Buckeye RINO

“Tell me with whom you walk, and I’ll tell you who you are.” –U. S. Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-California)

Does that sound like the introduction to a swiftboat commercial tying Obama to Ayers and Rezko? I think Congressman Becerra chose the wrong motto in urging the Democrats to believe in Barack Obama.

The early speeches during the 2nd night of the Democrat National Committee (which I watched mostly on C-Span) lacked the warm fuzzies of the first night. Nearly all the speeches were passionless. Many were delivered with deadpan facial expressions in loud monotones. It’s easy to see why Obama is the nominee based on his ability to give speeches. The rest of the party appears to be nearly devoid of talent in that regard.

The “Bush-McCain” litany against the Republican nominee was the broken record of the evening.

Exceptions to the dreariness noted above plus a few random observations are noted below:

• Barack Obama predicted that the Republicans would run a campaign based on fear. Today’s Democrat convention speakers consistently invoked fear of faltering economy as a reason to reject McCain and choose Obama. There was little optimism other than the video montage intro to New York Senator Hillary Clinton.
• For all the VP buzz she was generating, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius was singularly uninspiring in her speech.
• Dennis the Menace should have been given a primetime speech. Rep. Kucinich was an exception to the rule. While others delivered droning, wooden speeches, Kucinich was a passionate, animated cheerleader that really stirred the crowd (even though I disagreed with a significant portion of what he said. It was wasted though, as the very next speaker didn’t carry through with the momentum Kucinich created. The spirit of the crowd quickly dissipated as the convention descended back into numbing boredom.
• Both Kucinich and Governor Ted Strickland began their speeches with a mention of the late Stephanie Tubbs Jones. Clinton also remembered Stephanie Tubbs Jones during her speech.
• The on-air personalities at MSNBC have already lost that euphoric feeling that airing the Olympics provided. The anchors, reporters, and contributors at MSNBC, for the 2nd straight day, were contentious with each other and resentful toward other networks. Joe Scarborough asserted himself a bit more this morning, breaking through the group-think barrier, but his co-workers were becoming disgruntled with him (though not as disgruntled as they were with Pat Buchanan). I can’t imagine the chemistry within the NBC family being this toxic during the days when Tim Russert was still alive. I think his absence has caused the staff to be less cohesive.
• U.S. Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania pointed out that he is the token pro-life speaker tonight, but that’s all he said on the topic. Perhaps he should have elaborated more, as Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden have gotten an earful from the Catholic Church over their pro-life stances over the past two days.
• Gov. Ted Strickland needs to compare notes with Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. Schweitzer made Montana sound like utopia, with bipartisanship, economic growth, energy sector growth, improved education, tax cuts, and budget surpluses. Montana is one of the 8 states in the USA that I’ve never visited, so I have no firsthand knowledge of the situation on the ground in Montana. (If you’re wondering, the other states I’ve never visited are Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico.)
• Schweitzer and Kucinich were the cheerleaders of the day.
• Strickland, Kucinich, and Governor David Paterson of New York delivered the most “red meat” that elicited any sizable audience response. Otherwise, the litany of grievances offered by other speakers against “Bush-McCain” yielded anemic responses.
• Schweitzer should have been the keynote speaker, not Mark Warner of Virginia. In four more years, if the Democrats nominate a new candidate based on his/her speaking ability as happened this time, the nominee might be Schweitzer.
• Clinton was the focus of the night, kept the audience involved, included the expected message content, but didn’t hit a home run. The video montage was more inspiring than the speech.
• Clinton’s zinger of the night was saying it was appropriate for Bush and McCain to hold a convention in the Twin Cities next week because it’s hard to tell those two Republicans apart. Clever, if false.
• Clinton’s plea for the election of Obama was rooted in partisanship.

I watched the televised speeches of Barack Obama and Joe Biden from the steps of the Old Capitol in Springfield, Illinois, and I’m ready to offer a few remarks about how I viewed the spectacle.

I think this was a “preaching-to-the-choir” moment.  If this is the message that will be echoed again and again until the elections in November, I think it will fail to capture the imaginations and the fervor of those in the middle of the political spectrum.  The opening is still there for McCain to step up to claim the middle with his message.

To be truthful, of all the candidates that had announced for the GOP nomination for president in this election cycle, John McCain was not in my top five.  Furthermore, in four elections (primary and general elections of 2000 and 2004) during which George W. Bush’s name appeared on the ballot, I held my nose and cast a ballot for Bush only once, which was the general election of 2004.  In November 2004, even though there were many minor party candidates on the ballot, Bush was still the least of the evils.  The bottom line is:  I have not been a McCain fan nor have I been a Bush fan.

Though I have been a fan of neither McCain nor Bush, I have never gotten the two confused.  The two are not alike.

The overall message of today’s speeches by Obama and Biden are that McCain and Bush are identical, or at least nearly so.  The attempt to link McCain to Bush has been a trademark of Obama rhetoric from the beginning, and frankly, I don’t think that narrative works.  The polls show Obama and McCain are neck-and-neck while Bush’s approval ratings are low and a generic Democrat ticket is looked upon favorably versus a generic Republican ticket.  I think that’s ample evidence that the electorate does not equate McCain with Bush.

For Obama to stick with the “McCain equals Bush” narrative suggests that either he’s preaching to his own choir and that this rhetoric will fire up his base to drive high turnout or it suggests that he thinks middle-of-the-road voters are really, really stupid and gullible to accept this disingenuous (that’s putting it in the most generous of terms to call it merely disingenuous) narrative (or both).

I think, however, that the disingenuous tenor of the Obama campaign could be its undoing.  Obama says that McCain equals Bush.  Not true.  Obama said he would take public financing.  He didn’t.  Obama said that America wanted a new kind of politics that focused on issues and policies rather than distractions.   Instead, he turned down McCain’s proposal for joint townhall appearances to discuss issues and policies in favor of distractions from substantive matters by embarking on a European photo-op tour.  Obama promised greater transparency and clarity.  Yet, he gave very opaque and/or ambiguous responses at Saddleback Church (and has used the political art of distraction this past week in order to cut short the discussion of his utterances on issues and policies at said forum).  Obama said Hillary Clinton was not only on his short list, but would be on anybody’s short list.  His search committee didn’t even bother with including Clinton in the vetting process.  Obama said all week that his VP announcement would come at any minute, and that the first to know would be those that signed up to receive text messages.  Those who held their breath for the text message that would appear “any moment now” became blue in the face and passed out, and they weren’t the first to know, after all.  Obama says he’s a new kind of politician.  He is not.

Those independent-minded voters who approach the elections with an open mind will not be impressed by a “McCain = Bush” message that’s intended for listeners of the follow-the-herd-mentality.  As events move forward toward election day, it appears that the falsehoods from the Obama camp will only accumulate.  Obama appears to be banking on America’s gullibility.  I’m not that gullible.

Any moment now, text messages may crisscross America as Obama reveals his vice presidential pick.

Who would I like to see in the Obama VP slot?

Delaware Senator Joe Biden.

Why?

Because Barack Obama could possibly win the election, and, if that were the case, I don’t want the nation to splat on the ground in the international community like a skydiver without a parachute.  It’s all about Obama’s deficiencies on the foreign policy front, which is Biden’s strongest point.  Biden would be Obama’s skydiving parachute.

Democrat pundits are almost getting giddy with speculation that McCain may choose a running mate who has “pro-choice” views on abortion, specifically referencing Tom Ridge and Joe Lieberman.  They’ve been daring, even goading, McCain to do it with teases such as “John McCain needs to show he can reach across political lines,” or “John McCain, the political maverick of 2000, wouldn’t even vote for John McCain, the strictly partisan hack of 2008.”

We’ll know the truth of the matter by the 29th of August.

But what would happen if McCain really did pick a Joe Lieberman or a Tom Ridge?  Would McCain win the middle of the political spectrum?  Maybe . . . maybe not.  He would definitely lose his hold on the base, though.  Would his base flock to Obama in that case?  No.  Would his base stay home?  A few would.  So, would letting go of his base to capture the middle help McCain win the election?  Nope.   Why?  Because those in the disaffected Republican base would probably vote for a minor party candidate.  Obama could be like Bill Clinton, who won the presidency with a minority of the vote, because minor candidates may siphon a significant number of votes away from the Republican.

How do I know that minor party candidates would enter the equation for picking the president if McCain picks Ridge or Lieberman?  Because I, myself, have cast votes for minor party candidates when my conscience wouldn’t allow me to pick a Republican in a race in which the Democrat choice was also unsatisfactory.  Been there, done that.  Let me also say that Ridge and Lieberman are liberal on more issues than just abortion.  So, let me just warn McCain not to play with fire, and pick a VP that the base can support.

My preference for the Republican VP would be: Mitt Romney.

I commend Barack Obama (though I don’t plan to vote for him) for contesting all 50 states (I’ll trust that Barack has figured out that he misspoke during the primary season when the number “57” escaped his lips) in the general election campaign for U.S. President this year.

In recent presidential election years, Democrats wanted to whine about how elections were stolen from them, and some Democrats even ranted that they wanted to amend the U.S. Constitution to do away with the Electoral College altogether so that they could elect a president by running up the Democrat vote totals in New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, while ignoring hinterlands (like Ohio).  Democrats were so miffed that the election was decided by, of all things, states . . . STATES!  How irrelevant!  Why should the United States of America base its presidential elections upon the premise of winning STATES???!!!!!!

I’m glad, this year, that the Obama campaign has opted to contest all 50 states (Obama’s success at fundraising opened the door), because the media pundits, especially the Democrat pundits, have had to reference the electoral map of the U.S.A., and not just the national poll numbers.  They’ve come to grips with reality, and the reality is the Constitution, including the Constitution’s stipulations about the workings of the Electoral College.

In 2004, the John Kerry strategy for winning Ohio was to anticipate that Republicans would steal the election in Ohio, therefore an army of lawyers was recruited to catch the Republicans red-handed in the act of stealing votes at Ohio polling places.  Ludicrous (unless you happen to be Bob Fitrakis of Ohio’s Green Party).  I’m glad the Obama camp is taking a more pro-active approach toward winning the elections.

So, if Obama loses in November, can we all agree that, this time, the elections will not have been stolen?

A moment of silence.

Today’s Cleveland Plain Dealer has a sub-prime lender story written by Mark Gillispie detailing just how widespread mortgage fraud is in this country. They don’t mention any Wall Street banks or financial institutions that are exempt from having played a role in the mortgage fraud perpetrated by sub-prime lenders. In fact, in describing the scope of the mortgage fraud industry, the applicable term was “systemic.”

Systemic. That’s downright scary.

Why scary? The Plain Dealer cites the words of Anthony Accetta, a founder of a private investigation firm that specializes in finance, who is also a former federal prosecutor with a history of prosecuting mortgage fraud during the 1970’s, and who worked as a private attorney on behalf of investment banks in the years between his work as a federal prosecutor and his work in private investigations.

“This is a national catastrophe, and the perpetrators [on Wall Street] are not being prosecuted,” Accetta said. “It’s one of the easiest cases to prove because there are plenty of witnesses and plenty of evidence out there.”

So, why the failure to prosecute? Here’s the most chilling part:

Despite the FBI and SEC investigations, Accetta said he doesn’t think the U.S. Justice Department “has the stomach” to prosecute these companies, out of fear it would undermine confidence in those financial institutions and our capital structure.

“So you’re left with prosecuting individuals,” Accetta said. “This was systemic. It had nothing to do with this individual or that individual. There was no individual in any of the investment banks who could have stopped it even if they wanted to.”

Do you see why this is scary?

OUR CONFIDENCE IN THE ENTIRE CAPITAL STRUCTURE OF THE U.S. WOULD BE SHAKEN IF WE KNEW THE WHOLE TRUTH.

The Plain Dealer also put together this clever graphic to show how all the financial players fit together to perpetrate their particular aspect of mortgage fraud.

I noticed a puzzle piece that hadn’t been added in, and that’s the part about how companies write off losses from foreclosures when they file taxes with the IRS. Let me add some detail about my prior blog entry, “Sub-prime lender as tax evader.”

When the seller first bought the house (as a buyer), the seller went to a broker in Middleburg Heights who said it would be easy to get a loan at about 5.25%. The seller became furious when the loan that was offered was an Adjustable Rate Mortgage that in just three years would charge interest of over 13%. The seller demanded a fixed rate mortgage. The broker countered with a mortgage fixed at 7.5%. The seller accepted the mortgage offer, even though it was a far cry from the 5.25% the mortgage broker had cited at the outset. The original mortgage loan amount was $133,000.

The mortgage originator was Wilmington Financial, but almost immediately, Wilmington Financial sold the mortgage to JP Morgan Chase. Though JP Morgan Chase became owner of the loan, loan payments were processed by Lytton Loan Servicing. Lytton Loan Servicing claimed to be just a “middle man,” not the loan owner itself. After the seller experienced a precipitous drop in income and had difficulty making house payments, the seller declared bankruptcy, and JP Morgan Chase was the creditor who was owed the most. JP Morgan Chase also forged ahead with foreclosure proceedings. The seller listed the home for sale, and a buyer came forward to buy it. After negotiations between JP Morgan Chase and the buyer, a sale price was agreed upon at $129,000, which was just a few hundred dollars less than the principle still owed on the mortgage. Being that close, JP Morgan Chase graciously permitted that the mortgage would be shown as “paid-in-full,” and the culmination of foreclosure proceedings was averted. That was in 2006.

Fast forward to 2008. The seller is told by the IRS that thousands of dollars in taxes are owed dating back to 2006. The seller discovers that a 1099 form was submitted to the IRS imputing nearly $64,000 of income to the seller. This imputed income was represented as the amount charged off in a short-sale real estate transaction. The seller was never sent a copy of this 1099.

$64,000 was written off in the wake of a sale of $129,000, when the original mortgage amount was $133,000? Does that even pass the smell test?

JP Morgan Chase, the mortgage owner prior to the real estate transaction, was not the company that submitted the 1099 form. It was Lytton Loan Servicing. A quick check of the seller’s credit report also shows an EXISTING mortgage as delinquent, with the creditor listed as Lytton Loan Servicing, who was always represented as nothing more than a “middle man” that processed the payments on behalf of JP Morgan Chase.

The Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007 is now in effect to help sellers escape from getting smacked with 1099 income from charged-off amounts incurred in a short-sale of their home. Nevertheless, I still think cheating the IRS by vastly inflating write-offs, and playing shell games among companies (and, prior to the Act, a quick submission to the IRS of the 1099 with a failure to submit a 1099 to the seller in order to delay the onset of whistle-blowing), is an overlooked aspect of the sub-prime mortgage fraud crisis.

In addition to the FBI and the SEC, the IRS might want to do some investigating of its own.

Someone I know very well sold a house as it was being foreclosed upon. The sale price of the house nearly equaled what was owed on the mortgage. The predatory mortgage lender who’d been charging sub-prime rates agreed to accept the sale price as payment-in-full for the mortgage. That was 2006.

Now it’s 2008. The seller of the home gets a notice from the IRS asking for several thousand dollars more in taxes for calendar year 2006. The seller only had W-2 income that year, so had filed form 1040-EZ. The IRS says that the seller’s income didn’t match the records on file. What the IRS had on file is a form W-2 . . . AND . . . a form 1099.

The seller never received any 1099. No 1099 ever arrived in the mail. The seller never had any knowledge of the 1099.

The 1099 was sent to the IRS from the mortgage lender. The mortgage lender is telling the IRS that they charged off HALF THE BALANCE OF THE MORTGAGE!!!!!

When creditors charge off bad debts, they are permitted to write it off on their taxes and report the amount written off as income imputed to the debtor. But, in this case, when the sale on the house closed, the mortgage lender acknowledged that the debt was paid in full, and the lender was not taking a loss.

Had the seller received a 1099 in January of 2007, the seller would have taken immediate action to dispute the information appearing on the 1099, and probably could have resolved the issue without needing to consult a lawyer or accountant. The seller is undertaking the dispute now, but is much more inconvenienced as the seller has to dig through papers to gather relevant documentation, and will most likely need to consult with both a lawyer and an accountant, costing perhaps hundreds, but it’s cheaper than paying the thousands that the IRS wants.

What would you think if half the amount of your mortgage were added to your income? Think about the tax bracket it would put you in, and then ask yourself, would you be able to cough up the taxes owed? In the seller’s case, even with the tax bill broken down into monthly installments that the IRS will permit, the 2006 tax payments would become the largest single expenditure in the seller’s monthly budget.

The IRS has notified state and local tax agencies of the income discrepancy, so guess who else will come calling with their hands out?

After looking through the seller’s documentation, I have to wonder, how widespread is this practice of creditors claiming losses that don’t exist simply to reduce their own tax burden?

And while these greedy sub-prime lenders have contributed to bursting the bubble of housing markets which is leaving the nation’s economy teetering on the edge of collapse, this particular sub-prime lender is also back-stabbing the nation by evading payment of their full share of taxes by fraudulently imputing the income to someone else. And even if the debtors pay the tax that’s been deceitfully shifted on to them, the IRS is still getting less, because the lender is probably in a much higher tax bracket than the debtors.

That whole industry sector of predatory lenders are now quaking in fear that legislation being contemplated now will alter their business practices so much that it may not be lucrative enough to keep the doors to their businesses open. My response is: You had your day in the sun. Count your blessings that you were able to get away with what you got away with. Now that it’s raining on your parade, I’m not shedding any tears.

Rev. Wright might say: Your chickens are coming home to roost.

****The sequel with more details****

DJW, the Buckeye RINO, offers analysis of which persons can help McCain gain electoral traction as VP candidates, and which ones won’t.

It has to be someone within the party. Lieberman won’t do.

McCain has already indicated that it won’t be a pro-choice candidate. And that’s wise.

Forget choosing Ohioans. I’ve heard Rob Portman and John Kasich mentioned as those possibly on the list. Neither will help him get elected. For both men, they are obscure on a national level. Portman could be too easily linked to Bush, and Obama has already replaced McCain’s first name, John, with a new first name, Bush. You’ll be hearing a lot about Obama’s opponent, Bush McCain, heading into the November elections. Few who served in the Bush Administration will be able to show enough distance from Bush to avoid making the marriage of the Bush name to the McCain name worse. Furthermore, it is doubtful that even naming an Ohioan will make any difference in carrying Ohio. Ohio voters are distrustful of current and past Republican leadership. They are eager for a Republican who is an ethics crusader. John McCain would do well to highlight his ethics crusade every time he makes a campaign stop here. Perhaps the only Republican Ohioan that can help pull off an election is Mary Taylor, as many see her as eager to do the right thing. But it wouldn’t be possible to make a case that Mary Taylor is ready to be a heartbeat away from being U.S. President. No Ohioans.

The only two former members of the Bush Administration that have any popularity at all that can distance themselves far enough from Bush are Christie Todd Whitman and Colin Powell. Whitman would be a choice consistent with McCain’s platform on the environment. Colin Powell is very popular. A current cabinet member that’s very popular, though she can’t distance herself from Bush, is Condoleeza Rice. From a popularity standpoint, Powell and Rice could help win as VP candidates, but if McCain is serious about a VP who isn’t pro-choice, that erases Whitman, Powell, and Rice. Rice appears at first glance to be the most conservative among the three on the abortion issue, but only Whitman has had a thorough vetting on the issue, so that comparison might not be valid. Nobody who served with Bush.

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, for obvious reasons, cannot distance himself from Bush.

Senators and Representatives won’t work unless they have prior successful executive branch experience they can point to. There’ve already been criticisms that Americans have a poor choice for President with just legislators in the mix. The only exception I can think of that could have helped McCain is former U.S. Senator from Tennessee Fred Thompson. Thompson is an excellent communicator, Tennessee will be in play in the election, Thompson is not just popular, nationally, but is definitely popular in the South, where McCain needs to make sure his base is at fever pitch on his behalf in the fall, and Thompson also has a strong appeal to conservatives. Fred Thompson does not want the job and will not accept the job.

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty does not have national appeal, lives in a state likely to be in the Democrat camp, anyway, and is not really viewed as conservative enough to energize the base for McCain.

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford represents a state considered far from the mainstream, and he, himself, while acceptable to conservatives, is also perceived to be too far from mainstream America. It would have helped his chances if South Carolina had irrevocably disassociated itself from the Confederate flag many years ago, yet the flag is still flying.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist endorsed McCain before McCain won Florida. Though Crist is popular in Florida, and though he is viewed as conservative, he does not embody a McCain who has unified with the disaffected voters within the GOP. It would be helpful for McCain to choose someone who used to be on the other side of the rift. Plus, I’m going to make a bold prediction here, Florida will be in the GOP camp this November, even if the Democrats seat the full state delegation at their convention.  Crist will deliver Florida while remaining Governor, so he’s not needed as a VP.

Former HUD Secretary and Congressman Jack Kemp would be criticized for his age just as much as McCain, since he is older than McCain.

It needs to be someone prominent, someone conservative, someone from the other side of the rift, someone who can appeal to the mainstream, and someone who can energize Republican voters.

Prominent on the other side of the rift would include some former Presidential contenders from this year and prior years:

Alan Keyes–too far from the mainstream.

Steve Forbes–never energized voters

Ron Paul–without executive branch experience and not mainstream

Elizabeth Dole–might also be criticized about age, and is older than McCain

Lamar Alexander, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee–these are the three that can really help McCain.

Lamar Alexander is a former governor, is younger than McCain, has associated himself with populism via the plaid shirt (thus mainstream), will solidify the South for McCain, and will appeal to conservatives, so I think voters would be energized.  Downsides aren’t readily apparent, unless he’s portrayed as a Washington insider by virtue of his service in the U.S. Senate.

Mitt Romney, who I voted for in the primary, is a former governor, is younger than McCain, couldn’t have won Massachusetts without mainstream appeal, puts some Northern blue states in play, is definitely from the opposite side of the rift from McCain (so adding him to the ticket would signify that McCain is unifying the party), is perceived to know what he’s talking about on economic issues, energizes the base (dominated caucus states, probably would have been nominated if delegates were proportionally allocated, and is the only, repeat, the only, GOP candidate this year who had at least double digit support in EVERY primary contest before dropping out, and is the 2nd place finisher in the delegate count), is a Washington outsider, and adding him to the ticket would be consistent with McCain’s position of making change and cleaning house in Washington.  Romney would help solidify the ticket in the Intermountain West.  There are two downsides.  One is that there is apparently religious prejudice against Romney in the South, yet Romney was competitive (double-digit support) in every primary contest he participated in.  The other is that, in light of the fact that McCain has recently been making campaign appearances in African-American communities, perhaps thinking he may be able to attract disaffected black voters if Clinton steals the nomination, Romney, sadly, hasn’t made prominent efforts to reach out to African-Americans.  If Obama is the nominee, Romney could marginally help attract Latinos, though  McCain, himself, has more appeal to Latinos than Romney.  Romney should probably not be VP if Hillary Clinton is the nominee.

Mike Huckabee is a former governor, is younger than McCain, is a Washington outsider, energizes his own base (which is big in the South), is a great communicator to the point that he has some mainstream appeal which he adds to with his humor, was an opponent of McCain all the way up until the nomination was clinched (so adding him to the ticket would signify McCain’s ability to unify the party).  The downsides are that many in the North and West do not think of Huckabee as really being conservative (me, included), and some are turned off by how bold he is in putting his born-again Christianity on display.  He has reached out to African-Americans and can do so again if Hillary is nominated, and he can deliver the South, including Arkansas, if Hillary Clinton is the winner, and he can put a dent in her appeal to less affluent and less educated whites.  Huckabee doesn’t really put any blue states in play, though he does prevent red states being taken away, thus a close and polarizing election would be the result.  Huckabee wouldn’t be a strong choice if Barack Obama is the Democrat nominee, but would be a great choice if Hillary Clinton is the Democrat nominee.

No matter who the Democrat nominee is and no matter who the VP is, I think there will be a distinct gender gap in November’s Presidential election.

So there you have it:  Pick Mitt Romney if Obama is the nominee.  Pick Mike Huckabee if Hillary Clinton is the nominee.  Pick Lamar Alexander if choosing the VP before the Democrats have a nominee.

I hope John McCain considers this advice.

Dodging Bosnian sniper fire, Hillary Clinton managed to nearly split the vote with Obama in the Guam caucuses.  Oh, wait.  Hillary’s not in Bosnia right now.

Besides embellishing her past, she also pays attention to which way the wind is blowing when announcing her views on issues.  Of course, opinion polls vary over time.  Conveniently, Hillary’s opinions vary accordingly.  Opinions aren’t the same from one state to another.  Interestingly, Hillary’s opinion adapts for that, too, like suddenly becoming skeptical of NAFTA once the campaigns arrived in Ohio.  Hillary Clinton will say things people want to hear in a certain locale, knowing full well that she can’t deliver on it, because there’s no nationwide consensus, but when she doesn’t deliver, no matter.  Somebody else stood in the way, so it wasn’t her fault.

A gimmick like that caught my eye in the Associated Press report out of Guam.  You have to look at the very tail end of the article to see what I’m referencing.  The very last sentence reads:

“Hillary Clinton also has called for Guamanians to be able to vote in presidential elections.”

Say what?  Say that again!

How disingenuous.

The Constitution doesn’t allow Guam to select electors in a U.S. Presidential election unless Guam becomes a state.

Guam is not going to become a state.  Trust me on this one.

The only other way to allow Guam representation in the Electoral College is to amend the Constitution.

Fat chance.

Hillary probably doesn’t care one way or the other about whether Guam gets to choose Presidential electors.  She’s just saying it to say it, and she knows that any push she makes for it will go nowhere, but she can always shrug it off when it comes to naught.

Call it pandering. Call it a gimmick.  Whatever it is, it’s fake.

It turns out that caucus results in Guam are a microcosm of the national Democrat nomination race.  Just as the nationwide race is nearly split, Guam’s four pledged delegates are being split down the middle, two for Obama and two for Clinton (actually, 8 pledged delegates will go to the convention, four for Obama and four for Clinton, but they each get half of a vote).   On the national level, just as the superdelegates will play a huge role in deciding a nomination that the pledged delegates, alone, can’t decide, so it is with Guam, which has 5 superdelegates.  Notice that the superdelegates of Guam are able to overturn an election even if one candidate monopolized Guam’s pledged delegate count.  Sounds so very, very, very Democratic to me.  Not.