroom.

Watch for Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten to plead the Fifth Amendment while a small army of White House spokesmen disparage the hearings as a partisan kangaroo court unworthy of serious attention.

That might work, especially if there's something interesting on the other channels. Let's just hope it's not the bombing of Iran.

Copyright 2008

Editor's note: You might be interested in the 1974 book by the late Harvard law professor, Raoul Berger, Executive Privilege: A Constitutional Myth.

.

The big leagues of lying

2008-02-13T14:47:00.000-08:00

Every player in Major League Baseball is a great athlete. Each one was the best athlete in college, high school, Little League, neighborhood parks, or wherever he played from the time he was old enough to walk.

Congress is exactly like Major League Baseball, for liars.

Not only are Members of Congress skilled liars, they have spent their entire careers staring down other liars and beating them in elections for offices all the way back to president of the junior high school student council.

Onto this playing field today walked Roger Clemens, a fierce competitor who is determined not to be beaten in the post-season battle for his reputation.

No helmet, no shin pads, no protective cup.

Even if he's telling the truth about everything, Roger Clemens could end up in jail for perjury. His sworn testimony conflicts with the sworn testimony of Brian McNamee and Andy Pettitte, and this is now a runaway freight train that no one can control. House Oversight Committee Chairman Henry Waxman and ranking member Tom Davis said they don't know if they'll make a referral to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation into perjury, but the Justice Department doesn't need a referral to pursue those charges.

What a travesty.

We have reached this sorry point because Congress chose to exceed the constitutional limits of its power by enacting national bans on some drugs and limits on the distribution of others. You may be surprised to hear this, but the U.S. Constitution doesn't give the federal government the authority to regulate drug use. That's why Prohibition required a constitutional amendment. [See "Marijuana, Prohibition and the Tenth Amendment."]

But drugs are bad and dangerous and parents across the country will vote for politicians who promise to protect their children, and so we have the Controlled Substances Act and a federal government that sends agents to California to bust up rings of cancer patients in possession of medical marijuana.

Still, the constitutional ground for a federal ban on steroid use in sports is very, very shaky.

That's why Congress has harangued Major League Baseball for years to take action on its own to stop steroid use. Any law they passed to compel drug testing would be very unlikely to survive a test in the courts. [See "Barry Bonds' big asterisk."]

Major League Baseball could have told Congress to take a flying leap off the Capitol dome. Instead, the commissioner and the head of the players' union dutifully showed up for public abuse at congressional hearings.

Why?

Because Congress threatened legislation to revoke baseball's anti-trust exemption. [Read our earlier post, "Tackling the NFL," to find out why team owners didn't want to risk that.]

Faced with a future of unknown congressional vengeance in legal and tax matters, Major League Baseball placated Congress by appointing a commission headed by George Mitchell, a former senator widely respected on Capitol Hill (see above), to make a good show of self-investigation.

Although Senator Mitchell's report urged everyone to look away from the past and toward the future, the Mitchell Report named some names, and some people objected to having their names destroyed just to give baseball's self-investigation a patina of credibility.

Roger Clemens is one of those people.

Clemens' lawyers, Rusty Hardin and Lanny Breuer, said today they advised him that coming out publicly to deny the allegations in the Mitchell Report would set in motion a chain of events that one day could land him in jail for lying to Congress.

Roger Clemens came out publicly to deny the allegations in the Mitchell Report.

Everyone looked a little bit ill in that hearing today. Lawmakers who have to face the voters every two years don't really want their names and faces in news reports about the greatest pitcher in baseball being investigated, indicted, tried and jailed for lying to Congress.

But the ship has sailed.

After the hearing, Congressmen Henry Waxman and Tom Davis tried hard not to look like bullies. "The only reason we had this hearing," they told reporters, "is that Roger Clemens insisted upon it."

Clemens' lawyers said that was a flat lie.

Wow, it sure sounded true when they said it.

Those guys are the best in the game.

Copyright 2008

.

Tabloid update: "Clinton Secret Divorce Deal!"

2008-02-12T00:43:00.000-08:00

If you don't do your own grocery shopping, you can always count on America Wants To Know to keep you apprised of the latest developments in the supermarket tabloids.

This week the Globe has skipped over the marital problems of the Bush family and gone straight to that bottomless well of tabloid material, the marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

"World Exclusive!" the tabloid says, "Feuding Clintons' marriage doomed!"

World exclusive?

The Globe reports that Bill and Hillary have a "secret divorce pact" that will become effective if she loses her bid for the Democratic nomination for president. "If she's elected, the marriage continues," the paper quotes one "Beltway insider" as saying, "If she fails, it's over."

Well, that's not very credible. If the Clintons get divorced, they can be subpoenaed to testify against each other.

Or, as President Clinton once put it, "How many of you have ever taught constitutional law?"

This week's Globe does contain a few errors. In addition to the "World Exclusive" goof, the Globe's story incorrectly characterizes some of the former president's relationships, describing "pretty Kathleen Wiley" as "linked to" him. Actually, Kathleen Willey is on the "non-consensual" list along with Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick, not on the "linked to" list with Gennifer Flowers.

Small details, perhaps, but these are the kind of errors that will keep the Globe from winning a Pulitzer.

More interesting is the guessing game of who, if anyone, wanted this story on the front page of a supermarket tabloid this particular week, with Democratic voters going to the polls on Saturday, Sunday and Tuesday to vote for a nominee for president. Is it a plant from the Clinton team to drum up sympathy for the victim of a philandering husband? Is it a plant from the Obama team to remind voters how tired they are of the Clinton soap opera? Did the "Laura Claws Boozing Bush" issue not sell enough copies to merit a follow-up?

We'll never know.

But at least we saved you $3.29.

Copyright 2008

Editor's note: You might be interested in the earlier post, "Tabloid update: 'Laura Claws Boozing Bush.'" And if you've just joined us, catch up on your tabloid reading with "Laura's secret divorce diary," "Bush marital turmoil," "Laura Bush's cover story" and "All right, let's dish."

.

A principled walkout?

2008-02-09T20:47:00.000-08:00

Where is everybody?

With voters in Louisiana, Washington, Nebraska and Kansas going to the polls today in the most dramatic and unpredictable primary season in decades, MSNBC -- the self-described "place for politics" -- ran taped programming all afternoon and then finally went on the air at 8:00 p.m. Eastern without Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Tim Russert, Tom Brokaw or Brian Williams.

Norah O'Donnell is in the anchor chair.

America Wants to Know sincerely hopes that what we are witnessing is a principled walkout in protest of NBC News' decision to "suspend" star political reporter David Shuster over a comment that displeased Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Mr. Shuster said Thursday on MSNBC that the Clinton campaign had "pimped out" Chelsea Clinton in "some weird sort of way" by having her telephone Democratic Party superdelegates and beg them to support her mother.

Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson held a conference call with reporters on Friday and trashed David Shuster as "beneath contempt" and "disgusting." Then today, Hillary Clinton personally commented to reporters to express her outrage and released a copy of a letter she sent to NBC News president Steve Capus. "No temporary suspension or half-hearted apology is sufficient," the senator wrote.

Senator Clinton complained to Mr. Capus about "the pattern of behavior on your network that seems to repeatedly lead to this sort of degrading language," a reference to earlier comments by Chris Matthews that she had not liked.

Then the roundhouse punch: "There's a lot at stake for our country in this election," Senator Clinton wrote, "Surely, you can do your jobs as journalists and commentators and still keep the discourse civil and appropriate."

Did you catch that?

She's telling NBC News -- NBC News -- that their on-air talent is improperly affecting the outcome of the election.

That is a mortally serious charge to level at a news organization.

To respond to such a charge with anything except forceful profanity is to concede that Senator Clinton is correct.

We'd like to think that Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Tim Russert, Tom Brokaw and Brian Williams responded to Senator Clinton's letter today with language that shook the walls of Rockefeller Center.

America Wants to Know doesn't think David Shuster said anything wrong and believes Senator Clinton has her own motive for the noisy effort to discredit him. [See our earlier post, "The Clintons play smashmouth."] But no matter what David Shuster said, no matter what Chris Matthews said, no matter what Tim Russert asked Senator Clinton during a debate, a news organization cannot cave in to office-seeking politicians who write letters demanding that its employees be fired.

It's one thing for a politician to request airtime, or a correction, or even an apology. It's another thing entirely to demand the termination of a reporter's employment.

That's an abuse of power.

The government has a lot of power over NBC/Universal's business. From broadcast licenses to station ownership to the catch-all category of antitrust [See our earlier post, "Tackling the NFL"], a senator can make a lot of trouble for a media conglomerate.

NBC/Universal doesn't want any trouble.

But we're guessing that in the dressing rooms at NBC News tonight, they've got some.

Copyright 2008

Editor's note: David Shuster's e-mail correspondence with the Clinton campaign was published by The Politico and can be read at this link.

.