Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Open Topic Tuesday

What's on your mind?


  1. How will the Our New Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, effect foreign policy decisions in the next four years?

  2. Whatever happened to the rule that she could not be appointed if there was a raise voted in while she was in the senate? I've kinda been out of the loop for a bit.

  3. I assume you are referring to this post.

    My hunch is to agree with the author of the story (Michael Stokes Paulson) that everyone will sort of ignore that part of the constitution.

    As much as I think it's a technicality, the clear meaning of the text would imply that neither she nor any other member of congress during the time of the pay increase could be appointed.

    In my opinion, a better wording would stipulate that only pay increases voted on by congress would trigger the prohibition. Since President Bush enacted it via executive order, there would be no conflict of interest.

    However, if we don't like the rule, we have processes to change them. We can't simply ignore parts of the constitution we don't like.

    Actually, we can and do (unfortuantely), but it sets a pretty bad precident. If the constitution isn't the absolute final say on the law of the land, then we can just make up whatever we want.

  4. To answer the original question, I think Hillary is the best we could hope for under an Obama administration. She's one of the more hawkish Dems, although that's like saying she's got more hair than Kevin Garnett.

    She'll still want to cater to the western European crowd - and not the Berlusconi or Sarkozy types either.

  5. Am I the only one that feels weird rooting for a Clinton?