It really has been an interesting 48 hours, especially when it comes to the issue of racism in America. Shirley Sherrod, the woman who was essentially fired from the Department of Agriculture for telling a story about mistakes she made a quarter century ago, has received an apology from the NAACP. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is reviewing her situation, to see if she she should be rehired, which she should.
Here's a quick rundown of what has occurred the last two days.
-Shirley Sherrod was in the business of helping Southern farmers in 1986.
-According to her, she liked helping black farmers a lot more than white farmers
-However, she begrudgingly helped white farmers who needed assistance.
-The white farmers were very thankful, and they are friends with Sherrod now.
-23 years pass
-Sherrod was appointed by the Obama administration to serve in the Dept. of Agriculture.
-In 2010, she told this story to a local NAACP chapter, telling them that important to AVOID doing what she did, i.e. using racial preferences.
-The media got a hold of the video, and it seemed as though she was using racial preferences TODAY.
-Sherrod was forced to resign.
-And now, Tom Vilsack is reviewing the situation, because it seems she was treated unfairly.
The 24 hour media circus can be exhausting, but as I said yesterday, I believe Shirley Sherrod, and I certainly believe that she does NOT hold racist beliefs today.
-----
The Christian Science Monitor explores the liberal journalist organization known as Journolist. This is the organization I referred to yesterday that may be involved in shaping the media narrative in an inappropriate way. Although many organizations shape the narrative, i.e. the more conservative Fox and the more liberal MSNBC, there is one major difference: most people know that Sean Hannity is conservative and that Keith Olbermann is liberal, while a seemingly unbiased member of Journolist may be more insidious.
-----
Democratic Governors Association (DGA)...really???
Major Dem donors who wrote checks to the Democratic Governors Association funded a below-the-radar campaign that attacked Pres. Obama and other Dem all-stars, all in hopes of knocking off a strong GOP challenger.
If this is true, Democrats effectively wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars on attacking Terry Branstad…and Barack Obama…together? Let’s be clear about this. First, it’s a stupid move because I imagine that Democratic candidates around the country would LOVE to have those monies, and second, Terry Branstad is no Barack Obama, which is a very good thing.
-----
From Robert Samuelson at Real Clear Politics
If you want a preview of President Obama's health care "reform," take a look at Massachusetts. In 2006, it enacted a "reform" that became a model for Obama. What's happened since isn't encouraging.
It's an interesting read, and it may foretell the future of the new health care law.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Tuesday Morning Musings
Musings for the mid-morning coffee break.
-----
Some feel that Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Roxanne Conlin received too much money as a trial lawyer. From the Register:
"Des Moines lawyer Roxanne Conlin has been sued by a national group of plaintiffs lawyers for not sharing with them a portion of the $75 million in fees that she and a Minnesota law firm received in a settlement in Iowa's civil antitrust case against Microsoft."
-----
There's been a lot of talk about the NAACP and racism recently, most notably revolving around the ridiculous charge that most Tea Party members are racist. This is a monumentally inaccurate charge, and I expect more from an organization as historically significant as the NAACP. However, a news story today was especially interesting, and the woman involved was promptly criticized by the NAACP. From Huffington Post:
"Shirley Sherrod, a USDA official in Georgia, has resigned after publicly admitting that race played a factor in her decision to limit how much aid would be given to a white farmer."
The NAACP agrees with her resignation, tendered to Iowa's own Tom Vilsack.
"We concur with US Agriculture Secretary Vilsack in accepting the resignation of Shirley Sherrod for her remarks at a local NAACP Freedom Fund banquet."
Preferring to help one race over another is unfortunate, and it's certainly good for groups such as the NAACP or the Tea Party to criticize trace elements of racism whenever they can, in the interest of American values of freedom and equality.
Quick update: The white farmers in question have come out in defense of Sherrod, and Sherrod has said that she holds no animosity for those farmers, despite her comments. To be honest, all of these years later, I absolutely believe her, and I'm quite sure that Sherrod is sorry for the unfortunate comments that she made. As for the NAACP, they have retracted their criticism.
Interesting enough, she lays some of the blame on the NAACP because of:
the NAACP's recent resolution calling on the Tea Party movement to repudiate racist elements within it...The controversy has led one Tea Party group to oust another because of a blog posting by the second group's leader.
Tea Party Express leader Mark Williams posted on his blog a faux letter from Jealous to President Abraham Lincoln in which Williams ridicules the organization's use of "colored" in its historic name and uses multiple stereotypes to bolster his point. The National Tea Party Foundation expelled Williams' organization from its coalition as a result.
Sherrod on Tuesday called the NAACP "the reason why this happened. They got into a fight with the Tea Party, and all of this came out as a result of that."
-----
On a separate note, I'm glad that the aforementioned Mark Williams was expelled from the Tea Party Coalition. His letter was unhelpful and rather inappropriate.
-----
Apparently several liberal journalists wished to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright during President Obama's presidential campaign.
-----
Finally, the constitutionality of Obamacare is currently being challenged in court. If you read only one New York Times article this year, make sure it's this one. After you finish with it, read this abstract which deals with the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Here's a quick version for those who may not have time to read both articles.
1. During the health care debate, the following exchange occurred on ABC:
“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”
When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”
2. This bold statement from Obama makes sense, because President Obama promised not to create any new taxes, especially for the middle and lower class.
3. After the the law was challenged in court, the President's legal team, realizing that the law was most likely unconstitutional using the commerce clause, made the switch, and said that Obamacare is indeed a new tax...most likely an excise tax.
4. It may not matter, because according to Steven Willis and Nakku Chung from the University of Florida, this health care excise tax, for all intents and purposes, in unconstitutional.
5. However, we do know that the President conveniently promised that Obamacare was NOT a tax before it passed, and then stated that it was a tax, only after it was passed into law. It's a classic bait and switch, which of course, is change we can believe in!
-----
Some feel that Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Roxanne Conlin received too much money as a trial lawyer. From the Register:
"Des Moines lawyer Roxanne Conlin has been sued by a national group of plaintiffs lawyers for not sharing with them a portion of the $75 million in fees that she and a Minnesota law firm received in a settlement in Iowa's civil antitrust case against Microsoft."
-----
There's been a lot of talk about the NAACP and racism recently, most notably revolving around the ridiculous charge that most Tea Party members are racist. This is a monumentally inaccurate charge, and I expect more from an organization as historically significant as the NAACP. However, a news story today was especially interesting, and the woman involved was promptly criticized by the NAACP. From Huffington Post:
"Shirley Sherrod, a USDA official in Georgia, has resigned after publicly admitting that race played a factor in her decision to limit how much aid would be given to a white farmer."
The NAACP agrees with her resignation, tendered to Iowa's own Tom Vilsack.
"We concur with US Agriculture Secretary Vilsack in accepting the resignation of Shirley Sherrod for her remarks at a local NAACP Freedom Fund banquet."
Preferring to help one race over another is unfortunate, and it's certainly good for groups such as the NAACP or the Tea Party to criticize trace elements of racism whenever they can, in the interest of American values of freedom and equality.
Quick update: The white farmers in question have come out in defense of Sherrod, and Sherrod has said that she holds no animosity for those farmers, despite her comments. To be honest, all of these years later, I absolutely believe her, and I'm quite sure that Sherrod is sorry for the unfortunate comments that she made. As for the NAACP, they have retracted their criticism.
Interesting enough, she lays some of the blame on the NAACP because of:
the NAACP's recent resolution calling on the Tea Party movement to repudiate racist elements within it...The controversy has led one Tea Party group to oust another because of a blog posting by the second group's leader.
Tea Party Express leader Mark Williams posted on his blog a faux letter from Jealous to President Abraham Lincoln in which Williams ridicules the organization's use of "colored" in its historic name and uses multiple stereotypes to bolster his point. The National Tea Party Foundation expelled Williams' organization from its coalition as a result.
Sherrod on Tuesday called the NAACP "the reason why this happened. They got into a fight with the Tea Party, and all of this came out as a result of that."
-----
On a separate note, I'm glad that the aforementioned Mark Williams was expelled from the Tea Party Coalition. His letter was unhelpful and rather inappropriate.
-----
Apparently several liberal journalists wished to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright during President Obama's presidential campaign.
-----
Finally, the constitutionality of Obamacare is currently being challenged in court. If you read only one New York Times article this year, make sure it's this one. After you finish with it, read this abstract which deals with the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Here's a quick version for those who may not have time to read both articles.
1. During the health care debate, the following exchange occurred on ABC:
“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”
When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”
2. This bold statement from Obama makes sense, because President Obama promised not to create any new taxes, especially for the middle and lower class.
3. After the the law was challenged in court, the President's legal team, realizing that the law was most likely unconstitutional using the commerce clause, made the switch, and said that Obamacare is indeed a new tax...most likely an excise tax.
4. It may not matter, because according to Steven Willis and Nakku Chung from the University of Florida, this health care excise tax, for all intents and purposes, in unconstitutional.
5. However, we do know that the President conveniently promised that Obamacare was NOT a tax before it passed, and then stated that it was a tax, only after it was passed into law. It's a classic bait and switch, which of course, is change we can believe in!
Monday, July 19, 2010
Senate Race #2 – South Dakota
Continuing to look at the 2010 Senate picture, we’ll move on to our neighbors to the northwest, South Dakota.
On January 7th, 2011, Senator John Thune will celebrate his 50th birthday. He will celebrate by beginning his second term as the junior senator from the great state of South Dakota. I make this statement with certainty because of two reasons: First, Senator Thune is very popular in South Dakota. Second, and more importantly, Democrats in South Dakota chose against running an opponent against Thune due to his popularity and his mainstream conservative values that lie squarely in line with the vast majority of South Dakotans.
First, a little history. In 2004, John Thune was in the midst of a very competitive election against Tom Daschle, the top Democrat in the U.S. Senate. At the end of very tough campaign against perhaps the most powerful Democrat in the United States, Thune was victorious by less than 5,000 votes. After six years of solid, mainstream conservatism in the Senate, he is up for reelection this year.
However, this reelection campaign has important implications for the future of the Republican Party. John Thune is considered a potential Presidential candidate by many insiders. As such, if he has the opportunity to help other Republicans around the country with their reelection campaigns, he may gain friendships, support, and potential future endorsements.
Thus, if Senator Thune is indeed thinking of running for the Presidency, he can thank the Democratic Party of South Dakota for giving him a great 50th birthday present…a 2nd term in the Senate and a possible springboard to the Presidency.
Thune v. No Democrat
Polling average, not from Pollster.com, because they do not have a chart
JT – 70%+
ND – 0%
Percentage chance of a party change
0%
Current status
Safe Republican Seat
Election night results estimate
Thune 80%+
Democrat 0%
Final Thoughts
I really like John Thune, and I think he would make a great addition to the 2012 primary race for President.
On January 7th, 2011, Senator John Thune will celebrate his 50th birthday. He will celebrate by beginning his second term as the junior senator from the great state of South Dakota. I make this statement with certainty because of two reasons: First, Senator Thune is very popular in South Dakota. Second, and more importantly, Democrats in South Dakota chose against running an opponent against Thune due to his popularity and his mainstream conservative values that lie squarely in line with the vast majority of South Dakotans.
First, a little history. In 2004, John Thune was in the midst of a very competitive election against Tom Daschle, the top Democrat in the U.S. Senate. At the end of very tough campaign against perhaps the most powerful Democrat in the United States, Thune was victorious by less than 5,000 votes. After six years of solid, mainstream conservatism in the Senate, he is up for reelection this year.
However, this reelection campaign has important implications for the future of the Republican Party. John Thune is considered a potential Presidential candidate by many insiders. As such, if he has the opportunity to help other Republicans around the country with their reelection campaigns, he may gain friendships, support, and potential future endorsements.
Thus, if Senator Thune is indeed thinking of running for the Presidency, he can thank the Democratic Party of South Dakota for giving him a great 50th birthday present…a 2nd term in the Senate and a possible springboard to the Presidency.
Thune v. No Democrat
Polling average, not from Pollster.com, because they do not have a chart
JT – 70%+
ND – 0%
Percentage chance of a party change
0%
Current status
Safe Republican Seat
Election night results estimate
Thune 80%+
Democrat 0%
Final Thoughts
I really like John Thune, and I think he would make a great addition to the 2012 primary race for President.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
T.N.L.V.
A Thursday Night Lighthearted Video
Now I know that politicians say silly things sometimes, but as a history teacher, I find this video especially unfortunate.
The following is U.S. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, saying some very interesting things about the great nations of Vietnam, both North and South...in 2010. Clearly, Representative Jackson-Lee needs to fire her speechwriter or brush up on American history, because this speech is pretty rough.
Now I know that politicians say silly things sometimes, but as a history teacher, I find this video especially unfortunate.
The following is U.S. Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, saying some very interesting things about the great nations of Vietnam, both North and South...in 2010. Clearly, Representative Jackson-Lee needs to fire her speechwriter or brush up on American history, because this speech is pretty rough.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Senate Race #1 - Iowa
Currently, there are 41 Republicans in the Senate. Had Scott Brown not won the special election to replace liberal lion Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts, there would only be 40 Republican held seats, which would not be able to overcome a successful Democratic cloture vote (which essentially halts a filibuster). The health care bill was only passed because of clever use of Senate rules, which allowed for the first vote to occur before Scott Brown was elected. After that, the use of reconciliation precluded any filibuster from occurring, and we received what has become known as “Obamacare.”
To avoid any future worries of unfortunate legislation, Republicans across the country should be doing what they can to increase the number of seats held by Republicans, particularly conservative ones.
Of course, we start by looking at our own state of Iowa. The Republican in the race, Chuck Grassley has been Iowa's senior senator for many years now, and frankly, he's a most excellent representative of the people. An Iowa farmer at heart, Chuck is more conservative than the average Iowa voter (although Tom Harkin is WAY more liberal than the average Iowa voter), which makes Grassley even more valuable, because conventional wisdom would expect a Republican to be less conservative from a swing state such as Iowa.
Chuck Grassley serves Iowa in several important ways. He serves on the powerful Senate Judiciary committee, as well as the influential Senate Agriculture committee. Furthermore, he is the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, and he is the 10th most senior member of the upper house. His amount of power and influence is very important for Iowans to have in Washington D.C.
Senator Grassley is an avid campaigner, who usually succeeds at visiting all 99 counties of Iowa every year, meeting with and listening to Iowans all across the state. He is consistently the most popular politician in Iowa, surpassing junior Senator Harkin, and even President Obama in polls that measure approval ratings.
Senator Grassley's history of exceptional service to the state of Iowa, coupled with his general approval by the people of Iowa make him a tough foe this November, even for the most knowledgeable, likable, and well-funded Democratic candidate.
Fortunately for Grassley, Democrats in Iowa did not choose a candidate with all three of those qualities. In the June primary, Roxanne Conlin was nominated to oppose Grassley in November. While Conlin is definitely well-funded and she seems knowledgeable, her likability (in other words, her personality) is lacking. While this is only anecdotal evidence, many Democrats who I have spoken with are not fond of Conlin as a person. They feel as though she is bristling, abrasive, and that she lacks a certain kind of warmth that voters like. In contrast, Chuck Grassley is a man who has met with tens of thousands of Iowans over the years, and they have continued to reelect him with over 66% of the vote in EVERY reelection campaign. Do Iowans like Grassley? The answer is clear...yes.
However, in the end, likability can only get you so many votes. You gotta be competent, and you gotta have money, and Grassley has both intelligence and a massive war chest of over five million dollars.
National Democrats would love to make this race competitive, but at this point, this race still leans towards Senator Grassley. While Conlin will make this race more competitive than any other reelection campaign for Grassley, she will most likely fall short. Chuck Grassley, the most popular politician in Iowa, is simply too well-liked to overcome. Iowans want to keep him where he is, which is the right move.
Grassley v. Conlin
Polling average, from Pollster.com
CG - 54%
RC - 37%
Percentage chance of a party change
10%
Current status
Safe Republican Seat
Election night results estimate
Grassley 54%
Conlin 45%
Final Thoughts
Roxianne Conlin's mug shot certainly shares some similarities with Dustin Hoffman from Tootsie.
To avoid any future worries of unfortunate legislation, Republicans across the country should be doing what they can to increase the number of seats held by Republicans, particularly conservative ones.
Of course, we start by looking at our own state of Iowa. The Republican in the race, Chuck Grassley has been Iowa's senior senator for many years now, and frankly, he's a most excellent representative of the people. An Iowa farmer at heart, Chuck is more conservative than the average Iowa voter (although Tom Harkin is WAY more liberal than the average Iowa voter), which makes Grassley even more valuable, because conventional wisdom would expect a Republican to be less conservative from a swing state such as Iowa.
Chuck Grassley serves Iowa in several important ways. He serves on the powerful Senate Judiciary committee, as well as the influential Senate Agriculture committee. Furthermore, he is the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, and he is the 10th most senior member of the upper house. His amount of power and influence is very important for Iowans to have in Washington D.C.
Senator Grassley is an avid campaigner, who usually succeeds at visiting all 99 counties of Iowa every year, meeting with and listening to Iowans all across the state. He is consistently the most popular politician in Iowa, surpassing junior Senator Harkin, and even President Obama in polls that measure approval ratings.
Senator Grassley's history of exceptional service to the state of Iowa, coupled with his general approval by the people of Iowa make him a tough foe this November, even for the most knowledgeable, likable, and well-funded Democratic candidate.
Fortunately for Grassley, Democrats in Iowa did not choose a candidate with all three of those qualities. In the June primary, Roxanne Conlin was nominated to oppose Grassley in November. While Conlin is definitely well-funded and she seems knowledgeable, her likability (in other words, her personality) is lacking. While this is only anecdotal evidence, many Democrats who I have spoken with are not fond of Conlin as a person. They feel as though she is bristling, abrasive, and that she lacks a certain kind of warmth that voters like. In contrast, Chuck Grassley is a man who has met with tens of thousands of Iowans over the years, and they have continued to reelect him with over 66% of the vote in EVERY reelection campaign. Do Iowans like Grassley? The answer is clear...yes.
However, in the end, likability can only get you so many votes. You gotta be competent, and you gotta have money, and Grassley has both intelligence and a massive war chest of over five million dollars.
National Democrats would love to make this race competitive, but at this point, this race still leans towards Senator Grassley. While Conlin will make this race more competitive than any other reelection campaign for Grassley, she will most likely fall short. Chuck Grassley, the most popular politician in Iowa, is simply too well-liked to overcome. Iowans want to keep him where he is, which is the right move.
Grassley v. Conlin
Polling average, from Pollster.com
CG - 54%
RC - 37%
Percentage chance of a party change
10%
Current status
Safe Republican Seat
Election night results estimate
Grassley 54%
Conlin 45%
Final Thoughts
Roxianne Conlin's mug shot certainly shares some similarities with Dustin Hoffman from Tootsie.
Monday, July 12, 2010
The United States Senate
Over the next few weeks, I'll be putting up some posts that highlight some of the important Senate races around the country. The United States Senate, as the upper house of a bicameral legislature generally holds a little more power than the House of Representatives.
Furthermore, in the Senate, each individual member holds a fairly large amount of power, whether it be through the use of the hold or the filibuster.
Thus, each and every Senate race is very important this year, because we as a nation will be determining what men and women will be given a six year term in Washington.
The future of Congress will be decided in November. After election night in November, we may find the GOP in control of the House of Representatives. While I think there's about a 25% chance of a Republican takeover of the lower house, I still think that Nancy Pelosi will be holding the gavel in January. However, her ridiculously huge majority will be all but lost, and there will have to be serious compromise in the House.
In the Senate, it is nearly impossible for the Republicans to take control of 51 seats for a pure majority. However, the makeup of the Senate in January of 2011 will surely determine how President Obama's final two years in office will go. Thus, we'll be looking at critical Senate races around the nation so we can find out exactly where we stand this summer.
Furthermore, in the Senate, each individual member holds a fairly large amount of power, whether it be through the use of the hold or the filibuster.
Thus, each and every Senate race is very important this year, because we as a nation will be determining what men and women will be given a six year term in Washington.
The future of Congress will be decided in November. After election night in November, we may find the GOP in control of the House of Representatives. While I think there's about a 25% chance of a Republican takeover of the lower house, I still think that Nancy Pelosi will be holding the gavel in January. However, her ridiculously huge majority will be all but lost, and there will have to be serious compromise in the House.
In the Senate, it is nearly impossible for the Republicans to take control of 51 seats for a pure majority. However, the makeup of the Senate in January of 2011 will surely determine how President Obama's final two years in office will go. Thus, we'll be looking at critical Senate races around the nation so we can find out exactly where we stand this summer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
