American Madness

[ This opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal on February 20. It is reprinted here with the permission of author Betsy McCaughey Ross, a former lieutenant governor of New York, currently serving as an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute (the original "think tank"). ]

On March 4, voters in the Texas Democratic primary will choose between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The battle is shaping up to be a health-care Alamo. Twenty five percent of people living in the Lone Star state are uninsured, according to the U.S. Census. That’s the highest rate of any state.

Sen. Clinton has issued the challenge, telling Sen. Obama “I’ll see you in Texas.” She promises to provide health coverage for “every single one of the nation’s 47 million uninsured,” and she accuses Sen. Obama of offering a “band aid” solution that would leave about a third of those 47 million uncovered.

(more…)

At first I was totally outraged when I read about GlassBooth. That in itself isn’t much I realize, I get outrage over a bunch of things, some not even that significant and some, once I have had a bit of time to reflect and have actually looked at the site or read the article I am outraged by I tend to reconsider a bit. Of course this model of thinking held true for GlassBooth as well.

Basically GlassBooth comes off as a site for the lazy voter. You are given a “quiz” in which you are given 20 points to distribute among 14 different political hot buttons. Then you are asked to rank how important each of these topics are to you on aa scale of 1-5 with targeted questions. After you have gone through that (it takes about 5 minutes or so) the site tells you the top three candidates who share your views ranked by percentage and has a drop down menu of all the other candidates to see how you compare with their views. (more…)

A lot of companies are hesitant to take a stand on what they consider social or political issues. They feel the best bet is to keep their mouths shut and, by doing so, no one can have too big an issue with them. Not Manhattan Mini Storage!

The New York Sun reports that a new(-ish) billboard by the West Side Highway in Manhattan has the typical Manhattan Mini Storage look and branding. On the left side an image of a hanger in the background with the text “Your Closet Space Is Shrinking As Fast As Her Right To Choose.” An earlier ad of theirs read “Your Closet is Scarier Then Bush’s Agenda.” Wow! Way to take a stand.

Of course folks from the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights are saying the sign is highly offensive and insulting (though I am not quite sure how since the New York Sun doesn’t have any details on that), Planned Parenthood loves it. The article claims that “Passers-by had mixed reactions” (of the two they mention one said they thought it to be a little tasteless and the other had no problem with it: not exactly a spectrum of folks with solid opinions).

The comments I found to be most interesting was from the editor of the conservative journal First Things, Joseph Bottum. He said: “Manhattan Mini Storage must have had a pretty good idea that the sign was not going to hurt it. ‘One of the things that has helped American democracy survive is the fact that commercial enterprises have not generally entered the political arena.’

Also it is interesting to note that the building that the advertisement is on is a Manhattan Mini-Storage. No surprise there.

In 1998 President Clinton discreetly got a BJ in his office. Okay, maybe it wasn’t the best thinking on his part to do this while on the phone with some other world leaders, but hey, no one lost their life over it.

Months later, when this news leaked out, the Republicans (and folks at Fox News) flipped, they saw weakness and they struck. Not only did they run every one of their campaigns since 1998 on Family Values and their moral superiority (as they continue to do), but they called for Clinton to be impeached. And, as we all know, this was not just the public, this was everyone.

Clinton getting a little something-something under his desk was such a scandal that the Republicans in office thought they might actually have a chance to impeach the president. While they failed at doing so (as they should have), they were able to create a platform to run on for the next presidential election and a core set of beliefs that made them appear superior to enough people to keep them in office for a while.

The Republican Machine saw the President’s screw-ups (no pun intended) as a chance to build up their own platform; not just with subtle innuendo during their campaigning, but by making it a national issue for everyone to see.

Now, let’s fast forward to 2005. President Bush has just acknowledged that the WMD’s that we were positive were in Iraq, thus prompting us to go to war in 2003, well, they may not be there after all. Oh and those close ties that Iraq had with Osama may not exist either, and that Mission Accomplished banner, well, it may have been a White House PR faux pas, but who are they to take credit for their mistakes?

So, at this point in 2005, we are now aware as a country that we have been lied to not once, but at least a few times already about this war we are involved in. Okay, cool, time for the White House to make it up to us, right? Maybe call back some of our troops, tell France and Germany they were right in the first place and that this was an unjustified war, and basically ease off a little, right? Well, apparently not, instead it is time to increase troops in Iraq. And we see this tactic again and again. We fucked up, something is going wrong, let’s increase troops.

Fast forward to 2007. The Democrats have finally gotten power back in the House and the Senate. The people have decided they are tired of the B.S. we are being fed on a daily basis by the people in power and want to see a change. Instead, what do we get? Lies from the Attorney General about firing judges because they were a bit more Democrat then the Republicans liked. The President allowing “behind closed door” testimony to Rove and Miers in the same scandal, essentially so they would not tarnish their names too badly when they ran for re-election. As well as a number of other Presidential blunders, including threats to Congress if they did not back his plans for escalating the effort in Iraq.

Now I ask: Where are the calls for impeachment? Our current President is not only doing serious damage to our country and our relations with foreign nations, but also causing the deaths of thousands in Iraq (as of today at least 3320, while we wait on confirmation from the Department of Defense on another 12).

(more…)

…to feel better about the direction of humanity.

Today we learn that:

The Irish are getting along
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/opinion/27tue3.html

Cruelty against animals may no longer be chic in corporate America
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/28/business/28burger.html?hp

New York has beaten back the Wal-Mart monolith
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/28/business/28retail.html?hp

and…

The White House is running scared from what appear to be its own lies
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/27/opinion/27tue1.html

I know most New Yorkers (and the vast majority of the press) believe that Eliot Spitzer will win the primary and general election hands down.

They question why Tom Suozzi is campaigning, in what appears to be a futile Sisyphusian ordeal.

I do not know why he is running, but I know that asking “why” is the wrong question. The right question, the moral responsible and pertinent question is who SHOULD win the primary and who would make a better governor. The far more compelling answer is Tom Suozzi.

I met Tom once, at a back-yard fundraiser for a local Long Island judge. The crowd was thin and Suozzi’s time was wasted at the event. He was then in need of a bigger audience as he was running for chief executive of Nassau County, a deeply troubled area that had for decades been run by an entrenched Republican leadership.

But Suozzi made an effort for smaller reformers and they repaid him. He took over Nassau and you can read about the results, which are astoundingly positive. If this doesn’t seem like much of a resume, consider that Nassau’s $2.4 billion budget is greater than that of 16 states. That is a key Suozzi statistic, and justifiably so, as he has turned the County around.

Suozzi could do much to fix NY State, which is (as I need not remind anyone) in bad need of political reform.

Spitzer, on the other hand, despite all his sound and fury, has achieve only headlines. Anyone on Wall Street or in the insurance world familiar with his research settlement or his other corporate “reforms” could tell you how counterproductive they have been both to commerce and, ironically, to individual investors. The Wall Street Journal editorial page, with which most people have a conflicted relationship, has been correct on Spitzer for some time now. Go back and read their opinions: they are well articulated. (Here’s a good one, in which the Journal notes that Spitzer tends to accuse with proof that falls down upon scrutiny: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006805.)

(Here’s another: The Passion of Eliot Spitzer: Is he telling the truth as he tries to “take people out”?)

I have seen Spitzer up close, as well, and I am continually amazed that news reports fail to report the smell of sulfur that lingers in his wake.

One man has a tangible record of reforms. The other has a tangible record of publicly attacking large corporations and pushing them to newsworthy (but dubiously effective) settlements.

I urge registered Democrats to look closely at the records of both men, and make a decision based on that, and not on Spitzer’s image as a reformer. Alas, unlike the more populist-minded states, registered Republicans or Independents in New York State may not at this point (that is, within eyeshot of a primary) change party affiliations to vote, so please push your Democratic friends and relations to consider this issue!

Suozzi and Spitzer will debate tonight on NY1 at 7pm.

You can watch on TV or via the web site below:

http://ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=3&aid=61268

Bush no know about port sale.

Does it really matter whether this deal means Dubai will control security for our ports? If they control the ports, their personnel have access, and who is monitoring their hiring?

Does our security apparatus have the power to veto their hires if we believe unsavory elements attempt to infiltrate their presumably well-intentioned company? That’s the key issue here.

Obviously, foreign ownership of a port is not in and of itself a national security issue, else we wouldn’t allow the British to currently control the ports in question.

But this issue is further evidence that the Bush whitehouse has a tin ear on these matters.