The Spencerian

Q & A: War Crimes and Diplomatic Immunity

Dear Spencerian Editors:

I would like to know if the current talks of investigating Bush top officials for the authorization and use of torture can be extended to the former President and Vice President as they ultimately approved them?

I think I heard once that if a President left office before he was charged, he would be free forever from prosecution under the guise of diplomatic immunity. I want to know if this is true and if so where this is codified in the law.

This includes the possibility of war crimes.

Tom P.

Dear Tom --

Thanks for your question.

Let's talk about the prosecution of former President Bush and former Vice President Cheney for war crimes.  Well, this is one of those things that I for one am glad we have a current president with a cool, deliberative head.

I'll be honest with you.  I think that Bush and Cheney both probably did authorize the use of "harsh interrogation techniques" -- torture -- on captured terrorists.  I think they thought they could get good information out of the likes of Abu Zubayda and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and I think they thought that most Americans would be pretty okay with it, actually, because hey, terrorists.

I'm sorry if this comes across as flip, Tom, but I do think that is what they believed at the highest levels. 

I also think that they actually knew that there were not weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but had every intention of going into Iraq with the explicit -- explicit -- purpose of killing Saddam Hussein.  The implicit purposes -- getting rid of WMD, bringing democracy to Iraq, whatever -- were what was sold to the American people.  People look at me like I have a hand growing out of my head when I say this, but I really believe that this was a war of vengeance on the part of George W. Bush because Saddam Hussein had plotted to kill the senior George Bush.  If you think that sounds dumb, well, just ask yourself this: ten years ago if I had said to you that your government would torture people, would you think that just as silly? 

Alright.  So war crimes and diplomatic immunity.  I think I see where you're going, Tom.  If, say, President Bush were to be tried for war crimes in Geneva, would he be able to beat the rap because of diplomatic immunity?  I'm not an expert in international law, but I don't think so. 

For some help understanding just what diplomatic immunity is, let's go to some experts.

First, here's a link to the Wikipedia entry on diplomatic immunity.  Here's what caught my eye on this: the chart at the bottom.  It breaks down what level of immunity applies to which sort of diplomat.  The kinds of diplomats include, "diplomatic," "consular," and "international organization." 

I ask you, Tom: which one is President Bush?

Again, I'm not even a lawyer, so I'm nowhere close to answering this question, but my guess is someone, somewhere is working on it.  Maybe at the Department of State, where we can see some further detail on diplomatic immunity.  Also take some time to check out eDiplomat.  They have some good detail on this as well.

I want to go back to Obama and thinking deliberately.  Let's assume, for a minute, that the diplomatic immunity question is answered -- Bush cannot claim it -- and is free to be tried for war crimes in an international court of law.  We are a long, long way from that.

This is really a political blog, Tom, and this segment is "We Answer Your Political Questions," so let me try this from a political angle.  You've got one side which says this is all very simple: "The guy (guys, I guess, if you include Cheney, which you should) lied to get us into a war he wanted to get into.  He broke a law, or several laws, domestic and international.  No one is above the law.  He should be prosecuted."

Okay.

Then you have the other side which says: "We are in an international global war on terror, and the usual rules don't apply.  Bush made us safer by taking out Saddam." 

You may not like it, you may not like the war, but there is some precedence for a coalescing of power around the presidency in a time of war, namely FDR and Lincoln.  How much?  That's a little tougher to say, and in fact is currently a cornerstone of this debate. 

Here's what I'm trying to say, Tom.  This may appear to be a straightforward legal issue.  And in some ways, it may be -- but it must be unwrapped in politically delicate way.  There can't be one whiff of political calculation of any kind in this investigation or even any discussions at the highest levels around this issue.  If this is seen as simple political retribution against a president we Democrats don't like (and we're already seeing some of this, actually), you can be assured that prosecution for international war crimes will go slower, not faster.

A lot of my blogging colleagues are frustrated -- as are a lot of TV talking heads -- that President Obama hasn't just thrown Bush and Cheney in the county lock-up, shipped them off to the International War Crimes Tribunal, and had them put to death immediately.  I happen to think he's going about it the right way.  He's letting the lawyers do their work.  He's releasing information as he can.  He is trying to encourage us all to do two things at once -- tough, considering collective America has the attention span of a gnat -- which is to answer all of the complex legal issues thoroughly, and to think about the future, not about the past. 

Some see this as delaying justice.  I see it as setting the stage.

# # # #

Everybody has questions about politics.  Why not email me and ask yours?  I'll try my best to answer it.

Q & A: If Only It Were A Joke

Dear Spencerian Editors:

We have heard the remarks and sneakers about politicians for years, but recently this subject has really surfaced to the top of the ladder.
 
My tough political question is:
 
How long have these incompetent, lying, corrupt, NON-TAX PAYING politicians been shafting The American People?  They tax us to death and give it away.  They take bribes and live the good life while The American people are living in poverty.  What a racket!  So again, HOW LONG?
 
Thank you,

Tony C.,
Florida

Dear Tony --

I've worked around too many good and honest public servants and politicians for too long to let insane rants like this continue to go unanswered. 

I'll grant you that we hear plenty about corrupt politicians.  But in paying attention only to them, we do a remarkable disservice to the many hundreds -- even many thousands -- of hard-working Americans who administrate our public services, carry out our laws, adjudicate our criminals, test our toys for poison, test our food for poison, pave our roads, oversee the quality of the nursing homes where we put our parents and grandparents (and one day ourselves), help our neighbors into affordable housing, develop solutions to the energy crisis, develop solutions to the climate crisis, work on treatments and cures for diseases that afflict people worldwide, fight our wars, build relationships with our international neighbors, oversee the quality of education our young people receive, help us in times of emergency and crisis, and oversee a world of programs, services, policies, and every level of public works imaginable.

Tony, this work is slow.  It's deliberative, and it is designed that way.  This is who we are: Americans. 

Government is not a thing to hate: it is a group of people who work for you.  I am one of them.

Hey, I get it.  It's fashionable to hate politicians, those bastards.  Living the good life.  Feeding each other grapes while they get pedicures from supple half-nude goddesses on an infinite cloud of lemon-lime meringue, smoking Cuban cigars and laughing tartly about how they put the screws to the little guy. 

Tony, my suggestion to you is this: go work for a campaign.  Republican, Democrat, I really don't care (okay, I lied: go work for a Democrat).  I really don't care, though, what office.  Mayor.  City Council.  County Commission.  Congress.  Judge.  You decide.  Go work on that campaign, and then when your candidate gets elected, go to work for him or her.  Give it a whirl. 

Then you come back to this blog and tell me just how terrible government really is. 

Oh, and don't forget to pay your taxes.  Everybody has to.         

Q & A: Was the Cost Worth It?

Dear Spencerian Editors:

Please, someone tell me!  Go to Camden, New Jersey, it looks like Beirut, a bombed-out city, so please someone tell me why our American politicians want to spend $125 billion to rebuild Iraq?

American bridges, dams, levees and cities are crumbling, so why rebuild Iraq with American tax money?  Beside the fact that America is broke!

Thank you.

Tony C,
Florida

Dear Tony --

Thanks for your email.

To answer your first question in a very cold, very analytical way, I would say Americans don't want to spend $125 billion to rebuild Iraq. 

An equally analytical answer to the second question is because we have to; it is our responsibility.

I know you remember the bridge in Minnesota, Tony.  There will be more like them, we can be sure of that, sad to say.  And there will probably be circumstances and instances -- that is to say, tragedies -- which could have been avoided had dollars dedicated to Iraq been spent on infrastructure here.  I have no doubt about that.  It really is a tragedy, and the worst kind: avoidable.

Tony, you seem passionate about this issue.  I want to direct you to a few resources you might find interesting.

First, visit the non-profit National Priorities Project.  They are a research outfit "that analyzes and clarifies federal data so that people can understand and influence how their tax dollars are spent."  Worth your time to explore their site. 

Specifically, check out the Federal Budget Trade-offs page.  This would be fun if it weren't so damn depressing.  Plug in some simple criteria: state or Congressional district and the trade off to the cost of war you're looking for.  You come up with some interesting things.  For example. 

If George W. Bush hadn't lied to all of us, and we Floridians alone hadn't spent our portion -- $36 billion -- to date in Iraq, more than 12 million of us could have had health care for a year.  Or we could have paid more than half a million school teachers for a year.  Or nearly 20 million children could have had health care for a year.  Or nearly five million children could have participated in Head Start programs for a year. 

Or a really frightening one, in case you're not jumping out of your chair with the outrage yet:

Any of those things, or we could have paid nearly half a million port container inspectors for one year.

Think about that one, Tony.  Not only have we deprived children of things like health care, which we now only costs more later when we don't provide it now, and Head Start programs which are proven to get our kids off on the right foot -- we have made America a more dangerous place. 

I know.  I'm not the first blogger to say that. 

Anyway, I hope you'll also check out Three Trillion Dollar War, too.  Well worth your time. 

So there is no doubt that the Iraq war has been -- and will continue to be -- expensive.  It is awful and it is made all the more so by virtue of the fact that we are in a global economic downturn/recession/depression.  We could use some of those funds now. 

Of course, there is a larger cost as well.

According to the United States military, 4,260 people have died in "Operation Iraqi Freedom."  Many thousands more wounded.  And we have not even mentioned the Iraqi civilians who have died.  They're called "collateral damage."  It happens in war.

Families, ruined.  Lives, destroyed.  I am sure that you would agree, and would gladly pay another three trillion dollars to get those lives back if we could.  What a shame it doesn't work that way. 

All we can do is honor their memory, and try to stop the bloodshed and death.  You know, one of the ways we rebuild our image abroad is to actually rebuild things.  This can be done in a number of ways -- through infrastructure projects, through political reconciliation, through measured diplomacy -- but in the end, it must be done.  Not to put too fine a point on it, Tony, but this -- rebuilding -- is how you stop another 9/11.    

Tony, as much as I hate spending the money in Iraq, we have invaded a country and destroyed it.  We have left it a shambles and a mess.  It is a disaster, and we have a moral obligation to work to fix it, even as we strive to fix ourselves.

# # # #

Have a political question?  Need an answer?  Email me.  I'll do what I can.

Q & A: I Fight Authority (Authority Always Wins)

Dear Spencerian Editors:

Where do executives get their authority to enforce furloughs on state employees?

Sincerely,

AC

Dear AC --

Thanks for writing.  This is a first -- I've never gotten a political question which I could answer in two words:

The People.

Nice, right? 

Okay, AC, I'll be a little more fair.  The truth is, it kind of depends on the state (or the government executive your talking about, really), but in most instances, the executive derives their authority from their individual Constitution.  State employees are bound by that Constitution, which, in a manner of speaking, governs that particular state. 

You didn't give me a location, AC, so I can't speak to your specific state, but let's look at Maryland, where they recently had to furlough 67,000 state employees.  Here's the key piece from the Executive Order [PDF] signed by Governor O'Malley: 

I, MARTIN O’MALLEY, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, BY VIRTUE OF THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN ME BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF MARYLAND, HEREBY PROCLAIM THE FOLLOWING EXECUTIVE ORDER, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY

And then he signs it.

I highlighted that specific piece because, it mentions the Constitution -- they mean the Maryland Constitution -- and the laws of Maryland. 

Now, simply invoking the state Constitution to furlough employees is not always that simple.  California is a very good example of how this isn't exactly black and white.  The law seems to favor Governor Schwarzenegger on this one -- at least right now.

In tight budget times, Governors frequently have few options.  Hey, I'm not fan of furloughs.  As a long-time Federal employee (who was sent home without pay during the Gingrich-led government shutdowns of the 1990s), and as an employee of a local government entity, I am kind of scared of them, to tell you the truth, AC. 

In the end, though, it comes back to the same thing: the people.  We're here to serve the people, and we either do that -- or don't -- through the vested power of our top executives. 

# # # #

Want your political question answered?  Just email me, and I'll do my best.

Q & A: Innovating From Point A to Point B?

Dear Spencerian Editors:

In the attempt by the auto industry to seek capital from the U.S. Government, there is frequent reference to the number of people throughout our job market who are affected by or are connected to the auto  industry and they represent all of the auto-industry personnel who would suffer should the auto industry fail.  My questions are:

1.  Considering the entire work force of the U.S., what percentage of the entire U.S. work force is auto-industry connected? 

2.  When the congress talks about the U.S. Auto industry possibly failing, are they using the word "failure" to mean restructuring under Title11?  If the auto industry does have to file for protection under Title 11, what percentage of auto related personnel would actually become unemployed?

Oliver S.
Hyattsville, MD

Dear Oliver --

Thanks for writing. 

Your specific questions are very technical, and I'm going to try and answer them in a very specific way.  I'll warn you now: you are going to be disappointed, because I'm not an economist, demographer, or auto-industry expert.

With respect to question 1, no one knows for sure.  I have seen -- frequently -- the notion that 1 in 10 American jobs are auto-industry related.  

Can this possibly be true? 

Apparently the answer is "sort of."  The reason for the equivocation is that no one is quite sure of what "auto-industry job" may mean.  Now, if you work on the assembly line at Ford, your job is auto-industry related.  If you work for a parts manufacturer, you are auto-industry related.  If you are a car dealer, you are a part of that auto industry, aren't you?  What about if you drive one of those crazy trucks that carry, like, twenty cars that always scare me when I get behind them?  Okay.  That's auto-industry related.  What about if you work at a parts supply shop, like Pep Boys?  That's auto-industry related, too.  Right?  What about those places that sell fancy rims for your sweet ride?  Sure, why not.  Places that sell you your fancy car stereo?  Okay.  Doesn't a car wash really need just one thing to stay in business?  Sure: cars.

Now, if Ford, GM and Chrysler all go belly-up, we can be assured that the guy on the assembly line is screwed.  As is the parts manufacturer.  Probably the dealer is adversely affected, too, right? 

But wait a minute.  The guy driving the big rig delivering cars?  Well, can't he just drive a truck delivering other cars?  Say, Hondas?  Or even a truck delivering something else entirely.  What about the parts supply shop?  I'll always need a part for my beloved Subaru.  What about the guys who sell the rims?  The stereos?  The car wash?  Same thing.
 
Oh, if they stop making GM cars, all sectors of American industry would suffer greatly -- but the point is, someone will always want a Blaupunkt.  Or a clean car.

With regards to your second question, I think the only people who know "what percentage of auto related personnel would actually become unemployed" are a handful of auto-industry executives and about two-thirds of Capitol Hill.  This isn't a snarky comback.  I'm not slamming anyone here.  I just think this is, for the most part, unprecedented in scope and scale and no one really knows -- or understands -- what restructuring under Chapter 11 would really look like.    

I've dug up some references -- of sorts -- to try and answer these questions, Oliver.  How good a job they do is debatable, which is my fault, not theirs.

First, read this report from the Center for Automotive Research [PDF].  They're trying to answer your first question, and there is a lot of research to try and parse out the differences I made rather haphazardly in a couple of paragraphs.      

Back in October, GM's Vice President for Global Communications Steve Harris wrote a fairly grumpy letter to the editor of the Washington Post.  In it, he mentioned that 1 in 10 figure we talked about.  He also mentions providing "health-care benefits to 2 million Americans and support[ing] nearly 800,000 retirees and spouses with pension benefits."  We didn't even explore those ramifications if one or all of the U.S. auto makers went under.  Are you ready to have your retired-from-GM parents move in with you, Oliver?  

Kendra Marr and Sholnn Freeman had an article last month, also in the Washington Post, that mentioned another more recent CAR study.  They got more specific that the 1 in 10 deal:

A failure at GM, which represents about half of the U.S. auto industry, could eliminate 2.5 million jobs and $125 billion in personal income in the first year, according to a report published last week by the Center for Automotive Research. In three years, the government's tax loss could total more than $108.1 billion.

GM's failure alone could do away with 2.5 million jobs.  And the government could lose nearly $110 billion.  

Okay, so there's a lot of money at stake here, and we can agree that several million people -- if not everyone, in some capacity -- would be affected were any or all of the car companies to go under or declare bankruptcy.  

This is a political blog, and that's usually what I write about.  So let me give you my editorial and political take on this whole thing.  

The failure of the U.S. auto industry -- and the potential solutions we are seeing -- represent a complete and utter failure of imagination and innovation.  And that's everybody's problem.  I don't know your politics, Oliver, but I think you and I can at the very least agree we are a nation at war.  Couple of wars, actually.  

The last time we faced an unprovoked attack on our own soil and had to fight a long, protracted, horrific war, America came together -- innovated -- and pulled ourselves out of economic collapse and built our country, and the world, anew.  That was World War II, and granted, we got the military industrial complex out of the deal, but hey -- you take what you can get.  

We need a similar national call to action this time, and Oliver, it can't be based on demographic research and marketing trends.  

I say this to you as a media affairs/marketing/PR guy.  

Marketing trends go away.  They change.  They evolve.  They devolve.  People pay attention.  Then they stop paying attention.

That the CEO and "Global Communications" types thought they could grow the industry by relying on what market research said was their crime.  Oliver, Americans can be kind of dopey.  Just look at our infatuation with Britney Spears.  

Of course we wanted to drive a Hummer which gets less than 15 MPG in the city.  Less than twenty on the highway.  Give me that Ford F-350, baby!  What do you care if I live in the suburbs and work in an office building?  Let's continue to plug the idea that RVing is a fantastic activity for older retired folks, when in fact it couldn't be worse for the environment, or more dangerous for our roadways. 

We're weird about our cars, Oliver.  Americans love their cars.  And we love big, annoying cars.  We love big, wide cars and because gas is -- relatively -- cheap, at least compared with the rest of the world, we love driving them all over creation.  I live in Florida.  It's built for cars.  I could never ride my bike from home to work.  It's way too far.  Too many of our cities are built that way.

And this gets to the innovation piece of the failure.  We need to be looking at new ways to get ourselves from point A to point B.  If you believe Paul Krugman -- and the guy is a Nobel Laureate, why wouldn't you? -- then we're not going to have a choice in the matter.  We need light rail.  We need bullet trains.  We need complex bussing systems.  We need Metro and subway systems.  

We need our automotive industry to not build cars that we think are cool or neat or a lot of fun right now, today.  We need our automotive industry to look into tomorrow.    

And more than that -- we do need to design our cities around smart transportation, smart growth.

If we use our bailout money to tide over the auto industry for a few more months, my guess is they'll be back for more, and you'll be asking me the same questions once again.  But if we use the federal cash for investment in growing America smart, if we use it to innovate our way out of this problem, then that's something to look forward to.

# # # #

Want your political question answered?  Just email me, and I'll do my best.

Congress and Being Careful with Social Security

Dear Spencerian Editors --

I have heard that our senators and representatives do not pay into the social security system. Is this true?  They might be more careful if they had a vested interest in these funds!

Jim & Rita

Dear Jim & Rita --

This is not true.  Our Senators and Representative do, in fact, pay into the Social Security system. 

This gives me a a chance to provide a couple of great links for your future reference.

First, whenever you hear anything like this, be sure to visit Snopes.com. 

You will also want to check out the Annenberg Political Fact Check site: FactCheck.org.  Here's what they have to say about this urban myth.

Don't feel too bad, Jim & Rita -- this is one myth that's been fairly pervasive.  And our Members of Congress have not always paid into the Social Security system:

A good deal of false information about the House and Senate pension system has been circulating in chain e-mails and Internet postings, mostly based on information that has been outdated for more than two decades. Prior to 1984, members of Congress were covered only by a separate Civil Service Retirement System that was criticized as being overly generous. They did not pay Social Security taxes and received no Social Security retirement credit for their time in office. However, legislation passed in 1983 required members to begin paying into Social Security, effective January 1984.

One last site to visit -- straight to the source: it's the Social Security Administration.

Your last point -- that our Members of Congress should be extremely careful with the solemn promise of Social Security -- is right on the, well, money, Jim & Rita.  Thanks for the question.

Q & A: Will Work Political Gig For Food

Dear Spencerian Editors,

[H]ow does a person approach the transition team about a job in the new administration?  Is there a list of such jobs?  Do contributors get preferential treatment?  Will someone actually look at a resume sent to the general pile, or do you need an "in"?  Is there a government equivalent to monster.com, and if not, why not?  Any other advice?

Thanks,

B.Y.M.
Aripeka, FL

Dear B.Y.M.:

Oh, I've been waiting to answer this for weeks!  And since Congressman Rahm Emanuel has accepted the position of White House Chief of Staff (and Robert Gibbs -- a guy my age -- will be White House Press Secretary), I figured today is as good a day as any to finally provide my answer.

I waited, because providing this answer after Obama won is going to be a lot more fun than if I provided it pre-election and he'd lost. 

Alright, let's look at some practical answers first, and then I'll get all nostalgic on you.  

To your first question, I saw a headline (and woefully didn't save the link to del.icio.us) that the Obama Transition was going to set up a website.  You can be assured that if that does go up, I'll link to it.  Everyone else will, too, I'm sure.  So there's that.  They also have an office in Washington, D.C., the address of which I do not know.  It will be public soon enough.  Right now, there are some high-level folks meeting in that office.  It's mostly empty, but you can be assured it will fill.  Quickly.

Update:  Here is the link to the Office of the President-Elect.  That was fast.

While you are waiting for that information, B.Y., do this.  Prepare a professional cover letter.  In it, highlight your skills.  What do you bring to the table?  Highlight your interests.  Health care policy?  International Affairs?  Keep it brief.  Keep it easy-to-read.  Don't get too eloquent (in other words, don't give it the Obama treatment.  You know what I mean.  Leave the impressive speeches to him.  You're trying to get a job.)  Attach a clean, updated resume.  Email it if they have an email address.  Fax it if that's what they want.  Chase it with a snail-mail resume -- and then let them do their thing.  

Okay, a little nostalgia before I go into the next questions you pose.  

I actually have some experience here.  I worked in the transition in 1992.  I actually served in the Clinton/Gore Transition during the campaign.  Every transition starts that way -- during the campaign.  They're kept very quiet, under wraps because you don't want a sense of presumption out there on the campaign trail.  

So I was a 21-year-old research and administrative aide in the transition from about August 1992 through Inauguration Day.  It was great.  I had most of the floor of an entire office in downtown Little Rock (what used to be the Worthen Building).  I copied speeches and position papers and press releases and other relevant materials relating to Bill Clinton and Al Gore and filed them in the appropriate agency folders.  I brought candidates for high-level positions in from the airport to either the Governor's Mansion or the office.  It was a really great time, a remarkable experience, and one that I will never forget.  

When I got to DC, I managed to land a job in the Office of Presidential Personnel, again as a low-level administrative aide.  This was another great job.  We sorted through every person who wanted a political appointment from President Clinton.  It was quite a job.  

Okay, so back to your questions, B.Y.  Is there a list of political jobs?  The answer is yes.  It's called the Plum Book, and it's a must-read.  Allow me to give you a couple of links.

First, here's the Plum Book from 1996, through 2000, then to 2004.  In other words, if you're curious about how much money, say, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino makes, you can figure that out here.  This is hours and hours of good reading.  If you don't find this to be a page-turner, B.Y., it might be that you don't care for politics.  

Second, I've recently discovered this site, maintained by Avue.  It seems to be a sort of automated Plum Book.  They have uploaded very political job you can imagine -- there's around 3,000 -- and broken out by region (yes, the large bulk of them reside in D.C.).  

B.Y., I notice that you're asking about contributors and whether they may get "preferential treatment."  

Look, we all recognize Obama as a transformational figure.  His victory is remarkable.  I have no doubt that change is, indeed, coming.  

But he's still a politician.  Contributors get access.  That's not a fact of politics, it's a fact of life.  

Do campaigns need to be cleaned up?  Yes.

Now, that being said, I think that Obama really did run a different kind of campaign.  He raised an extraordinary amount of money from a very wide base.  So keep that in mind, too.  

I saw that someone close to Obama answered, when asked what the criteria he was looking for in a new team might be, excellence.  I believe that to be true, so don't worry if you weren't a maxed-out contributor, B.Y.  Keep the faith.

Let me also say that those dedicated to Obama early, and those who campaigned for him also get "preferential treatment" (a term I'm not entirely comfortable with, B.Y.). 

Finally, with regards to whether or not you need an "in," let me say: this is politics.  You always need an "in."  You never don't need an "in."

I loved working in the Office of Presidential Personnel.  Lord, I really did.  I worked hard, too.  I came in early, stayed late.  I did whatever anyone above me -- and that was everyone -- asked.  But Clinton said he was going to cut the White House staff by 25%.  And he did.  It was a little tricky, though, in that he basically didn't fire anyone to get to 25% -- he farmed them all out to federal agencies.

I was one of them (I went to U.S.D.A., and then the Drug Czar's office).  There was a kid there my age, let's call him Johnny.  Johnny was a dope.  Real slow.  Just a goober.  Not very bright, didn't work very hard.  Not many people liked him, as I recall.  

But his mother was, well, somebody (I don't know who).  She'd donated.  She was a muckety-muck somewhere.  My parents -- whom I love, who are totally awesome -- are not, well, muckety-mucks (sorry, Mom & Dad!).  

When it came time to have people go from the White House -- very cool -- to agencies -- eh -- who do you think stayed at the White House?  That's right.  Johnny stayed at the White House.  Johnny, who -- no kidding -- had a propensity for kind of walking around with his mouth open and drooling a bit.  Johnny, who -- again, no kidding -- actually once got all nuzzle-ey wuzzle-ey with his mother in the freaking hallway while she baby-talked to him.  Oooh, my wittle Johnny is a big boy!  Such a big, impowtant boy!  He-ums works at the White House, yes he does!  Johnny, cooing all the while.  

Hey, I'm not bitter.  If that's the price you have to pay to walk the halls of power, then you can have it, brother.  I'll take USDA and ONDCP and the Justice Department any day of the week.

My advice is to tell the Obama gang what it is you do well, and to be flexible.  Be open-minded.  If you go in and you want to be the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Widget Importation at the Department of Commerce, you're trying to hit a small target in high wind.  It's a big government, and Obama has a big job in front of him.  There's a lot to fix.  And if you have skills and you're willing to work hard, let the transition team know that, and I'll bet you get hired.

By the way, it's worth mentioning career service.  You can find those jobs at the Office of Personnel Managment.  You may need to take a civil service exam, but it could be just the career for you.    

Good luck, B.Y.  

Q & A: A Two-fer on Article Two, Electors and Justices

Ed. Note: Today's edition of We Answer Your Political Questions is a two-fer.  Both have answers rooted in Article Two of the U.S. Constitution.

Let's take a look:

Dear Spencerian Editors:

What is the law associated with replacing a Supreme Court Justice between an a election and the inauguration. i.e If for example John Paul Stevens should die between November 4th and the inauguration of  a new president could Bush make a speedy recess appointment against the advice of the President elect i.e Obama?

I understand that that a recess appointed Justice can only sit until the next sitting Senate but is there anything preventing Bush from appointing a strict constructionist / conservative to the bench and then the court decide to rush a review and a ruling over turning Roe vs Wade? I realise very little chance but but piped my interest as perhaps should a tragedy like this occur it would it present Bush with a opportunity to rehabilitate his currently disastrously negative legacy?

With thanks,

Graham D.

Dear Graham: 

Fantastic question.  Thanks for asking.  

I've said a number of times on this very blog that I think one of the worst legacies George W. Bush leaves us with will be the neocon bottom-feeders who will dwell in our nation's capitol for years and years to come.

A recess appointment to the Supreme Court would be the rotten cherry on top of that sickening cake.  

First of all, let's hope that this scenario doesn't in any way play out.  I covered Esquire's endorsement of Obama on these pages, and they had it exactly right:

John Paul Stevens was born on April 20, 1920, into a family of hotel magnates in the city of Chicago who, when Stevens was still young, lost everything in the Great Depression. In 1936, when John Paul Stevens was a student at the University of Chicago Laboratory School and preparing to enter the University of Chicago proper, Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was born on the shores of Lake Victoria in Kenya. In 1941, when John Paul Stevens was graduating Phi Beta Kappa and preparing to go and break Japanese naval codes and help shoot down Admiral Yamamoto in the South Pacific, Ann Dunham was born in Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. In 1961, when John Paul Stevens was practicing law, Barack Obama and Ann Dunham married and had a son, whom they also named Barack Hussein Obama. In 1975, when President Gerald Ford named John Paul Stevens to replace William O. Douglas on the United States Supreme Court, the elder Obama was long gone and the younger Obama was a freshman at the Punahou School in Honolulu. In January of 2009, if and when Barack Obama is inaugurated as the forty-fourth president of the United States, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens will be closing in on his thirty-fourth year on the Court and his eighty-ninth year on earth. And there, really, you have it. The best argument for the election of Barack Obama as president of the United States iswritten quite clearly in the peaks and squiggles of John Paul Stevens's EKG.

So here's to your good health, Justice Stevens. 

But let me answer your first question, with respect to the law governing appointments.  You want to look up Article 2, Section 2, Clause 3 in the U.S. Constitution.  It says:

The President shall have power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

It's pretty clear.

Now, with respect to the second part of your question -- Bush doesn't have to take the advice of Obama.  Obama, not being sworn in between Election Day and Inauguration Day, would have no power here.  Sure, it'd be nice if Bush checked in with him, but the odds of that are about as good as me rooting for the Phillies to win the World Series (Let's go Rays!).  

Anyway, Bush is a guy with a legacy on his mind.  And right now that legacy is circling the commode.  He is also a guy who has done nothing but play to "the base."  So if our nightmare scenario were to play out, we could guess that he'd do everything he could to appoint -- via recess, sure -- some idealogue so right wing, he'd make Scalia look like Ted Kennedy.  If there was even a chance they could overturn Roe v. Wade, he'd do it. 

That being said, I believe there are some procedural techniques that Harry Reid and the Senate -- the Democratic-lead Senate -- could employ, here.  First, a recess appointment requires the Senate to be in recess.  

What if they weren't?  Reid could just call them into a special session.

Also -- and here's where I have to give credit to some moderates on the other side -- I'm not so sure that Republicans like Orrin Hatch and Arlen Specter would necessarily approve of a recess appointment to the court.  Granted, they're both pro-life, but I think they appreciate the larger implications of the appointment of what would amount to a temporary Associate Justice just to overturn some established laws, like Roe.

Look, Graham -- I'm not going to tell you that your scenario is not possible.  It is.  But it seems, as you say, a slim chance.  Our best hope is to elect Obama in a week, and make it to January 20, 2009.  We'll all sleep a lot better then.

Part Two

Dear Spencerian Editors:

About the US presidential election process:  if the number of representatives in the house is supposed to change according to the population, shouldn't the number of votes in the electoral college change as well?

And wouldn’t it be more accurate (and fair) if the electoral votes were distributed proportionally according to each state’s election results instead of a winner-take-all votes procedure?  Has this ever been brought up or is it “uninteresting” to whichever party is in command?

Thanks,

Albert D.
New York, NY

Dear Albert:

Thanks for your very good question as well.

Let me try the short answers first:  Yes, yes, and yes (to the "uninteresting" part on your last question).

Once again, we are guided byArticle II of the U.S. Constitution, Clause 2, which discusses choosing electors.  

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Hm.  Well, actually, it looks like the Electors are in direct proportion to the number of Senators and Representatives -- equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives... 

With regards to the "winner-take-all" question, I agree there, too, I suppose -- remember that Maine and Nebraska break their up to a degree. 

But I have to tell you, Albert, I disagree with the larger premise.  The Electoral College is a failure.  I think Election 2000 proved that.  Don't you?  If we'd run this thing like common sense tells us to run it -- looking at the popular vote -- in 2000, we'd have been talking about a President Gore, by more than half-a million votes. 

I agree that once leaders get in office, they tend to overlook things like election reform, something we need desperately in this country.  One of my hopes for a President Obama is that he will draw a lesson from his uneccessarily bruising primary season and think about how to change the system entirely.

The National Archives has a really good FAQ on the Electoral College you'll want to check out, too.

Q & A: The Bill & Hill Show

Dear Spencerian Editors:

If Hillary Clinton had gotten the nomination for Presidency, could she have chosen Bill Clinton as her runner up?

Danette M.
Little Rock, AR

Dear Danette:

Thanks so much for the question, Danette.  The short answer is no, but wouldn't it be great if it could be so?

Here's the thing: the Vice President has pretty much one job duty to fill, and that is be prepared to take over if something should happen to the President.  You would think this would mean that the Vice President has to be, you know, qualified in some way to be President of the United States, but John McCain's picking Sarah Palin has pretty much disproved that, I would say.

There is one pretty good reason Bill Clinton can't be Vice President and that is that he no longer meets one of the few legal qualifications to be Vice President.  His disqualification is that he has already served two terms as President. 

I know.  It sounds pretty harsh.  But you don't have to take my word for it: it's spelled out pretty clearly in our Constitution.  Check out the Twelfth Amendment.

Now, the United States Constitution notwithstanding, I happen to think that Bill Clinton could again be a public servant, and a great one at that.  The current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is a fairly young guy, sure, so that job may not open up under an Obama term.  I suppose it's possible that Clinton could take a job as an Associate Justice, but that seems less likely.

I have predicted that a President Obama would be wise to name Bill Clinton as some kind of special peace envoy to the Middle East.  President Clinton would be great at it. 

If on the slim chance Obama loses in November and Hillary Clinton runs again in four years and wins, I am confident she will utilize her husband's considerable political skills to capacity.  It just won't be as Vice President.

Q & A: What Are We Waiting For?

Dear Spencerian Editors:

How long does it take for a president's policies and actions while in office to begin to affect the country?

A. Butler

Dear A:

What a wonderful question. 

As with most things in politics, there are a few answers, each of which depends on a certain set of circumstances.  First of all, it depends on the "policies and actions" we're talking about.  If the action or policy doesn't require Congressional approval, and is within the bounds of the law, then on Day 1.

One good example to use here might be stem cell research. 

George W. Bush has -- stupidly -- severely limited the funding for this important research.  However, were Barack Obama to be elected (that is to say, when Barack Obama is elected), he might immediately prepare and sign an Executive Order overturning Bush's Executive Order restricting the funding for that research.

Does that mean some scientist is going to find a cure for some horrible disease on January 21?  No.  But it does mean that the money can begin flowing again into this important area of research. 

Of course, if we look at something like the war in Iraq, that's a different story.  While we can expect a vast difference between the policies and actions of Bush and Cheney and Obama and Biden, don't hope for a change overnight.  Withdrawing and re-focusing our military on the real target of terrorism in Afghanistan (and, let's face it now: Pakistan) will take months of planning and extremely complex re-deployments of the Armed Forces.  Obama will take us in the right direction -- but it will take time. 

I don't know what the first priority of a President Obama would be.  I'm sure that our current economic crisis is at the top of the list.  This one is a little more like the war, I'm afraid.  It's a complicated issue with a global reach.  It will take time for Obama to put a team in place and enact new policies and regulations which will begin to rectify this disaster.  But it will take time. 

Stay patient and vigilant, A.  We still have an election to get through.

Q & A: VPs No Longer Welcome

Hi! Love your website.

What are the "laws" or rules governing a VP nominee? Could Sarah Palin or Joe Biden actually be "taken off the ticket?" Would she/he have to resign?

What are the constitutional rules concerning a VP nominee in the interim between now and the election?

Thanks so much!

Liz

Dear Liz --

Thanks very much, Liz -- I appreciate your generous comment. 

Like our last Q&A, I have a similar answer for you: no one is really sure. 

With reference to constitutional rules concerning a VP nominee before the election, I can't find any.  In fact, I'd say there are none.  Now, after the election, it's a different story.  You'll want to familiarize yourself with Article Two of the United States Constitution, as well as the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.

You know, a "taken off the ticket" scenario has happened before.  In 1972, Democratic Vice Presidential pick Thomas Eagleton was removed from the ticket at the request of nominee George McGovern. 

After some scrambling, the party -- with a lot of input from McGovern -- put Sargent Shriver on the ticket. 

As I briefly talked about before, McCain and Palin on the Republican ticket and Obama and Biden on the Democratic ticket do not represent an arm or a branch of the government.  They are a function of their respective party.  

In the end, were something to happen to Senator Biden or Governor Palin -- whether the presidential nominee asked them to leave, or whether they left of their own voilition -- the respective party would scramble and find a suitable replacement.

Now, Liz, if you'll permit me a quick personal but not unrelated note.

These last couple of weeks have been some of the worst for politics, from my perspective, since the impeachment of Bill Clinton.  There are things happening globally and nationally which require a serious national conversation, and right now that conversation is quite one-sided.

It's downright depressing.

While McCain/Palin are perfectly happy to talk about lipstick and pigs -- "this campaign is not about issues," said McCain campaign manager and scum-peddler Rick Davis -- the rest of us are virtualy ulceritic about the direction of our country. 

Ultimately, what the American people are left with is a simple choice.  We can embrace the politics of the negative, the politics of the petty and elect an old Washington insider who has embraced those very same negative politics and his running mate, another neo-conservative who seems to be familiar with nothing pertinent.  Or we can re-engage in the conversation and get to work fixing our country. 

I hope we come back around to the latter.     

So I've been busy with work, and not a little disenchanted with politics, and that explains the light posting.  I hope to get back to some regular stuff this weekend.

Thanks for reading.

Q & A: Someone Answer For Me, Just What Is It The VP Does?

Dear Spencerian Editors: 

If a presidential candidate has picked his VP and later cannot continue in the race, does his VP remain as the new presidential candidate or does his party select a new presidential candidate?  I had a dream that Mitt Romney was the new presidential candidate in the early part of October.

Bob P.

Dear Bob --

That's funny -- I had the exact same dream.  Or nightmare. 

Now I can have the same nightmare all over again.  Only this time, it's Sarah Palin.

Great.  Now I'll be up all night.

Let me first apologize to you, Bob.  I deliberately held your message for a few weeks until both candidates had their VP picks.  Now that they have, I think we can agree -- we have a whole new ball game to consider.

I'd also like to note that waiting until after the Conventions was a bit of a cheat, too.  Now that each of the tickets have been formally nominated by their party, yes, the Vice Presidential candidate would continue on in.  While I am fairly confident that both the Democrats and Republicans have some sort of parameters codified somewhere outlining this very procedure, I was unable to find it. 

Prior to the Conventions, this would have been a bit of a different story.  See, before the candidates are officially nominated, they are only the presumptive nominee.  If, for some reason, a candidate were unable to continue as a candidate, if might not necessarily fall to his VP selection to continue as the nominee, though you could bet there'd be a fight.  During the primaries, delegates are awarded.  Now, as candidates lose primaries, they either suspend or end their campaigns.  There's a difference.  Suspending your campaign -- as Senator Clinton did -- allows your campaign apparatus to retain the delegates you won during the primary season.

So, for example, if Barack Obama were captured by Martians and taken off the planet after he had selected Biden, but before the Convention, Senator Clinton could well make the case that it should be her nomination, given that she would have the next most delegates, after the abducted Barack Obama.  Now, Senator Biden could (and would) make the case that he should continue in Obama's shoes as the VP selection, but I'd bet you it wouldn't be that easy.

That's sort of the simple version, Bob.  But here's the truth: it'd be chaos.  I mean, just a mess.  And the scenario I laid out above -- Martians and all -- is about the most simplistic version I could come up with.  The real truth is that of the few people I do know who have some expertise in this don't even know the answer. 

So it would be a fairly ugly mess. 

Well Bob, I'd like to thank for giving me a pretty good segue into a contrast of VP choices, and my biggest problem with Sarah Palin.

First, let's look at Joe Biden.  He might not be the choice of most progressives, but I think he's a solid choice.  Most important though, he's Barack Obama's choice.  This is something we can all agree on, I think.  Senator Obama was given a series of appropriately vetted choices, and made a personal and good decision in Senator Biden.  Even Senator Biden's detractors would agree with this, I think.

What bothers me most about Sarah Palin is that she was not John McCain's choice: she was the Republican Party's choice.  I find that to be troubling.  At best.  If John McCain is not fit to make his own choice for Vice President, how on Earth is he fit to be Commander in Chief? 

So a quick, gimmicky pick was made to appease the far-right wing of the Republican base.  She wasn't properly vetted.  There now seems to be a confluence of the many things now coming out about Governor Palin and the McCain campaign's war on the media.

Look, you don't need me to re-hash all the stuff that's out there on Palin -- the stuff that'll just keep coming.  There are a lot of people already commenting on how wise a choice Sarah Palin is, and the future of the McCain campaign.  Certainly don't take my word for it.  Try uber-conservative columnist and former Reagan acolyte Peggy Noonan and weirdo Republican Mike Murphy.

Q&A: Whither the Write-In?

Dear Spencerian Editors:

I am not for Obama or McCain.  If Obama is the decided Democrat on the ticket, can I still select Hillary Clinton as a write-in vote?  Obama scares the crap out of me and McCain is a continuation of the Bush administration.  Is it possible that if enough voters write-in Hillary, she could be elected?  I do not want to throw my vote away or skip voting at all.  It would be the first time that I did not vote in the presidential election.

Julie C.

Dear Julie --

Thanks so much for writing.

Let me say this up front so that there is no confusion:  I support Barack Obama, I voted for Barack Obama, and I believe in Barack Obama.  I believe in his candidacy, and I believe that he will be the president -- and I believe that he will be a great president.  Furthermore, I used to work for Hillary Clinton when she was First Lady of the United States.  I worked for her for about a year in the office of the White House Millennium Council.  I thought she was a great First Lady then and I think she is a great Senator now, and I think that she could still -- someday -- be a great president.  Perhaps after two terms of President Obama. 

I wanted to tell you that up-front, Julie, so that we can get it out of the way and I can give you as objective an answer as possible to your question.

I am very sorry to hear that you may not be supporting Senator Obama.  I would like to give you a more specific answer on whether or not you can select Senator Clinton as a "write-in," but the specifics actually depend on where you are voting, and since you did not provide your location I'm afraid I can't give you a very good answer.  My best advice, though, is to check with either your local Supervisor of Elections or your state's Secretary of State. 

More generally, here is what Wikipedia has to say about the write-in issue.

Looks like most places allow you, in some capacity, to write in a candidate's name. 

Let's not leave it to the word of a series of tubes, shall we?  Again: check with your elections officials in your state.  These people will have resources which will help you if you would like to write in Senator Clinton's name as your vote for president. 

Julie, I'd like to tell you why I think this is a tragic waste of your time and a tragic waste of your civic obligation, though it certainly is your right.  It is a waste of your time because the answer to your second question -- "Is is possible that if enough voters write-in Hillary, she could be elected?" -- is basically no.  Well, technically it's yes, but if "enough" voters wrote in my name, I could be elected, too.  Trust me, you don't want to write my name in.  What I think you might mean is, if Hillary Clinton were to present herself as a write-in candidate, could enough support be garnered for her to be elected. 

The answer is still no. 

Whether or not you are pleased with the outcome of the primary, Senator Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee -- and Democrats have more or less fallen in line behind him.  If we look at the states that are traditionally Democratic, he has garnered the support you would expect the Democratic standard-bearer to have.  This isn't just my best guess -- I encourage you to verify it for yourself.  Take a look at some of the leading polling sites, including FiveThirtyEight and Real Clear Politics.  Some of the early data shows that Obama is leading in key states he will need to win the election in November, such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, and even recently in my state of Florida.  Furthermore, it appears as though Obama may take the fight to McCain in some states you wouldn't normally think of as traditionally Democratic states, like Virginia and North Carolina. 

What I believe Obama's impressive showing means is that it would be awfully hard to make a strong, practical case -- or, frankly, any case at all -- for a write-in candidate in November, no matter who it is.  Right now Obama is leading John McCain nationally and in several battleground states.  We know we don't want a third Bush term, which you alluded to and which I agree with. 

So unless you are familiar with a candidate who is just that much better than Obama, why wouldn't you vote for Obama?  In your case, you clearly think that Hillary Clinton would be the better president.  But is this really true?  Again, I think you've got a tough case to make here, Julie.  Let's undertake a little bit of a comparison project. 

I'm a big fan of Project Vote Smart.  It is non-partisan and it is fair and accurate and up-to-date.  And with the miracle of high-speed DSL, you can easily do a side-by-side comparison of their voting record.  Let's start with an issue that I think is not just important to Democratic voters, but important to a broad swath of Americans as well: veteran's issues.

Both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are co-sponsors of S. 22, Senator Jim Webb's G.I. Bill, and they both voted for Senate Amendment 4803, the G.I. Bill and Other Domestic Provisions.  You might have heard about this bill in the media lately.  This is an amendment to a bill that "provides education funding for eligible members of the Armed Forces, extends unemployment compensation, establishes moratoria on certain actions regarding Medicaid, and appropriates a total of $28.67 billion for various domestic and international purposes."

It is worth noting here that both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, in 2006, supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 80% of the time.  Senator McCain -- the only veteran in the race -- supported their issues 20% of the time in the same time frame.  And by the way, while Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave McCain a grade of "D" for 2006, they gave Clinton an A-minus and Obama a B-plus for the same year.  In 2005, both Obama and Clinton supported the issues and interests of the Disabled American Veterans 92% of the time.  McCain only supported them 25% of the time. 

More on interest group ratings in a moment.  

Remember the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) fight?  Well, both Obama and Clinton voted "Yes" on HR 976 to reauthorize and expand this important program. 

Okay, I know what you're thinking, Julie -- any sucker can go and cherry-pick a few votes where Obama and Clinton voted the same.  After all, you may say, they are both Democrats... why wouldn't they vote the same?

Fair enough.  Let's look at what outside interest groups had to say about each candidate.

Since 2005, NARAL Pro-Choice America has given both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama a rating of "100," meaning each of them has supported the issues and interests of NARAL 100% of the time in that time frame. 

From 2001 through 2004, the National Right to Life Committee gave Hillary Clinton a "zero."  The Illinois Federation for Right to Life gave then-State Senator Obama a "zero" from 1997-2000.  The National Right to Lifers gave him a "zero" in 2005-2006. 

So we know they are not just close, they are identical when it comes to the issue of choice. 

Not for nothing, I will take this opportunity to point out that Senator McCain received a NARAL Pro-Choice America rating of "zero" in 2007.  In fact, the best he ever did with them was a meager 10% back in 1998.  He has stayed strong with the pro-life groups, with the percentages of support ranging from the 60s to the 80s. 

I'm pretty big on the rights of animals and wildlife.  As I think I've said before, it may not be the world's biggest issue, or at the forefront of anyone's mind, especially when we're fighting a couple of wars and the economy is in the tank (it's the only thing in the tank, gas prices being what they are), but it's a big deal to me, so I always take a look at where a candidate stands.

In 2007, both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton supported the interests of the Humane Society of the United States 75% of the time.  To be completely fair, this is a seven year low for Senator Clinton who to this point has maintained 100% support from a variety of animal rights groups for seven years. 

It is worth noting that in 2007 Senator McCain's support for the interests and issues of the Humane Society of the United States was 25%. 

I mentioned that I worked for Senator Clinton -- then the First Lady -- at the White House Millennium Council.  Our work was focused around the arts and humanities, and the work that she did in her "Save America's Treasures" campaign will have a lasting impact.  Therefore I'll note with no surprise at all that the National Trust for Historic Preservation gave her a rating of 100% in 2005.

Senator Obama got the same rating that year as well.

Senator McCain got a "zero." 

In 2007, Senator Obama and Senator Clinton both got an "F" from the  National Taxpayer's Union.  Trust me -- this is great news for both of them.  In 2006, they gave Senator McCain an 88% (NOTE:  I don't know why they went from letter grades to percentages and back again.)

American's for Tax Reform, that weasel Grover Norquist's outfit, said that Senator Obama supported the interests of the drown-government-in-the-bathtub set 15% of the time.  He said Senator Clinton supported his interests only 10% of the time.  Norquist and his evil minions gave McCain an 80%. 

I guess if you want to highlight the five percent difference, you could.  But compared to the sixty-five or seventy percent difference with McCain, is it really worth it?

Okay, here's an interesting set, and one that I think is quite telling. 

In 2007, the ACLU gave Obama a "grade" of 80, Clinton got 60, and McCain got 50.  Let's assume the higher, the better.

I think it is utterly ridiculous that people think that Obama is a Muslim.  Now, you would think that his 2007 rating of "80" from the Arab American Institute wouldn't help him with this "image problem."  But I will point out that in the same year Hillary Clinton was given an 83.  Interesting, McCain got a 75. 

In 2007, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights said Senator Obama supported their interest 85% of the time.  So did Senator Clinton. 

McCain: 15%

In 2006, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State said Senator Clinton supported them 100% of the time.  So did Senator Obama.

McCain: 33%

In 2006, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights said Senator Obama supported their interest 93% of the time.  So did Senator Clinton. (93% exactly!)

McCain: 15%

In 2005-2006, the ACLU said that Senator Clinton supported their issues and interest 83% of the time.  So did Senator Obama (83% exactly!)

McCain: 33%

I've mentioned a couple of times, now, that I worked for the First Lady.  I also worked for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy for about five years.  Take it from me: America needs better drug rehabilitation funding and we need quality counselors. 

In 2005-2006, the National Association of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselors gave both Obama and Clinton 100% for supporting their issues.  McCain got a "zero."

In 2007, Obama and Clinton both got a grade of "A" from the National Education Association.  McCain got an "F." 

In my "real life job" I work around issues for children and families.  So here's an interesting set for you.

In 2007, the Children's Defense Fund said Senator Clinton (who at one time sat on their Board) supported them 70% of the time.  Senator Obama got a 60%. 

McCain got 10%. 

Okay, here's one for a laugh, Julie. 

Of the three candidates mentioned so far, there were three "grades" given by the Gun Owners of America.  Those grades were F, F minus, and F minus. 

Guess who got the higher "grade" of only an "F." 

Wrong.

It was Senator Barack Obama.  Who knows why. 

But I'll bet you a box full of bullets that the NRA -- or the Gun Owners of America, for that matter -- won't be endorsing him this year.  Double or nothing we get a "cold, dead hands" moment from McCain some time before Election Day.

Finally, Julie, I feel I must point out that in 2005-2006 the National Organization for Women said Senator Obama supported their issues 91% of the time.  For the same time period, Senator Clinton got a 96%. 

McCain: 13%.

Alright, I think you get the point.

Julie, I know that there are a number of people who are disappointed in the outcome of the Democratic primary.  I know that in many cases they are angry and hurt.  Julie, I'm wondering why Senator Obama "scares the crap" out of you.  Aside from their race and gender, aside from their initial support in the War on Iraq, aside from technical differences in their health care proposals, they are very much alike.  I've heard this "he scares me" stuff from a couple of different Clinton supporters and to be frank with you, I just don't get it.  Why?  How is it possible that Senator Obama can possibly scare you more than the prospect of a President McCain?  

For this reason alone I'd strongly encourage you to re-examine your feelings about Senator Obama and respectfully ask you to please consider voting for him in November.  Indeed, writing in Senator Clinton's name is not only very much throwing your vote away, it is in fact a sort of tacit vote for Senator McCain, a man who -- as we have demonstrated here -- is wrong on all the big issues (and most of the little ones, too).  In other words, your vote for someone who has no shot at winning is one less vote that Senator McCain needs to overcome in order to carry out a third Bush term.  This is even more true if you're in a swing state. 

Please carry on your proud tradition of voting in every presidential election, Julie -- and consider voting for Senator Obama.

Q&A: Puede el Triunfo de Obama Sobre Hispanico… y Tejas

Dear Spencerian Editors:

If Obama can build a solid Hispanic coalition, is Texas in play?

Jason
Chicago, IL

Thanks for writing in Jason.  This is a great question -- the implications of which could throw the entire presumed electoral map totally off.  What fun.  But let's sift through a bit of analysis first.

What you have to remember first about Texas is that when it came to the Democratic Primary/Caucus, it was a tie.  Clinton won the primary, Obama won the caucus.  Digging into the primary results a little bit, we see that Clinton won the Hispanic vote across every single age range.  In the caucus, we see that Obama did well in and near Dallas, in and near Houston and in and around Austin.   But boy, take a look at the area by the border.  It's all Clinton. 

This is important to parse out first because it shows where Obama likely needs to do some work. 

The next thing is to look at this really handy fact sheet on Hispanics in the 2008 Election in Texas courtesy of the Pew Hispanic Center [PDF]:

Texas’s Hispanic population is the second largest in the nation. Nearly 8.4 million Hispanics reside in Texas, 19% of all Hispanics in the United States.

[snip]

Almost 25% of eligible voters in Texas are Latinos, the second-largest Hispanic eligible voter population share nationally.

So what we now know is that this is an important constituency to win.  Maybe Obama needs to do some work to win it.  And if he does, he could  -- maybe -- win Texas, the home of the current president that everyone hates.

Okay, how?

A bit of good news right out of the box.  According to Gallup, Obama trounces McCain with the Hispanic vote.  While the numbers are nice, that seems a little too vague for my comfort level.

So more good news.  Let's take note that the Democratic Party's favorables are up to 57%.  This wave is -- so far -- transformational in nature.  Nationwide, Republicans will be defending Congressional seats they should have never had to defend.  In fact, Electoral Vote Predictor has the GOP having to fight in a lot of places you'd think they wouldn't:  Virginia tied up?  South Carolina, barely GOP?  Colorado for the Democrats?   And take look at Texas.  In the "Weak GOP" category.

We're going to be looking at a whole new electoral map for 2008.

But back to Texas. The Texas State House is more closely divided-- 71 Democrats, 79 Republicans -- than you might think.  Local Democrats will be taking the fight to the GOP to control the State House.

As it turns out, Texas Democrats are getting together this week to talk about that, and a few other things, too.  From the Star-Telegram:

"There's a pent-up feeling of frustration all across Texas when you have folks paying $5 a gallon for diesel and $4 a gallon for gas to get to a job that pays minimum wage," Richie said. "You have the highest rates for electricity ever, the highest rates for homeowners insurance, and we can't get health coverage for [low-income] kids."

[snip]

Hans Klingler, spokesman for the Texas Republican Party, said last month that the Democrats' optimism is misguided.

[snip]

"No matter how much [Democrats] invest in Texas, the traction is going to be negligible," Klingler said.

I don't know about you, Jason, but Mr. Klingler sounds a little bit nervous to me.

Frankly, I think Mr. Klingler needs to be looking to keep his own house in order.  Granted, this is a 2010 issue, but it looks like Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is going to take on Governor Rick Perry in what promises to be a bloody, nasty, and spectacular primary fight.  Two of your big time state leaders going at it in a protracted fight to the death?  I think Democrats might know a little something about that.  If there is any discord in the Texas GOP right now, it will be made all the worse by the power of the Obama organization machine, if he chooses to put it in place in Texas.

A big indicator for Texas this year -- and this is a biggie -- is Rick Noriega's race against incumbent empty suit John Cornyn, who is apparently being talked about to honcho the National Republican Senatorial Committee.  It'd be great if they named him to head the number one fundraising arm for Republican Senate races nationwide, and he lost his own race.  Noriega is in the Texas National Guard and since he's on duty for two weeks, the campaign has a very clever "fill Rick's boots" effort going.   Noriega is evidently well within striking distance of Cornyn.   Given his last name -- not to mention his editorship of the Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy, nor his impressive array of endorsements of whom many are leading Hispanic people or causes, as if either really needed mentioning -- it would seem Rick Noriega could greatly energize that large voting block I talked about earlier.   Some strategically placed campaign stops with Obama and Noriega together might prove remarkably fruitful for them both.

Texas Democrats have more than just a Senate seat to and a close State House to worry about this week:

What's really important, state party officials say, is the challenge that lies ahead in a red state with an up-and-coming party that's divided but hopes to conquer a U.S. Senate seat, the Texas Supreme Court, and the state House.

[snip]

Also, Harris County Democrats hope to turn the state's largest county blue, as their Dallas County counterparts did in 2006, and can't do that if disgruntled or uninspired Clinton backers stay home.

The two biggest obstacles to bringing the 2.8 million Democrats who turned up at the primaries back to the polls in November are the fact that most Texans voted for Mrs. Clinton and now won't have her on the ticket, and the fact that Texas' chances of delivering for the Democratic presidential candidate are slim.

And so it comes back to party unity.

And message.  I think the best message Obama can take to Texas is this broken economy. Obama's message on the economy would be solid gold down in Texas, because it would appeal to both the working-class white folks he needs (but likely won't get in Texas, but he should make the play, anyway), as well as the Hispanic vote we're talking about. 

Due mainly to a slump in the construction industry, the unemployment rate for Hispanics in the U.S. rose to 6.5% in the first quarter of 2008, well above the 4.7% rate for all non-Hispanics.

Everyone is hurting in this economy -- and Hispanics are hurting worse.  For this reason alone Obama should carry his message of hope to the Lone Star State.  The least we can do is give these poor folks some hope.

Labor market outcomes for Hispanic women appear to be worse than for men during 2007. They left the labor force in greater proportion and experienced greater increases in unemployment than did Hispanic men. Some 130,000 more Latino women became unemployed in 2007, and their unemployment rate increased from 5.6% to 7.0%.

Weekly earnings for most groups of Hispanic workers also slipped backward in the past year. Again, Latino construction workers suffered most from the decline in wages.

If I were advising Obama -- and I think it's pretty clear that I'm not -- I'd tell him to take John Edwards down there, too.  Along with campaigning with Rick Noriega, they could craft a whole rural/anti-poverty/economic empowerment message that we can fairly assume would receive a welcome reception.

So, if Rick Noriega masters the Obama-esque art of organizing across vast Texas (and Obama utilizes that himself there), if Democrats can reconcile, if strong local candidates are running strong solid campaigns for State House seats, and if Obama carries just the right economic message through the rural and border town, speaking especially to Hispanics who are hurting the most, is Texas in play? 

It just might be.  And at 34 electoral votes, wouldn't that be something. 

Q&A: Just How Maverick Is McCain?

Dear Spencerian Editors:

Has McCain ever been an "independent" or has he always been considered a Republican?

Kimberly B.
Brentwood, TN

Thanks for writing, Kimberly.  First of all, the technical answer to your question is that John McCain has always been a Republican. 

However, your question raises a great issue, which is that McCain has successfully branded himself as a maverick, or an "independent."  The story of how he did this is really rather compelling.

An important thing to keep in mind through all of this is Senator McCain's extraordinary relationship with the press.  The Senator has spent a great deal of time -- and I don't mean a little time on his calendar this election cycle, I mean decades -- cultivating his relationship with members of the media.  He holds court on his campaign bus and literally surrounds himself with journalists, answering questions until there are no more questions to answer.  Journalists love this level of access, and subsequently journalists love him. 

I'm not saying this is a bad thing -- quite the opposite.  I am saying that it is brilliant of McCain to recognize that cultivating a strong relationship with the press has paid dividends now and will pay dividends in the future.  It is very difficult to write a harsh story about someone whom you like.  After all, journalists are people, too.   

McCain has also aligned himself with some traditionally non-conservative people as well as non-conservative, or even non-Republican, issues.  The first and maybe best example is his relationship with his Arizona mentor, the late Representative Mo Udall.  Udall ran for president as a liberal alternative to Jimmy Carter in '76, so that in and of itself makes the conservative McCain's relationship with Udall extraordinary.

Not incidentally, Kimberly, can you imagine what folks would be saying if Barack Obama hung out with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell?  Or Charles Grassley from Iowa?  Or Orrin Hatch of Utah?  Think about that.  It's a statement on just where our politics is today, and it's not a good one. 

An issue that Senator McCain has firmly aligned himself with is campaign finance reform.  He's so firmly aligned, his name is practically synonymous with the concept, thanks to the McCain Feingold law (or the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, as it is now called).

This is an extremely complicated issue, and the bottom line is that Senator McCain has come down on a side not very popular with the conservative base.  Whether or not you think you think this makes McCain a hero or a bum is up to you.  For our purposes, it distanced Senator McCain in a number of ways from a strong core base of conservative voters, and likely went a long way to contributing to his loss to George W. Bush in the 2000 primary.

There are a number of other things to take into consideration before we label McCain a maverick independent or just another conservative Republican, and that's his voting record.  Thanks to that beautiful series of tubes, the Internet, we can get a quick glimpse of where he stands in relation to his colleagues and on issues in general. 

The big issue, of course, is the war in Iraq.  While Senator McCain has had his criticisms of this disastrous effort, he has now firmly embraced President Bush's current policy, the shorthand for which is now "the surge."  This is opposed to the wishes of Democrats in Washington, as evidenced by his "no" vote on H.R. 1591, which was a funding bill that had strong troop withdrawal language in it.   

In domestic news, he voted against expanding SCHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program.  That puts him well in line with the GOP crew.  All the children say: Thanks for nothin', Senator!

In fact, the Washington Post has done a nice job of breaking down his votes in relation to the GOP vote versus the Democratic vote on several key issues.  Check it out here.

If you're worried that the Post might be too liberal, let's go to a favorite of mine: the non-partisan Project Vote Smart.

You can check out a very extensive voting record broken out by issue.  A run-through by me, and it was hard to find anything that stood out.  In other words, he votes pretty predictably with the GOP. 

You can also check out the interest group ratings, which tells you a lot about where a candidate stands.  For example, in 2007, the folks at NARAL gave him a rating of "zero."  Meaning, in the eyes of the National Abortion Rights Action League, he's about as bad as you can get.  Same score with Planned Parenthood in 2006. 

However, if you look at the National Right to Life Committee, they gave him a rating of 75 in 2007, and an 82 in 2004. 

On the abortion issue, I think you get the idea.  He supports the positions on the pro-life groups far, far more than he does the pro-choice groups. 

On the budget and economy and tax issues, he consistently gets high ratings from the whacko drown-government-in-the-bathtub bunch at American's for Tax Reform.  A bunch of the other anti-government Kool-Aid drinkers love him, too, such as the National Tax Limitation Committee and the American Shareholders Association.

Kimberly, there is actually a whole category on the issue list called "Conservative," about a quarter of the way down.  A quick glance will show that Senator McCain has done very well by the estimation of conservative groups over the years. 

There is one more issue I like to look at that you may think is silly but I always think is a nice barometer for how someone leans politically, and that's what they think of animal rights.  Is it war?  Is it abortion?  Is the the environment or the economy?  No.  But it is an issue, and politicians ought to take it seriously. 

McCain scored fairly low, though not as low as he could have, I suppose.  A 25 from the Humane Society of the United States in 2007.  The ASPCA gave him only a 20 in 2004.  However, if you check out his record around the 2001-2002 mark, most of those organizations give him a 100 rating.  He must have had a bill that session that they agreed with.  Perhaps he was even a sponsor, I don't know.  But you can see how using these group ratings isn't always perfect.

One last resource, Kimberly.  Check out On the Issues and McCain's "profile."  I think it sums up the real McCain very nicely.  I counted about five out of nineteen issues where he was more on the liberal side than conservative.  I'm going to say that based on this rather slapdash analysis, this makes McCain a bedrock conservative with a couple of quirks.      

In closing, let me point out the obvious: there's a real difference between a public persona and a voting record.  John McCain has very successfully branded himself as a maverick, as an "independent."  But in reality, there is very little that is independent about John McCain.  Don't let a biased media fool, you, Kimberly: McCain is a conservative. ts