About Us

Name: Magnum, J.D.
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Name: John
Location: Gainesville, FL
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Veto-Proof?

Here is a column by Mona Charen in which she speculates that even if John McCain were to win the presidency (God, help us all), he might face "veto-proof" majorities in both the Senate and the House.  If you read the article carefully, you'll see that she wrongly calculates that 60 Democrat Senators would make the Senate "veto-proof."  The Constitution requires a 2/3 majority from both house of congress, meaning it would require 67 Democrats, not 60.  A few readers pointed out this error in the comments section.
 
But that error is not why I bring this article up; this article made me think of a discussion I had with a friend during law school.  He was of the mind that if Congress passed a bill which was voted for by more than 2/3 of each house, then the President could not exercise his power to veto the bill. 
 
Based on my reading of the Constitution, I don't think that's true.  As a practical matter, the President would probably decide not to veto the bill because he would most likley be overriden by Congress.  However, I see nothing in the Constitution that precludes the President from vetoing a bill simply because it enjoyed the support of a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress.
 
Thought?
 
P.S.  Welcome to the new blogger at Plain English, John.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama-Wright Story Is Ridiculous

I am sure that Rush and Hannity don't think they have wasted their breath the past two weeks as they indicted Obama for a non-offense. The ruckus over Wright's statements concern me very little because - news flash - I already didn't buy into Obama's hype. And no one who is on the "Hope Mobile" is going to hop off at this point. The entire affair is so incredibly devoid of substance that my media-gag-reflex will only allow me to dry heave.

So what is the story really about? The whole controversy is really just an excuse for talk radio hosts (Rush, et al.) to ignore their own glaringly flawed candidate. As Magnum has demonstrated, McCain gets a free pass from the "serious journalist" Hannity. I am much more worried about McCain's (along with 4 out of 5 Republicans) inability to distinguish Shia from Sunni, than I ever will be about what Obama's pastor. Isn't this guy supposed to be the foreign policy expert? I am more of a foreign policy expert than the songbird is.

Here's the soundbyte summary: Republicans have become so lacking in substance that they have to create news where there is none. The Obama-Wright controversy gives them the chance to quietly fall in line while no one is paying attention. Not this Republican.





Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

He Has the Wolf by the Ears

No, the title doesn't refer to President Bush.  It refers to Senator Barack Obama who has himself in quite a pickle over this Jeremiah Wright debacle.  Mary Katherine Ham wrote what I thought was an excellent piece on Obama's race speech.  You can find it here.

Here's what I'll add to her article-- the reason why I chose the title for this post. 

Obama has campaigned as the idealistic candidate, the candidate of change, the one who is above the political fray.  I could accept the explanation that others have offered for this whole thing: he joined the church and stayed there because that was the only way to make it in Chicago politics.

Fine, I'll believe that, but it destroys the theme of his entire campaign.  He's no different from any of the other politicians he decries.  He joined a church to get ahead in politics.  I suppose that's not SO bad in the grand scheme of things (Christian beliefs aside), but that just begs the question, "What else has he been willing to do to make it in politics?"

The only other option is that he joined the church and stayed there because some of the racial rhetoric that was a constant presence in the church resonated with him.  If part of him didn't believe that white racism is to blame for the problems in the black community, why would he stay at a church that preached that distorted social gospel on a regular basis?  If he doesn't harbor the hatred of America the Reverend Wright apparently harbors, why would he sit in the pews of a church where he knew that kind of hatred was being perpetuated?

Either Obama acted out of political expediency and his "Change We Can Believe In" mantra is exposed as a pack of half-truths and some out-and-out lies, or he is a faithful, accepting member of a church that believes that 9-11 was divine retribution for the way that black people were treated in this country in days gone by. 

Either way, Obama now has the wolf by the ears-- he can campaign on the racial platform that he has now built and alienate large segments of the Democratic Party or he can try to back off the racial rhetoric and be painted as no different and no better than the Clintons and all their political expediency and triangulation.

Good luck with that, Senator Obama.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Unrepentant: The Story of John McCain's Politics

Last night (Thursday, March 13), Senator John McCain appeared on Colmes-less night of "Hannity and Colmes."  The entire one-hour show was an interview of Senator McCain by Sean Hannity.  I had heard about this interview as I was driving home a few days ago and I was looking forward to the Senator answering some hard questions about his candidacy for the presidency.
 
I was sorely disappointed.
 
The interview was only one or two softball questions short of a fluff piece.  I expected Hannity to grill the Senator on McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, and the "Gang of 14," but he did not even come close to forcing Senator McCain to answer the tough questions.  I was optimistic that this interview would be a turning point for Senator McCain that would allow me to vote for him in good conscience.  However, it was the same old same old from the Senator and I still am dead set against voting for him come November.
 
Senator McCain has a real problem when it comes to true conservatives.  He has repeatedly demonstrated that his time in the Senate has forced him to be accomodating to "his colleagues on the other side of the aisle."  He sees that as a badge of honor; conservatives see it as an unacceptable compromise of principles.  I think most conservatives would be willing to forgive that compromise, but Senator McCain is simply not willing to do what it takes to get that forgiveness.  Senator McCain has reassured the conservative base that he is a conservative and that he will stand up for them.
 
Senator McCain, conservatives don't want reassurances, we want repentance.
 
I was hopeful that I would turn on the Hannity interview and that Senator McCain would say, "You know what Sean, I've done some deep thinking, and I've decided that the McCain-Kennedy bill was wrong.  When the conservatives in this country bombarded Washington with their opposition to the bill, I should have realized that this bill was bad for the country.  I regret sponsoring the bill and I would never be a part to that kind of legislation again."  But that's not what he said.
 
When asked whether he would, as President, sign the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill if it came across his desk, Senator McCain refused to answer the question.  Instead, he said that that would never happen.  He never said that he was wrong for supporting the bill, he simply said that the people didn't want it and that he was there to represent the people.  True, he represents the people, but is it that hard to say "I was wrong."?  How does Senator McCain expect conservatives to trust him on an issue as important to them as immigration if he is unwilling to admit that the position he supported was not a conservative position and that he was wrong to do so.
 
I was hopeful that I would turn on the Hannity interview and that Senator McCain would say, "You know what Sean, I've done some deep thinking, and I've decided that the McCain-Feingold bill was wrong.  When the Supreme Court held that parts of the bill were unconstitutional, I should have realized that the bill is, in fact, an impermissible restriction on free speech.   I regret sponsoring the bill and I would never be a part to that kind of legislation again."  But that's not what he said.
 
Senator McCain, instead, went into a long spiel about how he had personally seen how soft money had a corrupting influence in Washington.  He never addressed how that concern should override the constitional right of free speech that individuals enjoy through the Constitution.
 
Finally, I was hopeful that I would turn on the Hannity interview and that Senator McCain would say, "You know what Sean, I've done some deep thinking, and I've decided that my participation in the 'Gang of 14' was wrong.  It was wrong to allow Democrats to take the unprecedented and obstructionist step of filibustering judicial nominees that enjoyed majority support in the full Senate.  Despite the fact that the compromise allowed a few nominees to be confirmed, it was a mistake to allow the others to be defeated without so much as an up or down vote.  I began to realize that the day after the compromise went through when Senator Reid expressed his opinion that the minority had already been using the filibuster in extraordinary circumstances.  That 'Gang of 14' compromise set a terrible precedent.  I regret my part in it and I would never be a party to that kind of political game again."  But that's not what he said.
 
This was, for me, the most disappointing response of all from Senator McCain.  He brushed off the issue by "reminding" us that the compromise resulted in the confirmation of three judges that had previously been held up by filibusters.  He failed to even adress the concern of many conservatives, including myself, that believe that the Gang of 14 debacle is a true picture of what kind of nominees we would get from a President McCain.  If Senator McCain is unwilling to go the mats against the Democrats for judicial nominees that have majority support, what will he do if the Senate is still dominated by the Democrats when he becomes the President?  Does he really think that Majority Leader Reid is going to let any more Justice Roberts's or Justice Alitos through?  What about the numerous judicial nominees that were either filibustered or not even nominated for fear of a filibuster because of this so-called compromise?
 
For me, this interview was very telling, but unfortunately, it was not for the reasons I hoped it would be.  I hoped to tune in and find myself finally comfortable with voting for Senator McCain come November.  That didn't happen. 
 
I never expected to agree with Senator McCain on everything; I don't think there has ever been a candidate with whom I totally agreed.  What I did expect was for Senator McCain to make his peace with the true conservative base by admitting his faults on these critical issues.  He fell far, far short of that.  For that reason, he is extremely likely to fall far short of earning my vote in the general election.
 
Everyone admires the "bulldog," independent qualities fo Senator McCain.  I'm sure those qualities are a source of personal pride for Senator McCain.  What he needs to realize is that there is an independent streak in the conservative base as well. 
 
Sometimes being an obnoxious bulldog only gets you chained to the tree outside in the cold.  If Senator McCain doesn't offer some repentance to conservatives, he too will be left out in the cold of those first days of November.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »