This Saturday, the Republican Party will be holding their state convention in downtown Des Moines. While there will be speeches by officeholders and candidates and discussion of the party platform, one major event of interest will be the nomination of Terry Branstad’s choice for Lt. Governor.
Now, Iowans will know who the former Governor has selected before the convention on Saturday, but the question still remains: Who will it be?
As a lowly blogger for the Dallas County Republicans, I’m fairly confident that my thoughts and opinions have little to no bearing on Terry Branstad’s choice for Lt. Gov. However, I do have a few ideas as to who would make a good candidate in 2010.
So, here is my open letter to the former governor.
Dear Governor Branstad.
I’m told that you’re really excited to choose someone to be the next Lt. Governor of the great state of Iowa. I have a few ideas.
First, please choose someone younger. I think that you would like to live at Terrace Hill for at least the next 8 years, at which point, you can have a younger Lt. Governor that can carry the executive torch of Iowa. Furthermore, having a younger candidate will help the GOP reach out to younger voters, which needs to occur.
Second, choose someone with a personality, who has been fully vetted. Skeletons and unfortunate encounters with the media can quickly sour the public’s perception of a running mate, but having a strong, intelligent, and amiable personality will only help reinforce you and your personality. Terry…people really like you, so make sure you choose someone who you know Iowans will like.
Finally, please choose someone to your political right. There are tens of thousands of Iowans who are fired up and ready to vote for conservatives. During the primary campaign, Bob Vander Plaats levied charges at you, basically saying that you are not conservative enough. While I think those charges are somewhat unfair, I think that we’re going to be seeing a serious conservative resurgence in November. Why not choose a person who can help reinforce your conservative message?
I hope you take my suggestions to heart and I’ll see you at the convention. Best wishes!
Sincerely
ghbraves
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
We have a Commander-in-Chief
Today, news has been swirling around General Stanley McChrystal, the prominent military official directing the war in Afghanistan. As it turns out, there is a profile of McChrystal within the pages of this month’s Rolling Stone magazine. However, the profile reveals that that the general made several unflattering comments about the Obama administration.
From CNN
McChrystal apologized Tuesday for the profile, in which the general and his staff appear to mock top civilian officials, including the vice president. Two defense officials said the general has also fired a press aide over the article, set to appear in Friday's edition of Rolling Stone magazine.
How does President Obama feel about this? Also, from CNN.
President Barack Obama was "angry" after reading Gen. Stanley McChrystal's controversial remarks about colleagues in a Rolling Stone article, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday.
The "magnitude and graveness" of McChrystal's mistake in conducting the interview for the article were "profound," Gibbs said.
This much is clear: General McChrystal made a mistake in allowing Rolling Stone magazine (you know, that magazine devoted primarily to music) to have access to conversations that painted President Obama’s team as inexperienced (at best). At the very least, General McChrystal is guilty of poor judgment, taking action akin to slamming your boss on Facebook, which has actually gotten gotten several Iowans fired in recent times.
However, at worst, it brings back memories of the dispute between President Harry Truman and the very popular General Douglas MacArthur in the early 1950s.
In 1950, Harry Truman and “Mac” had very different ideas about the future of the Korean war, and General MacArthur publicly questioned his superior, the President, in Time Magazine. In the end, Truman fired the general, and would eventually have the lowest approval rating of any president in United States history. Recent years have vindicated Truman, and he is considered to be one of the top 10 Presidents in American history.
The point is, it's not uncommon for generals to disagree with their President. However, it is uncommon for generals to disagree with their President in a very public way, which is what General McChrystal did by criticizing the President's administration, and even Vice President Biden.
So, what does this mean for the man who, according to many, has done very impressive work for U.S. efforts in the Middle East? Chances are he’ll resign, ending a long, notable career on a sour note. However, President Obama may channel Harry Truman, and fire the general tomorrow, although this is doubtful. I would guess that the former will occur in the coming days.
One thing is clear, as much as we may disagree with the policies of President Obama, he certainly has every right to fire Gen. McChrystal. We have a civilian commander-in-chief for a reason, and if I were President Obama, I would be “angry” with the general too.
From CNN
McChrystal apologized Tuesday for the profile, in which the general and his staff appear to mock top civilian officials, including the vice president. Two defense officials said the general has also fired a press aide over the article, set to appear in Friday's edition of Rolling Stone magazine.
How does President Obama feel about this? Also, from CNN.
President Barack Obama was "angry" after reading Gen. Stanley McChrystal's controversial remarks about colleagues in a Rolling Stone article, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday.
The "magnitude and graveness" of McChrystal's mistake in conducting the interview for the article were "profound," Gibbs said.
This much is clear: General McChrystal made a mistake in allowing Rolling Stone magazine (you know, that magazine devoted primarily to music) to have access to conversations that painted President Obama’s team as inexperienced (at best). At the very least, General McChrystal is guilty of poor judgment, taking action akin to slamming your boss on Facebook, which has actually gotten gotten several Iowans fired in recent times.
However, at worst, it brings back memories of the dispute between President Harry Truman and the very popular General Douglas MacArthur in the early 1950s.
In 1950, Harry Truman and “Mac” had very different ideas about the future of the Korean war, and General MacArthur publicly questioned his superior, the President, in Time Magazine. In the end, Truman fired the general, and would eventually have the lowest approval rating of any president in United States history. Recent years have vindicated Truman, and he is considered to be one of the top 10 Presidents in American history.
The point is, it's not uncommon for generals to disagree with their President. However, it is uncommon for generals to disagree with their President in a very public way, which is what General McChrystal did by criticizing the President's administration, and even Vice President Biden.
So, what does this mean for the man who, according to many, has done very impressive work for U.S. efforts in the Middle East? Chances are he’ll resign, ending a long, notable career on a sour note. However, President Obama may channel Harry Truman, and fire the general tomorrow, although this is doubtful. I would guess that the former will occur in the coming days.
One thing is clear, as much as we may disagree with the policies of President Obama, he certainly has every right to fire Gen. McChrystal. We have a civilian commander-in-chief for a reason, and if I were President Obama, I would be “angry” with the general too.
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
A Wednesday Musing
Just imagine if George W. Bush was President right now.
Do you think he would be:
a) criticized more than President Obama (for the oil spill)
b) criticized less than President Obama (for the oil spill)
c) criticized the same as President Obama (for the oil spill)
d) criticized ridiculously more than President Obama (for the oil spill)
If you guessed b, I question your intelligence. If you guessed c, I think that's naively sweet. If you guessed a, I believe that you are an optimist. Which leaves those who answered question d, who are correct.
Do you think he would be:
a) criticized more than President Obama (for the oil spill)
b) criticized less than President Obama (for the oil spill)
c) criticized the same as President Obama (for the oil spill)
d) criticized ridiculously more than President Obama (for the oil spill)
If you guessed b, I question your intelligence. If you guessed c, I think that's naively sweet. If you guessed a, I believe that you are an optimist. Which leaves those who answered question d, who are correct.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
The Importance of Voter Enthusiasm
This is good news for the GOP...the most recent CNN enthusiasm poll
If you notice, the enthusiasm is definitely on the side of the Republicans. 54% of Republicans in this poll are AT LEAST very enthusiastic for the November mid-term elections. However, according to CNN, only 32% of Democrats in this poll are pumped to vote this November. This equates to a 22% “enthusiasm gap" (or EG) in favor of the Republicans.
This is important (and good) for several reasons.
First, those more enthusiastic to vote will obviously be those that will go to the polls.
Second, this EG demonstrates that many Republicans who may have supported President Obama in 2008 are probably having buyers remorse. There’s always the chance that an Obama-supporting Republican might be really excited to vote for Democrats in the midterms to keep the President’s agenda running strong, but I would not bet on it.
Third, the enthusiasm gap will be very advantageous in the summer and fall leading up to the election. More excited voters are not only more excited to vote, but they are more excited to organize, donate time and money, and spread the conservative gospel.
Augmented excitement from the party base is what parties strive for, and a significant lead in the EG is a good place to start in an election year.
To compare, let's look at the enthusiasm gap in 2008, perhaps the worst electoral year for Republicans in recent memory. About 5 months before that election, the enthusiasm gap as polled by CNN was a bit different.
In this poll, a whopping 63% of Democrats were excited to vote, while only 37% of Republicans were excited to vote (in a Presidential election, mind you). That equates to a 26% EG, that turned into a 17% EG by election day, which turned into a 7% victory for President Obama over Senator McCain.
What will this current 22% EG lead to in November? Who knows? But one thing is clear: The Republicans have the wind at their backs, and they should press their advantage in the coming months.
If you notice, the enthusiasm is definitely on the side of the Republicans. 54% of Republicans in this poll are AT LEAST very enthusiastic for the November mid-term elections. However, according to CNN, only 32% of Democrats in this poll are pumped to vote this November. This equates to a 22% “enthusiasm gap" (or EG) in favor of the Republicans.
This is important (and good) for several reasons.
First, those more enthusiastic to vote will obviously be those that will go to the polls.
Second, this EG demonstrates that many Republicans who may have supported President Obama in 2008 are probably having buyers remorse. There’s always the chance that an Obama-supporting Republican might be really excited to vote for Democrats in the midterms to keep the President’s agenda running strong, but I would not bet on it.
Third, the enthusiasm gap will be very advantageous in the summer and fall leading up to the election. More excited voters are not only more excited to vote, but they are more excited to organize, donate time and money, and spread the conservative gospel.
Augmented excitement from the party base is what parties strive for, and a significant lead in the EG is a good place to start in an election year.
To compare, let's look at the enthusiasm gap in 2008, perhaps the worst electoral year for Republicans in recent memory. About 5 months before that election, the enthusiasm gap as polled by CNN was a bit different.
In this poll, a whopping 63% of Democrats were excited to vote, while only 37% of Republicans were excited to vote (in a Presidential election, mind you). That equates to a 26% EG, that turned into a 17% EG by election day, which turned into a 7% victory for President Obama over Senator McCain.
What will this current 22% EG lead to in November? Who knows? But one thing is clear: The Republicans have the wind at their backs, and they should press their advantage in the coming months.
Monday, May 24, 2010
News from the border
Good news for those who want a secure border
President Barack Obama will deploy up to 1,200 more National Guard troops to the U.S. border with Mexico, an administration official told CNN on Tuesday.
I personally think this is a very smart move for the President. This past week saw his Attorney General, Eric Holder, look rather foolish on national television by: 1) threatening a lawsuit against the Arizona law, and 2) admitting he hasn't actually read the bill (less than 20 pages long). This prompted Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona to create the following video, which is, admittedly, very strange...but telling.
The President certainly does not want to be seen as weak. Both Republicans and Democrats can easily agree that security on the border is not only lacking, but the border itself is rather dangerous, considering the increase in violence over the past year.
By sending more than 1000 troops to help with border security, the President has not only made a smart political decision, he's made a smart security decision.
President Barack Obama will deploy up to 1,200 more National Guard troops to the U.S. border with Mexico, an administration official told CNN on Tuesday.
I personally think this is a very smart move for the President. This past week saw his Attorney General, Eric Holder, look rather foolish on national television by: 1) threatening a lawsuit against the Arizona law, and 2) admitting he hasn't actually read the bill (less than 20 pages long). This prompted Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona to create the following video, which is, admittedly, very strange...but telling.
The President certainly does not want to be seen as weak. Both Republicans and Democrats can easily agree that security on the border is not only lacking, but the border itself is rather dangerous, considering the increase in violence over the past year.
By sending more than 1000 troops to help with border security, the President has not only made a smart political decision, he's made a smart security decision.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Race for Attorney General
The presumptive Republican candidate for Attorney General of Iowa, Brenna Findley, has had a very impressive fundraising haul in 2010, thus far. She has raised almost $125,000 in the first five months of 2010, a sum that exceeds the amount raised by the Democratic incumbent, Tom Miller. Miller raised less than $16,000, but still has over $100,000 cash on hand.
Here's the deal. Tom Miller has been Attorney General longer than I’ve been alive. With that in mind, perhaps Mr. Miller should consider retirement. As should Robert Byrd.
But I digress.
I’ve met Brenna Findley and heard her speak. She is a no-nonsense conservative who has the ability to connect with the conservative base, while also discussing common sense solutions that all Iowans should want. Many on the left will most likely frame her as an extreme small government conservative. However, with the size, scope, debt, and control of the federal government growing to epic proportions, I think that the next couple of years will see more and more American citizens turning towards smaller government ideas that protect individual freedoms and liberties.
As for Findley, she’ll be fighting for those ideals as the future Attorney General of Iowa.
By the way, if anything is "extreme" right now, it is certainly not a small government conservative. Rather, it’s the ridiculous budget of the federal government.
Here's the deal. Tom Miller has been Attorney General longer than I’ve been alive. With that in mind, perhaps Mr. Miller should consider retirement. As should Robert Byrd.
But I digress.
I’ve met Brenna Findley and heard her speak. She is a no-nonsense conservative who has the ability to connect with the conservative base, while also discussing common sense solutions that all Iowans should want. Many on the left will most likely frame her as an extreme small government conservative. However, with the size, scope, debt, and control of the federal government growing to epic proportions, I think that the next couple of years will see more and more American citizens turning towards smaller government ideas that protect individual freedoms and liberties.
As for Findley, she’ll be fighting for those ideals as the future Attorney General of Iowa.
By the way, if anything is "extreme" right now, it is certainly not a small government conservative. Rather, it’s the ridiculous budget of the federal government.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
A Euro Trip
I love visiting Europe. The continent has a rich past that any history buff such as myself would enjoy. Having visited France, Britain, Italy, Spain, and Monaco, I have seen quite a bit of the western portion of the continent, and I am quite fond of it.
However, Europe has been struggling financially, especially over the last few weeks. Last summer, when I went to Europe, 1 American dollar could purchase roughly .68 Euros. Today, 1 American dollar buys nearly .82 Euros.
In this chart, notice how much the dollar has improved against the Euro over the last five months.
Because of financial strife in Greece and overarching issues relating to the common currency of the EU, the Euro, it has certainly been a controversial and fiscally painful economic downturn in 2010.
"Europe's bailout plan for Greece may have calmed market fears about the future of the euro, but there is still uncertainty about the long-term outlook for the struggling currency.
While the euro zone isn't likely to ditch the 11-year old common currency anytime soon, many believe that the bailout hasn't solved the underlying problem of imbalances between European nations. And critics of the common currency used by 329 million people across 16 nations argue that the euro is a major cause of those imbalances."
I think there are several things that we can derive from this European crisis, but I want to focus on two today.
First, I believe that there are several powerful figures who would love to create a North American Union consisting of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. I would hope that this major currency problem in Europe would make those folks feel otherwise. While I commend Europe for working around numerous economic hurdles in creating the Euro, these present struggles seemingly indicate that all of the kinks haven’t truly been worked out.
Recently, French President Sarkozy indicated that France is at least considering drastic measures such as dropping the Euro (although I think this is highly unlikely). I certainly am not going to say that the Euro has been a disaster, but its struggles should illuminate the fact that a North American Union would be the wrong way to go.
Second, I believe that high levels of spending in Europe are partially responsible for this crisis. While many people of Europe seem to enjoy the high levels of government spending, it has not only created issues for the currency, but it has hampered long term growth of nations’ economies.
Glancing at the graph above, it is evident that over the last 45 years, the countries whose governments have spent ridiculous amounts of money have grown very little on an average annual basis. While the chart is simplistic, and only uses “average” annual growth, the point is clear. When a government choose to tax and spend insane amounts of money, economic expansion is severely hindered.
Once this crisis is over, I would hope that European nations (particularly Greece) can make better decisions with their money. While we’re on the topic, I hope that this nation can make better decisions with its money too.
However, Europe has been struggling financially, especially over the last few weeks. Last summer, when I went to Europe, 1 American dollar could purchase roughly .68 Euros. Today, 1 American dollar buys nearly .82 Euros.
In this chart, notice how much the dollar has improved against the Euro over the last five months.
Because of financial strife in Greece and overarching issues relating to the common currency of the EU, the Euro, it has certainly been a controversial and fiscally painful economic downturn in 2010.
"Europe's bailout plan for Greece may have calmed market fears about the future of the euro, but there is still uncertainty about the long-term outlook for the struggling currency.
While the euro zone isn't likely to ditch the 11-year old common currency anytime soon, many believe that the bailout hasn't solved the underlying problem of imbalances between European nations. And critics of the common currency used by 329 million people across 16 nations argue that the euro is a major cause of those imbalances."
I think there are several things that we can derive from this European crisis, but I want to focus on two today.
First, I believe that there are several powerful figures who would love to create a North American Union consisting of Mexico, Canada, and the United States. I would hope that this major currency problem in Europe would make those folks feel otherwise. While I commend Europe for working around numerous economic hurdles in creating the Euro, these present struggles seemingly indicate that all of the kinks haven’t truly been worked out.
Recently, French President Sarkozy indicated that France is at least considering drastic measures such as dropping the Euro (although I think this is highly unlikely). I certainly am not going to say that the Euro has been a disaster, but its struggles should illuminate the fact that a North American Union would be the wrong way to go.
Second, I believe that high levels of spending in Europe are partially responsible for this crisis. While many people of Europe seem to enjoy the high levels of government spending, it has not only created issues for the currency, but it has hampered long term growth of nations’ economies.
Glancing at the graph above, it is evident that over the last 45 years, the countries whose governments have spent ridiculous amounts of money have grown very little on an average annual basis. While the chart is simplistic, and only uses “average” annual growth, the point is clear. When a government choose to tax and spend insane amounts of money, economic expansion is severely hindered.
Once this crisis is over, I would hope that European nations (particularly Greece) can make better decisions with their money. While we’re on the topic, I hope that this nation can make better decisions with its money too.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Lance Cpl. Joshua Davis
A hero from Dallas County
Lance Corporal Joshua Davis, 19, a 2009 Perry High School graduate, was killed while fighting in the Helmand province of southern Afghanistan.
U.S. military forces want to wrest control of the Helmand from Taliban insurgents there and disrupt the opium production, which funds terrorist activities.
A hero, Lance Cpl. Joshua Davis, will be missed. Men and women who give their lives by honorably serving in the United States military should be praised for their ultimate sacrifice.
At this time, Afghanistan remains a hotbed for terrorist activities, yet U.S. troops continue to valiantly fight for freedom in the Central Asian nation. Joshua Davis, a son of Perry, Iowa, was one of many brave Americans who are fighting the Taliban there.
Here are just a few things that people close to Davis said about him:
"The thing that was cool about him was that he had no quit in him."
"He was just one of those kids that wanted to get out there and get fighting."
"Josh always gave 100 percent...He gave his best effort."
"He was very humble."
Please keep Josh's family and friends in your thoughts and prayers. The death of Lance Cpl. Joshua Davis is tragic. He deserves to be remembered and honored for his dedication and brave service to the United States of America.
Lance Corporal Joshua Davis, 19, a 2009 Perry High School graduate, was killed while fighting in the Helmand province of southern Afghanistan.
U.S. military forces want to wrest control of the Helmand from Taliban insurgents there and disrupt the opium production, which funds terrorist activities.
A hero, Lance Cpl. Joshua Davis, will be missed. Men and women who give their lives by honorably serving in the United States military should be praised for their ultimate sacrifice.
At this time, Afghanistan remains a hotbed for terrorist activities, yet U.S. troops continue to valiantly fight for freedom in the Central Asian nation. Joshua Davis, a son of Perry, Iowa, was one of many brave Americans who are fighting the Taliban there.
Here are just a few things that people close to Davis said about him:
"The thing that was cool about him was that he had no quit in him."
"He was just one of those kids that wanted to get out there and get fighting."
"Josh always gave 100 percent...He gave his best effort."
"He was very humble."
Please keep Josh's family and friends in your thoughts and prayers. The death of Lance Cpl. Joshua Davis is tragic. He deserves to be remembered and honored for his dedication and brave service to the United States of America.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Tuesday Night Musings
**No one could have expected this:
President Barack Obama's new health care law could potentially add at least $115 billion more to government health care spending over the next 10 years, congressional budget referees said Tuesday.
I would act surprised, but I would have to assume that even Democrats probably realized that this would occur...the cost of this health care deal is going to skyrocket.
---
**Elena Kagan is President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court
We don't know a lot about Elena Kagan. She'll most likely be a reliable liberal vote on the court, much like John Paul Stevens was. I'll have more on her later.
---
**The United Kingdom has a new Prime Minister
Gordon Brown, current Prime Minister, and his Labour Party have fallen out of favor with the British electorate. Because of this, Brown has stepped down and Queen Elizabeth II has invited the new Prime Minister, Conservative David Cameron, to form a government. Before everyone here gets excited about the new "conservative" leader in Britain, keep in mind that a Conservative in England is a bit to the left of a conservative in the United States.
---
**A recent poll on the new immigration law in Arizona. Of particular note are questions 33 and 34, shown below.
A large majority of Americans (including a majority of Democrats) want to see how this law works before the Obama administration puts a halt to enforcement of existing federal law.
While there are, no doubt, concerns about this new Arizona law, it appears that most Americans have a "wait and see" attitude.
If local police begin racial profiling (which is prohibited under this law) then we will have a serious problem. Perhaps I'm a bit optimistic, but I don't believe we're going to see a lot of this, simply because Arizona has placed itself under the microscope, and the implementation of this law is going to scrutinized very carefully. Time will tell.
President Barack Obama's new health care law could potentially add at least $115 billion more to government health care spending over the next 10 years, congressional budget referees said Tuesday.
I would act surprised, but I would have to assume that even Democrats probably realized that this would occur...the cost of this health care deal is going to skyrocket.
---
**Elena Kagan is President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court
We don't know a lot about Elena Kagan. She'll most likely be a reliable liberal vote on the court, much like John Paul Stevens was. I'll have more on her later.
---
**The United Kingdom has a new Prime Minister
Gordon Brown, current Prime Minister, and his Labour Party have fallen out of favor with the British electorate. Because of this, Brown has stepped down and Queen Elizabeth II has invited the new Prime Minister, Conservative David Cameron, to form a government. Before everyone here gets excited about the new "conservative" leader in Britain, keep in mind that a Conservative in England is a bit to the left of a conservative in the United States.
---
**A recent poll on the new immigration law in Arizona. Of particular note are questions 33 and 34, shown below.
A large majority of Americans (including a majority of Democrats) want to see how this law works before the Obama administration puts a halt to enforcement of existing federal law.
While there are, no doubt, concerns about this new Arizona law, it appears that most Americans have a "wait and see" attitude.
If local police begin racial profiling (which is prohibited under this law) then we will have a serious problem. Perhaps I'm a bit optimistic, but I don't believe we're going to see a lot of this, simply because Arizona has placed itself under the microscope, and the implementation of this law is going to scrutinized very carefully. Time will tell.
Sunday, May 09, 2010
Is this Democratic Leader frightened?
Harry Reid, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, might be losing it.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid lashed out at Republicans as the “anti-immigrant party” in an interview aired Sunday on Univision.
“I'm frustrated; I'm upset just like the people you referred to,” he said, of the lack of meaningful movement on immigration. “We are begging Republicans to join with us. This is an issue that demands our attention and doesn't demand the negativity, so irrational what is going on.”
Clearly, a Democratic strategy for this election cycle will be flinging accusations of racism towards the Republican Party.
Along the lines of my lesson last week, here's a new lesson. If you are against illegal immigration, then you are not anti-immigrant. To understand this statement more clearly, I'll say it in a different way: If you are for legal immigration, you are not anti-immigrant.
As I've discussed before, most Republicans I talk to simply feel that legal immigration is the proper (and again, legal) way to gain entry into the United States of America.
Personally, I think Senator Reid is trying to demonize the GOP, in order to gain favor with some voters back at home. Why would he do this? I think the numbers and chart below speak volumes.
With anemic numbers like these, Senator Reid is probably doing everything possible to gain some traction in this race. Eventually, he will gain at least some traction for several reasons.
1. Harry Reid has a lot of money.
2. Incumbancy is powerful, even in an anti-incumbant year, and Harry Reid's a fighter.
3. Sue Lowden, his potential opponent is saying some interesting things that are getting her into trouble.
4. The likely Republican nominee at this point, Danny Tarkanian, doesn't seem to be an outstanding candidate, thusfar. I've included his polling data against Reid, because I'm not sure Lowden's going to make it out of the primary.
It doesn't mean he's the favorite by any means, but it will be a close race in Nevada; a nail-biter to the finish for one of the most powerful leaders in the Democratic Party. Hopefully, Senator Reid will stop insinuating racism in his interviews though...especially during interviews that are meant to do one thing: pander.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid lashed out at Republicans as the “anti-immigrant party” in an interview aired Sunday on Univision.
“I'm frustrated; I'm upset just like the people you referred to,” he said, of the lack of meaningful movement on immigration. “We are begging Republicans to join with us. This is an issue that demands our attention and doesn't demand the negativity, so irrational what is going on.”
Clearly, a Democratic strategy for this election cycle will be flinging accusations of racism towards the Republican Party.
Along the lines of my lesson last week, here's a new lesson. If you are against illegal immigration, then you are not anti-immigrant. To understand this statement more clearly, I'll say it in a different way: If you are for legal immigration, you are not anti-immigrant.
As I've discussed before, most Republicans I talk to simply feel that legal immigration is the proper (and again, legal) way to gain entry into the United States of America.
Personally, I think Senator Reid is trying to demonize the GOP, in order to gain favor with some voters back at home. Why would he do this? I think the numbers and chart below speak volumes.
With anemic numbers like these, Senator Reid is probably doing everything possible to gain some traction in this race. Eventually, he will gain at least some traction for several reasons.
1. Harry Reid has a lot of money.
2. Incumbancy is powerful, even in an anti-incumbant year, and Harry Reid's a fighter.
3. Sue Lowden, his potential opponent is saying some interesting things that are getting her into trouble.
4. The likely Republican nominee at this point, Danny Tarkanian, doesn't seem to be an outstanding candidate, thusfar. I've included his polling data against Reid, because I'm not sure Lowden's going to make it out of the primary.
It doesn't mean he's the favorite by any means, but it will be a close race in Nevada; a nail-biter to the finish for one of the most powerful leaders in the Democratic Party. Hopefully, Senator Reid will stop insinuating racism in his interviews though...especially during interviews that are meant to do one thing: pander.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Congress Makes a Move
This is a good move:
“Most members of Congress next year will receive $174,000 in 2011 under legislation awaiting President Barack Obama's signature, the same amount they're getting this year.
Under the law that governs congressional pay, senators and representatives were due to get an automatic cost of living increase on January 1 , probably an extra $1,600 or 0.9 percent, unless they voted beforehand to turn it down.
Last week, they did just that. The Senate rejected the increase in a voice vote, and the House of Representatives concurred, 402 to 15.”
In the land of the Potomac, sometimes the voice of the people is drowned out by the language of Washington. Unfortunately, it can produce an echo chamber where Representatives and Senators have little clue as to what’s happening around the country.
Well, the situation around the country isn’t terribly good. Americans are struggling with the recession that still has unemployment hovering near 10%. Economic growth is not what it should be, government spending is out of control, inflation is up, and the citizenry is clamoring for some real leadership in Washington D.C. It’s why a large anti-incumbency wave is going sweep through Congress six months from now. And since the Democrats have been in the majority for more than three years, they may be the recipients of heavy losses in both the House and Senate.
People aren't idiots. They realize when change turns out to be a bad thing. In November, I wrote a post comparing 1995-1997, when the Republicans took over the Congress, to 2007-2009, when the Democrats took over the Congress.
Here’s what I wrote back then.
"January 1995 - Republicans take over Congress, the budget, and the country’s pocketbook.
Unemployment is 6.2%
November of 1997, nearly 3 years later, the Republicans are still in charge of Congress.
Unemployment is down to 4.3%
January 2007 - Democrats take over Congress, the budget, and the country’s pocketbook.
Unemployment is 5%
November 2009, nearly 3 years later, the Democrats are still in charge of Congress.
Unemployment has doubled to over 10%."
Now, to be fair, unemployment has lowered itself to just above 9% over the last six months. However, it doesn’t take an economics major, or a 4th grader to understand that there's a serious difference in the results produced by these two time periods. The Democrats are in trouble, Congress is unpopular, and it’s obvious why.
So, Congress decides to NOT give itself its pay raise this year, a popular move that should be commended. However, it would truly commendable if Congress gave itself a pay cut, like so many other Americans have received during this economic downturn.
“Most members of Congress next year will receive $174,000 in 2011 under legislation awaiting President Barack Obama's signature, the same amount they're getting this year.
Under the law that governs congressional pay, senators and representatives were due to get an automatic cost of living increase on January 1 , probably an extra $1,600 or 0.9 percent, unless they voted beforehand to turn it down.
Last week, they did just that. The Senate rejected the increase in a voice vote, and the House of Representatives concurred, 402 to 15.”
In the land of the Potomac, sometimes the voice of the people is drowned out by the language of Washington. Unfortunately, it can produce an echo chamber where Representatives and Senators have little clue as to what’s happening around the country.
Well, the situation around the country isn’t terribly good. Americans are struggling with the recession that still has unemployment hovering near 10%. Economic growth is not what it should be, government spending is out of control, inflation is up, and the citizenry is clamoring for some real leadership in Washington D.C. It’s why a large anti-incumbency wave is going sweep through Congress six months from now. And since the Democrats have been in the majority for more than three years, they may be the recipients of heavy losses in both the House and Senate.
People aren't idiots. They realize when change turns out to be a bad thing. In November, I wrote a post comparing 1995-1997, when the Republicans took over the Congress, to 2007-2009, when the Democrats took over the Congress.
Here’s what I wrote back then.
"January 1995 - Republicans take over Congress, the budget, and the country’s pocketbook.
Unemployment is 6.2%
November of 1997, nearly 3 years later, the Republicans are still in charge of Congress.
Unemployment is down to 4.3%
January 2007 - Democrats take over Congress, the budget, and the country’s pocketbook.
Unemployment is 5%
November 2009, nearly 3 years later, the Democrats are still in charge of Congress.
Unemployment has doubled to over 10%."
Now, to be fair, unemployment has lowered itself to just above 9% over the last six months. However, it doesn’t take an economics major, or a 4th grader to understand that there's a serious difference in the results produced by these two time periods. The Democrats are in trouble, Congress is unpopular, and it’s obvious why.
So, Congress decides to NOT give itself its pay raise this year, a popular move that should be commended. However, it would truly commendable if Congress gave itself a pay cut, like so many other Americans have received during this economic downturn.
Monday, May 03, 2010
An Iowa Election Poll
Here’s the latest polling from Rasmussen:
2010 Senate
53% Grassley (R), 40% Conlin (D)
2010 Governor
53% Branstad (R), 38% Culver (D)
45% Vander Plaats (R), 41% Culver (D)
43% Culver (D), 41% Roberts (R)
Favorable / Unfavorable
Chuck Grassley: 63 / 34 (+29)
Terry Branstad: 59 / 38 (+21)
Bob Vander Plaats: 44 / 35 (+9)
Rod Roberts: 31 / 27 (+4)
Roxanne Conlin: 44 / 40 (+4)
Chet Culver: 44 / 53 (-9)
Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 48 / 51 (-3)
Gov. Culver: 43 / 56 (-13)
After looking at these numbers, one thing is for sure: Governor Chet Culver is going to have a very tough November unless these numbers turn around. Anytime an incumbent is hovering around a 40% approval rating, he’s usually toast. 50% is usually the safe mark, where an incumbent can at least have a fighting chance at reelection.
It looks as though Vander Plaats would defeat Culver in a close election. A Roberts nomination would probably produce a nail biter on election night. A Brandstad nomination would be an easy victory for the former governor.
However, the primary for the GOP is still a month away. Will the Republican electorate demand a social conservative in BVP or will they be willing to accept a social moderate/conservative in Terry Branstad? Or will they want the soft-spoken Roberts to run against the Governor? Time will tell.
As for the Senate race, the race is getting closer. Although Chuck Grassley is the most popular politician in the state, besting the Hawkeye state’s junior Senator Harkin, and even President Obama, he is only up 13 points on prolific fundraiser and likely Democratic nominee Roxanne Conlin. Conlin should be pleased with this poll, putting her within striking distance of being within striking distance. However, she should not be pleased with the favorability ratings. At this point, most Iowans seemingly know who she is, and have an opinion towards her. This is no good for Ms. Conlin. At this point in the campaign, a much more enviable position is that of Rod Roberts. Only a small majority of Iowans have an opinion of the gubernatorial candidate.
If Conlin had those kinds of numbers, she would have more room to grow and make up those 13 points against Iowa’s senior senator. However, it’s going to be tough for her to do that.
Some good news for Conlin? At least she’s not Governor Culver.
2010 Senate
53% Grassley (R), 40% Conlin (D)
2010 Governor
53% Branstad (R), 38% Culver (D)
45% Vander Plaats (R), 41% Culver (D)
43% Culver (D), 41% Roberts (R)
Favorable / Unfavorable
Chuck Grassley: 63 / 34 (+29)
Terry Branstad: 59 / 38 (+21)
Bob Vander Plaats: 44 / 35 (+9)
Rod Roberts: 31 / 27 (+4)
Roxanne Conlin: 44 / 40 (+4)
Chet Culver: 44 / 53 (-9)
Job Approval / Disapproval
Pres. Obama: 48 / 51 (-3)
Gov. Culver: 43 / 56 (-13)
After looking at these numbers, one thing is for sure: Governor Chet Culver is going to have a very tough November unless these numbers turn around. Anytime an incumbent is hovering around a 40% approval rating, he’s usually toast. 50% is usually the safe mark, where an incumbent can at least have a fighting chance at reelection.
It looks as though Vander Plaats would defeat Culver in a close election. A Roberts nomination would probably produce a nail biter on election night. A Brandstad nomination would be an easy victory for the former governor.
However, the primary for the GOP is still a month away. Will the Republican electorate demand a social conservative in BVP or will they be willing to accept a social moderate/conservative in Terry Branstad? Or will they want the soft-spoken Roberts to run against the Governor? Time will tell.
As for the Senate race, the race is getting closer. Although Chuck Grassley is the most popular politician in the state, besting the Hawkeye state’s junior Senator Harkin, and even President Obama, he is only up 13 points on prolific fundraiser and likely Democratic nominee Roxanne Conlin. Conlin should be pleased with this poll, putting her within striking distance of being within striking distance. However, she should not be pleased with the favorability ratings. At this point, most Iowans seemingly know who she is, and have an opinion towards her. This is no good for Ms. Conlin. At this point in the campaign, a much more enviable position is that of Rod Roberts. Only a small majority of Iowans have an opinion of the gubernatorial candidate.
If Conlin had those kinds of numbers, she would have more room to grow and make up those 13 points against Iowa’s senior senator. However, it’s going to be tough for her to do that.
Some good news for Conlin? At least she’s not Governor Culver.
Sunday, May 02, 2010
Quick Sunday Facts
Let's remind everyone of two indisputable facts once again:
1. If you believe that illegal immigrants should not receive amnesty, you are not a racist. Period.
2. If you believe that another race, immigrant or not, illegal or not, is inferior to your race, you are a racist. Period.
I hope you enjoy this lovely Sunday.
1. If you believe that illegal immigrants should not receive amnesty, you are not a racist. Period.
2. If you believe that another race, immigrant or not, illegal or not, is inferior to your race, you are a racist. Period.
I hope you enjoy this lovely Sunday.
Saturday, May 01, 2010
A Controversial Immigration Bill Pt. 2
The law which passed last week in Arizona has certainly incited protests against the state. Latino organizations are fiercely protesting this law, and they certainly have the right too, and I understand why they are protesting. As I said in a previous post, many Latino organizations undoubtedly feel that Arizona police will stop Hispanic residents of the state for no reason whatsoever, and “demand to see their papers.”
Hearing these criticisms, Governor Jan Brewer and the state legislature made a few changes to the law.
Under the law, police would be able to detain an individual based merely on the suspicion that he or she entered the country illegally. But one of the changes -- which had been adopted by state lawmakers Thursday night -- says police could stop suspected illegal immigrants only while enforcing some other law or ordinance.
An officer could only ask about an immigrant's legal status, for example, while investigating that person for speeding, loitering or some other offense.
The facts are these:
Before the change: Police can stop anyone with “reasonable suspicion.” Critics believe that this statement could be liberally interpreted, stretched to the limit, and civil liberties could potentially be violated. President Obama had this to say, while visiting Ottumwa.
"You can imagine if you are an Hispanic American in Arizona, your great grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state, but now suddenly if you don't have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're gonna be harassed," Obama said. "That's something that could potentially happen. That's not the right way to go."
Notice that President Obama, former constitutional law professor, never said that the bill was unconstitutional. Nonetheless, the Arizona state government decided to alter their law.
After the change: Police CANNOT stop anyone with “reasonable suspicion” only. There must be an offense committed. Therefore, the President’s story about an ice cream desiring family now, by law, cannot happen…unless mom is speeding on the way to Coldstone. Furthermore:
University of Arizona law professor Gabriel Chin told CNN that the changes to the bill are significant, insofar as they help remove a "huge disincentive for victims and witnesses to cooperate with the police."
Under the original version of the law, he said, police officers would have been obligated to arrest a suspected illegal immigrant who approached them after being victimized. That would not be the case under the revised law.
I would hope that these changes would be welcomed, because most folks should realize that these alterations are more realistic, and less “Nazi-like,” right?
"It doesn't deter anything," said Dan Pochoda, legal director of the Arizona ACLU. "It's not a serious hurdle."
Pochoda said that law enforcement officers -- under strong pressure to find and remove illegal immigrants -- could still identify people by race and then look for a minor infraction as an excuse to investigate them.
Sorry, Governor Brewer…you just can’t win. It seems as though you heard a lot of criticism, listened to it, and then made the changes that you felt were necessary to improve the bill. Mr. Pochoda, if you believe that police will be intentionally looking for people to break the law, looking for any excuse to pull over a Latino family on the way to get ice cream, then you must not have very much respect for the police.
I think we can only conclude one thing: The goal of many on the left is to have a situation where if you are visiting this country illegally, you shouldn't be mandated to carry or show identification. When I visit other countries, I always have one of two things on my person: My passport, or a copy of my passport. This makes sense. If the French police were to ever stop me, I would have to show them my documentation. This is how the world works. I simply cannot fathom why visitors in Arizona shouldn't be forced to carry or show their documentation when they are stopped for speeding. I have to.
Again, I think the only logical conclusion is that Mr. Pochoda and the ACLU truly believe that if you are an illegal immigrant, you should never be forced to show your documentation to authorities. My only question to the Arizona ACLU and other organizations is, why not?
Hearing these criticisms, Governor Jan Brewer and the state legislature made a few changes to the law.
Under the law, police would be able to detain an individual based merely on the suspicion that he or she entered the country illegally. But one of the changes -- which had been adopted by state lawmakers Thursday night -- says police could stop suspected illegal immigrants only while enforcing some other law or ordinance.
An officer could only ask about an immigrant's legal status, for example, while investigating that person for speeding, loitering or some other offense.
The facts are these:
Before the change: Police can stop anyone with “reasonable suspicion.” Critics believe that this statement could be liberally interpreted, stretched to the limit, and civil liberties could potentially be violated. President Obama had this to say, while visiting Ottumwa.
"You can imagine if you are an Hispanic American in Arizona, your great grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state, but now suddenly if you don't have your papers, and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're gonna be harassed," Obama said. "That's something that could potentially happen. That's not the right way to go."
Notice that President Obama, former constitutional law professor, never said that the bill was unconstitutional. Nonetheless, the Arizona state government decided to alter their law.
After the change: Police CANNOT stop anyone with “reasonable suspicion” only. There must be an offense committed. Therefore, the President’s story about an ice cream desiring family now, by law, cannot happen…unless mom is speeding on the way to Coldstone. Furthermore:
University of Arizona law professor Gabriel Chin told CNN that the changes to the bill are significant, insofar as they help remove a "huge disincentive for victims and witnesses to cooperate with the police."
Under the original version of the law, he said, police officers would have been obligated to arrest a suspected illegal immigrant who approached them after being victimized. That would not be the case under the revised law.
I would hope that these changes would be welcomed, because most folks should realize that these alterations are more realistic, and less “Nazi-like,” right?
"It doesn't deter anything," said Dan Pochoda, legal director of the Arizona ACLU. "It's not a serious hurdle."
Pochoda said that law enforcement officers -- under strong pressure to find and remove illegal immigrants -- could still identify people by race and then look for a minor infraction as an excuse to investigate them.
Sorry, Governor Brewer…you just can’t win. It seems as though you heard a lot of criticism, listened to it, and then made the changes that you felt were necessary to improve the bill. Mr. Pochoda, if you believe that police will be intentionally looking for people to break the law, looking for any excuse to pull over a Latino family on the way to get ice cream, then you must not have very much respect for the police.
I think we can only conclude one thing: The goal of many on the left is to have a situation where if you are visiting this country illegally, you shouldn't be mandated to carry or show identification. When I visit other countries, I always have one of two things on my person: My passport, or a copy of my passport. This makes sense. If the French police were to ever stop me, I would have to show them my documentation. This is how the world works. I simply cannot fathom why visitors in Arizona shouldn't be forced to carry or show their documentation when they are stopped for speeding. I have to.
Again, I think the only logical conclusion is that Mr. Pochoda and the ACLU truly believe that if you are an illegal immigrant, you should never be forced to show your documentation to authorities. My only question to the Arizona ACLU and other organizations is, why not?
Thursday, April 29, 2010
This is Unhelpful
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.
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.
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
