Where I Stand:

Brian Greenspun will make a big change to get what we need

Fri, Jan 18, 2008 (2 a.m.)

Click here

TGIF.

That means there is just one day to go before Nevada Democrats head to their first-in-the-nation Western caucus to weigh in on who they think should be their party’s nominee for the presidency of the United States. And everyone I know is glad it is just about over.

For who could have predicted that Iowa and New Hampshire would set the Silver State up as a tiebreaker of sorts as the country heads toward the real prize of Super Tuesday on Feb. 5 when Democrats in 22 states make their decision?

Who could have predicted that a lawsuit based on the principle of “one man, one vote” would be tossed by a federal judge who thought it best that he shouldn’t mix into Democratic Party politics?

And who could have predicted that the race could possibly come down to whether reports of Culinary Union intimidation of its own members are true and, if so, whether they are effective?

I have made my position clear from the start of this whole thing many months ago. Sen. Hillary Clinton is my friend. Hillary Clinton is also, in my opinion, the best person to lead this nation into a most troubled and dangerous world the day she takes office in January 2009. And Mrs. Clinton is the real agent of change for working men and women, families, single parents and first generations of Americans who have sought a better life for themselves and their families and now have an opportunity to help make that happen.

So, this is not a column endorsing Sen. Clinton. That would be redundant because the editorial pages of the Las Vegas Sun today have done a far better job of doing so than I could and because I hate the idea of always doing what others expect.

What I want to discuss today is the concept of “change,” about which we have heard so much during this campaign and about which so little is known. On Thursday my sister, Janie, wrote a column about what she has learned during her most politically liberal journey through American politics.

As long as I can remember, Janie has always sought change, often dramatic change, and so often in the past she was disappointed because the agent of that change either couldn’t win an election or didn’t have the ability to secure that change once elected.

She is still as liberal as always, but now she tempers her desires with a dose of practical politics that demands she elect someone who can actually get the job done.

I have been struck in recent days that those in this race who are screaming “change” so loudly -- change from the ways of Washington, change in the way we do business and change for the sake of change -- are among the first to call on Washington to fix the problems that are threatening to take us down.

There is no question in my mind that the right Democratic candidate will win the race for the White House in November. I also know that it will be no cakewalk and that the Republicans know how to fight in the trenches.

It is almost laughable that what the Democrats are calling dirty politics and getting all exercised about is really child’s play compared with what the GOP playbook has in store for the general election. If the party leadership can’t stand names and sticks and stones, the very least it should do is put up a candidate who can, because they are all coming, courtesy of the political party that gave us the Supreme Court victory for President Bush in 2000.

At some point in our grown-up lives we have to come to terms with the fact that things don’t happen just because we wish for them, hope for them or pray for them. All of that helps but, in the end, someone has to roll up her sleeves, get in the trenches and get dirty while getting it all done.

It should not be lost on any of us that the stock market has returned almost to 2000 levels, homebuilders are being eviscerated in the public markets, homeowners are being turned out of their homes without any equity to show for their years of payments, and financial institutions are going hat in hand to foreign lenders to help stave off crushing bankruptcies. All of these are signs that our economy is in the toilet. Clearly, we need a change. But first we need to fix our problems!

So where do we go for that fix? Where else? Washington! And who is clamoring for that fix? The very people who are trying to convince the voters that we need to change everything, including Washington.

You see, it is one thing to cry out for change -- that always sounds good and makes us feel good about ourselves; you know, we are doing something to effect change -- but it is another thing entirely to make change happen.

The very place Sen. Barack Obama folks, for example, want to change is the only place where these problems can be fixed today. And tomorrow.

Sen. Clinton knows how to make Washington work and knows how to deal with Republican lawmakers who, say what you want and what you wish, will still be there in 2009 no matter which party wins the White House. They will need to be reckoned with.

I know the frustration many people are experiencing and can only imagine the financial pain that many others are having to live with. In fact, I have been a Republican since I registered to vote 40 years ago. I am so fed up with Washington and the Republican administration that I intend to change my party affiliation Saturday so I can caucus for Sen. Clinton. For those of you who don’t know me, trust me, this is a really big move.

That is a huge change in my personal voting life. A Democrat in the White House in 2009 would also be a huge change in the lives of many millions of Americans.

But that isn’t sufficient. George W. Bush represented change when he ran and the country fell for his act. How’d that work out? We not only want a change in Washington, we also need someone who is capable of making real change happen once she gets there. Nevadans have an opportunity Saturday to consider their own lives, their own futures and the futures of their children and act as if all of those things hang in the balance. Because they do.

I am going to caucus for the person I believe will be the best president I have ever voted for and I am going to caucus for the person who will represent the greatest single change in the history of the U.S. presidency.

You see, I believe in Chelsea’s mom and apple pie. In that order. And that is also a very big change.

Brian Greenspun is editor of the Las Vegas Sun.

Discussion: 13 comments so far…

By sunset

1/18/08 at 6:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

"Who could have predicted that a lawsuit based on the principle of “one man, one vote” would be tossed by a federal judge who thought it best that he shouldn’t mix into Democratic Party politics?"

Anyone interested in the rule of law being upheld by a federal judge could have predicted the outcome.
By sunset

1/18/08 at 6:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Caucus math is ludicrous regardless of who you are supporting politcally.

Question: If a precinct within a local neighborhood is allocated 10 delegates based upon the number of registered democrats in the area, how many people need to show up to that precint's caucus in order to apportion all 10 delegates.

Answer: 1, therefore 1 man = 10 delegates

Question: If I support Dennis Kucinich at my caucus and he is not "viable" do I still get to officially register my 1st preference to make sure my voice is heard?

Answer: No, final delegates are the only metric that is officially recorded

My point is the notion of 1 man 1 vote is a misnomer as it relates to a caucus. To suggest otherwise is disingenous and only creates more mistrust of the political system in a state where engagement as opposed to apathy is needed.
By slbk

1/18/08 at 7:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

I think that "one person one vote" was what you meant and you should have taken the effort to write it. I am aware that words like "manpower" are actually derived from the French word for hand, but in this case, the term actually applies to the fact that women were not given the vote until 1920. I feel that it is important to say one person one vote, especially when discussing a legal challenge involving enfranchisement or disenfranchisement, access or unconstitutional influence in voting.
By manaboutown

1/18/08 at 10:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Brian, please stop this 'I am a Republican stuff' and 'have been for 40 years'. I have followed you career for years and I would bet that you have voted for more Dems for Pres. You sir are a real phoney and arent fooling anyone.
By GOD

1/18/08 at 10:41 a.m.

(Removed by the site staff)
By GameKing

1/18/08 at 12:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Yea right. Mr. Greenspun has never expressed anything but disdain for republicans. He has consistently endorsed every democratic candidate for decades.

Why don't we call this what it is? This is just an excuse for Mr. Greenspun to be able to vote in two caucuses. Democrats like Mr. Greenspun are up to their same old dirty politics.

If any of you see Mr. Greenspun at the republican caucus tomorrow be sure to call him onto the table on this.
By aw

1/18/08 at 1:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

"LVsun owner was Clinton's room mate at Yale - and donated $500,000 to Clinton Library"

Link for entire article attached:

"The next tier down is labeled "Philanthropists." A major New York labor organization, Local 1199 of the Service Employees International Union, donated at this level, which appears to correspond to gifts of $500,000 to $1 million. Also donating in this range was the editor of the Las Vegas Sun, Brian Greenspun, who was one of Mr. Clinton's roommates at Yale."

http://www.nysun.com/article/5137?page_n...
--------------------------------
Obama and Edwards should push harder for the Clinton records and library donors to be disclosed

A VERY GOOD FRIEND
By Kiki

1/19/08 at 2:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

"We not only want a change in Washington, we also need someone who is capable of making real change happen once she gets there."

And what change has Hillary brought about? In her Senate, nothing significant. That's why she has to rely on her White House years. There she learned to be a statesperson, and that's all she's been in the Senate.

Here's Obama's passed legislation:

Illinois State Senate 1996 - 2004

* Welfare legislation

* Created the Earned Income Tax Credit program gave over $100 million in tax cuts for families over 3 years.

* Expanded early childhood education

* Legislation requiring the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases. He also passed a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped. The law was at first very controversial, but due to Obama's skills as a negotiator and bipartisanships, he won the support of the police. During his 2004 general election campaign for U.S. Senate, he won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, whose president credited Obama for his active engagement with police organizations in enacting death penalty reforms.

* Passed the toughest campaign finance law in Illinois history. The legislation banned the personal use of campaign money by Illinois legislators and banned most gifts from lobbyists. Worked with U.S. Sen. Paul Simon (D-IL),

* Created a working, affordable health care plan in Illinois, that covers 70,000 kids and 84,000 adults, where all kids qualify for $40 per child. Obama sponsored and passed this legislation, working with Rod R. Blagojevich(IL Gov.) See All Kids http://www.allkids.com/ . It is a model for a workable, affordable national health care.
By Kiki

1/19/08 at 2:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Here's Obama's US Senate record:

Legislation Passed in US Senate

* Lugar-Obama Act for reduction of conventional and nuclear weapons world wide

* Coburn-Obama Transparency Act transparency in federal spending, found at www.usaspending.gov

* Cosponsored the Healthy Kids Act of 2007 and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Reauthorization Act of 2007 to ensure that more American children have affordable health care coverage.

* Obama worked to pass a number of laws in Illinois and Washington to improve the health of women. His accomplishments include creating a task force on cervical cancer, providing greater access to breast and cervical cancer screenings, and helping improve prenatal and premature birth services.

* As a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Obama passed legislation to improve care and slash red tape for our wounded warriors recovering at places like Walter Reed. He passed laws to help homeless veterans and offered an innovative solution to prevent at-risk veterans from falling into homelessness. Obama passed legislation to stop a VA review of closed PTSD cases that could have led to a reduction in veterans' benefits. He passed an amendment to ensure that all service members returning from Iraq are properly screened for traumatic brain injuries

* Congo
* Darfur

* Introduced Patriot Employer Act, August 2007, to reward companies for keeping jobs in the US

* As a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee, Obama helped pass legislation in the recent improvements to the Higher Education Act to increase the maximum Pell Grant award to $5,10.

* Obama passed legislation with Senator Jim Talent (R-MO) to give gas stations a tax credit for installing E85 ethanol refueling pumps.

* Obama sponsored an amendment that became law providing $40 million for commercialization of a combined flexible fuel vehicle/hybrid car within five years.

* Congress ethics legislation passed by Obama and Feingold that ending subsidized corporate jet travel, mandating disclosure of lobbyists' bundling of contributions, and enacting strong new restrictions of lobbyist-sponsored trips

* Obama has introduced and helped pass bipartisan legislation to limit the abuse of no-bid federal contracts.
By Kiki

1/19/08 at 2:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Is Hillary electable? Look at the record:

Hillary lethal to Dems

Projection: if Hillary is nominated, other Democrats will loose their seats.

Here is the evidence:

THE HISTORY:

1. In the 90s the Republicans regained the Congress for the first time in decades.

2. Dems lost 9 Governor positions.

3. Al Gore, the sitting VP, lost the following election.

4. Hillary did win the Senate. She claims campaign prowess got her there. In reality, Giuliani dropped out of the Senate race with Hillary, she basically had no opponent. Her re-election opponent was under funded. So, she can't claim her Senate seat as proof of knowing how to win.

What does this predict for the current elections: Two seats in the Congress were just now won by Republicans when campaigns linked the Dem contenders to Hillary.

THE PATTERN:

We can see that people WILL vote against Hillary. The Clintons are lethal to the Dem party.
By Kiki

1/19/08 at 2:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Hillary's military votes:

White House:

Mrs. Clinton had become a champion of the bombing campaign, and many officials — including Madeleine K. Albright and Richard Holbrooke in the administration and Tony Blair, then Britain’s prime minister — turned to her at times to stiffen Mr. Clinton’s resolve to take on Serbia.

“Bill, you’re the president,” was a refrain that several administration officials said she used when Mr. Clinton was torn between his advisers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/us/pol...

The Iraq vote:

Hillary voted for Iraq, as did many others. There was another vote, prior to the Iraq resolution, introduced by Levin. This called for the use of UN inspectors, and insisted that Bush come to Congress before using military war. Hillary voted NAY. She wanted to give Bush the tools to go to war, presumably so that Bush had sufficient power with the UN.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/opinio...

She then voted for the unfettered Iraq Resolution. This is a quote from at NYTimes Magazine article:

At the time she cast that vote, she was among the Senate’s most outspoken Democrats warning of Saddam Hussein’s dangerous arsenal. Unlike nearly all of her fellow Democrats, she even went so far as to argue that Saddam Hussein gave assistance to Al Qaeda members.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/magazi...

Durbin verifies that the Iraq Resolution was a vote for going to war:

Later in the day, another Obama ally, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), spoke with reporters in defense of Obama's antiwar record while challenging Clinton's assertion on "Meet the Press" that the 2002 authorization vote, which Clinton supported, was intended as a means for sending inspectors back into Iraq and was not tantamount to giving President Bush a free hand to invade the country.

"Those of us voting on it that October night took it very seriously," Durbin said. The invasion of Iraq as a consequence of the vote "was a very realistic option," he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Hillary has acknowledged that she did not read the NIE intelligence report, which pointed out the weaker evidence than they were told. Those who did read the report tended to vote NO on the Iraq resolution. Now, Hillary is trying to blame Condaleeza Rice.

Iran:

Hillary beat the war drums harder than Bush in 2006 to take on Iran.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Hillary was the only presidential candidate to vote for the Iran resolution.

Hillary voted against an Iraq funding bill that tied funds to political progress in Iraq. It passed, 80-14. She was the only Democrat to vote against it.
By KidFromVegas

1/19/08 at 9:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Hillary was for this war, she represents the party elite just like Greenspun, it is time for a change...Change we can believe in...Obama!
By llanquihue

1/19/08 at 10:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

"the best person to lead this nation in a most troubled and dangerous world? I submit that statement is ludicrous. Her husband sat on his hands for 8 years as our nation was attacked here and overseas. His inaction and weak law enforcement response were significant lead-ins to 9/11. Hillary and the Democrats are more of the same,,,,WEAK. She is the WEAKEST person to lead this nation. Mr. Greenspan, you go the "dangerous world" part right. Unfortunately, ivory tower and limousine liberals like yourself know little about the dysfunctional cultures in the world and in your heart you have disdain for the traditions of our nation. I guarantee one thing, If Hillary or Obama become President, there will be such a firestorm against their (your) socialist policies that the legislature will be more bottled up than Reid/Pelosi find it today. Game on!