Retroactive Action

Whether you sympathize with Hillary Clinton or not, it does seem as if every thinking Democrat (is that oxymoronic?) ought to be able to reject out of hand the idea that the delegates from Florida and Michigan would be seated. It is clear that this was a planned campaign tactic on her part; while others respected the call of the Party, those who refrained even from campaigning in those states, responding to the terms which were set before them - playing the "game" according to the rules at the time. Clearly running against a Clinton they ought to have anticipated that for them reality has nothing to do with the bid for office.
Hillary blatently lies about being shot at while visiting troops overseas, and the media jump all over her like hyenas attacking - well, a nap. Her spokespeople blatently lie about her lie - saying it is because she was tired, it was late - she's been campaigning hard - she did after all live with Bill for many years, and how could that not cause you to be confused over what is actually true? And none of them are called on the carpet. While accepting public monies (matching funds), or donations solicited over the internet, or through the United States Post Office, shouldn't there be some standard of expectation that candidates and their representatives tell the truth? Are we going to hold Roger Clemons to a higher standard of "testimony" before Congress, than someone running for the office of President?
Aren't the candidates, each time the step up to the podium, and have their comments broadcast over the public airwaves, essentially testifying, not only before Congress, but before the electorate? Could they not be sworn in, at the inception of each campaign? I can understand spin - like when Barack wins more delegates on a given day, and Hillary claims victory. I can understand optimism in the face of daunting odds. But this is a person who directly lied - a lie which, if believed, would work to her benefit - then lied about the lie. Isn't that what she and the other lawyers who went after Richard Nixon claimed was the worst, most unforgivable, of his actions?
She and the other candidates entered the arena, agreeing to certain rules. Among those rules it was clearly known that the delegates from Florida and Michigan would not be seated at the convention. Now, again when it is to her benefit, she argues vociferously for their inclusion. Changing the rules now would be like changing the tax burden on a business in the middle of the year - okay, not a good example - they do that all the time. That kind of retroactive re-drawing of the rules is absurd. Of course, that does depend on what your definition of is - is.

A Delicious Dilemma

Despite the fact the two incumbent parties have so hijacked the system that no one even questions any longer the expense of over $100 million by each candidate to earn their parties nomination, making the office virtually inacessible to anyone who is not embedded in the two-party system, how wonderful this Presidential election is about to become, as soon as Hillary Clinton is forced to face the music.
We will be left (on the left hand) with Barack Obama, an amazingly gifted orator, an inspiring dynamic intellectual; who happens to be black, giving us the opportunity to participate in meaningful history by voting for him as President - and on the right hand with John McCain, an honest-to-goodness war hero (not a pretend hero who threw away medals he really didn't deserve), a man who has maintained a fierce individualism despite the pressure of his party, one who has demonstrated a willingness to work with both parties, one who has extraordinary experience in Foreign Policy and in Washington. We will, for once, actually have a choice as thinking voters - not just a determination of the lesser of two evils.
How delicious.
Best of all, both candidates have steadfastly refused to participate in dragging their opponents through the muck, both have stated outright that they respect the other, and both have set forth an expectation to change the politics of derision in America. It might actually be a General Election campaign that focuses on issues of weight - and by the conduct of its participants may even have enough cache to erase from our minds the sound and fury of the past year's primary debacles, to the point where everyone is aware that the tales they told signify nothing.

Back In Business

Of course the trouble with blogging is that if you don't keep it up, you disappear off the face of the ether. Today I am re-enthused by finding numerous other sites authored by passionate moderates, while trying to re-locate my way into this one.
The impetus for my return is my infuriation regarding the mixing of the terms illegal immigration and immigration, in a debate which is likely to result in hugely increasing the bureaucracy of our government, while making it much less able to deal with any aspect of illegal immigration.
Can someone explain to me how you are going to determine how long someone has been in the country, when there are no records of their entry, when there are no records of their employ, when they clearly have every motive to lie and maintain that they have been here 5 years (if that becomes the gold standard)? Are we now supposed to take the INS, the Border Patrol, which is already stretched so thin that it is essentially nothing, so that 10,000 "migrants," knowing that amnesty is in the offing, are crossing the border every day, and have them conduct interviews with the illegal aliens, the ones they cannot even find to stop them from crossing the border?
The same overworked INS agents are supposed to sit down and chat with the undocumented workers whom we supposedly cannot find, and have been told by both incumbent parties that there is no possible way to get them to leave the country, to find out if they have been here between 2 and 5 years, so that all those who have been here less than 5 will somehow be forced to return to their country of origin (which is really unfair if you are from China, or Nigeria, or Chile, or any country other than Mexico or Canada).
And somehow we are going to gather the fortitude to confront all those who have been here less than 2 years, and get them to leave for good - even though that number is considerably over a million, and we've already been told that it is impossible to even consider shipping out 10 million - so how, after the winnowing, are we going to carry that out ?
Until that explanation is forthcoming, there is absolutely no purpose in my consideration of any of the other terms of the bill under consideration in the Senate, and the horrifying sight of Senators I have previously admired (Barack Obama for one) and detested (Ted Kennedy) standing up and proclaiming that this bill, even were it to pass exactly as it is, without any further honing, would be a great thing, is a sight that will haunt me for years.