office politics

you're a manager.

you supervise a group of subordinates.

when you were hired, the human resources department, eager to hire you, reduced your benefits package in order to qualify you for the position and bring you aboard. this move was fully explained in the company newsletter.

a subordinate insists that he can no longer do his job because, due to the aforementioned technicality in the firm's hiring policies, you shouldn't be a manager.

the h.r. dept. is happy with its decision. you are happy to work there. your subordinate is not.

who wins? who walks?

lawsuit challenges clinton eligibility a state department employee has filed a lawsuit today in federal court against newly sworn-in secretary of state hillary clinton claiming she is constitutionally ineligible to serve. judicial watch, a public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it is pursuing the complaint in u.s. district court in washington, d.c, on behalf of u.s. foreign service officer and state department employee david c. rodearmel. rodearmel, a resident of virginia, maintains clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as secretary of state and that he cannot serve under her because doing so would go against the oath he took as a foreign service officer in 1991 to "support and defend" and "bear true faith and allegiance" to the constitution of the united states. ... the constitutional quandary arises from a clause that forbids members of the senate from being appointed to civil office, such as the secretary of state, if the "emoluments," or salary and benefits, of the office were increased during the senator's term. ... according to the lawsuit, the "emoluments" of the office of secretary of state increased as many as three times since clinton began her second, six-year senate term in january 2007. on jan. 1, 2007, the secretary of state's salary increased to $186,600. in 2008, it increased to $191,300, and on jan. 1, 2009, it increased again to $196,700. ... the lawsuit acknowledges that congress tried to shirk the constitutional exclusion with a "saxbe fix," reducing the clinton's salary to the level in effect before jan. 1, [2007] but it states that the legislation "does not and cannot change the historical fact that the 'compensation and other emoluments' of the office of the u.s. secretary of state increased during defendant clinton's tenure in the u.s. senate. ..."

ianal, but i say you win and the subordinate walks (or just learns to suck it up). the subordinate is not in a position to contest the h.r. dept.'s efforts to comply with its own policies. that is between the h.r. dept. and you. nor can the subordinate demonstrate material harm from your hiring in itself. perhaps if the subordinate was in fact a rival for your position ...

neutered by norah

much to the vicarious distress of perennially sexually-insecure freepers everywhere, msnbc news host norah o'donnell, while covering the senate vote of newly-confirmed secretary of state hillary clinton, went where few village slights have gone before — that is, across the aisle:

norah o'donnell: i want to play what senator cornyn said today about these concerns about hillary clinton, and her husband still able to take money into his foundation. let's listen:

john cornyn: i was encouraged by my conversation with senator clinton yesterday in the rotunda following the inaugural ceremonies. she said that she would be open to a requirement that is an across-the-board disclosure requirement, that isn't just her and the clinton foundation.

so they want more information; they want instant disclosure, essentially, not the disclosure at the end of the year. if this is a serious issue — which seems like a serious issue, why then two seconds later says "but i'm still going to vote for her"?

i mean, have they kind of lost their cojones, the republicans?

tucker carlson: [chuckling] oh ... ? kind of ... !

ooooooh ... that's gonna leave a mark.

if she was looking at tucker carlson at the time, I can understand why that thought came to mind.

proof that the media are slow learners.

once upon a time they did. newt and the contract with america gang had them. still a few with cajones but the rest like mccain and his gang are eunuchs.

the republican brand has been deteriorating ever since the senate republicans folded at the impeachment trial of wj clinton.

what's with the leftist female cajones fascination?

to leftist females its meant as a compliment, meaning a guy finally 'gets it'.

of course they immediately go on to ridicule the newly emasculated males lack of cajones.

technically she is wrong. they never had them to lose.

it's been quite evident for some time. where has this twit been?

the answer is yes, thou norah does have a great rack.

"lost" makes it sound like an accident....

offered them up for removal more like.

sigh ... not a good day to be a republican. and may there be many more like it.

she can't lose

they say that victory has many fathers, but defeat may have even more coroners.

while i've nothing to add to the avalanche of diagnoses on the clinton collapse, i'll make this note on her persistence, which i believe is fueled by the increasingly obvious realization that the republicans have no chance in november. despite whatever public protestations she makes regarding obama's electibility, she knows as well as we all do that whoever gets the democratic nomination is the de facto next president.

in effect, the democratic primary is the general election. november will be simply a formality. hence the primary season's length, national scope and fever pitch.

especially frustrating for clinton must be watching the crown slip out of her fingers like so much sand, after having spent most of the decade diligently lining up all her knights and rooks and pawns — for an endgame that suddenly demanded a whole new strategy.

given the enormous investment of work and energy and money and calculation and blood and sweat and tears and — let's be honest — mountains and mountains of bubbling bullshit that must go into a run for the office, i cannot imagine the depth of such crushing disappointment. i can only imagine that it is a beast few have the fortitude to face willingly. but face it she must — if we ever expect to hear her concede.

bitter

passionate oaths nonwithstanding, i wouldn't advise mcsame™ to hold his breath for a massive clinton spoiler contingent come november:

walking up to the marriott, i kept waiting to encounter the huge protest. after all, the protest organizers were predicting a crowd of 10,000 (including the mccain and huckabee crew), but it's much, much, much smaller than [that] — couple hundred, maybe. (and, maybe the other 9,700 protesters have arrived since i came inside the hotel.) — joe sudbay, americablog

and for anyone that thinks this is going to the convention in any meaningful way, look at the pathetically small size of the pro-clinton demonstrations outside the hotel in dc today. tens of thousands had been promised. a few hundred showed up. clinton’s convocatory power for those kinds of shenanigans is already done. all these weeks of threats and tantrums have proved lame. and more evidence of that is coming in the next 72 hours. — al giordano, rural votes

godwin* would be proud

(edited footage from "der untergang" (2004))

* see "godwin's law"

could be worse

so you think the obama-clinton fights at liberal blogs daily kos, booman tribune and mydd are nasty?

associated press: norristown, pa. — montgomery county authorities say a man stabbed his brother-in-law during an argument over who should get the democratic nomination for president. what's more, jose ortiz, 28, who's charged with felony assault, is a registered republican. district attorney risa ferman said ortiz supports hillary clinton and sean shurelds supports barack obama. she told reporters monday that the two got into an argument in a collegeville home thursday night and shurelds tried to choke ortiz. she says ortiz then stabbed shurelds in the abdomen. shurelds was taken to a hospital in critical condition, but is expected to recover.

afaik, no one on those blogs has had to take a trip to the emergency room ... yet.

!!!JUST WATCH!!!

i just had to save this prediction for january 29:

ALL OF THE TALKING HEADS LIKE DICK MORRIS, ARE QUICK TO WRITE RUDY OFF. THEY ARE ALL TRYING TO PUSH JOHN McCAIN NOW BECAUSE HE WON NEW HAMPSHIRE (4 ELECTORAL VOTES) AND HE WILL PROBABLY WIN MICHIGAN (17 ELECTORAL VOTES) AND MAY EVEN WIN SOUTH CAROLINA, OH MY!! WITH (8) ELECTORAL VOTES! AND NOW IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE THEY ARE TRYING TO SQUEW THE POLL TO SAY RUDY IS BEHIND IN FLORIDA! RUDY’S SUPPORT IS WIDE AND IT IS DEEP, NOT SUPERFICIAL LIKE JOHN McCAIN’S! HE WON’T HAVE THE INDEPENDENTS TO HELP HIM IN FLORIDA, AND THERE ARE ENOUGH 911 ERA EX-NEW YORKERS TO PUT IT AWAY FOR RUDY. TO BORROW A LINE FROM A FAMOUS GENERAL: RUDY IS EXACTLY THE RIGHT MAN, IN EXACTLY THE RIGHT MOMENT IN HISTORY, IN EXACTLY THE RIGHT PLACE, AND ALL HE NEEDS IS OUR VOTES! WITH FLORIDA’S (27) ELECTORAL VOTES UNDER HIS BELT, JUST WATCH THE POLLS SHOOT HIM RIGHT BACK UP TO THE TOP! McCAIN, HUCKABEE, ROMNEY, OR ANY OF THE OTHERS CANNOT BEAT HILLARY CLINTON! WHY DO YOU THINK THE PRESS IS PUSHING McCAIN SO HARD! IF HE GETS THE NOMINATION WITH HIS RECORD ON IMMIGRATION, TAXES AND FLIP FLOPPING ALL OVER THE MAP ON IRAQ AND TAXES, HE WILL BE EASY MEAT FOR HILLARY! RUDY IS THE ONLY, I REPEAT, THE ONLY CANDIDATE WHO CAN WIN NEW YORK FOR THE REPUBLICANS, AND IF THAT HAPPENS FOLKS, I’VE GOT NEWS FOR YOU! HILLARY CAN’T WIN! IF SHE LOSES NEW YORK OR CALIFORNIA OR PENNSYLVANIA, MATHIMATICALLY, SHE CAN’T WIN! AND THE TALKING HEADS, WHO ARE LARGELY LIBERAL, KNOW THIS! CAN McCAIN WIN NEW YORK? NOT A CHANCE! CAN HUCKABEE WIN NEW YORK? GET REAL! HECK, THE LAST POLL I SAW STILL HAS JOHN McCAIN 5 POINTS BEHIND RUDY IN HIS HOME SENATE SEAT STATE OF ARIZONA!! THAT SHOULD SPEAK VOLUMES! WE ALL JUST NEED TO “STAY THE COURSE” AS RONALD REGAN USED TO STAY, AND WE WILL WIN IN FLORIDA, AND START “THE DRIVE UP 95″ AND TO THE NOMINATION FOR RUDY! NOW GET OUT THERE AND VOTE, AND FIND 10 MORE PEOPLE TO VOTE TOO! AND ON JANUARY 28TH, WE CAN WATCH THE PUNDITS TRY TO WIPE THE EGG OFF THEIR FACES! YOU CAN VOTE EARLY, TOO!

meanwhile, at this moment in history (in case you hadn't heard already), the "right man in the right place" got a whopping 3% of michiganders to pull for him, just one point above "uncommitted".

for "america's mayor" it's florida or bust ...