Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Hillary seems to be quite confident that she will be the next president

Actually, Couric asked Clinton about the nomination, not the election. Novak's summary was less than 100% truthful.

Certainly Hillary Clinton won't win the election given that she is Mrs. Ted Bundy.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 1, 2007 11:27 AM

Why would she be that confident about winning the nomination, but not the election? I'll bet her answer would be the same (unless she's focused grouped that one, and decided to change it).

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 1, 2007 11:59 AM

Novak selectively quoted Hillary's comments (shame on him). The link Jim posted above doesn't include the full transcript either.

If you listen to the full video exchange, you'll see that her comments were made in the same vein as sports psychology.

She said (rough paraphrase) that if you gets up every day and runs for president, it takes up all of your time and energy, and there isn't any energy left over to consider the possibility of losing. I think that's reasonable, if you consider the stamina that is required to run for president. You don't ask someone who is currently running a marathon "hey, have you considered not finishing?"

As for giving up her seat: anyone elected to the senate who thinks they can be an effective senator and do right by the American people should not give up their seat. You might reasonably argue that she is too distracted to do a good job, but you could also argue that her power to do a good job as a Senator is greatly enhanced by her position in the race. Your opinion on this may depend on what you think/expect/hope Senators actually do all day!

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at December 1, 2007 12:11 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/26/eveningnews/main3540666.shtml has the video exchange. The text of the article doesn't address what we are talking about, but the video does.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at December 1, 2007 12:13 PM

Your opinion on this may depend on what you think/expect/hope Senators actually do all day!

I'd happily double Senators' pay if they'd promise not to come in to work. At least for the current crop. It would be a bargain, and the Republic would be much safer.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 1, 2007 12:23 PM

Why would she be that confident about winning the nomination, but not the election? I'll bet her answer would be the same

You can "bet" that her answer would be the same, but it would be sheer speculation on your part and Robert Novak's. You're making no distinction between what Clinton actually said, and your suppositions about what she thinks or would say. (And Novak did rather more than speculate; he misrepresented the facts outright.)

To answer the first question, Intrade users actually are betting that Clinton has a 70% chance of getting nominated. Her belief that Obama and Edwards can't beat her is more one-sided than that, but it isn't so far from what everyone else thinks. Although she hasn't addressed the question that you're pretending she was asked, she certainly isn't acting like the election is in the bag. She is giving up a lot more ground in the primary than either Edwards or Obama in order to stay in good position for the election.

Or for that matter, than the leading Republicans except for sometimes McCain. They are in a brawl for the reactionary vote. They didn't show up for Tavis Smiley; they didn't show up for Univision. Kicking out the wetbacks is the big contest of their campaign. They are all but promising the Republican base that they don't want blacks and Hispanics to vote for them. With any luck, they will be proven right.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 1, 2007 12:40 PM

You don't ask someone who is currently running a marathon "hey, have you considered not finishing?"

Well, her own energy is not really the point. Any politician who is happy to discuss defeat is going to lose votes. It's another "defeatism is defeat" equation that isn't particularly healthy; but it is a campaign reality.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 1, 2007 12:52 PM

Rand said:
>I'd happily double Senators' pay
>if they'd promise not to come in to work.

Rand, why stop there? Eliminate the legislative and executive branch, and just have the Judiciary run everything at the Federal level for awhile. Wouldn't that be interesting? Maybe let the other two branches step in for a week every two years or so, just to stir the pot...

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at December 1, 2007 12:57 PM

They are in a brawl for the reactionary vote. They didn't show up for Tavis Smiley; they didn't show up for Univision. Kicking out the wetbacks is the big contest of their campaign. They are all but promising the Republican base that they don't want blacks and Hispanics to vote for them.

That certainly does appear to be the case, particularly with the out-Tancredoing Tancredo gearing that apparently is what the base wants to hear, or what the top candidates think is what the base wants to hear.

On the other hand, maybe there is a vast majority of Americans who really want all illegals and their kith and kin deported and will cross party lines to vote based on just this issue. Pretty sad way to win in my opinion.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at December 1, 2007 12:59 PM

Jim, you may indeed be right, but I was trying to take Hillary at face value - she referred to what it is actually like to run for President. I think we both agree that Novak didn't do the interview justice. Also, thank you for the link you provided - it linked in turn to the CBS site.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at December 1, 2007 01:01 PM

On the other hand, maybe there is a vast majority of Americans who really want all illegals and their kith and kin deported and will cross party lines to vote based on just this issue.

It's true that most Americans don't understand that immigration law is unreasonable and unrealistic and don't care all that much about the hard choices facing immigrants. They would also prefer not to encounter much Spanish or compete on wages with Hispanics. But they're not going to jump party lines just for that. The Democrats can talk about Iraq (even if a few rays of hope shine on the crap this month), or health care, or mort.gages. On the Republican side, immigration is filling a vacuum.

The Republican base is also a lot closer to outright anti-Hispanic racist instead of just frustrated. Part of the reason, ironically, is that the Republicans are afraid of future Hispanic voters. A Spanish-language ballot is evidence of vote fraud, you know. Which means that in the long run, they are digging a hole for themselves. California and Nevada have already reached the tipping point.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 1, 2007 01:31 PM

The Republican base is also a lot closer to outright anti-Hispanic racist instead of just frustrated.

Oh, horsesh!t.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 1, 2007 01:54 PM

"The Republican base is also a lot closer to outright anti-Hispanic racist instead of just frustrated."

News to me and all the Republicans I know.

"A Spanish-language ballot is evidence of vote fraud, you know. Which means that in the long run, they are digging a hole for themselves. California and Nevada have already reached the tipping point."

Aren't California and Nevada already fairly solid blue states as far as the presidential election is concerned? I know I'm certainly not a representative California voter (especially since I can't vote, lol)...

Posted by Math_Mage at December 1, 2007 02:27 PM

Hillary supporter, how does this:

".. it takes up all of your time and energy, and there isn't any energy left over to consider the possibility of losing."

Jive with this:

"..anyone elected to the senate who thinks they can be an effective senator and do right by the American people should not give up their seat."

In other words if Hillary's running for President takes all of here energy such that she has none to think of loosing, how does she have enough energy left to be an effective Senator for the State of NY? Or are you just making excuses for the smartest woman on the planet?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at December 1, 2007 03:28 PM

Cecil, no, I'm not making excuses -- when I picked "Hillary-Supporter", I told myself I would never be an apologist or a blind supporter.

I was actually making two cynical comments on the nature of being a US Senator. The first is that other than voting, there might not be all that much to do. (I don't really believe this). The other is that being a Senator while having a good chance of becoming the President of the United States puts Hillary in an excellent position to make deals, request and receive favors, create voting blocs, etc. When she joined the Senate, she was quite careful to behave like a first-term Senator, and as a result, she won accolades from her pleasantly surprised Republican colleagues. But now she is the position to act as an influential Senator. Dropping the cynicism: from the point of view of a Democrat like me, she is in position to do good for NY, and for the nation as a whole. Even a Republican should acknowledge that she is an influential position right now.

Finally: anyone who thinks she should resign her seat might consider Senator John McCain's ability to serve, although, as Rand pointed out, a resigning Senator would want to be replaced by a member of the same party. I don't know Arizona's laws, but a replacement from the same party probably would not be in the cards for Senator McCain, as Arizona's governor is a Democrat.

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at December 1, 2007 05:10 PM

Oh, horsesh!t.

Okay, the word "racism" is used rather too loosely in America and elsewhere. If you want me to be precise about it, there is a core of ethnic prejudice in the anti-immigration sentiment that all of the Republican candidates are catering too. The thinking is that it's okay to immigrate to the US if you learn English, preferably if you convert your life to English and learn it with no accent. Also standard American food, music, sports, and religious practices are a plus. The real onus on illegal immigrants is that they just act too Latino and they speak Spanish. Dark skin is a tip-off to objectionable traits, but it isn't the main problem. For instance Bobby Jindal may look foreign, but he can be accepted because he is Christian and he speaks English with an authentic Louisiana accent, not Indian English or even standard Midwestern English.

Michelle Malkin conveys exactly this mindset. It's okay to look East Asian as long as you act like a Mayflower family. (Which is pretty easy for Malkin given that she was adopted.) So she feels free to whine that the White House web site was translated to Spanish, as if that were some kind of betrayal.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 1, 2007 07:18 PM

Last week on ER they appointed the new blond hottie as chief resident and had to confide with a female nurse in how tough it was to be a woman in charge and be taken seriously. One of them then roughly said, "Guess we need to ask Hillary Clinton how she does it". I had to use my left hand to resist my right hand from stabbing myself in the chest with a fork.

Posted by Josh Reiter at December 1, 2007 08:14 PM

Guess we need to ask Hillary Clinton how she does it

How does St.Hillary! do it? Get your consort elected first, then use the political machine you've built for hubby to destroy anyone who gets in your way. A compliant and sycophantic press helps, too.

I'd gladly support an amendment to the Constitituion which would prohibit sitting Senators for runinng for President (or VP) for a span of time equal to their time served in the Senate. If such an amendement were in force the last few decades, we'd have been spared a whole range of bozos from Mondale to Dole to Quayle to Bentsen to Algore to Kerry to St.Hillary! herself. (And that doesn't include the losers (did I spell that right?) like Biden, Glenn, Hatch, Lugar, et. al.)

Posted by Raoul Ortega at December 1, 2007 10:25 PM

Raoul, interesting! But weird! I'd support an ammendment removing all restrictions on who can be President, so long as they are elected by the people, including age and national origin. We're a democracy - it'll be ok!

Posted by Hillary-Supporter at December 1, 2007 10:53 PM

We're a democracy - it'll be ok!

Actually, we're not. We're a republic (though much less of one than the Founders envisioned--Franklin was unfortunately prescient in that regard).

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 2, 2007 06:14 AM

Actually, we're not. We're a republic

That is a popular but false distinction among conservatives and libertarians (and apparently neolibertarians). It's like saying that a Toyota Corolla isn't a car, it's actually a sedan. Or that it's not a sedan, it's actually a compact. The US is both a republic and a representative democracy. And those two appellations are hardly different, because representative democracy is the main modern form of a republic.

The partial truth in your hair-splitting is that the US is not a direct democracy at the federal level, and only sometimes at the state and local levels. But direct democracy is obviously not the only kind of democracy.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 2, 2007 09:48 AM

Where to begin? First of all by noting that while ethnic and racial prejudice, while much diminished as compared to the past, still exists at some level in the USA (like everywhere else), only the Democratic Party today tolerates and even defers to overt bigots such as the anti-Jewish demagogue Al Sharpton. I see no parallel in the Republican Party's treatment of racists or of people who are hostile to immigrants. If anything, the opposite is the case -- Republicans who are hostile to immigration are on the fringes of the Party or, like Patrick Buchanan, leave it. The Republican mainstream is strongly against illegal immigration, which is a different thing than legal immigration, despite Democratic attempts to smear anti-illegal-immigration voters as bigots. I think that you fall into this trap, and that you misread mainstream Republican outrage against the travesties of our current immigration regime as hostility to immigrants and immigration per se. And you mischaracterize the argument for assimilation, which merely says that immigrants should learn English, American history and adopt American civic values. Is there something wrong with such requirements? It seems to me to be a remarkably immigrant-friendly position, because it welcomes immigrants who are willing to adapt to their new country and tells them specifically what they must do to adapt. I would suggest that recent negative experience with unassimilated immigrants in European countries suggests that the current Republican mainstream position on immigration, which was the default, nonpartisan American position until recently, is the more effective and humane position.

Posted by Jonathan at December 2, 2007 10:43 AM

only the Democratic Party today tolerates and even defers to overt bigots such as the anti-Jewish demagogue Al Sharpton..

And yet 80% of Jews are Democrats. I wonder why.

Posted by Offside at December 2, 2007 12:06 PM

And yet 80% of Jews are Democrats. I wonder why.

That's a complicated question, but it's largely based on historical contingency. Jews have always tended culturally to be more communal than individualist (e.g., they were quite overrepresented in the Communist Party, and the left in general), and have considered the Democrat Party their natural home throughout most of the twentieth century.

We'll see how long that continues with the ever-increasing and less and less veiled anti-semitism that comes from the black community and the left in general. Though it's nothing new. Remember Jessie Jackson and "Hymietown"?

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 2, 2007 12:18 PM

The Republican mainstream is strongly against illegal immigration, which is a different thing than legal immigration,

There is one crucial word that is missing from your defense of the Republican position, and that is the word quota. The only reason that there is so much illegal immigration from Mexico is that the American dream is only available to them up to a quota. This quota is unfair to them and odious to the American economy. That is what makes immigration law unenforceable: it's because it's both morally and economically untenable.

The claim that there is no ethnic prejudice behind the immigration quotas is horses*!t. Imagine America had a childbirth quota instead of an immigration quota. Someone could say, "It's not that I am against children or Mormons, not at all. I'm only against illegal children. It just so happens that Utah is way over its quota and those Mormons are breaking the law." Of course it would be a code for anti-Mormon prejudice, and a defense of a law based on prejudice.

You're also talking as if the Republican mainstream doesn't want to restrict Hispanic immigration further, but only enforce the laws that we have. But that is absolutely not true; just look at Thompson's immigration plan. He wants to set the lottery-based quotas to zero and restrict immigration of relatives. If a 5-year-old Mexican-American is a citizen but his parents aren't, he wants that child to leave the country or be put up for adoption. He wants to tighten the screws on legal immigration. Or at least, that is the script that he's reading to try to win the primary. Given that he also lawyered for Libyans (even if he only billed for three hours), it's not clear that he really believes his right-wing act.

And you mischaracterize the argument for assimilation, which merely says that immigrants should learn English, American history and adopt American civic values.

It's not the government's place to shepherd American culture or "values", nor to barrage immigrants with history tests. The only one of those three that has any civic legitimacy is that immigrants should obey American laws. There is no reason that it has to be in English. If Switzerland can live with four languages, America can live with two. The demand that America has to be English-only is exactly the ethnic prejudice that is rife in this Republican primary. After all, Albert Einstein refused to part with German and didn't speak English all that well; if it didn't matter then, why business does the government have with it now?

Al Sharpton

I have nothing positive to say about Sharpton, but he has nothing to do with the anti-immigration Republican primary of 2008. Let's say that Sharpton, David Duke, and Osama bin Laden all sat at the same table. They don't, but let's say that they did. It wouldn't change the fact that Thompson in particular wants the anti-Mexican vote. He wants the voters who are just tired of Spanish and mariachi music and low riders and (ironically) even cowboy hats, because they associate it with crime and low wages and because they just aren't used to it.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 2, 2007 03:36 PM

I interpret the motives of Republican voters differently than you do, and as a Republican voter myself I think that I know what I am talking about. The central problem is that our government does not control our borders; almost anyone can enter the country. Given that our elites, including Republican elites, appear to be satisfied with the status quo, many ordinary Republicans want someone to stand in front of the current immigration system and yell "stop!" I think that most of this anti-immigration sentiment would dissipate if we built a real fence and slowed the illegal influx. Until then, a lot of voters want to monkeywrench the whole system. This does not necessarily make them bigots or unreasonable. Build the damn fence and we'll discuss further reforms, including allowing more people in. (BTW, if it were up to me we would let anyone in who 1) isn't a terrorist or from an area that produces terrorists, and 2) is coming here to work and won't be a drain on our taxpayers. But given that the welfare state is a fact, and that we face significant danger from terrorists, I don't think unrestricted immigration is currently a good idea.) I might add that there has always been a base rate of opposition to immigration, among Americans of both political parties. What we're seeing now is that elite indifference has enraged many voters who would not otherwise be concerned about immigration as an issue.

It's not the government's place to shepherd American culture or "values", nor to barrage immigrants with history tests.

Sure it is. These people are supposed to become Americans, and being American is at least as much an ideological condition as it is one of birth or residence. Immigrants should be taught the central ideas, which means they should be taught the history, and that they should learn English (which they mostly do anyway, because you need English-language proficiency to function on a high level in the USA). Immigrants have always had to learn these things, and only recently has doing so become controversial. As I wrote, we need only consider the experience of European countries that have tolerated populations of unassimilated immigrants (to spell it out: the UK, France, Germany, the Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries -- does Switzerland have banlieus?), to see what might be in store for us if we stop being serious about assimilation.

Posted by Jonathan at December 2, 2007 09:23 PM

Build the damn fence and we'll discuss further reforms, including allowing more people in.

If "we" are to discuss allowing more people in, then "we" certainly wouldn't include any of the Republican front-runners. Even though they want to restrict legal immigration, they probably wouldn't mind your formulation: First let's enforce discredited immigration laws, then let's talk reforms. But that's because they know that they will never get past the first half. So it is a great way to pretend to be pro-immigrant.

Regardless of your interpretation, there is nothing generous about a reality in which millions of people who can only find jobs in the US are trapped forever in an illegal status. The government can't possibly make them go away; it can only treat them badly.

If your scare story is lack of assimilation in Europe, that's not parallel because they are Muslims. No one is up in arms about Spaniards who can't assimilate in England. Europe is multilingual, and so are specific countries such as Belgium and Switzerland, and it's not the end of the world.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 3, 2007 09:40 AM

Jim:
About the restrictions you speak of.
1. The lottery is specifically for countries with low rates of immigration to the US. So, if your contention is that Mexico is already exceeding quotas, the lottery probably didn't apply. I'll agree that it's a stupid idea, tho. Linky:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=04f86138f898d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD
2. The family-member policy only allows a US citizen to petition for parents to become lawful permanent residents if the citizen is over 21; thus the 5-year-old's dilemma doesn't change. Again, overall I think it's a kind of stupid policy, but it's irrelevant to the scenario you describe. Linky:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=0775667706f7d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=4f719c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD
3. The issue I really, well, take issue with: the "English as the official language" business. I don't know if my grandparents could have moved here from China under this policy (where you have to be proficient in English to immigrate), but I doubt my grandparents' siblings could and my mom certainly couldn't (though she'd qualify under family member immigration if my grandparents qualified, and she was in school so she picked up the language here). Yeah, yeah, we want it made clear that English is the main language, but that shouldn't mean we deny somebody because they don't have access to English classes.

So I guess my beef with Thompson is his policies on legal immigration, though I'd have to see if he does anything to balance out the numbers.

Posted by Math_Mage at December 3, 2007 10:46 PM

Math_Mage: I concede that you understand immigration law better than I do. But the basic point remains the same. The reason that there is so much illegal immigration from Mexico is that the government, through quotas, is preventing them living the American dream. They can get jobs and live a life here, but they don't have a way to make it legal. Thompson wants to throw up even more hurdles for them on top of enforcing unenforceable laws. All of the Republican candidates are talking that way.

It's also true that Chinese immigrants aren't being treated much better. They are also up against a quota, and demanding English proficiency would hit them even harder.

Posted by Jim Harris at December 4, 2007 06:37 AM

Post a comment