Trouble Brewing For Democrats
By COKIE ROBERTS And STEVEN V. ROBERTS Newspaper Enterprise Association Democrats could face two troubling issues at their convention next summer. By what standard should superdelegates cast their ballots And should Florida and Michigan — now benched for violating party rules — have a vote after all Party leaders never Roberts confronted these questions because they assumed the nominations would be settled long before they meet in Denver on Aug. 25. (That includes Hillary Clinton, who was practically broke after Super Tuesday.) And the primaries could still produce a decisive outcome. Barack Obama’s sweep in the “Potomac primary” gives him a sizable lead, and if Clinton loses Ohio and Texas on March 4 she can’t catch him. But it’s possible that the primaries will end in June without a clear victor, and at that point, the delegate count would become critical. There are 796 superdelegates out of 4,049 (not counting Florida and Michigan), or about 20 percent of the total. Most are party leaders, elected officials, big donors — Clinton and Obama, as sitting senators, are both superdelegates — and they are free to support any candidate, no matter how the popular vote in their state turns out. The Associated Press estimates that 399 of the 796 have chosen a candidate, with Clinton winning 243 and Obama 156. Both sides are pressing hard for the remaining 397, and as Richard Ray of Georgia told the AP: “I told my wife I’m going to be pretty popular for a couple of months.” Obama expects to win more states and more votes than Clinton, so he is insisting that the superdelegates should follow the returns. His argument obviously reflects his self-interest, but it has a lot of validity. “My strong belief,” Obama said recently, “is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates, and the most voters in the country, then it would be problematic for political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters.” The spectacle of party operatives rejecting a popular choice could rip the Democrats apart and diminish their chances in November. The pain grows if mainly white superdelegates pass over a black candidate. Clinton has a distinct advantage with the superdelegates, because she’s been around a long time and knows many of them personally. So her argument also reflects political calculation. Instead of simply mirroring the vote totals, she says, superdelegates are “supposed to exercise independent judgment.” Indeed, Obama enjoys the backing of superdelegates Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, whose home state of Massachusetts strongly endorsed Clinton. So if Obama’s argument prevails, she added caustically, “I look forward to receiving the support of Sen. Kerry and Sen. Kennedy.” This dispute reflects one of the oldest arguments in political theory: Should elected representatives merely follow “the judgment of the voters,” or should they “exercise independent judgment” based on their own values and experience The classic statement on this matter remains the one made in 1774 by the British philosopher Edmund Burke, in his famous speech to the electors of Bristol. The views of the voters, he said, “ought to have great weight” with any elected official, “and above all, ever, and in all cases (he should) prefer their interest to his own.” However, Burke added, any official must also listen to his “enlightened conscience.” Therefore, “your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” The second question concerns Florida and Michigan, which were penalized for holding their primaries earlier than party rules dictated. These two large states account for 366 delegates, 9 percent of the current total, and since Clinton won both primaries, she is vociferously arguing for those delegates to count.
OPINION
ROGER L. WILLIAMS Publisher • JACK WILLIAMS III Editor
WAYCROSS JOURNAL-HERALD
400 Isabella St. Waycross, Ga. 31501
Founded 1875
GARY GRIFFIN Managing Editor • DONNIE L. CARTER Business Manager
Thought for Today
P-5 Waycross Journal-Herald, Saturday, February 16, 2008
“For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” Matthew 18:20
JACK WILLIAMS, JR., Publisher (1957-1992) JACK WILLIAMS, Editor & Publisher (1914-1957)
Water Plan Disappointing
Athens Banner-Herald Until recently in this year’s session of the Georgia General Assembly, proposals for dealing with the state’s water-supply issues, brought into sharp relief in the drought that continues to grip the state, have ranged from the disappointing to the dubious. Label as “disappointing” the legislature’s first step toward a water management plan. As currently envisioned, that planning effort will be based largely on political boundaries rather than river basin boundaries. That arrangement creates the possibility that jurisdictions bound together for planning purposes might have divergent interests in terms of how a given water resource might be used, creating the potential for lessthan-wise planning in some parts of the state. Label as “dubious” the ongoing effort by state Rep. David Shafer, R-Duluth — which is proving popular with his legislative colleagues — to have the state’s northern boundary redrawn to include a part of the Tennessee River. Although, in fairness to Shafer, there appears to be a compelling legal argument that the border should be moved a mile or so northward, until the legal issues are sorted out — and who knows how long that might take? — the considerable resources of the Tennessee River can’t be considered a viable option for boosting Georgia’s water supply. Amid these efforts there is, however, an eminently reasonable proposal being advanced by state Sen. Chip Pearson, R-Dawsonville. Briefly, Pearson is proposing that state dollars be used to cover some of the cost of renovating the large number of dams built across northern Georgia beginning in the 1950s, and to expand the lakes behind them. According to an Associated Press report on the proposal, the “reservoirs started popping up after a 1954 federal law allowed the state Natural Resources Conservation Service to build them ... to prevent the flooding of agricultural land.” There are a handful of potential problems with Pearson’s proposal, not the least of which is the cost — which could run into the tens of millions of dollars, according to an assistant state conservationist quoted in the AP report. Even with Pearson’s proposal that the state pick up 20 percent of the cost of dam renovation and reservoir expansion, that kind of price tag could prove prohibitive for local governments, even if they band together to create a regional reservoir. Another problem is the possibility that expanding a local reservoir might tempt local officials to boost local industrial, commercial and residential development, setting their jurisdictions up for problems similar to those now occurring in the state — i.e., politically unpopular water-use restrictions as demand outstrips supply — during a future drought. Finally, it’s not hard to envision a local jurisdiction that does renovate and expand an existing dam and reservoir looking to recoup its costs by selling water to other jurisdictions. That might not be a problem for the short term, but could present a problem in a future drought if a significant portion of the local water supply is contractually required to be sent elsewhere. Still, Pearson’s proposal — which is reportedly sailing through the legislature — is worth a serious look, something that can’t necessarily be said for other water-supply initiatives under consideration by the Georgia General Assembly.
Our Readers Say
5th District Not Needed
EDITOR, Journal-Herald: I read with interest the two letters to the editor published recently (on the same day) in your newspaper. One lamented the decline of Waycross from its past glory and the other called for a fifth county commissioner to represent a new district in the northern part of the county. While there were good points in both letters, I fail to see how the formation of a fifth district is going to help Waycross and Ware County move forward. I hear frequently the complaint that there are no jobs for our college-educated children to return to. Consequently, the population of the area as a whole remains stagnant, though the city population has shrunk and that in the county proportionally has gotten larger, thus making necessary the redistricting that is causing all the controversy. It seems clear to me after attending the recent Town Hall meeting with State Rep. Mark Hatfield, that at least a portion of the residents of District 2 fear that the enlargement of their district might result in a county resident other than a city resident being elected commissioner. Personally, I don’t see that as tragedy, but I could sense the concern of some in attendance. It is my opinion that as long as we maintain a “them” and “us,” a city vs. county mentality, we will fail to grow. Consequently, our children will continue to move to Atlanta, Savannah, or Jacksonville after they complete college, because of the paucity of the local job market. Can’t we all just work together for our mutual benefit? Dr. Craig M. Kubik, D.O. Waycross cases from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the federal district courts. (In laymen’s terms, those courts could not hear cases about abortion.) Thus, Roe vs. Wade would be effectively nullified and the abortion issue would go back to the state level. And all of this would be accomplished in a simple way that is totally in agreement with the Constitution. Article III, which outlines the functions of the Judicial branch of government, states in section 2 that the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction (the right of the Court to hear cases) can be limited by Congress in all cases except in those involving a state, ambassadors, or other public officials. Thus, Congress has the power to undo Roe vs. Wade just by, in effect, telling the Supreme Court, “You can no longer hear cases about abortion.” All of us who believe in the sanctity of life should voice our support for this bill to our congressmen through a phone call or a letter. If you don’t know who your congressman is, just go to www.house.gov and type in your zip code. For more information about the power of Congress to preserve the lives of unborn children, go to www.thenewamerican.com. Lloyd Hamann Acworth, Ga. EDITOR, Journal-Herald: The future of Reading Is Fundamental's (RIF) book distribution program serving 1,500 children in southeast Georgia depends on Congress reinstating funding for the nonprofit organization. President Bush's proposed budget for fiscal year 2009 eliminates approximately $25 million in federal funding for the RIF's book distribution program. The RIF program was founded in 1966 and provides lowcost books to the community to promote reading. It has been funded by Congress and six administrations without interruption since 1975. The impact of President's Bush’s budget would be devastating to the 4.6 million children and their families who receive free books and reading encouragement from RIF programs at nearly 20,000 locations throughout the U.S. Here in Southeast Georgia, Concerted Services Inc. distributes more that 4,500 free books a year to lowincome, Head Start and pre-school children. When children have access to books and are motivated to read for fun, they perform better in school. It would be tragic if our RIF program could not continue in our community. Parents and friends are urged to visit the Reading Is Fundamental online information center at www.RIF.org to get more information. CSI Head Start has been operating the RIF program for 16 years. This program puts books in the hands of children who have little or no reading material in the home. These books, plus the great read aloud and motivational activities, help our children succeed in school. It would be a shame to lose this great program. I urge everyone to become involved. Letta Cox Resource Specialist Waycross
Pakistan’s Uncertain Fate
By MORTON KONDRACKE Newspaper Enterprise Association The second-most important election of the year for Americans is scheduled to occur next Monday in Pakistan, determining whether that nuclear-armed and terrorist-infested nation moves toward democracy or chaos. Two recent polls indicate that support for President Pervez Musharraf has fallen so low that if his party is declared the winner in the parliamentary elections, it could only be the result of fraud — potentially triggering massive demonstrations and a new national crisis. President Bush told me in an interview late last month: “I have no evidence that (Musharraf) is going to rig elections. Quite the contrary, he has told me that he wants free elections.” However, news reports and complaints from opposition parties indicate extensive government action to skew the vote toward Musharraf’s PML-Q party — to the point where a top State Department official admitted to a Senate subcommittee that he expected the vote to be “not free and fair, but good.” What “good” means to the administration is anything but clear. Administration officials repeatedly describe Musharraf as a “strong ally in the war on terror” and indicate they’d like to see him stay in power — or, if he has to leave, phase out gradually. Events are not going according to plan. The administration tried to broker a power-sharing deal between Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto, leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party, but failed to ensure that she was kept safe during campaigning despite repeated pleas from her supporters. After an attempted assassination bombing killed 140 people in October, supporters like Boston University professor Husain Haqqani pleaded with the Bush administration to secure police escorts, electronic jamming devices and private international security contractors to protect her. Musharraf refused them, and Haqqani says U.S. officials told him that she was getting adequate protection. When she was assassinated in another bombing on Dec. 27, she was surrounded by only PPP security volunteers. As with the October bombing, the crime scene was washed clean before investigators could gather forensic evidence, and Musharraf has rejected pleas for an international probe of her murder. As a result, according to a poll by the independent group Terror Free Tomorrow (TFT), 58 percent of Pakistanis believe that Musharraf’s government was responsible for her assassination. In an even larger poll by the International Republican Institute (IRI), 62 percent thought that, and only 13 percent blamed Al Qaeda. In the TFT poll, with a sample of 1,157, 70 percent of the respondents said they wanted Musharraf to resign immediately. The IRI poll, with 3,485 respondents, showed that 75 percent want Musharraf out, and that his job approval has plunged to 15 percent. Most significantly, TFT found that 62 percent of voters said they would support Bhutto’s liberal PPP or the other main democratic opposition party, the PML-N, headed by conservative former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, and only 12 percent Musharraf’s PML-Q. In the IRI poll, PPP garnered support of 50 percent of voters and the PML-N 22 percent. PML-Q got only 14 percent. IRI’s president, Lorne Craner, told me that the results were so lopsided that “the amount of theft required to steal this election would have to be dramatic ... and obvious.”
Reading Effort Imperiled
Spearman Draws Praise
EDITOR, Journal-Herald: For his outstanding contributions to the legal profession, my sincere congratulations to Huey Spearman, attorney-at-law, on his recent selection as a recipient of a 2008 Commitment to Equality Award by the Women and Minorities in the Profession Committee of the State Bar of Georgia. C. Deen Strickland member, Board of Governors State Bar of Georgia Waycross
HR-2597 Limits Abortion
EDITOR, Journal-Herald; Jan. 22 marks 35 years since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the Roe. Vs. Wade decision. Since then, over forty million unborn children have had their lives snuffed out by the hands of abortion doctors. And though many mourn the effects of Roe vs. Wade on America, few understand how marvelously simple it would be to get this decision reversed. Currently, there is a bill in Congress, HR-2597, which would declare that “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” The bill also recognizes the authority of each state to protect the lives of unborn children. Furthermore, the bill would remove all abortion