The Wandering Donkey

Why would you vote republican?

A nice, to the point video. Why would you vote republican?

 

 

Update: Since the previous video has been removed here is another source:

 

 

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

Meg’s husband: It might be my writing but I don’t remember letter

In the wonderful world of today’s Republican party, hours after California GOP Gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman held a news conference at which she insisted neither she nor her husband had seen the letter from the Social Security Administration, and suggested that the housekeeper had intercepted it, her husband, present at the news conference, said that the handwriting on letter from the Social Security Administration may be his. His statement:

“While I honestly do not recall receiving this letter, as it was sent to me seven years ago, I can say it is possible that I would've scratched a follow up note on a letter like this, which is a request for information to make certain Nicky received her Social Security benefits and W-2 tax refund for withheld wages. Since we believed her to be legal, I would have had no reason to suspect that she would not have filled it in and done what was needed to secure her benefits.

“It is important to note what this letter actually says: 'this letter makes no statement about your employee's immigration status.'

“The essential fact remains the same, neither Meg nor I believed there was a problem with Nicky's legal status and I certainly don't recall ever discussing it with my wife, nor did I ever show her any letter about it. The facts of this matter are very clear: Ms. Diaz broke the law and lied to us and to the employment agency. When she confessed her deception to us last year, we ended her employment immediately. Meg and I played by the rules and followed the law. Ms. Diaz did not. If, as she claims, she received this letter and note of inquiry from me, she never answered my request to look into this. Instead, she choose to continue her deception. This entire matter is a sad one and it's timing is clearly the result of a calculated and cynical political smear by Meg's opponents."

Most people generally tend to not ignore a government agencies letters, especially when they request ‘prompt attention’. Maybe I just live in a world where we are to ‘in fear’ of the government. Or maybe I don’t believe I’m above the law. Either way, this is California, not Idaho; how do you expect us to believe you didn’t have any suspicions AT ALL that your housekeeper might be illegal?

All of this AND the fact that Meg Whitman claims that after she ‘found out from Nicky Diaz’ herself that she was illegal, she basically just cut her loose.

I would like to remind people that there are no civil or criminal penalties for giving a person, legal or illegal, money or help that can be quanitfied monetarily. You just cannot have them as an employee. Nevertheless, Meg and her husband did not, apparently, offer any monetary help, nor any help in resolving her immigration status. Yet despite this Meg Whitman claims that:

“…considered Nicky a friend and a part of our extended family.”

Yet she did not, and has not, attempted to look out for the welfare of Nicky or her family financially, or otherwise. Way to treat your friends, lady. There are plenty of former Ebay employees who know how you treat your non-friend employees already!

Not looking good for the Whitmans. She already had little chance of capturing the Latino vote. Now she risks losing the anti-Latino vote as well.

Well played, Meg.

Pat McGovern

I blame John

Perhaps that title is a bit much…..then again, perhaps not.  It refers to the role I felt that the senior Senator from Arizona has played in the legitimization of unqualified demagogues being considered appropriate candidates for higher office.  Arguably, this process did not come into full swing until then GOP Presidential nominee decided to nominate the now former half-term Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate in 2008.

I had a post on August 29, 2008 reviewing the likely picks on the eve of the pick itself. It detailed the three main remaining likely candidates; their plusses and minuses (there were plenty of those); and their likelihood to be picked. Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin were the finalists I was convinced would be most likely.

Though I had heard of Governor Palin, unlike most Americans, long before this, I admit I didn’t have a lot of information on her. I, like nearly everyone else in the world, assumed that someone with the allegedly superior judgment of Senator John McCain would certainly not offer the vice-presidency to someone who he hadn’t completely vetted and was not comfortable with having one heartbeat away from the presidency. Boy, was I (we) wrong.

While we did not wind up with the demagogic governor as our Vice-President something nearly as bad happened. Rather than reinforce that it was not a great idea for people with little grasp of actual facts and knowledge of current events to run for higher office, her candidacy, because of it’s stalwart defense by the right, legitimized the ability of people who would have previously been shamed out of making a run for public office to now run for public office.

It no longer mattered that you could only name one or two Supreme Court justices; could neither quote nor explain exactly what the second amendment meant despite your stalwart support of it; heck, you no longer had to be able to even present the School House Rock version of how a bill becomes law (not a bad basic explanation).

Rather, when questioned on their grasp of subject matter that would behoove a Vice-President, Senator, Congressman or Governor to know, they can now claim that the ‘liberal-elite media’ is out to get them with ‘gotcha’ questions. These ‘gotcha’ questions were how we winnowed the wheat from the chaff when I was growing up.

It has now become unacceptable to present the chaff as anything other than whole kernal grain. It can look like chaff, speak like chaff and act like chaff but if you accuse, or even imply it might be chaff, you’re a member of the liberal-elite media, even if your name is David Brooks or David Frum.

Sarah Palin, Jan Brewer, Sharon Angle and Christine O’Donnell join the pantheon of demagogues that used to be restricted to the radio and FoxNews airwaves. Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity and Glen Beck used to have the demagoguery field to themselves. Now the GOP put the demagogues up for election.

Mind you, this is not without pushback from the ‘mainstream’ GOP. But just what is an uncharismatic bunch of people led by John Boehner and Mitch McConnell going to do? Certainly RNC Chairman Michael Steele can’t lead the charge because although I’ve seen him present cogent arguments in the past, he seems to have lost it completely since he took the RNC helm.

But some of these candidates, like Joe Miller in Alaska got nothing but grief from the GOP before their primary win. Now Senator Lisa Murkowski is getting all sorts of grief running as a write-in candidate against the ‘party’s candidate’. The GOP, not knowing what to make of the forces it has unleashed has no choice but to ‘go with the flow’ until it can figure out what is going on.

I haven’t been publishing regularly for almost two years. The last presidential election burned me out. But these events cannot go unchallenged by the left. There has to be pushback from our side. There has to be a challenge to the insanity being spewed by more than a few on the right.

As before, I’m sure many on the left will accuse me of being too centrist and accomadating while those in the middle to the right will accuse me of being anything from liberal, to socialist, to (these people have little understanding of the term or it’s genesis) fascist. Such is the life of a blogger or anyone who speaks out. My skin isn’t the thickest (my downfall) but keep it fairly civil and maybe we can have a conversation.

I look forward to posting regularly again and I hope the next two years don’t burn me out as much as 2007 and 2008 did. Not posting is no longer an option as there is too much in the ‘narrative’ that needs to be disputed and repudiated. My voice may be a small one but I am determined to add to chorus arrayed against these demagogues.

Peace,

Pat McGovern

Obama picks Sotomayor to replace Souter

President Barack Obama today introduced U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor of New York as his selection to replace retiring U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter of New Hampshire. (Whitehouse.gov)

This is probably as close to a slam dunk as President Obama could have gotten. Thus far,  pundits have praised the selection of someone with such a wealth of high level judicial experience. That could work against her as well as there is one heck of a long paper trail for Republicans to dig through.

She has however, been seen as a rising star since her nomination to the appeals court in 1998, so they are not likely to dig anything up that has not already been hashed out publicly. I’m sure there will be some hiccups. Ranking Judiciary Committee Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, who has plenty of not so well hidden skeletons himself, will see to that.

Despite that, I don’t see people such as Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Sen. Sue Collins (R-ME) or Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) supporting a filibuster on her nomination after they voted for her confirmation 11 years ago. They may vote against her in committee and/or on the floor but I don’t see them supporting an attempt to keep her nomination from a vote.

Thinkprogress has an article detailing the right's attempt to portray Judge Sotomayor as a “liberal Harriet Miers.” For full coverage of who exactly said what click on through.

It is a ridiculous argument starting with the fact that she has more federal bench experience than any Court nominee in memory. As SCOTUSBlog points out, women and minority candidates have a long history of being described as not smart enough for the job. It is also something that may generate an intense amount of backlash, if they wish to pursue it, from two groups the Republican party is allegedly desperate to court: women and Hispanics.

Here is some footage of them sticking their collective feet in their mouths already:

Class, do you know why this worked with Harriet Miers? Yes….you in the back. That’s correct…..because it wasn’t the presumed opposition, in that case the Democrats, doing the hack job. It was the people everyone assumed would support her. The Democrats were more than happy to let Jeff Sessions and company hack away at Harriet Miers intellectual fitness because it wasn’t they who would come out looking badly if it went awry.

If the Democrats were to attack Judge Sotomayor’s intellectual “heft” it might be a different story this time as well. But they won’t and not least because the woman has been a Federal Appeals Judge for 11 years! (Which, not coincidentally, is 11 years longer, by itself, than Harriet Miers total judicial experience, federal or otherwise.)

I understand that the right is still smarting from the fact that one of the reasons that Miers was nominated was that Sen. Harry Reid thought it might be a good idea. I think they also need to realize, as we Democrats do, that it wasn’t a vast left wing conspiracy when that happened, it was just Harry using his political judgment, which we well know is severely lacking.

Ultimately, the Republicans will cut their own throats with women and Hispanics if they go to far in opposition here. I realize they are capable of it but hold out hope that some of the relatively sane ones, such as Hatch and Collins and maybe even Judd Gregg, will save the party from themselves.

No filibuster will happen here. Fireworks? Perhaps. I think the nominee attracts close to, if not more than, 70 votes on the floor though.

I could be wrong. ;)

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

The Party of Hypocrisy

I haven't posted much lately and I won't promise that the posts will become more regular. I have to see if I can help this video go viral though:

Good jobs Dems. Don't let the country forget the spending spree our "fiscally conservative" friends went on for the last eight years. And don't let them try to blame it all on their "War on Terror" either.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

Weekly Address 3/14/2009

President Barack Obama's Weekly Address:

The Republican response by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)"

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

Weekly Address

President Barack Obama's Weekly Address:

The Republican response from Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO):

The DMV? The IRS? More scare tactics from the Grand Old Pessimists.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

Let's just do away with inconvenient rules

Where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah! The last administration considered the Constitution and inconvenient rule. Other 'inconvenient rules' include the Electoral College and the Senate's filibuster rules.

Let me lay this out in the open. I believe in the electoral college. It is annoying sometimes unless you just want your presidential candidates hanging around in only major cities, then getting rid of it is a bad idea. It doesn't give undue influence. It just amplifies the interest of the smaller states so that they are not excluded from the process. You want to reform it? Fine. Let's do proportional elector selection like Maine and Nebraska. But don't eliminate it. It would just encourage the candidates to not move around and engage America. Like they do most of the time anyway.

The other issue is the filibuster. People like George Kenney are writing about how it's obstructionist and interfering with the timely passage of legislation. Let's address this.

Not sure if this is a good play

Senator Charles Schumer today came out firing at Governor Bobby Jindal, et al. over the idea of rejecting only part of the stimulus money for their states. Specifically, what our dear potential Republican 2012 nominee wants to reject, is an expansion of unemployment benefits to certain part-time workers who get laid off.

It amounts to a little more than 1% of what the State of Louisiana is slated to get from the stimulus. His 'problem': That the effect isn't temporary. In other words when the government stimulus money runs out his state will still have to cover this expanded pool of workers without extra money from the government. Solution (for him): Don't expand it in the first place. Screw 'em.

Today Senator Chuck's office released a letter he sent to Peter Orszag, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. It essentially says that the Governor's of the states have no such option to decline portions of the stimulus package. They must either accept or reject it in full.

Video:

Now I like Chuck. I grew up in the tri-state area of NYC and followed his career in the House and marvelled at his defeat of Senator Pothole (Al D'Amato). But this is playing with fire. It could play right into the Republican's hands.

The Republican's spent a good deal of the 80's and early 90's trying to bash the Democratic Congresses upside the head because of "unfunded mandates." It's one of the things that helped them make inroads in the south as well as they did. Hell, I don't really like "unfunded mandates". That is exactly how Bobby and the boys and girls (I see ya Sarah!) are gonna play this.

Up until here, it's been all about the idiocy of a Governor, who may possibly want the presidency in 2012, trying to make political points with his base by refusing to accept about 1% of the stimulus package slated for his state. Now, it may well become how the big spending Democrats in Washington are trying to force the states to spend more not only now, but in the future.

That's not really a message we want playing on the nightly news. The one about the Governor who wants to reject a measly 1% of his states stimulus package that will go to the poorest of his constituents; that's the message we want. The one that makes him look like a self serving, grandstanding meany; that's the one we want.

We do not want to make him the poster boy for how the state's are getting screwed by the Federal government ramming spending requirements down their throats without ongoing funding for those requirements.

In other words, you just made his message more relevant Chuck. Congratulations.

President Obama, presumably, is going to stay way the heck out of the way on this one. Listening to him yesterday speaking to the National Governor's Association, he sounded like he didn't want to hear any crap about rejecting the package by states when their constituents need the money. He was sympathetic to the idea that there might be some things in there that some governors didn't want. In other words, exactly the opposite message Chuck is giving. (Hey Chuck, it was on C-Span. Guess you didn't catch it.)

Now, there are apparently avenues for governors to explore, for example: having legislatures pass legislation that automatically contracts the unemployment pool back to normal when the federal funding runs out. Sensible answers.

We may not hear them now because there is a s#!t storm brewing about this now. Now it becomes a pissing contest. Our only hope is that, when President Obama does weigh in, he does so in a way that makes the combatants look like fools for starting the pissing contest to begin with. If that means Sen. Chuck Schumer gets egg on his face along with Gov. Jindal, so be it.

It could have been just this stuff:

The words that would stick there are, "Let's be honest about it, they'd probably be stupid not to take it.." That's what everybody would have heard. On every interview. Not the justification that follows from Sen. Orrin Hatch. The "they'd proably be stupid" part. Now, we may lose that.

I don't think this was a well thought out play. Sorry Chuck.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.

Barack Obama was born in Hawaii

Despite what Alan Keyes would have you believe and despite what Senator Richard Shelby (R-formerly D-AL) might have you infer, President Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.

Factcheck has all the information right here. They even have a copy of his birth announcement.

This is enough for me. If any U.S. Congressman or Senator had an objection to his eligibility, it should have been made when the electoral votes were opened by Dick Cheney in the Senate last month. Seeing as not even the blowhardiest of the blowhards did this, I don't see why any of them would cast aspersions upon the Presidents' birthplace now.

As far as the argument that Andrew Sullivan makes, that that President Obama should "give the press every conceivable piece of evidence at his disposal to clear up even paranoid conspiracy theories about his birth and eligibility to be president." First, I think he's given more than enough. Second, we are chasing rainbows if you seriously think we are going to change the minds of the conspiracy theorists. They will bend whatever truths are thrown at them to fit their own dearly held beliefs. It is best, having proven a position and debunked theirs, to leave them to their frustration.

I hope that this is the last I speak of this. If we get "live time machine coverage" of the birth of Barack Hussein Obama, conspiracy theorists will still claim he was born somewhere outside of the United States. Those who have the time to waste engaging their circular arguments, well, good for you. Otherwise, we have a great many more matters deserving of our time. Let's focus on those matters.

Comments welcome,

Pat McGovern

It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.