Top Slots Open in January Obama Administration – Massachusetts two Candidates – Deval Patrick and John F. Kerry - Open’s Speculation as to Special Elections

Senator John Kerry & Governor Deval Patrick - Potential spots open in Obama Administration Photo: democratic underground.

Immediately following the election several key officials in the Obama administration have decided to call it quits. This is not unusual in the grander scheme of things, as administrations go into a second term, there are usually those who give one term and go back to the private sector or, head to Iowa. In this case there are several openings that suggest certain Massachusetts Politico’s may be ripe for the positions. The number one slot leaving is Hillary Clinton, the Sectary of State - this was first announced through the Weekly Standard, and the suggestion is that MA. Senator John F. Kerry would be a candidate for the slot. It is no secret in Massachusetts that Kerry has wanted the slot since 2008 –and, as a surrogate for the President throughout the reelection process, he may have an in (if they can forgive the performance in Denver, with Kerry as coach). On Clinton herself, the New York Times is now setting the stage for a 2016 run in what can only be called a fluff piece. Clinton would make a fine choice, all the way around, however, one speculates that she may be too tired at that point. In addition she would have to run against a yet again, energized Conservative base, and depending upon the candidate (say a Marco Rubio – who has already set foot in Iowa), it may be a tough road.

Another leaving the administration is Eric Holder, and although Janet Napolitano’s “name” is being floated, it may be the Governor of the State of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, who get’s that job. Patrick who is a long-time associate of the President and was mentored by chief strategist, David Axelrod, would be a find fit for the position.

Others that are leaving, so far, according to the Washington Post, Defense, Secretary Leon Panetta and White House Senor Advisor David Plouffe

The first two mentioned are of great interest for several reassign. John Kerry has wanted the job, and is just as qualified as anyone else in the Obama administration. This would leave a seat open in the Senate for a multitude of individuals in the Bay State that may aptly fill the bill (more on that).

The second is the office of Attorney General, again, the nations “top cop” would be a great fit for the Governor of Massachusetts. He’s weighed in on many a case and has a mind-set similar to the President. This would set up a second special election in MA to fill the Governors seat.

There are several names being floated as replacements in Massachusetts should this occur, the first that comes to mind is former Senator Scott Brown who was narrowly defeated by Elizabeth Warren – Brown, the most bipartisan senator of the past two years (given his short term) would counteract that very partisan Warren, and at least bring some sense of sanity to the process. As to the Governor’s office: Bill Weld has reportedly moved back to the state, and Charles Baker who had run a tight campaign against the Patrick, who won by one point, with the help of Democrat turned conveniently independent, Tim Cahill , would also fit that bill.

Of course, if the above mentioned are seriously considering running for either of these “projected” vacant seats”, then one might also anticipate, especially in Weld and Brown’s case, sudden invitations by the White house to be Ambassadors of Name a Country out of the way. Of course, that job has a short life expectancy these days. It’s always fun to speculate, but the thoughts that Massachusetts would find some of its key politico’s either in an administration or back in the saddle campaigning for a top slot representing the Bay State, does bring out what all political judies relish: another election!

Al Franken – Election to Senate Explained – Voter Fraud in Minnesota

Frankin - Did Fraud Lead to a Clowns' Election to the Senate? Image photoshelter

It was questionable from the beginning – a tight race between Conservative Norm Coleman and former Saturday Night Live Comedian, turned Air America on-air host, Al Franken for the Minnesota Senate led to a win for Franken – the vote recount held that Franken won outright by a margin of plus 312 votes. He was summarily sworn in to the lofty position of United State Senator.

Franken, a Minnesota native, began his career as a stand-up comic straight out of High School. He went on to become a cast member of Saturday Night Live, and eventually moving to failed and bankrupt radio network, Air America. His career in comedy spanned 35 years, prior to his announcement that he intended to seek the U.S. Senate Seat representing the State of Minnesota.

Franken’s’ narrow win in 2009’s vote recount confirmed that almost anyone can get elected to the U.S. Senate, and possibility, it may have been a combination of anti-Republican sentiment and the love of an underdog that is inherent in the United States – perhaps many cast their vote as a joke, for the comedian. Regardless, it was thought that Franken won outright.

However, a recent study by a Minnesota Conservative Group Minnesota Majority, found that 342 of the votes cast, were cast by convicted felons – meaning that Coleman, not Franken should be sitting in Washington. The State’s Election division has been slow to move, convictions of voter fraud – the Star Tribune out of Minneapolis is reporting that 1,381 suspected felons allegedly voted in the 2008 election, of those, the prosecutors in each of the two counties have charged 28 with voter fraud. According to local Public Radio, Ramsey County has brought the convictions, while, the Hennepin County District Attorney has yet to file any charges. Consider that both District Attorneys’ are elected to office in Minnesota, it is by party affiliation. Additionally, the Progressive Movement had targeted Minnesota, supporting candidates with Franken like ideology in 2008, and this political cocktail produced the votes for Franken.

Literally.

Although the Conservative Group understands that there is no legal way to recall Franken, they insist that they are interested in protecting future elections. What this Minnesota experience tells the average voter, is that when a vote is cast for a candidate, the local Democrats (Sic Progressives) are working hard to ensure that, by whatever means possible, an opposition vote won’t count. What this boils down to is a lack of pride, and even less confidence in Democrat candidates by the powers that be, whether they are local, state or federal (See Holder’s refusal to bring a suit against thugs engaged in Voter Intimidation in Philadelphia – he’s too busy suing Arizona) – a win by any means – does not speak well of the candidate and unfortunately paints, with a broad brush, decent candidates that work hard and deserve the hard won seat, regardless of rank or party, with suspicion that a little extra help was needed from ACORN, The Black Panthers or Convicted Felons.

The solution is said to be far from simple. However Voters should be required, by State Laws, to bring at the least, a valid picture I.D. to the polls in order to vote. If one cares to have a voice, one should be more than willing to provide the same and that could be in the form of a States driver’s license, U.S. Passport, Student Identification. Otherwise, the next elected official to your local, state or federal office just might be a real clown.

Democrat Governors Meeting In Boston Fear Election Backlash from Obama’s Suit Against Arizona’s Illegal Immigration Law

The New York Timesreporting on the Governors Association Meeting in Boston reported that Democrat Governors met with Administration officials over the weekend in order to discuss the suit brought against the State of Arizona and its impact on 2010 elections. Apparently, several of the Democrat Governors feel that their chances of re-election, already slim, are not being helped by the Administration’s rift with Arizona. Arizona passed SB 1070 (Short, easy to read Bill here), which enforces existing federal law – something the Federal Government has failed to do for decades. The problem for Democrat governors appears to be the fact that the Arizona Law is extremely popular among voters, with a majority supporting the State of Arizona (Gallop Latest Poll article LA Times). The Governors feel the “timing” was not right, as far as the Administration’s decision to go forward with the suit, suggesting that Obama and Holder should have waited until after the 2010 election. The word used to describe the suit by one anonymous Democrat Governor – “Toxic”.

The topic of Illegal Immigration has been a thorn in the side of Presidents going back decades, with a majority of United States citizens supporting legal immigration, with no support for open border policies that have been in place, or programs allowing for amnesty, which have not worked due to the fact that the border remains extremely porous. After September 11, 2001, the issue of open borders became one of national security, but in recent months it has also become attached to the issue of the economy. With jobs scarce, and states going bankrupt with entitlement programs, the cost of health care going through the roof and increased crime associated with illegal immigrants (specifically those on the Border States such as Arizona where home invasions, murders, et. al, are out of control) have citizens fed up.

As the suits against Arizona pile up, perhaps Holder should look to Rhode Island and consider a similar suit – Rhode Island takes illegal immigration seriously, and has measure in place that are a bit tougher than Arizona’s. However, it may not be politically expedient to do so, as the President and his advisers apparently believe that this suit is a no-brain Hispanic vote-getter. A poll may be in order – United States Citizens of Hispanic descent might view the situation a bit differently than Obama and Company believes.

A side note: In the New York Times Article by Abby Goodnough, the following paragraph should, perhaps, explain the erroneous views of the current administration and the fallacy of Progressive Think as regards the issue of the borders of the United States and the Federal Laws concerning same:

"The Arizona law — which Ms. Brewer signed in April and which, barring an injunction, takes effect July 29 — makes it a crime to be an illegal immigrant there. It also requires police officers to determine the immigration status of people they stop for other offenses if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they might be illegal immigrants."

To correct Ms. Goodnough and the administration, it is a crime to be an illegal immigrant in any of the 50 states that make up the United States of America. Illegal – by definition, implies that a crime has taken place. When one makes a decision to cross the U.S. Border without going through customs, and/or without documentation, one is indeed committing a crime, regardless of which border one crosses – be it Mexico, Canada or any coastal port.

Obama Administration Decision - Terrorist Trials In New York City – Playing Politics with the Hearts and Minds of New York’s Citizens

The decision by the Obama Administration to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, has come under fire from both Republicans and Democrats – giving the impression that politics trumps reason. From New York’s embattled Governor, Democrat David Patterson to Republican’s in the Senate, agree in strong opposition to trying enemy combatants who were not captured nor held on U.S. soil, for a war crime committed against the United States. Pundits are weighing in on the political cost of of the trial all without giving thought to the American citizens who were so egregiously affected by the bombings of the World Trade Center, as well the Pentagon and Flight 93.

The emotional burden on the families and the nation, as a whole, is the biggest reason that these trials should not be held in New York or, anywhere on U.S. soil for that matter. The costs of increased security, at a time when the nation can ill afford any additional expenditure, should be a secondary consideration – it is an insult to those who died and those who were left behind as a result of the greatest attack on U.S. soil in history.

The argument that there will be an increase in terrorists activity in New York and that an effective trial cannot take place, has been debunked by Ben West and Fred Burton of Statfor Global Intelligence. They contend that the City of New York has held trails of this nature in the past, with successful outcomes, most notably, the trial of Omar Abdel Rahman, in 1993, which resulted in a life sentence. They point to the effectiveness of the U.S. Attorneys office of the Southern District of New York against Islamic Radicals who have done harm on U.S. soil. That said, a fact sheet from the U.S. Justice Department, shows the variance in sentencing in recent trails involving foreign and domestic terrorists.

The “What If’s are the proverbial elephant in the room that is driving the emotions of New Yorkers caught in the never ending politicizing of every facet of American Life. Granted, there have been life sentences passed down in the Southern District, however, not without ongoing problems, specifically the trial of the Blind Sheik, Omar Rahma, where he continued to fuel his “jihad” against American once incarcerated in the U.S. using his lawyer as a willing conduit. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume that some fears regarding this particular trail are justified. The fact remains, however, that trying these particular individuals in the City they destroyed, under U.S. Civil Law is a bad idea, perhaps not logistically, nor a gain or loss of political “capital”, but most definitely as a slap I the face to those who live in the City of New York, the first Capitol of the United State of America and the symbol to those who suffer worldwide that a safe harbor does indeed exist.