Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Just a factual point, geezer2: Andrea Mitchell of NBC first reported the Clinton/SoS rumor and she said she had two OBAMA advisors as sources. Many things have been blamed on Hillary, but not that one. It's even more mysterious, that the leak-averse Obama team leaked this.
1. ZOMG!!! Lieberman!!! Much as I'd like to see that man and his shit-eating grin out of the Capitol altogether, do you people really want the kind of ideological witch hunt that went on during the Republican reign? How'd that work out for you?
2. Let's see. Obama could do a George Bush and put a bunch of cronies from Chicago (machine politics or the appearance thereof) in office, or he could go with seasoned veterans of a successful administration. Which would cut down on the Keystone Kops factor? I'm going with the Clintonites for $400.
Like someone else said: this guy ran a flawless campaign. He beat the Republicans. Every time he opens his mouth, he sounds like a grownup talking to other grownups. HE HAS NOT BEEN SWORN INTO OFFICE YET. I'm going to give him until April before I even start making judgments.
Go outside and play, people. The election's over. Get a life! At least until January 21. We'll be fine, with or without Lieberman.
Oh, and to whomever wants to blame the Clinton DOJ for Waco, it sure as hell wasn't federal agents who incinerated those children, and the Elian Gonzales affair was ultimately a screechingly melodramatic family feud that happened to involve the INS. And you know, after living with an enormous federal blind spot eight years in the making, I will sleep safer at night knowing that the Attorney General is a veteran of aggressive campaigns against domestic terrorists.
The Lieberman move troubles me much more than the former Clinton staffer picks.
The Clinton staffers selected so far are all experienced hands who should do well in their jobs. Even the Hillary Clinton pick is one that I can see an upside too. The length of the vetting I don't see as unusual given that Bill has a lot of baggage post-presidency. It sounds like they've only started work on this stuff. Also, airing some of these things out in places like the NY Times has the potential to deflate some of the criticisms later. The idea is to get ahead of the problems and to frame potential concerns in a way that serves the interests of a Clinton nomination (e.g. it's a way of saying "we've looked into these things and everything turned out OK" -- or perhaps they may say "things didn't quite work out"). I do think that Hillary can keep some distance from Bill and mitigate some of these questions. It's a choice that has some risk and some upside.
The Lieberman move essentially puts him in a good position to advance the interests of Lieberman. As was the case over the past two years, Lieberman will turn a blind eye to companies who have business before his committee; the companies will in turn reward Lieberman with robust campaign contributions, and his cash position will be in a good place going into the 2012 re-election contest. Meanwhile, it's hard to see how the public interest is served by having a doormat as the chair of the Homeland Security Committee. More likely, when Lieberman uses his chair it will be to embarrass Obama. If that happens, Obama has no one but himself to blame. He made a gamble that could very well blow up in his face. In terms of the upside, well, it helps him win a couple news cycles, and perhaps a vote or two from Lieberman on a marginal issue down the line. I would have called Lieberman's bluff and given him a minor committee post -- and run the risk of bolting the caucus in the interim and running as a Republican in 2012.
The signal that this one sends is that Obama is desperate to co-opt those who disagree with him; even if it loses him core support. Hopefully he proves me wrong.
You asked straight questions. I will give you straight answers.
1. Death penalty. Stay with me here, because my position is slightly unusual. I believe that when someone is killed, there is a pre-state, private right of the next of kin to exact retribution. That might be death. It might mean mercy followed by imprisonment. I believe if a relative of mine were murdered, I would favor mercy. I know of situations where the next of kin have furnished funding for counseling, education, and the like in prison for a murderer, provided they serve time until at least an age where they are unlikely to be a danger again. I would like to think I would do the same.
Why allow for the death penalty? Because again, it's not my place to take that away from someone who wants it. Now, before you say this scheme of mine is absurb, let me submit that it is something of the de facto scheme today, in states which permit the death penalty. Quietly, prosecutors often seek input from family members, and act accordingly. I think that's appropriate.
Secondly, I would favor an enhanced burden of proof before exacting the death penalty. Modern DNA has proven the need for this. Those who can't envision anything other than the current system say that's balderdash, you can't have beyond reasonable doubt for one thing, and beyond any doubt for another. But of course you can. I would only support the death penalty for the latter.
And by the way, before you say, aha, he's not an absolutist on life/death issues, let me interrupt and say you're right, I'm not.
2.-3. I'm not an expert on end of life decisions, by any means, but I would favor something like the Dutch approach to this. Fifty years ago, people had heart attacks or strokes, and died in their beds. Today, it is much different. If the plug needs to be pulled, so be it. I did not understand the Terry Schaivo controversy in Florida. By the way, I also think this standard must be subjected to severe review, lest it be abused. There were stories in Holland several years ago about dubious life support withdrawals for indigent patients. I certainly would not want support withdrawn other than under a uniform standard.
4. Full funding for unwanted children. Yes, at let me avoid sarcasm. We already have public housing for the needy, although it is inadequate. We have head start, school lunches, public education and scholarships - heck, at Harvard, you don't have to pay anything now if you make less than $X per year. I'm not sure what they call aid for families with dependent children now, but something like it exists. In other words, it would not break the bank for society; i.e., government, to pay for unwanted children. I would certainly support that. By the way, back in my university days I wrote a paper on the welfare reform act and noted then the interplay with abortion and the need to account for the poor and unwanted, from a governmental perspective.
5. Although you did not ask, my view on abortion on demand is that there is no right to abortion under the federal constitution. And how do I know this? Because the written constitution is a social contract; a binding instrument between governed and government. It's like the old saw: if you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it. If you have to ask whether a newfangled right in 1973, post-women's emanciapation, was contemplated by a group of men concerned with slavery in the 1860's, the answer is no. And if it's not in the 14th Amendment, it isn't anywhere else, either. That means, in turn, that the states should be permitted to decide the abortion question, on a state by state basis, come what may.
I don't know for sure what I would do, in a state referundum, but I certainly would curtail the legality of the practice. I have mixed feelings about the morning after pill, because you're talking about a very tiny creation at that point, not a beating heart. I also don't favor illegality in cases of rape, but would consider that a justifiable homicide because no rapist should be permitted to dictate another person's life course, such as a child. But I do consider abortion homicide, just like killing (in war, in the death penalty) is a form of homicide - by definition, death of another. I'm just not an absolutist about it. I don't have as much sympathy for the backalley scenario as many pro-choicers, because in my book you make the choice when you choose to have sex, especially if you don't use responsible birth control. Our drug companies can make pretty darn sure you don't get pregnant, if you try. We have millions of abortions in this country because people aren't responsible enough, and haven't tried. I think it's appalling.
* * *
So, there you have it.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
