This is a question for those of you who are liberal or Democrats, or have tended to lean that way: What was you initial reaction to Hillary Clinton’s 3:00 a.m. video? Please disregard your preference between her and Obama when answering. I have posted the ad below for those who have not yet seen it.
Last year we were told “Rex is our quarterback”. Then, Brian was our quarterback. Weeks later, Rex was once again our quarterback. Finally, Kyle was our quarterback. The last few years of waiting for Rex Grossman and Kyle Orton to turn into quarterbacks worthy of leading an NFL franchise (specifically one whose standards aren’t all that high) were apparently not enough: the Bears have signed each of them to one-year contracts. If fans are lucky, the team will make sure we keep our geriatric offensive line and trade Devin Hester to Carolina for the return of Muhsin Muhammad. I say lucky because that way, we wouldn’t have to worry whether the Bears have a snowball’s chance of being competitive next year.
Not really. Federal Judge Amy St. Eve let the cat out of the nearly transparent bag: Governor Rod R. Blagojevich is the “Public Official A” referred to in court documents in the Tony Rezko case. His Excellency denied that he did the things Public Official A is alleged to have done, panning the letter “A” in the process. He said, “It doesn’t matter what letter of the alphabet it is. What was described there doesn’t describe me or how I do things.” I don’t believe the governor, but I do agree that the letter “A” has gotten arrogant and read far too much into its position at the front of the alphabet, and I applaud the him for taking a strong stand on the issue.
After 20 years of Roosevelt and Truman, the conservative movement in this country was a moribund bunch of marginalized, bitter, disorganized grouches. Just who made the biggest difference in turning the movement around is debatable, but William F. Buckley, Jr. would be at the top of many people’s lists. Buckley was a powerful and uncommonly intelligent voice in American politics for decades. He motivated generations of Americans, and helped recruit many to the conservative movement. While most remained conservative, many became moderates or liberals. Whatever the case, he had a long-term effect on them. The man was one of those people, like Barack Obama, who could challenge otherwise disengaged people to think about the world around them and take an interest in their governance. After being so inspired, most were most likely to retain a life-long interest in politics and policy. He was a man who could challenge you to rethink your positions. Even if you did not come around to his way of thinking, you were better off for the challenge.
In the early days, Buckley showed that being a conservative did not mean being an isolationist and anti-Semite. He was also able to break down preconceived notions for later generations and for me in particular. Buckley made me aware that conservatives could be intelligent, cultured human beings whose motives were not mean-spirited. He helped me see that having a conservative viewpoint did not make me a bad person. At this point in my life, I do not hold as many ideologically conservative views, but I continue to have a basically conservative approach to politics. Even so, the lesson that one is not defective for holding certain political views remains very real for me to this day.
Bill Buckley was a man who for whom well-reasoned beliefs and debate were more important than party. We could use more people like him in American politics, and he will be sorely missed.
Because I’m a dork, I have been nearly certain since junior high school that the November 2008 general election would be a significant one for Illinois voters. This was not the result of clairvoyance or some intuitive understanding of the long-term course of Illinois politics. Rather, the source was Section (b) of Article XIV of the Constitution of the State of Illinois. That section provides that a proposal to call a Constitutional Convention for revising the state constitution must appear on the ballot at least once every 20 years. The last proposed call was on the ballot in 1988.
The 1988 proposal was soundly defeated. In part, this was due to when it was called. I’m not sure why 1988 was picked; the Convention that gave us the current document was voted on in 1969. If the legislature proposed the Convention, it may have been done to coincide with the presidential election year as presidential elections have significantly higher turnout numbers than other elections. High turnout makes it more difficult to get a majority of all voters in the election because voters who give a damn about the issue are a smaller portion of the electorate.
The other, and arguably more important reason it failed was that there was no motivation to have a convention in 1988. I believe that has changed since the late eighties. Today, we have seen our state government utterly fail. Our leaders failed to produce a budget for an embarrassingly long time. The Governor abused the special session provisions of the constitution and relevant statutes to keep legislators in Springfield over holidays while he commuted between Chicago and Springfield regularly at taxpayer expense. He is now suing the Speaker of the House, Michael Madigan, for holding special sessions earlier than the Governor ordered. The Governor has alienated the other elected members of the executive, Democratic members of the House of Representatives, many Democrats in the Senate, and all the Republicans. Gov. Blagojevich’s only friends are President of the Senate Emil Jones and the rest of the Senate Democratic leadership. His Lieutenant Governor, Pat Quinn has openly called for giving Illinoisans the right to recall their Governor because of his corruption and poor leadership.
Many voters agree with Quinn. Public opinion of the Governor and the General Assembly is very low. I believe that this disaffection can be harnessed to bring about the kind of change that can, if not prevent, then at least make less likely the kind of dysfunctional politics we have seen in recent years.
Even so, managing a “yes” majority is a tall order.1 The 1988 proposal received about 41% approval of those voting on the question; it needed 60%. The other possibility for approval, a majority of all voters at the election, also failed (it received around 38%). With turnout expected to be unusually high, the task is even more difficult.2 Frankly, what’s needed is money and organization. I am probably going to write to Madigan and Quinn to suggest they get involved in organizing a “vote yes” campaign. If anyone has suggestions on who else to contact or how else to approach this, please post it below.
1. To call a Convention, the proposal to call it must receive a three-fifths majority of those voting on the proposal or a majority of all people voting at that elections. The key principle is that voters are not required to vote for every office on the ballot. Many people will vote for President, but skip Water Reclamation Commissioner. To see how this works for the Convention, imagine 100 people show up to the polls at the general election. Of those, only 5 vote on whether to call a Convention; three in favor, two opposed. On that vote, the Convention will be called because three-fifths of those voting on the question approved it. Another example using our 100 voters. This time 51 voters said yes, and 44 said no. While 51 is less than 60% of 95, the question is still approved because a majority (51) of voters in the election (100).
2. I may be looking at this wrong. As I mentioned, almost 40% of people voting voted “yes” when there was no strong move to do so in 1988, which means support need only increase by less than 12 points.
We all know that there has more and more new television programing during the summer in recent years, and shows have started at times other than the traditional fall launch or as mid-season replacements. The writers strike has given at least one network, NBC (I think), the excuse to go to drop the traditional fall-spring schedule and begin 52-week programming. I’m curious to see how this will affect ratings sweeps.
Hillary Clinton may not yet be toast, but bread is in, and the lever’s down. I said before New Hampshire that I don’t count the Clintons out until they’re out, but Sen. Obama has made significant inroads with parts of Clinton’s base, and is destroying her among white men. As late as last week, many said Clinton needed to keep it close in Wisconsin to blunt Obama’s momentum. This week, some commentators said that she needed a big story changer like a win in Wisconsin to stop his momentum. A lot of that can be taken with a grain of salt, but the fact remains that if you assume Obama will win some delegates after Ohio and Texas, she has to win Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania overwhelmingly. The candidates are polling even at this point, and if Obama can poll in Ohio anywhere near what he did with Clinton’s base in Wisconsin, he may well hold it inside 60% in Ohio. If he can do that, it becomes nearly impossible for Clinton to win the nomination.
I am watching John McCain’s victory speech for 19 February 2008 (Wisconsin and Washington), and I have to say, the Senator is not a good speaker. Also, being charitable, Cindy McCain’s eye make-up does not work on camera. Sometimes you can’t tell she has irises because her eyeliner is so prominent.
About a year ago, one lawyer addressing a group of other local lawyers announced that the Illinois House was considering a bill that would create civil unions while discussing legislative developments in Springfield. I particularly noted this because the lawyer treated it as it was so obviously the right thing and because the lawyers in the room had a financial interest: they were divorce lawyers.
House Bill 1826, which would create the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Unions Act, is still pending. The “religious freedom” part of the title refers to the fact that no religious organization would need to celebrate civil unions. The bill has the support of the House Democratic leadership. Some of the leaders are co-sponsors of the bill, and Speaker Madigan has had to act multiple times to keep it alive. I have two questions: If the leadership support it, why has it not passed the House? Also, if there is a realistic chance of its passing, why is this issue not being debated publicly? With as charged as the question is, you would think that the bill would have gotten some press. Perhaps it will only get attention if it passes the House. As to why the bill hasn’t passed, I am clueless. Democrats have a huge majority and at least some suburban Republicans would back them. My best guess is that pro-gay representatives are opposing measure as not going far enough (i.e., they want gay marriage), and in combination with conservative opponents of any kind of gay union, they have sufficient numbers to block the measure. I really don’t believe it, and I’m out of guesses.
Note: You can follow the bill, House Bill 1865, on the Illinois House website. For those do choose to follow it, the bill is set for third reading (final debate and passage), and the current deadline for action is 14 March 2008. However, the deadline has been pushed back numerous times, so don’t be surprised if it happens again. To read the text of the bill, you need to read House Amendment 1 House Amendment 2; the original bill was a shell bill, meaning it was introduced with no substantive provisions as a sort of placeholder.