December 2007

Yepsen Can Bite My Ass

Perhaps the single worst thing to come out from Democrats this cycle is the whining from two candidates that Iowa College Students who are originally from out of state will taint the vote.

As someone who went to school in Iowa, but still voted absentee in Illinois, this is bullshit and I have no idea what David Yepsen is babbling about:

At first glance, Clinton may have more luck with her strategy than Obama has with his. Only 5 percent of the likely Democratic caucus-goers are under age 25, while 50 percent are over age 55. Also, the Jan. 3 caucus date comes when many students are on break and may be out of town, which is why Obama is making an effort to get students who are not from Iowa to vote here.

The problem with this formulation is that college students from other states are just like anyone else who has moved into a state. By this formulation I shouldn’t be voting in Missouri now.

Iowa by tradition has encouraged college students to participate, caucus, and vote there during college.  It’s part of the reason Iowa is special.  I’m not sure why he’s trying to change that.

Finally kudos to the Clinton campaign for supporting students caucusing after what was likely a misstatement by Clinton.  Dodd, we are waiting…

Peas in a Pod

Via Rich

The Blagojevich Administration:

The Blagojevich administration issued a written statement blasting the lawsuit as the work of “Republican activists.”

“It’s unfortunate that two prominent Republican activists would go to court to take health care away from families,” Blagojevich spokeswoman

Rebecca Rausch said in the statement. “President Bush wouldn’t even go to those lengths. Every Democratic leader in Illinois should join us in fighting this lawsuit and help protect the hardworking people who rely on us for health coverage so they can keep seeing a doctor.”

Actually Bush tries to do exactly what Blagojevich is doing through signing statements. He signs a law, and then he says it means the exact opposite. So Blagojevich signed a budget and now thinks he can change it at will.

There can be legitimate arguments about the Constitutionality of JCAR. I don’t find them terribly persuasive, but there are legitimate points. That said, if JCAR is ruled unconstitutional the rulemaking process will be made much, much more complicated.

Then there is the issue of Blagojevich expanding the power of JCAR by signing a bill that did that earlier in his administration.

George Bush and Rod Blagojevich are peas in a pod.

Impeach him, impeach him now!

Stealing Yard Signs

Perhaps the most annoying complaint in any election are the dark conspiracies and obsessions over the disappearance of yards signs, notable for never actually casting a vote.

We have now reached the Presidential equivalent of the yard sign argument:

A day after the Hillary campaign hit the Obama camp for bullying voters in nasty phone calls, the Hillary crew has just acknowledged that an Iowa county chair volunteering for the campaign passed along the now-notorious email that smears Obama as a Muslim by repeating the false claim that he attended a madrassa as a child.

The Hillary campaign confirms that they are asking the county chair to step down from the campaign.

The charge was made by a Daily Kos diarist who identified himself as planning to “caucus” for Chris Dodd, suggesting that this happened in Iowa. In his diary he reported receiving the email:

Over the past week or so, I have received two of the most hateful hit pieces on Obama parroting right wing talking points. One was forwarded to me from a Clinton county chair. The other was from a person who claimed to be a former Obama supporter, but a little work with Google revealed she had been posting pro-Clinton comments for several months on websites covering the campaign.They both repeat the Obama/Osama crap, andand the “madrassa” charges. And there is the conclusion that Obama is a mole whose intention is to make a Muslim revolution in the US.

There’s an important thing for the campaigns to remember when engaging in this–the voters don’t care and find it annoying.

Not Mutually Exclusive

Biden on Bush 

Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called that explanation “unbelievable.”

“Are you telling me a president that’s briefed every single morning, who’s fixated on Iran, is not told back in August that the tentative conclusion of 16 intelligence agencies in the U.S. government said they had abandoned their effort for a nuclear weapon in ’03?” Biden asked in a conference call with reporters.

“I refuse to believe that,” he added. “If that’s true, he has the most incompetent staff in modern American history, and he’s one of the most incompetent presidents in modern American history.”

We already know that this is the most incompetent Presidents and staffs in modern American history, but they could be lying also.  Lying badly, but still lying.

OR as John Cole pointed out:

I guess my only question at this point is why President Cheney is allowing Vice President Bush in front of a microphone.

Eric Gets the Original Column on Present Votes Up

Actually it was probably up before, it just had a different URL:

Hull, who has seldom bothered to vote at all in his life, sent out a mailing citing such votes to suggest they show Obama is weak on issues that his progressive base holds dear.

Do they?

“Anyone who says that a `present’ vote necessarily reflects that someone is ducking an issue doesn’t understand the first thing about legislative strategy,” said Pam Sutherland, Planned Parenthood’s chief lobbyist in Springfield. “People who work down here and know how things get done are hearing these accusations and saying, `huh?'”

In practical terms, a “present” vote is as good as a “no” vote because the law requires a bill to win the votes of a majority of the lawmakers in either body, not simply a majority of those voting.

If “present” sounds wimpy, that’s because it sometimes is. In many cases, according to Paul Green, head of Roosevelt University’s School of Public Policy and a longtime student of Illinois’ byzantine legislative process, lawmakers who anticipate a tough re-election challenge will vote “present” on a controversial bill they oppose so as not to give their prospective opponents a good club to bash them with.

Obama, however, was in a safe district and never faced a serious challenge for his legislative seat. He had no need to shy from hard-line stands on gun control and abortion rights. He actually took such stands frequently and is now highly praised by advocates for both causes.

Why would he then vote “present” instead of a resounding “no” on certain bills advanced by lawmakers opposed to abortion rights?

“To provide cover for other Democrats who were shaky on the issue in an effort to convince them not to vote `yes,'” Sutherland said. “The idea is to recruit a group to vote `present’ that includes legislators who are clearly right with the issue.”

Sutherland said this tactic makes the “present” vote look less like a hedge or a cop-out and more like a constitutional concern or other high-minded qualm.

Actually there were constitutional concerns with all of these bills on top of other issues.

Second, using Blair Hull and Maria Pappas’ oppo is weak.   😉

SSDD

Rich roles out the newest reminder of why the abortion Present votes by Obama are taken way out of context. I seem to remember covering this in 2004 with Rich and Eric Zorn. Obama was voting as Planned Parenthood asked. As Rich said, Present votes are fair game, but in this case, Obama was providing cover for others.

The irony is that pro-life groups in Illinois attacked him for killing later versions of these bills when he was a Committee Chair by not letting them out of committee.

The reporters might check with one of the Trib’s columnists who covered this about three years ago if they have any doubt.