Tag Archives: Harry Reid

Hillary’s Chance Was in 2008

21 Sunday Dec 2014

Posted by in ACA, Clinton, Democrats, election, Elizabeth Warren, Harry Reid, health care, Hillary, Jay Nixon, nominee, Pelosi

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

By Greg Smith

Why is anyone suddenly surprised the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination is not sitting on a silver platter in the DNC headquarters with a “Property of Hillary Clinton” note on it?

When Clinton, from a then reliably Democratic Arkansas, wanted to run for Senate in 2000 she had to go to super-liberal New York to do it. A college basketball player working out on a Dunk Hoop would hardly impress NBA scouts. And going into the 2008 primaries Clinton was the odds-on favorite of Democrats, with all the name recognition, connections and fundraising potential a candidate could possibly hope to have. She went on to lose the nomination to a nobody. How has anyone taken her seriously since?

More damaging to her chances are the 20-plus years of her on the national stage. To put it mildly, she has baggage. In 1993 while pushing for her own version of health care reform Clinton was questioned about how the proposal would obviously harm millions of small American businesses and responded, “I can’t be responsible for every under-capitalized business.”

In 1959 Mao Zedong ordered large amounts of food exported from China to earn hard currency to pay for the Great Leap Forward, starving tens of millions to death. “When there is not enough to eat people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill.”

Sounding a little more humane than Mao isn’t much of a campaign strategy. Incidentally, why do the people in charge who want to make an omelet always insist on breaking someone else’s eggs?

This past October Clinton said – out loud – “And don’t let anybody, don’t let anybody tell you, that, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know, that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried. That has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.”

An aide tried to say Clinton’s meant giving tax breaks to businesses doesn’t help create jobs and Clinton herself tried to add context, but even the explanations didn’t alter the meaning of what Clinton said. She actually believes higher tax rates do not impact a business’ ability to compete or create jobs. A presidential candidate who tried to defend that idea would simply lack credibility with most independent voters.

Clinton’s record as secretary of state is similarly punctuated by notable naivety like the ‘reset’ button on relations with Russia. She and President Obama pushed the notion President Bush was a cowboy packing pearl-handled diplomacy that soured U.S.-Russo relations. Five years on and Russia has annexed a part of Ukraine and is still there fighting a proxy war. Obama has even resorted to mocking Russian life expectancy and as a nation that “doesn’t make anything.”

Since she lost in 2008 Clinton has been considered the favorite for the next open ticket the Democratic Party had to offer. The reason is simple: The Democratic Party is light on talent and has been since the turn of the century. One only need look at Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi to see how shallow the DNC’s bench is.

Their politics aside, Pelosi and Reid are train wrecks. The lack of cooperation in Congress is a two-way street, but these two have done as much as anyone to poison the well of bipartisanship with their incessant rhetorical attacks. The fact that after two historic drubbings in just three elections Pelosi and Reid are going to keep their leadership positions shows the paucity of political talent on the Democrat’s roster.

Democrats will shortly be down to 44 senators, and nearly all of them are either pretty liberal – Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer – with no chance at winning the White House or have no name recognition and no accomplishments. One of the few otherwise electable Senate Democrats is Robert P. Casey, Jr. D-PA. He is from an important battleground state, personable and likeable and somewhat moderate. But Casey is pro-life which means he has no chance at being considered for the top ticket, even as vice-president, because the next president will most likely nominate at least three supreme court justices, and if re-elected could nominate six or seven. The next kook who jumps the fence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has a better shot at making it into the White House than Casey.

Bill Nelson D-FL is another Democrat from a populous state with a track record and who manages to connect with the political middle. Michael Bennet D-CO has been called a rising star within the Democratic Party. Unfortunately, these two and all of their cohorts have one fatal flaw: They either voted for Obamacare or to maintain it since it first passed. After 2014, Democrats should be quite hesitant to bet the presidency on the electability of anyone who voted for the ACA.

Democrats also must privately recognize they elected a man whose charisma did not make up for his considerable lack of executive experience. Obama has shown almost no willingness or ability to work with others even within his own party. He demands others give him what he wants, and if they don’t he complains and fundraises; hardly an example of successful presidential leadership.

Having a nominee whose fingerprints are not on the ACA and who has shown leadership skill is why the next Democratic presidential nominee is going to be a governor. If Democrats are smart, their next presidential nominee will be from a GOP-leaning state where the governor had to work with opponents to get anything accomplished.

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon is one of the very few Democrats with a moderate track record and experience working with Republicans. When not running excessively liberal candidates Democrats have historically had traction in the Midwest, a region generally important in deciding presidential elections because it can go either way.

The reason Clinton lost in 2008 and will lose any election that isn’t heavily stacked in her favor is because she has high negative approval ratings. If 40 percent of the people would crawl through glass to vote against you it leaves very little wiggle room in the electoral math. She has specialized in being a polarizing figure, which makes her great at fundraising, great at drawing attention, and lousy at winning national elections.

With President Obama left on the sidelines, Bill and Hillary Clintons acted as surrogates on the midterm campaign trail. According to a list compiled by ABC News, of the 24 Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton campaigned for or with since September 9, 14 lost including the candidates for governor in Massachusetts, Maryland and Michigan. Practicing on a Dunk Hoop won’t get you ready for Lebron.

Nixon has said he wants Clinton to run, but if she doesn’t he’d consider a run himself. Over the next year watch for stories of the whisper campaign against Clinton as more Democrats recognize they need a fresh start, and a fresh face.

Clinton went into the 2008 primaries as a heavy favorite and lost, which shows how difficult it is to predict presidential elections years in advance. Still, given the rare circumstances Democrats face I would give Nixon a 40% chance at the Democratic nomination – perhaps with Sen. Elizabeth Warren on the ticket to satisfy Hillary supporters — which is at least 10 times greater than the odds Clinton herself merits.

Hillary can take heart in the fact the two major parties make foolish, ideologically driven choices with such regularity that nothing can be ruled out.   ©

Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political consultant who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at www.betterfatthanfascist.com.

http://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-slips-presidential-poll-2014-bad-her-215214468.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/midterm-elections-2014-clinton-backed-candidates-fared/story?id=26694294

Harry Reid and the Real Nuclear Option: Bringing A Kiloton Yield to A Megaton Fight

28 Friday Feb 2014

Posted by in Constitution, judicial activism, nuclear option, Personal Freedom, prop. 209, tyranny

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

By Greg Smith

Harry Reid may go down as the man who killed judicial review. By instituting what was known as the “nuclear option” he has begun a partisan arms race that should leave Republicans planning a response that would blunt both the ability of politicians to appoint loose constructionists, and judges to replace the Constitution with their personal opinions.

Nowhere does the Constitution give the courts the right to judicial review of laws for constitutionality. The only mention of courts in the Constitution provides for a supreme court. Judicial review was a right assumed by the Supreme Court 14 years after the Constitution was approved, thus it can be altered or removed with a law of a single sentence.

Senate rules, until changed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, required at least 60 votes to close debate and allowed a vote on federal judges nominated by the president. During the Bush years Democrats used this requirement to their full advantage, not allowing votes on judges to whom they wanted to keep off the federal judiciary. Republicans, who then held the Senate threatened Democrats with a rule change so they could vote with a simple majority. Democrats protested this idea as an affront to the dignity of the Senate, Republicans never implemented the threat.

In 2013 the two parties were each in the opposite position, Democrats went through with the rule change they had previously assailed. This was a tactical victory for Democrats who want complete latitude to place judges on the federal bench, and some judges who believe the ends justifies the means. It will prove to be a strategic blunder if Republicans retaliate in the future.

No occasion of a judge ignoring the democratic process is more memorable than in the case of Proposition 209, a voter referendum approved by 54% of California voters in 1996, the principal wording of which said “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

A color-blind society should aspire to this level of equality.

Soon after passage Chief U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson issued a temporary injunction against enforcement of Prop 209 saying it was likely to be found in conflict with the 14th Amendment. Now, the 14th Amendment contains the following: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This is known as the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment, which doesn’t mention race or gender. It did not need to.

According to an article on cnn.com Henderson wrote in his order: “Courts must look beyond the plain language of an enactment.” Exactly the problem. If judges look beyond what is actually written in the laws and Constitution they can find any right or prohibition they desire, negating the very Constitution they swear to uphold.

Judicial oversight should be a good thing, and for about 160 years, it was. Courts closely followed the Constitution and protected citizens when those who governed strayed beyond their rights. No more. Judges to an astonishing degree think themselves the arbiter of good and bad, like some type of robed superheroes regularly installing their personal opinions disguised – poorly – as legal arguments.

This is not an argument against judicial review. A judge simply following the Constitution as it is written is a bulwark against tyranny and a friend of freedom. A judge overriding the democratic process is tyranny itself. Citizens of all political outlooks should agree this enfeeblement of the peoples’ power be slapped down like a rabid dog.

This is an argument against judges making up law where none exist. It is against unelected judges who think they know best ignoring the democratic process on which this nation was built. A judge has no right to institute what he or she thinks is right in place of what is constitutional. The judiciary today has crossed that line too many times to be left in place without either a major overhaul of process or personnel.

A higher court eventually reversed Henderson’s injunction against Prop 209, allowing it to take effect. Opponents of Prop 209 predicted it would have a enormously deleterious impact on minorities in the state university system. So how bad was it? According to a report by the National Association of Scholars in the ensuing eight years after Prop 209 minority enrollment and graduation rates had both increased.

The reason is simple: California voters put the kibosh on social engineering which had previously made choices based on perceived fairness, not on the needs of the individual, proving the most efficient and effective system of allocation is the market, not the magistrate.

Americans no longer have the respect for the courts they had when FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937, but court packing is still not the answer. The courts need an overhaul and if Republicans were willing to do this fairly and quickly, they would do themselves, the nation, and even the courts a favor. ©

Greg Smith is a freelance writer and political consultant who lives in Bantam, CT. His blog is found at http://www.betterfatthanfascist.com.