Two Looks At Caroline Kennedy

New York Daily News and the Washington Post. From the Daily News' Micheal Goodwin:

Asked about her qualifications, she fell back on gibberish and the Kennedy name.

"As a mother, as an author, as an education advocate and from a family that really has spent generations in public service, I feel this commitment," she said. "This is a time when nobody can afford to sit it out, and I feel I have something to offer."

The "sit it out" part is revealing. Among those who want the job, she has done the least public service by any measure. She didn't even vote in about half the contested elections in the last 20 years.

Sensing she's not ready for prime time, her handlers, most of whom have connections to Mayor Bloomberg, suddenly insisted media questions be submitted in writing. The answers they provided, under their names, were vapid. And she will not, as is the campaign custom, release financial documents that reveal her wealth and holdings. We're expected to trust she has no conflicts of interest.

Even the one job she had in public life has come into question. Apparently on the basis of a chance meeting with New York's schools chancellor at a party on Martha's Vineyard, she signed on as a part-time fund-raiser. How much she raised and how much she worked have been challenged, but no matter. The point is that this self-described advocate for the public schools did not send her children to them.

Enough.

Limousine liberals are a dime a dozen, and carpetbaggers are nothing new in New York. And with the social scene constantly churning out the old for the next new thing, there's no reason middle-aged dilettantes can't also try their hand at politics.

They just can't start in the Senate.

This is from the Washington Post:

But that's when I caught myself, and my more out-of-the-box side spoke up: Kennedy had young children, and no matter how much child care her money could buy, she clearly wanted to be a very-much-there primary caregiver. Perhaps, like many women in her situation, she found stimulation and satisfaction in whatever tasks most easily fit her schedule and her life, and her kids' lives. You could say her work history was spasmodic; you could say it was scattershot. But you could also say that as her children have grown up, her focus on public life has intensified, culminating in her fundraising for the public schools and her participation in Barack Obama's presidential campaign. You could say that, consciously or unconsciously, she was preparing for this moment.

Rather than a privileged aberration, I prefer to view Kennedy as a bellwether, a case study in how things could be if only the workplace were more accepting of an unconventional CV, one that may brim with great experience and skills and talent but is also peppered with gaps and one-off projects and volunteering. After all, if workers can no longer expect the security of a 50-year career with IBM or Procter & Gamble, then maybe employers should stop expecting each and every job applicant to present them with an old-fashioned sequential résumé. Maybe now's the time to change our thinking about what constitutes the ideal CV.

When we talk about women going back into the workforce, it's illuminating to consider the circumstances under which they left it in the first place. For many women, it was never truly a choice, never truly voluntary. As Pamela Stone, author of "Opting Out?: Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home," points out, many are pushed out by jobs with long hours, rigid workweeks and inflexible demands. "These women haven't opted out," says Stone. "They've been shut out, by workplaces that don't pair well with family life."

The Post's bit is rubbish. Caroline Kennedy is not like say, my wife, who left her work when we had children, we couldn't afford to have her work with the cost of childcare being what it is. Caroline Kennedy is not like us--not by a long shot, nor, as Goodwin points out, is she ready for the Senate.

The Pettiness That is the Democratic Party

More on punishing Sen. Joe Lieberman.

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), a close ally of Sen. Joe Lieberman, said the Connecticut Independent should pay a price for his campaign attacks against President-elect Barack Obama.

"There need to be consequences, and they cannot be insignificant," Carper said in a Monday interview with The Hill.

Carper, a fellow centrist who was Delaware campaign chairman for Lieberman’s failed bid for president in 2004, said he and many other Senate Democrats are disappointed and even angered by their colleague's sometimes-inflammatory rhetoric during this year's presidential campaign.
Lieberman said he supported Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) because he was the best prepared to lead the country at a time of war, and Lieberman questioned Obama’s readiness to lead.

Carper did not rule out stripping Lieberman of his coveted gavel running the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, or imposing other sanctions like taking away seniority on other committees or a subcommittee on Armed Services.

With friends like these....

You have to wonder how these same Democrats would feel if their majority wasn't so large.

House Passes Bill To Expand Drilling, Fund Renewables

It is bogus, but this story was buried behind all the financial mess.

Biden Not a Big Charitable Donor

Paul Caron at TaxProf Blog notes that Joe Biden only gave 0.06% to 0.31% of their income charitable donations, which is pretty meager. Caron writes:

It is jarring that a couple earning over $200,000 per year would give as little as $2 per week to charity. This giving compares very unfavorably to John McCain, whose tax returns show that he gave 27.3% - 28.6% of his income to charity in 2006-2007. During the same period, the Obamas' tax returns show that they gave 5.8% - 6.1% of their income to charity.

Perhaps the Obama-Biden campaign needs a new slogan: "Change You Can Believe In (As Long As Someone Else Pays For It)"

Update: Independent Sector reports that 89% of American households contribute to charity, with an average contribution of $1,620 -- 3.1% of income. (links in original omitted)

But is it meager?

Well compared to the rest of America yes, but here is a thought to think about, what if Biden simply doesn't do enough to track his charitable giving? I know there are times when my family has given to charity, either in goods or money, but can't recall when or how much. It doesn't mean we aren't giving, it simply means we are claiming it on our taxes. Perhaps Biden isn't claiming all of his on his taxes.

Ann Althouse sees no hypocrisy which Caron sort of hints at, but I do to a certain extent. Althouse writes:

Is this out of whack with political ideology? I say no! Conservatives believe private charity should bear more of the burdens of caring for the unfortunate and other good works. Liberals want to see government do more, and we're expected to pay taxes to pay for it.

A commenter to Althouse's post beat me to the punch. It is not hypocritical to not give to charity seeing that Biden pays a not insubstantial amount in taxes every year, much more than the median income in this country. However, McCain paid more in taxes than Biden and made significantly more charitable contributions. The argument is not about taxes or about whether one believes the tax burden is too great or not too great.

The argument is more about whether one is charitable or not. The common theme is that those with more to give should give more (in fact that is a tenent of Democratic taxation policy), but McCain not only gives more at the behest of his government (i.e. being in the highest tax bracket) but also gives more on his own initiative.

I am not claiming that McCain is a better man because he gives more to charity, or that Biden is a lesser leader because he does not give as much to charity. I suppose my larger point really is, does this matter?

Probably not.

Biden and Prosecuting the Bush Administration

No fan of the Bush Administration, Alan Dershowitz writes today in the Wall Street Journal that there is an inherent conflict in any plan/suggestion/wish of an Obama/Biden administration prosecuting the Bush administration. Recent Joe Biden was asked if he would pursue violations made by the present administration for violations of the Constitution? Biden idicated that essentially any criminal violation will be dealt with accordingly.

Dershowitz writes:

Mr. Biden's comments echoed what Mr. Obama had said in April when he pledged that, if elected, he would have his attorney general investigate the actions of his predecessor to distinguish between possible "genuine crimes" and "really bad policies." Mr. Obama moderated his statement by stating that he would not want his first term "consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt," because his administration would have many other problems "we've got to solve."

No reasonable person can disagree with the important principle underlying these statements by the democratic nominees that "no one is above the law." But there is a countervailing principle at play here that is equally important -- namely that the results of an election should not determine who is to be prosecuted. These principles inevitably clash when the winners of a presidential election investigate and prosecute the losers, even if the winners honestly believe that the losers committed "genuine crimes" rather than having pursued merely "bad policies."

Under our particular system of government, it is nearly impossible for a winning administration to prosecute those it defeated without it being perceived, quite understandably, as "a partisan witch hunt." This is because the attorney general of the United States, the official who a President Obama would ask to review his predecessors' actions, plays two roles simultaneously -- that of political adviser to the president, and that of chief law enforcement officer of the United States.

That the current crop of Congressional investigations and those that have taken place since Nancy Pelosi ascended to the Speakership have the tinge of a partisan witchunt rather than simply the exercise of Congress's oversight role cannot be escaped. But there is a rather large gulf between investigating and prosecuting and one need not necessarily lead to the other.

Even as a supporter of the Bush Administration, I am not so blinded by loyalty to question some of the political, policy and yes moral decisions that have been made by this administration. If there were laws broken, then yes, prosecutions should occur. But if an Obama Administration wants to make sure it is not engaging in a partisan witchhunt, it had better have an airtight case that even the most ardent Republican would find compelling.

Is it not enough to simply defeat your political opponents at the polls? What ever happened to the idea of a loyal oppositions?

Possible October Surprise? Obama Dumps Biden for Hillary

Biden might have said Hillary would have been a better pick, but I just can't see Obama dumping Biden for Clinton. Why?

1. It will have the look like and actually be a matter of desperation. The public will interpret it as a "me-too" move after McCain picked Palin.

2. It will signify that Obama can't make a real decision without waffling. This is a personal and personnel decision and one of the first big decisions that Obama had to make. You can be sure that McCain will point out Obama's waffling on this simple decision, what will is say about other, more difficult and more important decisions?

3. It assumes that Hillary Clinton wants the job any more. It would be obvious to her and the rest of the world that dropping Biden for her was a desperation move and I am not sure she wants that.

Wait, what was I thinking, of course Hillary would take it--what was I thinking, her ambition is more naked than an entire nude beach.

Obama Throwing Stones

George Stephanapolous didn't let Obama get away with unsubstantiated attacks on McCain/Palin.

Good.

Intersting Confluence

Campaign K-12 notes that a delegate to the Democratic convention from Alaska is a teacher for Wasilla, AK.

Interestingly, Sarah Palin, the new Republican Vice Presidential Candidate was once the mayor of

Yep, Wasilla, AK. Chances are they know each other.

Chris Matthews is an Idiot

As if that is news, but the chucklehead made these comments about Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice:

And it’s important to point out, as we have not so far, Barack Obama was not given this nomination, he won it. He was not offered a nice title like Secretary of State, like Condoleezza Rice got from the Republicans. He was not offered the title of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs as Colin Powell was, or Secretary of State. He won the nomination of a Democratic Party voting together. He defeated all other opponents and took the prize and took the leadership. He is the chosen leader of the Democratic Party.

He is not some popular appointment or a showcase appointment. He is the victor here tonight. That’s why he dictates the agenda. That’s why he says, personally, what the Democratic Party will do if he’s elected President. He is the leader of the party. He may be the leader of the country through a democratic process. It is so vital to understand the history being made here tonight. This is not something cute or wonderful. It is something compelling and powerful. This country has changed its history.

I might have problems with Colin Powell's politics or Condoleeza Rice's effectivness, but they earned the position of Secretary of State. If President Bush wanted to make them a showcase appointment, he would make them administrator of some periperhal agency, not put them fourth in line for the Presidency!!!

Ed Morrissey also points out that Obama didn't actually win the nomination through the primary process, he was able to get the Democratic Party Establishment behind him, he was "given" the nomination in that sense. Neither he nor Hillary were going to win the nomination through the primaries. So no, Obama didn't win, he was given the nomination.

Jim LIndgren on Obama's Community Service Plan

The Volokh Conspiracy's Jim Lindgren examines Barack Obama's plan for middle and high school students to do 50 hours of community service as part of his "civilian national security force." While one can quibble with whether community service (as it is commonly thought of) is comparable to national security, Obama's chosen mechanism is troubling. Since, as Lindgren points out in the comments:

One hurdle that Mr. Obama’s plan must vault is the U.S. Constitution, which limits the federal government to enumerated powers. Lacking the power to mandate universal community service directly, Mr. Obama candidly discloses his strategy: making federal funds contingent on schools having service programs that meet federal standards.

Because Mr. Obama calls his plan voluntary, it’s important to understand exactly what he says and doesn’t say. In both of his main speeches on national service – on July 2, 2008 and on December 5, 2007 – Barack Obama set his goal of 50 hours of service a year, promised that “We'll reach this goal,” and explained how he would do so for middle and high school children:

So when I'm President, I will set a goal for all American middle and high school students to perform 50 hours of service a year, and for all college students to perform 100 hours of service a year. This means that by the time you graduate college, you'll have done 17 weeks of service.

We'll reach this goal in several ways. At the middle and high school level, we'll make federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs, and give schools resources to offer new service opportunities.

If Obama hadn’t promised that “We’ll reach this goal” of 50 hours a year of service for all students, one might read his proposal as indicating that he would require schools to have service programs, but that these programs might not require 50 hours of service. Yet the only way that almost every 11-year old public school student in the country would serve 50 hours a year – i.e., the only way that Mr. Obama could reach his goal – is by doing what he seems to indicate he’s going to do: setting a federal goal of 50 hours a year for each middle school student and reaching that goal by making federal funds contingent on middle schools requiring their students to serve those 50 hours.

Thus, it would be the public schools that would impose federal standards of coerced service on each child as part of their requirements for graduation. For students, service would be involuntary. Even for the public schools, their participation would be only nominally voluntary – for how many public schools can survive without federal assistance?

Lest there be any remaining doubt that Barack Obama’s “voluntary” universal service plan contemplates mandatory service for children, his Service Plan praises mandatory service in the sentence that immediately precedes his call for 50 hours of service: “Schools that require service as part of the educational experience create improved learning environments and serve as resources for their communities.” Moreover, in his Plan, he promises to “develop national guidelines for service-learning and community service programs,” thus not leaving the content of service programs to the states.

This is where things get tricky. Leaving aside the constitutional problems, which Obama seems to think he can avoid by using the Spending Clause (itself an overused mechanism for implementing policy that would otherwise be unconstitutional for the federal government to do)

By tying federal aid to public schools to the 50 hour public service you will require two things. First, a massive federal bureacracy will have to be created and funded to oversee the program. Obama has explictly stated here at page 4, "He will develop national guidelines for service-learning and community service programs, and will give schools better tools both to develop successful programs and to document the experience of students at all levels. The documentation takes people to compile and verify the "voluntary service" so that the schools that don't make the time will be sanctioned. So, in addition to all the reporting that schools do now for things like free/reduced lunches, NCLB reporting, attendance, etc., we are going to add yet another data collection and reporting scheme, adding further to the cost of public education. both the new bureaucracy and the new reporting means more tax dollars and make no mistake about it, it would be funded by spending cuts elsewhere.

Second, this program will, as Obama has stated, national standards for community service. Aside from the utter oxymoronic statement itself "National standards for community service," the creation of national standards will mean that the federal government will have to decide what is appropriate community service and what is not. This, in itself has two significant implications. First, in order for organizations to get this free "voluntary labor" that it may want, it will have to "qualify" in the eyes of the government. That means, most likely, an application process--which means another bureaucracy. The application process for charities and community orgranizations will require federal recognition of what is "good" and what is not. Such a program makes me nervous since I don't want the federal government to be making that kind of distinction. Second, we will of course need another federal bureaucracy to manage this aspect of the community service. So more tax dollars to fund this program.

But has anyone given any consideration to what the labor force, i.e. our kids, think of this idea? Keep in mind that teenagers have a pretty sensitive "B.S. detector" and will know that they only have to punch the time clock, so that most of them will do their time and little else. What is the point in that? Oh yeah, free labor by government fiat.

I am not a big fan of high school service learning that currently exists in my home state of Maryland and other locales. To graduate, a student has to put in a certain number of hours in community service. Right now, it is a pretty broad definition, but I worry that even now, it is a matter of punching a time clock and little else.

Our national has a long history of individual volunteerism and Americans are by far the most generous nation on earth. But when you start requiring generosity, don't you simply build resistance to service. What good does that do anyone?

Swarming Michelle Malkin

Gotta love the "inclusiveness" of the Democrats. The hatefest is rediculous.

The mob scene starts around the 2:30 mark.

The threat was shouted, chanted for a few seconds, to "kill Michelle Malkin." Lovely huh.

Oh, and that massive police presence, yeah, not much response.

I have to hand it to Malkin, she kept her cool, didn't engage for long and aside from a few seconds of the "talk to the hand" bit, ignored the chuckleheads.

Obama, Pelosi: Blibs on the political radar?

Bruce Walker makes a compelling argument that conservatives will still control in the long run:

The Battleground Poll, the most respected and thorough of all public opinion polls, released its latest results on August 20th. Although many people read this poll for the data on voter preference in upcoming elections, for voter opinions about the two major political parties, for what things matter most to voters, I always zip past this data in the first fifteen pages of poll results and go straight to Question D3, which very quietly and totally ignored proclaims the biggest missing story in American politics and which is the only story, in the long run, that really matters.

snip

What is Question D3 and what were the results to Question D3 in the August 20, 2008 Battleground Poll? It is this:


"When thinking about politics and government, do you consider yourself to be...


Very conservative


Somewhat conservative


MODERATE


Somewhat liberal


Very liberal


UNSURE/REFUSED"


In August 2008, Americans answered that question this way: (1) 20% of Americans considered themselves to be very conservative; (2) 40% of Americans considered themselves to be somewhat conservative; (3) 2% of Americans considered themselves to be moderate; (4) 27% of Americans considered themselves to be somewhat liberal; (5) 9% of Americans considered themselves to be very liberal; and (6) 3% of Americans did not know or refused to answer.

snip

Look at the thirteen Battleground Poll results over the last six years, and how do Americans answer that very question? Here are the percentages of Americans in those polls who call themselves "conservative" since June 2002: 59% (June 2002 poll), 59% (September 2003 poll), 61% (April 2004 poll), 59% (June 2004 poll), 60% (September 2004 poll), 61% (October 2005 poll), 59% (March 2006), 61% (October 2006), 59% (January 2007), 63% (July 2007), 58% (December 2007), 63% (May 2008), and now 60% (August 2008.)

In short, Americans consistently identify with a conservative ideology, despite what liberals may want you to believe.

I think this is what informs consistent public opinion regarding the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism, and other issues that genuinely reflect conservative ideas. Walker talks about abortion, but there are other issues, such as faith in the market, abhorrance to taxes, etc. This is what likely spells the long term doom for liberals.

Democratic Convention to Be Sabotaged by the Clintons

Narcicism never fails to deliver.

Bill Clinton is perplexed and, frankly, not happy that he was asked to speak about national security Wednesday night at the Democratic National Convention and not about the economy, the issue that he rode to the White House at another time of economic peril, a source close to the former president said Monday.

Some close to Clinton are encouraging him not to stick with the night’s theme of national security and add language about the economy in his remarks, in a way that Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, would frame it, the source said. It’s no secret that Clinton considers himself a highly effective communicator on the politics of the economy.

Look, Bill, you are no longer the guy and your wife is not the nominee. Either shut up and do as you are asked or get out.

Biden Camp Pressed Hard For a Slot on the Ticket - WSJ.com

Great ARticle on the Biden selection.

I always thought that selecting a Vice President was all about offsetting one's own weakness. Biden brings two things to the ticket, foriegn policy knowledge and time in service. Biden is not an executive and never has been, and not I said foreign policy knowledge, not experience as he has none.

Conversely, Biden brings loads of baggage that will be roundly exploited by McCain.

Now that I think about, Biden could bring the advantage of being a better target that Obama, making Obama look less like a jerk than Biden.

Kennedy Will Appear at Convention

Given Ted Kennedy's early support of Obama, his planned appearance at teh Democratic convention will no doubt be met with wild applause.

It think it good that he is healthy enough to attend.

Obamanomics Laying the Smackdown on the Market Already?

Larry Kudlow seems to think so.

Look, I think Obama screwed himself with a pick of Joe Biden, another redistributionist liberal. Tim Kaine or Kathleen Sebelius would have been far smarter picks and like to assuage concerns on Wall Street that Obama was going to be too redistributionist. Stunning reaction on Wall Street.

The joke's on McCain: Late-night comedians lay off Obama | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

Why? Probably not media or personal bias, but jokes about black people are considered racist, unless you are a black person.

Diffierent Presidents

Right now, Obama could take a few lessons of leadership from Sarkozy.

Obama Math: Success=Failure

Roger Kimball looks at how Obama's constant citation to "fairness" should really be read, "if you are more successful than others, you should pay your 'fair share' as defined by government."

Look, I don't thing the super rich should be free from paying taxes. That their marginal tax rate is higher than mine is fine and if I should ever reach such rarified heights, I will grudgingly pay that tax. But what Obama wants to do is really penalize people (and companies) for being successful, all in the name of fairness.

The crucial point here is that what Obama is interested in is not increasing but in promulgating redistributionist policies that make it harder for people to prosper economically. McGurn recalls Obama’s response to ABC’s Charlie Gibson when Gibson observed that rasing taxes led to decreased revenues: “Well, Charlie,” Obama replied, “what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”

“For purposes of fairness”: that means, “for purposes of economic egalitarianism.” McGurn comments:

[I]t doesn’t really matter whether a tax increase actually brings in more revenue. It’s not about robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Robbing from the rich will do, especially if it’s done in the name of fairness.

Now there are good reasons Mr. Obama is not likely to pursue the revenue side of the fairness question. As this newspaper noted in a recent editorial, the latest data from the Internal Revenue Service does not show to Mr. Obama’s advantage. As we come to the end of the Bush administration, the top 1% of American taxpayers already pay 40% of all income taxes — the highest level in 40 years. The top 10% of income earners pay 71% of the taxes.

The bottom line is that when Obama invokes “fairness,” he wants us to feel guilty about economic success. This is the secret of his appeal to to socialistically inclined. It is also the reason why the rest of us are so uneasy about the prospect of an Obama administration.

It has long been recognized that liberalism and feelings of guilt go together as predictably as tea and crumpets.(link added)

So Obama, in order to be fair, wants to take from those who have worked hard to get what they have and do what with it, exactly?

Obama has said that a family making $250,000 is certainly well off. Fair enough, I can accept that definition. However such a family is Obama's target for a tax hike. Now, leaving aside that this family is already going to be paying the top marginal rate in our tax code, these people should be paying more because they are successful. It is only fair.

Kimball argues that it is Obama's definition of fairness that is what makes people uneasy about an Obama presidency. I have to agree that it is part of my uneasiness, but not all of it.

"Cross in the Dirt" and Obama's Campaign

During the primaries, I thought Obama was running a disciplined operation, keeping all the normal campaign in-fighting under wraps. But a problem develops when a campaign gets too insular, they start doing stupid things because there is no one in-house to say "Gee, if we say that, we are going to look stupid/silly/out of touch/wrong or whatever."

In going after the McCain cross in the dirt story, that is exactly what is happening in the Obama campaign. No wonder McCain has caught up (not that McCain is absolved from his dumb moves).

The other thing is that talking about the "cross in the dirt" story, Obama keeps coming back to the McCain Vietnam experience. Whatever beef I have with McCain politically, I can never and will never question the man's courage, sacrifice and devotion to the men he was imprisoned with. Such situations are beyond normal human understanding and beyond the understanding of even the most imaginative and empathic among us. By focusing on it, Obama puts McCain's devotion to country into the spotlight. Obama has nothing to match McCain on for that aspect, so why allow McCain to benefit from Obama putting a spotlight on McCain's Vietnam experiences?