7 posts tagged “joe biden”

When the stock-market crashed in 1929, ‘Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television’. Who said this?

• George W. Bush
• Sarah Palin
• John McCain
• Joe Biden

   Even a foreigner like me knows that Herbert Hoover was the president of the United States in 1929 and I don’t believe there was TV.
   Guess every late-night comedian, news media outlet, Saturday Night Live, and even most Republicans missed another one of Joe Biden’s gifts to comedy.
   Probably due to too much Palin-bashin’.
   I make it no secret that I think then-Sen. Obama could have found a better running mate, but what’s done is done.

Sen. Joe Biden and the Obama campaign have cancelled all interviews with this Florida TV station after getting fired a few tough questions that Sen. Barack Obama would have dealt with very easily. He dealt with them sufficiently but cancelling further interviews with the channel?
   I never understood, and still do not understand, why this man is Sen. Obama’s running-mate. I have always had my doubts about Sen. Biden, long before his nomination, and the pettiness of the Obama campaign staffers that I have written about has shown itself once again.
   Come on, even Gov. Sarah Palin isn’t above returning to unfriendly networks and channels for the McCain campaign.

   I’ll say again that an Obama–Clinton ticket was the obvious one for the Democrats, and we wouldn’t even be looking at the polls if that had happened.

I have become interested in the story behind Sen. Obama’s birth certificate, now that a suit has been filed against him, forcing him to produce the “long form” version from Hawai’i rather than the reprint, or certification, used to support his birth on US soil in 1961.
   These are my arguments on the issue, as I partly relayed on Twana’s blog last week.
   1. The US Constitution does not give a full definition of ‘natural born citizen’ in Art. II, s. 1. Since we know the Founding Fathers to be smart folks, we also know that if they wanted that term to be defined by 1787 standards, they would have put it in.
   2. Under Art. I, s. 8, the Constitution gives Congress the power to determine laws about naturalization. In other words, matters pertaining to naturalization are not stuck in 1787, but are to be considered in a contemporary sense.
   3. Under these laws, a birthright citizenship exists and it’s also in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
   4. Under US law back in the 1960s, a child doesn’t lose his American nationality just because a parent does. Specifically:

A person having American nationality, who is a minor and is residing in a foreign state with or under the legal custody of a parent who loses American nationality under section 404 of this Act, shall at the same time lose his American nationality if such minor has or acquires the nationality of such foreign state: Provided, That, in such case, American nationality shall not be lost as the result of loss of American nationality by the parent unless and until the child attains the age of twenty-three years without having acquired permanent residence in the United States.

   5. Dual nationals are recognized under US law (the Immigration and Nationality Act, and by the Supreme Court).
   6. Because of (3), if Barack Obama was born in Hawai’i, then he qualifies as a natural born citizen. I know there are stories on the web relating to the recollections of his grandmother, Sarah Obama, who recalls:

Obama’s mother, late in her term carrying Obama she went to Kenya with her husband. She was resented by her in-laws and didn't like the way Muslim men treated women so she tried to return to Hawaii. Apparently the airlines refuse to allow her to fly due to her being very late term pregnant. So Obama, Jr. was born in Kenya. His father’s family all verify this version and in Mombassa, Kenya there is registered the birth of one Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. on a date approximating when our Obama was born.

I am not sure how reliable this evidence is, and it is the first I have heard about a Barack Hussein Obama Jr being registered in Mombasa. And where is the copy of that registration? Since we do not have that, then we have to assume that the Hawai’i reprint is genuine (stories about the colour mismatch are ridiculous: since when could two scanners reproduce the same colour?) and that it was registered correctly, because the onus of proof lies on the plaintiff in such a case.
   7. Even if he did travel to Indonesia there is no evidence, to me, that he lost his American nationality. Philip Berg, the gentleman who has filed suit, alleges that Barack Obama would have had to give up his American nationality to attend school in Indonesia. Anyone who has been to Indonesia knows there are problems with graft and corruption and I would more readily believe that his school never checked. Maybe he acquired dual nationality during this time and even if that meant giving up his US nationality under Indonesian law, he might not have been considered to have given it up under US law.
   8. Therefore, when Barack Obama re-entered the US, there was no need for him to become re-naturalized—and the Fourteenth Amendment still held.
   I would love to see the 1961 certificate, as this would end the whole argument once and for all. Most of Mr Berg’s arguments do not find much favour with my analysis, and it’s largely his demand for the 1961 certificate that has my interest piqued.
   The only controversy that I can see, if all is well with the original “long form” certificate, might be that while dual nationality does not preclude Sen. Obama from seeking the office of President, the mere existence of it (which remains a possibility—that he is a dual US–Indonesian national) might discourage the more xenophobic of voters to go with another candidate. This is worth some scrutiny, out of fairness. I personally have no problems with dual nationality, simply because I hold two myself.
   One conspiracy theorist says that the Democrats are waiting to be elected and if things go belly-up for a future President Obama on this subject, his vice-president will ascend to the top job and pardon his predecessor. I have never put anything past Sen. Joe Biden, whom I have always regarded as far more dangerous than the top man on the Dems’ ticket, and have wondered about his relative silence on many of the attacks on Sen. Obama.
   Nevertheless, this is an interesting matter and no less important than the earlier analysis of Sen. McCain’s own birth (which I also answered in the blogosphere a bit earlier).

Just after I commented on another blog that Republicans were generally more civilized when arguing for their candidate, I hear that some have chanted death threats against Sen. Obama. Way to go. (I am being sarcastic.)
   And now, there’s news from The Times—from the same owner as Fox News—that indicates a philosophical split inside the campaign.
   Paikea, who is a Vox friend of mine here and who is a Democratic supporter, blogged a reference to an article that painted Gov. Palin as narcissistic. And that, I have to concur, summarizes some of the more disturbing elements about her that I could not identify.
   It appears, according to The Times, that John McCain is merely an inconvenience in the presidential run of Sarah Palin.
   Rallies now have gone from something resembling a tiny senatorial race for Sen. McCain to mass crowds after Gov. Palin’s arrival. And she knows that that’s her contribution, using it to her advantage. She knows that there were many holding back from supporting Sen. McCain because of his RINO image.
   Even when there are divisions among the Democrats, as there is today between Sens. Obama and the Clinton family, they aren’t stupid enough to air their dirty laundry in front of the world.
   I have expressed my doubts about Sen. Joe Biden, believing that he is a typical Beltway type who is not going to listen to a black senator. Sen. Obama might be labelled a visionary by his allies—so does that mean that Sen. Biden is going to be the details man, in which case it’s going to be more of the same politicking? His record indicates yes, and I think there’s going to be a power-play if the Democrats get in.
   But the Democrats successfully hid their rifts in 2004, with their whole party behind Sen. John Kerry, never mind what was there behind the scenes.
   I know the Governor’s words excite a group of Republicans, but for all the criticisms of militant Democrats, the parties are looking more and more similar in the behaviours these candidates are eliciting among their audiences.
   I am not sure if this could be called inspirational.
   While there is nothing technically wrong with a vice-presidential nominee overshadowing a presidential one, the presidency, if the Republicans took the White House, is John McCain’s, not Sarah Palin’s—and as a former navy captain I am sure he would not desire insubordination.
   In the Republicans’ defence, one could argue that Gov. Palin had to get tough in opposing the Democrats for the easy ride Sen. Obama has been getting in the media.
   While another Democratic friend of mine says the ACORN furore is a horrid smear campaign, I cannot imagine a Republican candidate getting off fairly scot free on issues like that of the Tony Retzko connection or Sen. Obama’s nationality whilst in Indonesia. (The media were, as I have once said, quick to endorse the Killian memoranda against President George W. Bush, even if it was remarkably easy for a professional like me to pinpoint the cut of the Times typeface and what laser printer they came off.)
   I don’t believe that Sen. Obama is not American, that his middle name is Mohammed, or that possible dual nationality prevents his run under Art. II, s. 1 of the US Constitution. However, the secrecy surrounding a possible Indonesian nationality (still not answered, from what I can tell) and his 1961 birth certificate (versus a certification) should concern the fourth estate as well as US voters.
   Since Sen. McCain was unwilling to conduct a dishonourable campaign, or so he claims (does he truly ‘approve this message’?), he might be unwilling to throw accusations that are not fully checked. Gov. Palin may well have taken the initiative with attacks, using less evidence than the Senator would find comfortable.
   And since the Republicans themselves have had their share of attacks without much of a defence in the media, the Governor may well think she needs to get headlines if she’s going to get the GOP POV in the news.
   Conclusion: both sides are split, one more openly than the other.
   As a foreign observer, the campaign has arrived at a new low, not because of any one side, but because no matter who Americans vote I am not certain there will be much real change. (I feel the same, incidentally, about Labour–National in New Zealand, hence my third-party run.)
   Attitudes on both sides do not set a presidential example for Americans internally, or inspire confidence in allies and observers externally.
   It’s hardly up to McCain and Obama. I think their number twos are calling the shots in a very unwarranted way—one after the election if the Democrats get in; the other before the election, acting as though it were her campaign and John McCain is her vice-presidential running-mate. Neither is ideal, and both are worrisome.

The trouble with the Obama surname from a humour point-of-view is that the senator from Illinois and his wife are the two most famous people bearing it. There are no others who are comparable.
   For example, antipodeans can keep using ‘Ah, McCain, you’ve done it again!’ to tie in with a food company in Australia.
   With Sarah Palin, there are countless Monty Python references through Michael Palin, e.g. Michael Palin in Pole to Pole, Sarah Palin in Poll to Poll.
   On the other side, Joe Biden is way tougher name-wise to get gags going. There are already 43,000-plus Google references to the most obvious, ‘Biden time’.
   I heard, ‘Once Biden, twice shy,’ but you have to change a word to fit.
   Similarly, I know we have Obamanomics and words like that but they are not that punny.
   Even last time the Democrats gave us Teresa Heinz Kerry, the wife of the Massachusetts senator, so we could say Beantown meanz Heinz. Not very funny but tolerable.
   And ask David Letterman for any jokes relating to Clinton.
   The Dems have taken out so much of the potential humour in the names in ’08. (Republican headline: ‘Democrats rob US of humor: national laugh index would drop under Obama’.)

With any election campaign, and now being involved as a political candidate myself for the New Zealand Parliament, my observations stem from the point of view of ‘Would I do this?’
   For example, I wouldn’t have tried making fun of Sen. Barack Obama for wearing traditional African costume, as Sen. Clinton’s campaign did, using it as a tactic of painting him as an outsider. (And I said so at the time.)
   I did, meanwhile, have a field day over Sen. Clinton’s sniper-fire gag, or the time she called the still-governing Helen Clark as the ‘former prime minister of New Zealand’. I believe she opened herself up for those.
   At the end of the day, I want to see an even playing field, and I’ll do the little things that I know something about.
   And I thought today about Gov. Sarah Palin’s ‘bridge to nowhere’ remark.
   She said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ to the construction of a bridge to a community of 50 in Alaska.
   Critics say that she was for the bridge before she was against it—something pointed out by Charlie Gibson in the ABC News interview.
   As far as I can gather, Gov. Palin and her Alaskan Congress would try to apply to Washington for a share of infrastructure projects, which, from what I can gather in western politics, is normal.
   I read about something similar in John Major’s autobiography, recalling his time as Chancellor of the Exchequer, with each government department trying to get a cut of the budget.
   So securing a share of the cake is business as usual in most democracies.
   When Congress (Washington, not Juneau) requested that Alaska itself pay for the bridge, Gov. Palin said, ‘No way.’
   Maybe I am being totally stupid but I can’t see what she has done wrong.
   Folks, I don’t support a lot of Sarah Palin’s ideas, not least her environmental stance, and as I have pointed out, her English seems to be below par for a woman holding a journalism degree and with broadcasting experience.
   I am for the Second Amendment, personally speaking. I like how she reduced her mayoral pay in Wassila and how she sold the gubernatorial jet which her predecessor had bought, against the will of his congress.
   She could be a populist. So is Sen. Obama.
   But on this “bridge to nowhere” issue, I thought about it this way.
   I get free samples of various products here that I give out to our team members. They are happy to take them. But if I were to ask them to pay for them, they’ll say, ‘Thanks, but no thanks,’ on most. They defend their own patch, as Gov. Palin defended hers.
   Critics say that Gov. Palin maybe should have said, ‘I said, “Thanks,” then “No thanks,” on that bridge to nowhere.’ But I think it was a waste of time for Gibson to even go there.
   There’s plenty of other stuff to attack the Governor on, just as there’s plenty of other stuff to attack Sen. Joseph Biden on. Americans tire of the politicking in the news not because they are disinterested in who gets to the White House, but because the media are so happy to sway the issue to things everyday people could not care less about.

I first read about Sen. Joe Biden’s nomination to be Sen. Barack Obama’s running-mate through the MSM. It was probably on Google News, in the headlines. Then I saw it here on television, albeit briefly, since a VP nominee doesn’t really have much importance to New Zealanders.
   I first read about Gov. Sarah Palin’s nomination as Sen. John McCain’s running-mate on Timothy’s Vox blog. I have not heard mentions on radio or TV here. And I realize that this is not big news to Kiwis, and I admittedly was out during the six o’clock TV news broadcast yesterday. But as someone kind of interested in US politics, I would have expected to have run into the news somewhere.
   Maybe to us, as we have had female prime ministers twice (at one point, the PM, Chief Justice and Governor-General were all female), the ascension of a woman to the presidential ticket is not a biggie. Also, then-Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro had already trailblazed on that front as the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 1984.
   It will be interesting to see if Gov. Palin will help the McCain campaign. She is largely unknown outside her home state but that might help charges that Sen. McCain (like Sen. Biden, I should point out) is the same-old Washington establishment. With Palin’s approval ratings at 80 per cent in her home state, and a pretty solid résumé, she has quite a few pluses in terms of her hard work for Alaska.
   She has been clear on her beliefs—she has a lifetime NRA membership, she opposes the legalization of marijuana and she is pro-life—so people can judge her on those quite easily. If the majority of Americans do not see eye-to-eye with Gov. Palin on these matters, then that is democracy in action.
   Alaska, though in fact modern with large cities, has a stereotype among Americans, and being the 47th state in terms of population, the Democrats will be able to accuse the Governor of inexperience in national politics. It’s a fine line, however: Palin has had 16 years of elected public service, versus Sen. Obama’s 11; though I note that this never stopped Sen. Clinton, with eight years, from attacking Sen. Obama in the primaries.
   Her biggest plus is her whistle-blowing about corruption and the lack of ethics among certain sectors of government in Alaska, meaning Sarah Palin is a no-nonsense, clean-government advocate. How successful this image will carry through into the quagmire of Washington politics is dependent on how Americans view things: can they believe that one person can make a change, or do they believe one person will be buried among establishment thinking?
   It depends on how strongly they believe in the power of the individual.
   Palin is probably an individualist—someone who doesn’t mind bucking the trend and surprising people, and that could play well to many Americans. To some extent McCain has these values but he has also changed his mind on some, which the Democrats have rightly pointed out at their Convention.
   It will be an interesting road ahead.