In these incredibly partisan times, it's important to realize that we're still playing a political game, and we shouldn't risk or threaten the lives of public officials.
Take this quote from a Democratic union representative in New Jersey:
"Dear Lord … this year you have taken away my favorite actor, Patrick Swayze, my favorite actress, Farrah Fawcett, my favorite singer, Michael Jackson, and my favorite salesman, Billy Mays. … I just wanted to let you know that Chris Christie is my favorite governor."
While the union representative apologized and said it was only a joke, it's very unhelpful to speak with such nonchalance about the Republican Chief Executive of New Jersey. Unfortunately, there's even a Facebook group based on the comment.
Furthermore, this is not helping.
Follow the link, and you'll realize that there's another Facebook group that issues the same prayer, but with President Obama as the punchline. Regardless of whether it's a joke or not, it's certainly not a good idea to speak with such nonchalance about the Chief Executive of the United States.
Bottom line: Despite these trying times in a political world filled with rancor, we can do better than this. We should do better than this.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
A Controversial Immigration Bill
A heated political discussion this week has revolved around a piece of legislation recently signed into law by Arizona governor Jan Brewer.
In essence, Arizona's law orders immigrants to carry their registration documents at all times, and allows police to ask to view said papers.
Thus far, folks on the left side of the spectrum have called this law unfair, unjust, racist, and even Nazi-like. Now, the old American political adage states that the first person to compare their opposition to Nazis is losing the fight. Well, it’s been just a few days since the law was passed, and with the Nazi shout-outs ringing through the land, it appears as though we’ve already arrived at that point.
Here’s what one supporter thinks about the controversial law.
Lee Earle, a self-identified “Tea Party facilitator” in Arizona, ground zero of the immigration debate, wants you to know that he supports immigration. He considers it the lifeblood of American society and the backbone of our economy – if it’s done legally.
“We want immigration. We need immigration! All we want is for people to sign the guestbook at the door,” said Earle, a Phoenix resident.
I’m sure there are many who would call Lee a racist or a Nazi. However, this doesn’t appear to be true, and it doesn’t help the conversation about 21st century immigration in the U.S.
To be honest, when the Nazi Name Calling (NNC) begins, I usually leave the room. How can we have a productive conversation with this occurring? Let’s debate the substance of the bill. I know many Democrats would love to give illegal immigrants immediate citizenship. I happen to disagree with this unjust idea for many reasons, most notably because it shows utter contempt for those who waited in line, spent thousands of dollars, filled out tons of paperwork, to gain permanent residence, and eventually citizenship in the United States.
However, until the Hitler references stop, we’ll never be able to have a reasonable conversation about immigration. I realize that the subject of race is sensitive, however, we all need to have the tête-à-tête without bringing racism into the mix.
Here are two final, indisputable facts.
1. If you believe that illegal immigrants should not receive amnesty, you are not a racist. Period.
2. If you believe that minorities, immigrant or not, illegal or not, are inferior to Caucasians, you are a racist. Period.
However, it seems as though many would LOVE to make this first indisputable fact…well, disputable. But it's not.
Personal note: I will be honest. I am a little frightened of this “show your papers” situation. I was pulled over my police a while back, and the officer asked me for my papers. Fortunately, I had my papers (even my registration!) with me, because I’m not an idiot. Frankly, I was rather scared and for just a moment, it truly felt like Nazi Germany. But then I realized that I shouldn’t have rolled through that stop sign.
In essence, Arizona's law orders immigrants to carry their registration documents at all times, and allows police to ask to view said papers.
Thus far, folks on the left side of the spectrum have called this law unfair, unjust, racist, and even Nazi-like. Now, the old American political adage states that the first person to compare their opposition to Nazis is losing the fight. Well, it’s been just a few days since the law was passed, and with the Nazi shout-outs ringing through the land, it appears as though we’ve already arrived at that point.
Here’s what one supporter thinks about the controversial law.
Lee Earle, a self-identified “Tea Party facilitator” in Arizona, ground zero of the immigration debate, wants you to know that he supports immigration. He considers it the lifeblood of American society and the backbone of our economy – if it’s done legally.
“We want immigration. We need immigration! All we want is for people to sign the guestbook at the door,” said Earle, a Phoenix resident.
I’m sure there are many who would call Lee a racist or a Nazi. However, this doesn’t appear to be true, and it doesn’t help the conversation about 21st century immigration in the U.S.
To be honest, when the Nazi Name Calling (NNC) begins, I usually leave the room. How can we have a productive conversation with this occurring? Let’s debate the substance of the bill. I know many Democrats would love to give illegal immigrants immediate citizenship. I happen to disagree with this unjust idea for many reasons, most notably because it shows utter contempt for those who waited in line, spent thousands of dollars, filled out tons of paperwork, to gain permanent residence, and eventually citizenship in the United States.
However, until the Hitler references stop, we’ll never be able to have a reasonable conversation about immigration. I realize that the subject of race is sensitive, however, we all need to have the tête-à-tête without bringing racism into the mix.
Here are two final, indisputable facts.
1. If you believe that illegal immigrants should not receive amnesty, you are not a racist. Period.
2. If you believe that minorities, immigrant or not, illegal or not, are inferior to Caucasians, you are a racist. Period.
However, it seems as though many would LOVE to make this first indisputable fact…well, disputable. But it's not.
Personal note: I will be honest. I am a little frightened of this “show your papers” situation. I was pulled over my police a while back, and the officer asked me for my papers. Fortunately, I had my papers (even my registration!) with me, because I’m not an idiot. Frankly, I was rather scared and for just a moment, it truly felt like Nazi Germany. But then I realized that I shouldn’t have rolled through that stop sign.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Regarding Unemployment
Yesterday, I mentioned how President Obama’s economic narrative is struggling, due to the nature of the American economy. Quite frankly, both the economy and the President's narrative stink.
From the Associated Press
But the unemployment rate - it may be the most recognizable economic indicator - has held steady at 9.7 percent for the past three months, and 15 million Americans remain out of work. By the White House's own estimates, as well as those of many independent economists, that rate isn't expected to fluctuate more than a few tenths of a percent through the end of 2010.
The reality is that James Carville was correct: It’s the economy, stupid. And this fundamental truth worries Democrats across this country, as they currently maintain complete control of the federal government.
In George H.W. Bush’s only term in office, he experienced soaring popularity due to the incredibly successful Persian Gulf War. He oversaw the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, a symbol of the divisive 20th century. He oversaw the crumbling of the Soviet Union, the fall of communism, and the end of the Cold War, an eighty-year old conflict. Very few Presidents oversee such grand successes in foreign policy, with the exception of the vomiting incident , which certainly traumatized the Prime Minister of Japan.
Despite his successes abroad, Bush was not able to win reelection. When the recession began during the lead-up to the election of 1992, things began to unravel for the President. Governor Bill Clinton was able to capitalize on the economic struggles of the nation, becoming the 42nd President of the United States.
As for 2010, President Obama is not presently in danger, as he is not up for reelection. Furthermore, his approval rating is hanging around 48-49% (a very generous number considering the current unemployment rate). He still maintains a good amount of personal popularity (not approval, mind you).
It's his Democratic Party that in trouble, though. 2010 looks to be a tough year for Democrats in swing districts around the country.
Now, normally, a sitting President would be able to use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to create a winning narrative for his party. However, we can now see that the wishful story that the President wishes to create will probably not magically emerge in the next 150 days. Instead, pesky “facts” about the stimulus coupled with an unemployment rate hovering over 9.5% will most likely make the President’s economic policies seem ineffective.
However, if the President is only concerned with his own political situation, he has another 2.5 years for economic recovery. In fact, the economic situation in 2011 and 2012 will determine whether or not Barack Obama will live in the White House for four or eight years. I tend to be an optimist, so I’m hoping for a much lower unemployment rate in 2013, and a new President as well.
From the Associated Press
But the unemployment rate - it may be the most recognizable economic indicator - has held steady at 9.7 percent for the past three months, and 15 million Americans remain out of work. By the White House's own estimates, as well as those of many independent economists, that rate isn't expected to fluctuate more than a few tenths of a percent through the end of 2010.
The reality is that James Carville was correct: It’s the economy, stupid. And this fundamental truth worries Democrats across this country, as they currently maintain complete control of the federal government.
In George H.W. Bush’s only term in office, he experienced soaring popularity due to the incredibly successful Persian Gulf War. He oversaw the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, a symbol of the divisive 20th century. He oversaw the crumbling of the Soviet Union, the fall of communism, and the end of the Cold War, an eighty-year old conflict. Very few Presidents oversee such grand successes in foreign policy, with the exception of the vomiting incident , which certainly traumatized the Prime Minister of Japan.
Despite his successes abroad, Bush was not able to win reelection. When the recession began during the lead-up to the election of 1992, things began to unravel for the President. Governor Bill Clinton was able to capitalize on the economic struggles of the nation, becoming the 42nd President of the United States.
As for 2010, President Obama is not presently in danger, as he is not up for reelection. Furthermore, his approval rating is hanging around 48-49% (a very generous number considering the current unemployment rate). He still maintains a good amount of personal popularity (not approval, mind you).
It's his Democratic Party that in trouble, though. 2010 looks to be a tough year for Democrats in swing districts around the country.
Now, normally, a sitting President would be able to use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to create a winning narrative for his party. However, we can now see that the wishful story that the President wishes to create will probably not magically emerge in the next 150 days. Instead, pesky “facts” about the stimulus coupled with an unemployment rate hovering over 9.5% will most likely make the President’s economic policies seem ineffective.
However, if the President is only concerned with his own political situation, he has another 2.5 years for economic recovery. In fact, the economic situation in 2011 and 2012 will determine whether or not Barack Obama will live in the White House for four or eight years. I tend to be an optimist, so I’m hoping for a much lower unemployment rate in 2013, and a new President as well.
Monday, April 26, 2010
How's That Stimulus Doing?
A few months back, I wrote about how the White House “graded” the $787,000,000,000.00 stimulus package that passed through Congress with almost no Republican support. Not surprisingly, the Obama administration gave itself an “A” on its legislation.
However, Americans in 2010 are rather skeptical (as they should be), so it’s important to look to groups outside of government to determine how well the government is doing...in this case, how the stimulus package is doing.
From CNN Money
In latest quarterly survey by the National Association for Business Economics, the index that measures employment showed job growth for the first time in two years
NABE conducted the study by polling 68 of its members who work in economic roles at private-sector firms. About 73% of those surveyed said employment at their company is neither higher nor lower as a result of the $787 billion Recovery Act, which the White House's Council of Economic Advisers says is on track to create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of the year.
The Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress would have you believe that this piece of legislation completely turned around the economy, and prevented a second Great Depression. After all, it makes a great narrative.
President Obama, full of hope, came into office to undo all of the excesses of the Bush Administration, and undo the economic strife that didn’t exist until Democrats controlled the Congress for one year.
Taking decisive action, he created the stimulus plan, to jump start the American economy and prevent the unemployment rate from rising about 8%. Although the unemployment rate, mainly due to President Bush’s failed leadership, is hovering around 10%, the Obama administration is pleased to give itself top grades when it comes to dealing with the troubled economy.
While this is a lovely narrative created by the White House, it’s not necessarily true. And the NABE study demonstrates that perhaps the President's beloved Recovery Act, (which has actually cost over $800 billion) has not been as effective as the President’s economic team would have you believe.
However, Americans in 2010 are rather skeptical (as they should be), so it’s important to look to groups outside of government to determine how well the government is doing...in this case, how the stimulus package is doing.
From CNN Money
In latest quarterly survey by the National Association for Business Economics, the index that measures employment showed job growth for the first time in two years
NABE conducted the study by polling 68 of its members who work in economic roles at private-sector firms. About 73% of those surveyed said employment at their company is neither higher nor lower as a result of the $787 billion Recovery Act, which the White House's Council of Economic Advisers says is on track to create or save 3.5 million jobs by the end of the year.
The Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress would have you believe that this piece of legislation completely turned around the economy, and prevented a second Great Depression. After all, it makes a great narrative.
President Obama, full of hope, came into office to undo all of the excesses of the Bush Administration, and undo the economic strife that didn’t exist until Democrats controlled the Congress for one year.
Taking decisive action, he created the stimulus plan, to jump start the American economy and prevent the unemployment rate from rising about 8%. Although the unemployment rate, mainly due to President Bush’s failed leadership, is hovering around 10%, the Obama administration is pleased to give itself top grades when it comes to dealing with the troubled economy.
While this is a lovely narrative created by the White House, it’s not necessarily true. And the NABE study demonstrates that perhaps the President's beloved Recovery Act, (which has actually cost over $800 billion) has not been as effective as the President’s economic team would have you believe.
Friday, April 23, 2010
The Supreme Court and Senator Harkin
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
“I think we need to push someone who would be on the liberal side, on the progressive side, just as Roberts and Alito are on that side,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), referring to Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, who were both confirmed in George W. Bush’s administration. “Why do conservatives always get the conservatives, but we don’t get to get liberals? What the hell is that all about?”
What is that all about, Senator Harkin?
His idea is simple. Republican presidents never have their conservative nominees filibustered, Democratic presidents always have their liberal nominees filibustered.
His statement is absolutely true, unless you wish to use facts and history to support your claim.
In a very well written article that cleverly uses both facts and historical truths, David Frum states that when it come to judicial nominations, the Democrats are the party of no.
Here's Frum's thesis:
When you look at the last 5 presidents, only two have had a perfect record of Supreme court nominations, with little controversy. They are Presidents Clinton and Obama.
Here are the first choices of Presidents Clinton and Obama
Sonia Sotomayor - No filibuster. Smooth confirmation.
Stephen Breyer - No filibuster. Smooth confirmation.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - No filibuster. Smooth confirmation.
Here are the first choices of Presidents Reagan, HW Bush, and W Bush.
Harriet Miers - Withdraws after heavy criticism over her credentials/experience. Replaced by Samuel Alito. Unsuccessful filibuster...with then Senator Obama joining in.
John Roberts - No filibuster. Smooth confirmation
Clarence Thomas - Perhaps the most heated confirmation ever. Barely approved.
David Souter - Stealth liberal justice. Smooth confirmation.
Robert Bork - Harsh contempt for this man. Utter rejection by Senate Democrats.
When you look at history, there is a double standard...but the complete opposite of what Senator Harkin would have you believe. Democrats are free to filibuster conservative nominees, while Republicans are more respectful of liberal nominees.
That major difference can be seen in 1987 and 1993. Robert Bork was very conservative...no doubt about that. However, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former counsel for the very liberal ACLU, was very liberal...no doubt about that. However, the way that the Republicans treated Ginsburg was ridiculously more respectful than the way the Democrats treated Bork.
So...how should the GOP treat President Obama's next nominee, Senator Harkin? With class, dignity, and respect? or should she be treated the way that Democrats have treated GOP nominees in the past?
I imagine she will be treated with much respect, much like Sonia Sotomayor was. You stay classy, GOP.
“I think we need to push someone who would be on the liberal side, on the progressive side, just as Roberts and Alito are on that side,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), referring to Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, who were both confirmed in George W. Bush’s administration. “Why do conservatives always get the conservatives, but we don’t get to get liberals? What the hell is that all about?”
What is that all about, Senator Harkin?
His idea is simple. Republican presidents never have their conservative nominees filibustered, Democratic presidents always have their liberal nominees filibustered.
His statement is absolutely true, unless you wish to use facts and history to support your claim.
In a very well written article that cleverly uses both facts and historical truths, David Frum states that when it come to judicial nominations, the Democrats are the party of no.
Here's Frum's thesis:
When you look at the last 5 presidents, only two have had a perfect record of Supreme court nominations, with little controversy. They are Presidents Clinton and Obama.
Here are the first choices of Presidents Clinton and Obama
Sonia Sotomayor - No filibuster. Smooth confirmation.
Stephen Breyer - No filibuster. Smooth confirmation.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - No filibuster. Smooth confirmation.
Here are the first choices of Presidents Reagan, HW Bush, and W Bush.
Harriet Miers - Withdraws after heavy criticism over her credentials/experience. Replaced by Samuel Alito. Unsuccessful filibuster...with then Senator Obama joining in.
John Roberts - No filibuster. Smooth confirmation
Clarence Thomas - Perhaps the most heated confirmation ever. Barely approved.
David Souter - Stealth liberal justice. Smooth confirmation.
Robert Bork - Harsh contempt for this man. Utter rejection by Senate Democrats.
When you look at history, there is a double standard...but the complete opposite of what Senator Harkin would have you believe. Democrats are free to filibuster conservative nominees, while Republicans are more respectful of liberal nominees.
That major difference can be seen in 1987 and 1993. Robert Bork was very conservative...no doubt about that. However, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former counsel for the very liberal ACLU, was very liberal...no doubt about that. However, the way that the Republicans treated Ginsburg was ridiculously more respectful than the way the Democrats treated Bork.
So...how should the GOP treat President Obama's next nominee, Senator Harkin? With class, dignity, and respect? or should she be treated the way that Democrats have treated GOP nominees in the past?
I imagine she will be treated with much respect, much like Sonia Sotomayor was. You stay classy, GOP.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
