Democratic VP Candidate Biden

Ken Balckwell has an interesting piece on Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden and what he brings to the Democratic ticket. Biden helps Obama in a couple of ways, primarily in that he brings a wealth of foreign policy experience, having served as Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He also has a relatively good relationship with the Clintons, which certainly doesn't hurt but may not be enough to influence Clinton supporters still angry over the primary duel.

On the other hand, Biden doesn't help swing any states in favor of Obama, and it must be noted that Biden's own run left the base decidely unexcited, and went nowhere with Democratic voters, dropping out after Iowa. Blackwell notes that Obama's weakness on foreign policy issues extends to national security issues, where Biden is not exactly an expert, although he may help to a limited degree.

However, Biden may actually hurt Obama in two other areas, one being that Biden really doesn't bring any ideological balance to the ticket. Both men are extreme liberals, and the choice of Biden ia a curious one when Obama's perceived weakness is convincing moderate voters that he shares their values. Both men are anti-gun, pro-abortion, and support higher tax rates and increased Federal spending. Biden alos has no executive experience, something distinctly lacking from Obama as well.

While Biden is known as a tough campaigner and is generally well liked by Senate colleagues, he has been known to shoot off his mouth on occaison, and has a history of "borrowing" words from other political figures, such as Robert Kennedy. The selection is also curious given Senator Obama is running as a transformational figure, so selecting a old-haqnd Senate insider cuts across one of the central themes of his entire campaign.

Blackwell has a pretty good summation of the pick:

"Mr. Biden was not the best choice for Mr. Obama. Sure, Messrs. Bayh and Kaine certainly had problems of their own. But if he wanted someone with broad-spectrum national security/foreign policy credentials who could reach traditional voters, he could have asked Sam Nunn of Georgia. If he wanted executive experience and appeal to new constituencies while still getting foreign policy expertise, he could have asked Bill Richardson. And if he wanted to heal his party, he could have asked Hillary Clinton."

I have to agree, my thought was that Obama would have been wise to select Evan Bayh or possibly Sam Nunn, both of whom bring a lot more to the table, at least in my opinion, particularly if you are trying to switch a red state to blue. To my thinking, Biden isn't a very inspired choice, but I guess Obama could have done worse.

Obama's Plans for NASA

The American Thinker examines what a President Obama would do to NASA - and it isn't pretty. The "hope & change" candidate has an interesting perspective on NASA's future plans regarding the plan for manned spaceflight. Just as the Chinese are ramping up their efforts, he apparently wants to delay out next generation of space vehicles for FIVE years so he can start a federal program for PRE-SCHOOL!

"Barack Obama's early education and K-12 plan package costs about $18 billion per year. He will maintain fiscal responsibility and prevent an increase in the deficit by offsetting cuts and revenue sources in other parts of the government. The early education plan will be paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years..."

So we sit around grounded for five years while the Chinese go to the Moon. Idiocy isn't a strong enough word. As if there wasn't already enough reason NOT to vote for this eloquent but empty-headed clown, he had to go and threaten my favorite government civilian program with extinction. While I'm still a reluctant supporter, Senator McCain is almost certain to get a check, perhaps as soon as today. While I've refrained from much on the political side of things (mostly through sheer exhaustion from the elongated primary process) now my dander is up, the gloves are coming off, and it's clobbering time!

Expect frequent criticism of everyone's favorite Senator from the great state of Illinois.

Early Results, Thoughts on Presidential Race

I've been meaning to comment a bit on the Presidential race, which has been an interesting see-saw, with first one candidate then another appearing to be the front runner for each party.

On the Democratic side, I am a bit undecided about the race, since the only candidate I had any respect for (Bill Richardson) is pretty much out of it and could be a likely Veep for whichever of the other candidates eventually wins out. None of the leading Democrats running have any significant experience, with only Hillary having served more than one Senate term. Of course, she hangs her hat on 8 years as First Lady, but she had no real official policy making or advisory position in the administration, with the lone exception of Healthcare Reform, which was a bad idea that went no where, and on which she apparently feels strongly enough to emphasize again in her candidacy. As several pundits have pointed out, being someone's wife (even in a close relationship, which I tend to believe isn't the case with the Clintons) doesn't automatically allow the spouse to presume the husband's professional role.

As far as Obama and Edwards go, both are not only even more ridiculously underqualified than Hillary, they both appear to be woefully ignorant of even the basic tenets of sound economic policy. Don't even get me started on their foreign policy views, I want to keep this short.

On the other side of the aisle, we have several candidates that appear to have the requisite experience to lead the nation, but almost all of them have some flaws. While I generally vote Republican, I don't always, and there are a couple of these candidates for which I would have to seriously question casting a ballot.

Governor Mike Huckabee has executive experience, and appears to be a good pro-life Christian gentleman, but has some very odd policy positions for a Republican - he's anti-free trade, raised taxes in his state considerably, and is almost Carteresque in his foreign policy views. Yet he won Iowa and is running pretty well nationally.
My grade for him is an F.

John McCain has a wealth of experience in the Senate, has voted to control spending, is a genuine (rather than make-believe) war hero, and has the type of foreign policy and miltary experience that makes him an attractive candidate - however, there is that Freedom of Speech thing, the judges deal, the immigration issue, the fact he has voted against tax cuts and several other issues that make me question whether or not you can call him a Republican - indeed, there has been talk that he might switch parties at some points in the past - perhaps even as John Kerry's running mate. While not as bad as Huck, he definitely leaves alot to be desired, grading him a C- only for taking a principaled stand on the war, which is the definitive national issue. Many fellow bloggers dislike him even more than I. McCain is the current front runner right now with a win in New Hampshire, running well in Michigan, South Carolina and nationally.

Mitt Romney has not only government executive experience, but private sector experience as well. He is also proposing many of the right things on economic policy, social issues, and immigration - but on all those issues, his position has "evolved" since beginning his career in the political process. Simply put, I have to doubt the veracity of those beliefs, and I also have to question whether or not we want to have a wealthy candidate giving at least the appearance of trying to buy an election with his vast personal fortune. While he cut taxes, he raised regulatory and licensing fees in Massachussets, and his commitment to the 2nd Amendment is questionable to say the least. While probably better than McCain in general, and definitely better than Huckabee, I have to barely pass him with a C+.
Romnye finished second in both Iowa and NH, and is running nose to nose with Mac in Michigan.

This leads us to Mayor Rudy Guiliani, which I strongly considered early in the race, and whom I have heard speak personally at one of those odd business seminars that they stage on occaisson. I liked what I heard, then did some research. There is a lot to like about the Mayor, particularly on the economic front, and he has a strong law and order reputation. You have to also make the case he would make a strong foreign policy stand. Some of his social views are questionable, but those aren't factors I consider strongly. However, he does have some troubling issues, starting with (again) the 2nd Amendment, and you have to wonder about how strong his commitment to stopping illegal immigration really would turn out to be if elected. He passes with a B- due to getting the biggest issues (war/foreign policy & the economy) right, but mostly blowing it on much of the rest, particulary 2A. Rudy's been pretty invisible in the early states with the idea of focusing on Florida next week.

Then we have the best of the bunch, someone that I have supported from day one (and even before he announced) - Fred Thompson. On issues, he is pretty spectacular, giving us detailed (and excellent) policy positions on foreign policy, rebuilding the military, illegal immigration, tax policy, spending, entitlement reform, judges, and the 2nd Amendment, issues on which he is almost always spot on. The one minor weakness is his orignal support for McCain-Feingold, which he has since labelled as a well-intentioned mistake, which I can readily accept in exchange. His support for tax reform, an optional Flat Tax and cut in the corporate tax rates (along with a host of other tax proposals) is simply outstanding economic policy. Another important philosophical tenet of Fred's is his support for Federalism and the Constitutional rights of states and their citizens to decide some issues for themselves, reigning in the reach of the national government, which is simply icing on the cake in my view.

I have to grade Fred the only A of the mainstream candidates, (although I would give Congressman Duncan Hunter a solid Honorable mention grade of B) and I will openly state I've given him more of my hard earned dollars than any candidate in my entire life. I generally have given $10-15 contributions in the past. While not be any means a wealthy person, I've contributed far over that to Fred in both single contributions and in sum total hit a figure well into three digits.

Can he win? I don't know, he put a lot of effort into Iowa garnering third there, and has picked South Carolina as his next big effort and raised over $1 million to campaign strongly there. The last Rasmussen poll showed him 4th behind McCain, Huckabee and Romney but moving up four points into a statistical tie for 2nd at 16%, evidently drawing support from Huckabee, who dropped five points from the previous poll. Michigan votes today with McCain and Romney neck and neck, I'm not sure what Huckabee's strategy is, while the Mayor's has long been to focus on Florida to stop the other candidates' momentum, generate his own and move on to Super Tuesday.

If nothing else, it will prove to be an intersting race on both sides.

Hillary's Curious Campaign Contributors

Brody Mullins at The Wall Street Journal takes a close examination of a particular Hillary Clinton supporter, Norman Hsu of New York and his friends the Paw family of San Fransisco. The Paws have given a total of $200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005, but what it isn't apparent is how the can afford such largesse, since they live in a 1280 sq ft house they recently refinanced for $270,000. William Paw is a Postal worker making $49,000 a year and his wife is a homemaker. How this Mr. Hsu is involved with this family isn't clear, although he once listed their home as his address. The Paw family's children have a variety of careers, but none of them spectacularly lucrative. But the family and Mr. Hsu do seem to have some things in common.

"The Paws' political donations closely track donations made by Norman Hsu, a wealthy New York businessman in the apparel industry who once listed the Paw home as his address, according to public records. Mr. Hsu is one of the top fund-raisers for Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign. He has hosted or co-hosted some of her most prominent money-raising events."

Of course, it is illegal for someone to reimburse someone else for political contributions, and there is no public record of this happening in the case of Mr. Hsu and the Paw family. Individuals can contribute up to $4600 a campaign cycle for a candidate, split between the primary race and the general election. However -

"The Paw family is just one set of donors whose political donations are similar to Mr. Hsu's. Several business associates of Mr. Hsu in New York have made donations to the same candidates, on the same dates for similar amounts as Mr. Hsu.

On four separate dates this year, the Paw family, Mr. Hsu and five of his associates gave Mrs. Clinton a total of $47,500. In all, the family, Mr. Hsu and his associates have given Mrs. Clinton $133,000 since 2005 and a total of nearly $720,000 to all Democratic candidates."

The Paw family is of Chinese decent, as is Mr. Hsu, and have been living in California since 1982. All but one member of the party is registered to vote as a non-partisan. The curious thing about this is that there are no records of campaign contributions being made by the family before 2004, but since then, they have been quite active - as has Mr. Hsu, and quite surprisingly, at almost identical periods of time.

"Then, in July 2004, five members of the family contributed a total of $3,600 to the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat. Five of the checks were dated July 27, 2004. About the same time, Mr. Hsu made his first donations to a political candidate, contributing the maximum amount allowed by law to Mr. Kerry in two separate checks, on July 21, 2004, and on Aug. 6.

From then on, the correlation of campaign donations between Mr. Hsu and the Paw family has continued. The first donations to Mrs. Clinton came Dec. 23, 2004, when Mr. Hsu and one Paw family member donated the then-maximum $4,000 to her Senate campaign in two $2,000 checks, campaign-finance records show. In March 2005, the individuals gave a total of $17,500 to Mrs. Clinton.

Since then, Mr. Hsu, his New York associates and the Paw family have continued to donate to Democratic candidates. This year, Alice Paw and four of the Paw children have donated the maximum $4,600 to Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign."

Of course, this is not to say there is any wrongdoing on the part of Mrs. Clinton's campaign, but it is certainly a curious state of affairs, and one in which the Paws have declined to be interviewed. It might be all an innocent coincidence, but it certainly is one in which the Federal Election Commission may desire to examine in more detail.

Democrat Polling in IA

David Yepsin at the DesMoines Register takes a look at the early Iowa polling for the Democratic Presidential candidates. (via RCP).

The biggest beneficiary of the withdrawal of IA Gov. Tom Vilsak appears at this point to be - John Edwards? Edwards is up 15 points since January, Hillary is down 1, and they are statistically tied at 34-33%. Sen. Obama is at 16%, and the other candidates, Senators Joe Biden & Chris Dodd, along with NM Gov. Bill Richardson, are all mired in single digits. Yepsin does note, however:

"While the poll is new, it may already be a bit dated. It came out of the field Thursday and so does not reflect the weekend's two major developments in the campaign — the disclosure Friday that Elizabeth Edwards' cancer has re-emerged and Vilsack's endorsement of Clinton on Monday."

I had just heard of the Vilsak endorsement this morning, I understand he knows the Clintons from the early 1970s. Interesting, to say the least. While Hillary can probably afford to lose in IA, for Edwards, it's a critical state leading to the Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina (his home state) primaries. Also interesting to note, I had no idea Edwards finished second in IA in 2004.

NM Gov. Richardson

Ed Morrissey of CQ reviews the record of recently announced 2008 Democratic Presidential hopeful Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, and finds him perhaps the most qualified candidate from either side of the aisle. He has Congressional, foreign policy, cabinet level, and executive experience, and he's Hispanic. I seem to recall another article about him, but don't recall where (LATE EDIT: he announced yesterday, so something about that I imagine). I would have to say such a centrist Democrat would be unpalatable, to say the least, to the Dem's left wing , but any rational mind would have to declare him perhaps the most electable candidate the party could field.

"Richardson has an impressive resume. He worked in the State Department as a congressional liaison after college, then worked on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as an aide.
He spent 14 years in Congress representing New Mexico, starting in 1980, mostly focusing on foreign affairs. He moved from Congress to leadership of the Democratic Party’s 2004 convention, working with President Bill Clinton on bolstering the party’s credibility with centrist voters.
Bill Clinton appointed Richardson as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., where he served a year, and then appointed him as Secretary of Energy, where he served from 1998 until Clinton’s term ended. In 2002, Richardson was elected to his first term as New Mexico’s governor and was re-elected last November."

Morrissey speculates if Richardson will pull out the knives and go after Hillary Clinton, having knowledge that could possibly embarass the former First Lady after serving in Bill's cabinet. Richardson is the only Clinton era cabinet level executive to formerly announce his candidacy for the White House. Based on what I know about him, this could be a democratic candidate I would vote for, depending on his Republican opponent.