Archive for the ‘American Politics’ Category

Easley to Endorse Hillary

Monday, April 28th, 2008

North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley is finally going to weigh in on the Democratic primary:

North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley will endorse Hillary Clinton’s White House bid, two sources close to the campaign tell CNN.

The endorsement could give the New York senator a boost in the state with one week to go until its crucial May 6 primary. Recent polling suggests Barack Obama currently holds a double-digit lead over Clinton there, though no polls have been released since Clinton’s win in Pennsylvania last week.

I still expect Obama to win the Tar Heel State, but this endorsement probably will close the margin. It will be interesting to see if Obama’s margin of victory is small enough that the pundits spin it as a Clinton victory.

Via ACK

“A Living 14th Amendment”

Monday, April 28th, 2008

Aunt B takes to task those who favor denying birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. She contends that it is hypocritical to argue for strict constructionism on the one hand while ignoring what the 14th Amendment says on the other:

Many of you are clinging desperately to the notion that the 2nd Amendment means what it says. Well, if Representative Lynn and her colleagues succeed in making the 14th Amendment mean something other than what it clearly says–”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”–what kind of precident do you think that sets for the next time one of us Lefty crackpots tries to argue that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t mean what it says?

What kind of precident is Lynn trying to set? And are you prepared to say that rights enumerated in the Constitution don’t apply should some Legislator gets a bug up her butt to undermine them?

I have mixed feelings on the whole birthright citizenship debate; I don’t want to punish babies for the misdeeds of their parents, but I also don’t want to encourage illegals to have children just so it will be harder to deport them. It is a more complex issue than partisans on either side want to admit.

I doubt that that the Framers had this in mind when they wrote the 14th Amendment, but it says what it says: the children of illegals ARE entitled to U.S. citizenship. If Rep. Lynn or anyone else want to change this, they should push for a new constitutional amendment that would explicitly deny birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. Until such an amendment is ratified, they do not have a legal leg to stand on.

Via ACK

Key to Defeat

Monday, April 28th, 2008

Alan Keyes loses the Constitution Party nomination to Chuck Baldwin. No, I don’t have any idea who Chuck Baldwin is either.

Clinton’s Keystone Win

Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008

With 98% of the precincts reporting, Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama in Pennsylvania by a solid 55%-45% margin. Slightly more than I predicted, but I was close. In any event, this was a win and a margin Hillary needed, so she will fight on. It will be hard for her to win to nomination, but not impossible. This will give her a boost. That’s my analysis anyway. Watch for all the pundits to say the exact thing over and over on cable news while using lots more words.

Pennsylvania Prediction

Tuesday, April 22nd, 2008

We’ve been hearing about it for what seems like years, but the Pennsylvania primary is finally here! It should be interesting. If Hillary loses, her campaign is finished. If she wins by five points or less, she may go on but her resources will dry up and the pressure will mount for her to withdrawal. If she wins by more than five points then she can fight on.

The RCP average has Hillary with a 6.1% point lead. I actually think her margin of victory will be a little more. She performed slightly better than she polled in Ohio, so I suspect she may in Pennsylvania as well. The demographics here are even more favorable for her than in Ohio. So I’m going to predict Hillary wins, 54%-46%.

2008 Democratic Primary = 2000 Election?

Monday, April 21st, 2008

Michael Barone, one of the most astute students of politics in the media, is projecting an awkward situation at the conclusion of the final Democratic primaries:

Barack Obama will be leading in pledged delegates, those elected in primaries and caucuses. Clinton will be leading in popular votes. Obama’s delegate lead will be entirely due to his victories in caucus states. Clinton’s popular vote lead will be entirely due to her projected victory in the Puerto Rico primary. Who then is entitled to the nomination? You could easily think up plausible arguments for either side. This would be a nightmare for the superdelegates who will have to make the decision.

I don’t know if this will happen or not–Barone’s numbers for Hillary look a little too optimistic (winning 60% of the vote in Pennsylvania?) to me. But then again, few would have imagined that the Democratic primary would still be in full force now, at the end of April.

This scenario is probably Hillary’s only chance at the Democratic nomination, and even if it comes to this it’s far from clear that she will get the nomination. So far she hasn’t shown any great talent at wooing superdelegates, but a string of primary victories could change that.

So if it comes down to Hillary winning the popular vote and Obama winning the delegate count, what will the superdelegates do? Will they follow the will of the people and give the nod to Hillary? Or will they treat it like a giant caucus, which Obama has done so famously well in? A few months ago, I would have predicted the superdelegates to go with the most electable candidate, then unquestionably Barack Obama. Given whats happened since then, I don’t know if he can still play that card.

Cross posted at Tennesseefree

Blackburn’s Financial Blunder

Wednesday, April 16th, 2008

This doesn’t speak well of Congressman Marsha Blackburn:

U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., on Tuesday acknowledged failing to report more than a quarter-million dollars in campaign expenditures over the past six years while at the same time failing to report $102,044 in contributions.Blackburn, seeking her fourth term and facing both Republican and Democratic opponents, told The Commercial Appeal she plans to reveal the errant Federal Election Commission reporting in a series of amendments to disclosure reports dating back to her first run for Congress in 2002.

I doubt anything sinister is afoot. It’s probably just an innocent mistake, but it’s one that shouldn’t have been made. I don’t know if she was ever seriously being considered for the VP spot on the McCain ticket, but if so this will probably eliminate her from the running.

Via TPB

Who’s the Boss?

Tuesday, April 15th, 2008

I was critical of Bill Hobbs’ decision to make an issue of Barack Obama’s middle name, but this brouhaha is silly. Anyone fair minded person would understand that Hobbs was referring to the people being Obama’s boss, which is (at least in theory) true of all elected officials.

Lamar! Supports Flat Tax

Tuesday, April 15th, 2008

This makes me happy:

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, today spoke about the April 15 federal tax filing deadline and outlined a plan to create an optional 17 percent federal flat tax with a single-page form. Americans would have the option of choosing this tax over the current income tax and its multi-page forms.

Bad Boy

Tuesday, April 15th, 2008

Some remarks by Rep. Geoff concerning Barack Obama are causing a bit of a stir:

U.S. Rep. Geoff Davis, a Hebron Republican, compared Obama and his message for change similar to a “snake oil salesman.”

He said in his remarks at the GOP dinner that he also recently participated in a “highly classified, national security simulation” with Obama.

“I’m going to tell you something: That boy’s finger does not need to be on the button,” Davis said. “He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country.”

Predictably, the leftwing blogs have pounced on this, suggesting that it’s just another example of Republican racism.

It certainly was a poor choice of words on Davis’ part, but I see no evidence that it’s anything more than that. It seems likely Davis was criticizing Obama’s youth and inexperience, not his race. A brief search in Google turns up no racial controversies in Davis’ past. Additionally, Cyberhillbilly gives us Davis’ background which likewise contains no evidence of racism. The world would be a better place if people didn’t use accusations of racism to bludgeon their political foes anytime they make a poor choice in words.

Cross posted at Tennesseefree