It was President Ronald Reagan who signed the proclamation to make Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday a National Holiday.
On November 2, 1986, these were Reagan’s remarks on signing the bill making the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., a National Holiday:
“Mrs. King, members of the King family, distinguished Members of the Congress, ladies and gentlemen, honored guests, I’m very pleased to welcome you to the White House, the home that belongs to all of us, the American people.
When I was thinking of the contributions to our country of the man that we’re honoring today, a passage attributed to the American poet John Greenleaf Whittier comes to mind. “Each crisis brings its word and deed.” In America, in the fifties and sixties, one of the important crises we faced was racial discrimination. The man whose words and deeds in that crisis stirred our nation to the very depths of its soul was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Martin Luther King was born in 1929 in an America where, because of the color of their skin, nearly 1 in 10 lived lives that were separate and unequal. Most black Americans were taught in segregated schools. Across the country, too many could find only poor jobs, toiling for low wages. They were refused entry into hotels and restaurants, made to use separate facilities. In a nation that proclaimed liberty and justice for all, too many black Americans were living with neither.
In one city, a rule required all blacks to sit in the rear of public buses. But in 1955, when a brave woman named Rosa Parks was told to move to the back of the bus, she said, “No.” A young minister in a local Baptist church, Martin Luther King, then organized a boycott of the bus company—a boycott that stunned the country. Within 6 months the courts had ruled the segregation of public transportation unconstitutional.
Dr. King had awakened something strong and true, a sense that true justice must be colorblind, and that among white and black Americans, as he put it, “Their destiny is tied up with our destiny, and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom; we cannot walk alone.”
In the years after the bus boycott, Dr. King made equality of rights his life’s work. Across the country, he organized boycotts, rallies, and marches. Often he was beaten, imprisoned, but he never stopped teaching nonviolence. “Work with the faith”, he told his followers, “that unearned suffering is redemptive.” In 1964 Dr. King became the youngest man in history to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
Dr. King’s work brought him to this city often. And in one sweltering August day in 1963, he addressed a quarter of a million people at the Lincoln Memorial. If American history grows from two centuries to twenty, his words that day will never be forgotten. “I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.”
In 1968 Martin Luther King was gunned down by a brutal assassin, his life cut short at the age of 39. But those 39 short years had changed America forever. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 had guaranteed all Americans equal use of public accommodations, equal access to programs financed by Federal funds, and the right to compete for employment on the sole basis of individual merit. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 had made certain that from then on black Americans would get to vote. But most important, there was not just a change of law; there was a change of heart. The conscience of America had been touched. Across the land, people had begun to treat each other not as blacks and whites, but as fellow Americans.
And since Dr. King’s death, his father, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Sr., and his wife, Coretta King, have eloquently and forcefully carried on his work. Also his family have joined in that cause.
Now our nation has decided to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., by setting aside a day each year to remember him and the just cause he stood for. We’ve made historic strides since Rosa Parks refused to go to the back of the bus. As a democratic people, we can take pride in the knowledge that we Americans recognized a grave injustice and took action to correct it. And we should remember that in far too many countries, people like Dr. King never have the opportunity to speak out at all.
But traces of bigotry still mar America. So, each year on Martin Luther King Day, let us not only recall Dr. King, but rededicate ourselves to the Commandments he believed in and sought to live every day: Thou shall love thy God with all thy heart, and thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself. And I just have to believe that all of us—if all of us, young and old, Republicans and Democrats, do all we can to live up to those Commandments, then we will see the day when Dr. King’s dream comes true, and in his words, “All of God’s children will be able to sing with new meaning, ‘… land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim’s pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring.’”
Thank you, God bless you, and I will sign it.”
Monday, January 17, 2011
Sunday, January 16, 2011
TPPF Policy Orientation - Day Two, Part One
Panel Session - Energy Policy at a Crossroads: Mandate or Markets?
Panel: Tom Craddick - Texas Senate
Steven Hayward, F.K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Dale Klein, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Paul Sadler, Exec Director, The Wind Coalition
Steven Hayward - Little known fact, Texas is the leading state in coal consumption. Indiana is the second. It is a cheap form of energy. But, beware of the coalition forming between environmentalists and the natural gas industry. Just as happened with oil drilling industry (especially BP), the next move will be to minimize natural gas exploration - same as all other fossil fuels.
Dale Klein - Mentioned the rare occurrence anymore of any opposition to nuclear energy. No ongoing protests as in years past. In China, 21 new nuclear energy plants are being built. There will be 61 new nuclear energy plants worldwide by 2015. Concerning Yucca Mountain - the decision by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to store nuclear waste there was the jurisdiction of that commission. It is, by law, not the decision of the President or Congress to make. For any Senator or President to wade into the argument or act as though the decision is one of their's is illegal.
Paul Sadler - Former legislator and Democrat, he advocates for politicians and alternative energy proponents to work together. He is angry when talk centers around all the subsidies given to alternative energy development - especially wind energy. He pointed out that all energy production and exploration receives incentives and subsidies. Wind receives the least of them. He stated that 99% of subsidies went to fossil fuels. He is not opposed to ending all incentives and subsidies across the board.
Tom Craddick - This will be a tough year in the legislative session for the oil and gas industry. The industry must be aggressive and tell its story and not let others do it for them. Local issues are driving thoughts on oil and gas. Texas has a healthy Rainy Day Fund, which comes directly from revenues of the oil and gas industry.
Panel: Tom Craddick - Texas Senate
Steven Hayward, F.K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow, American Enterprise Institute
Dale Klein, Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Paul Sadler, Exec Director, The Wind Coalition
Steven Hayward - Little known fact, Texas is the leading state in coal consumption. Indiana is the second. It is a cheap form of energy. But, beware of the coalition forming between environmentalists and the natural gas industry. Just as happened with oil drilling industry (especially BP), the next move will be to minimize natural gas exploration - same as all other fossil fuels.
Dale Klein - Mentioned the rare occurrence anymore of any opposition to nuclear energy. No ongoing protests as in years past. In China, 21 new nuclear energy plants are being built. There will be 61 new nuclear energy plants worldwide by 2015. Concerning Yucca Mountain - the decision by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to store nuclear waste there was the jurisdiction of that commission. It is, by law, not the decision of the President or Congress to make. For any Senator or President to wade into the argument or act as though the decision is one of their's is illegal.
Paul Sadler - Former legislator and Democrat, he advocates for politicians and alternative energy proponents to work together. He is angry when talk centers around all the subsidies given to alternative energy development - especially wind energy. He pointed out that all energy production and exploration receives incentives and subsidies. Wind receives the least of them. He stated that 99% of subsidies went to fossil fuels. He is not opposed to ending all incentives and subsidies across the board.
Tom Craddick - This will be a tough year in the legislative session for the oil and gas industry. The industry must be aggressive and tell its story and not let others do it for them. Local issues are driving thoughts on oil and gas. Texas has a healthy Rainy Day Fund, which comes directly from revenues of the oil and gas industry.
TPPF Policy Orientation - Day One, Part Three
Health Insurance Exchanges - Good Deal or Raw Deal?
Panel: Rep Larry Taylor, Tx house of Representatives
John Goodman, Pres and CEO, National Ctr for Policy Analysis
Edmund Haislmaier, Sr Research Fellow, Health Policy Studies
Jared Wolfe, Exec Dir, Tx Assoc of Health Plans
John Goodman - Touted his blog. Health policy blog is right of center.
Jared Wolfe - Studied health insurance exchanges for three decades. Also managed competition and Fed Employee Health Benefits Plans.
Texas should establish its own exchange. 24 million around the country in exchanges by 2019. States know its own market. Government only able to do one size fits all approach.
Edmund Haislmaier - Spent the last five years researching patient controlled health care options.
An exchange is a box with a label on it. It is what's in the box that matters. States should offer employers option to purchase plan, not a mandatory excercise.
2014- States mandate control over Medicaid program - otherwise without exchanges, the federal government will control it.
Rep Larry Taylor - Vows to get Obamacare repealed but says it will take another election cycle.
Panel Session Three
Fiscal Transparency: Pulling Back the Curtain on Spending
Panel: Keith Elkins, Exec Dir, Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas
Talmadge Heflin, Director, Ctr for Fiscal Policy, TPPF
Trent Seibert, Founder & Editor, Texas Watchdog
Ross Ramsey, CEO & Editor, The Texas Tribune
Keith Elkins - As a political reporter he knows the problems of mass info drops during legislative sessions at the last minute.
Recommends website as excellent example of online transparency - www.LouisvilleCheckbook.com - One of the best city financial websites in the country.
Have to create a model that is user-friendly to allow users to import data without re-inventing the wheel every time. Point and click.
Talmadge Heflin - TPPF is a strong advocate for transparency.
Taxpayers deserve to know where the money goes.
educating the public about activities is top priority.
Ross Ramsey - Spoke about all the political reporters having lunch with Lt Gov Dewhurst (regular event) when KBH made announcement not to seek re-election in 2012. All the cell phones went off at the same time.
Trent Seibert - Don't underestimate desire by the people for transparency and open records.
Opening Lunch Keynote was delivered by Senator John Cornyn. Senator Cornyn stressed the importance of working for a balanced budget amendment this year. He pledged to be a no vote on extending the debt ceiling without budget cuts tied to it.
Panel: Rep Larry Taylor, Tx house of Representatives
John Goodman, Pres and CEO, National Ctr for Policy Analysis
Edmund Haislmaier, Sr Research Fellow, Health Policy Studies
Jared Wolfe, Exec Dir, Tx Assoc of Health Plans
John Goodman - Touted his blog. Health policy blog is right of center.
Jared Wolfe - Studied health insurance exchanges for three decades. Also managed competition and Fed Employee Health Benefits Plans.
Texas should establish its own exchange. 24 million around the country in exchanges by 2019. States know its own market. Government only able to do one size fits all approach.
Edmund Haislmaier - Spent the last five years researching patient controlled health care options.
An exchange is a box with a label on it. It is what's in the box that matters. States should offer employers option to purchase plan, not a mandatory excercise.
2014- States mandate control over Medicaid program - otherwise without exchanges, the federal government will control it.
Rep Larry Taylor - Vows to get Obamacare repealed but says it will take another election cycle.
Panel Session Three
Fiscal Transparency: Pulling Back the Curtain on Spending
Panel: Keith Elkins, Exec Dir, Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas
Talmadge Heflin, Director, Ctr for Fiscal Policy, TPPF
Trent Seibert, Founder & Editor, Texas Watchdog
Ross Ramsey, CEO & Editor, The Texas Tribune
Keith Elkins - As a political reporter he knows the problems of mass info drops during legislative sessions at the last minute.
Recommends website as excellent example of online transparency - www.LouisvilleCheckbook.com - One of the best city financial websites in the country.
Have to create a model that is user-friendly to allow users to import data without re-inventing the wheel every time. Point and click.
Talmadge Heflin - TPPF is a strong advocate for transparency.
Taxpayers deserve to know where the money goes.
educating the public about activities is top priority.
Ross Ramsey - Spoke about all the political reporters having lunch with Lt Gov Dewhurst (regular event) when KBH made announcement not to seek re-election in 2012. All the cell phones went off at the same time.
Trent Seibert - Don't underestimate desire by the people for transparency and open records.
Opening Lunch Keynote was delivered by Senator John Cornyn. Senator Cornyn stressed the importance of working for a balanced budget amendment this year. He pledged to be a no vote on extending the debt ceiling without budget cuts tied to it.
Political People Exploiting the Arizona Shootings
There is something not right about the time on the airwaves given to those who are using the time to talk about Rep Gabby Giffords and the Arizona shootings. First it was the young man who was a Gifford staffer. He had a nursing course under his belt and utilized it to possibly save her life in the moments after she was shot in that Safeway parking lot.
Now it is Senator Gillibrand and Rep Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. These two women were part of the Presidential entourage that travelled to Tucson for the memorial service conducted at the University of Arizona. The two women, both Democrats, have hit the talk show circuit to tie it all into the wonders of the Obama administration.
Gillibrand said on a Sunday morning show that Giffords embodies all that President Obama was speaking to in his speech at the memorial. Her reasoning is that Giffords is a good person fighting mightily to survive.
Gillibrand is finding her political star rising after recognition for successfully moving the 9/11 responders bill to passage. It appears she is milking the rise in exposure, whether that is correct or not.
Wasserman-Schultz is known for her hyper-partisan rhetoric in her television appearances and interviews. She performs perfectly as she robotically stays on message uttering the White House talking points of the day. She is not a good representative to be calling upon everyone to pull together.
Those who are sitting on panels discussing 'bi-partisanship' are a motley crew. The likes of Al Sharpton and Paul Krugman on Meet the Press are too much to tolerate for a thoughtful viewer. Sharpton is a professional instigator and when the truth is not on his side he makes up a storyline. Remember Twana? Krugman was the first out of the chute to accuse the Republicans and the Tea Party crowd for the shooting, a mere three hours after the shootings in his New York Times opinion piece. That was false, too, but he rushed to judgement. Really poor judgement.
Rep Giffords, while a truly compelling story, is not the only victim of this tragedy. She and the little nine year old girl who died are the two most focused upon. It is understandable but it is not right. The others injured and the others killed have a story, too.
Senator Gillibrand pushing forward the notion that the two parties should sit amongst themselves during the State of the Union address. It is a token gesture and nonsensical. It's another feel good gesture to make those participating feel better. Those very ones who have raised the tone of discourse to the point it is today are the ones advocating the touchy-feely stuff.
It would be a little more palatable if those hogging the camera now to preach about civility and bi-partisanship actually had a bit of history of doing so themselves. From Obama on down the line, the Democrats have shown nothing but hyper-partisanship since the 2009 inauguration and have shown no desire to do the work of reaching out to the opposition's ideas or solutions. It is hard to believe that in a year that will be spent by the Democrats getting President Obama re-elected, the call for bi-partisanship is motivated by anything other than political posturing. Especially now with the Republican majority in the House of Representatives and a slim Democratic majority in the Senate.
Now it is Senator Gillibrand and Rep Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. These two women were part of the Presidential entourage that travelled to Tucson for the memorial service conducted at the University of Arizona. The two women, both Democrats, have hit the talk show circuit to tie it all into the wonders of the Obama administration.
Gillibrand said on a Sunday morning show that Giffords embodies all that President Obama was speaking to in his speech at the memorial. Her reasoning is that Giffords is a good person fighting mightily to survive.
Gillibrand is finding her political star rising after recognition for successfully moving the 9/11 responders bill to passage. It appears she is milking the rise in exposure, whether that is correct or not.
Wasserman-Schultz is known for her hyper-partisan rhetoric in her television appearances and interviews. She performs perfectly as she robotically stays on message uttering the White House talking points of the day. She is not a good representative to be calling upon everyone to pull together.
Those who are sitting on panels discussing 'bi-partisanship' are a motley crew. The likes of Al Sharpton and Paul Krugman on Meet the Press are too much to tolerate for a thoughtful viewer. Sharpton is a professional instigator and when the truth is not on his side he makes up a storyline. Remember Twana? Krugman was the first out of the chute to accuse the Republicans and the Tea Party crowd for the shooting, a mere three hours after the shootings in his New York Times opinion piece. That was false, too, but he rushed to judgement. Really poor judgement.
Rep Giffords, while a truly compelling story, is not the only victim of this tragedy. She and the little nine year old girl who died are the two most focused upon. It is understandable but it is not right. The others injured and the others killed have a story, too.
Senator Gillibrand pushing forward the notion that the two parties should sit amongst themselves during the State of the Union address. It is a token gesture and nonsensical. It's another feel good gesture to make those participating feel better. Those very ones who have raised the tone of discourse to the point it is today are the ones advocating the touchy-feely stuff.
It would be a little more palatable if those hogging the camera now to preach about civility and bi-partisanship actually had a bit of history of doing so themselves. From Obama on down the line, the Democrats have shown nothing but hyper-partisanship since the 2009 inauguration and have shown no desire to do the work of reaching out to the opposition's ideas or solutions. It is hard to believe that in a year that will be spent by the Democrats getting President Obama re-elected, the call for bi-partisanship is motivated by anything other than political posturing. Especially now with the Republican majority in the House of Representatives and a slim Democratic majority in the Senate.
TPPF Policy Orientation - Day One, Part Two
Panel Session I - Getting More for Less in Corrections
This panel focused on the use of community-based supervision for nonviolent offenders as an alternative to building more prisons. Not only did this save the State of Texas $2 billion but it also resulted in the state's lowest crime rate since 1973.
Panel participants: John Whitmire, Texas Senate
Jerry Madden, Texas House of Representatives
Adam Gelb, Pew Ctr on the States, Public Safety Performance Proj
Pat Lykos, District Attorney, Harris County
Pat Lykos - *10th Amendment debate is healthy. The question is, what is the role of government? Mission is to make Texas safer.
*Pre-probation program implemented in Harris Co has saved $1.4 million. Includes no charges filed when contract is signed between parents, child and office. More than 9,000 participated in 2010. Non-violent offenders, first time run-in with law, and juvenile has to agree to stay in school.
*Often have to file charges to get mental illness care.
*Gangs brag that they own the night in Harris County, to which Lykos responds, "We're shining the light of day on them."
*Urgent need for more residential treatment residences to keep mentally ill off the street.
*Need for a one-stop facility for parolees. When they are released, instead of dumping on the streets with $50 in their pockets, this facility would help them get ID papers, risk assessment, etc.
*"Houston cocktail" is vicodin, soma and Xanex.
*Thousands of rape kits not processed by Harris County medical examiners office.
*Criminal justice is 6% of the state budget.
Jerry Madden - *Critical fight to retain policy put in place in 2007 - includes drug abuse rehab, mental health funding for youth and adults.
John Whitmire - *aka "Dean of the Senate", longest serving Senator in Tx lege.
*System in place is a model for the country for successful reform.
*School districts writing tickets criminalizing student misbehavior results in disorderly conduct charges on record, even in elementary school.
*Keep urban violators near family as a support system, not transferred out into rural facilities.
*More alcohol treatment beds needed.
*12,000 women in prisons for drug and alcohol violations. 300 prostitutes. Texas is the only state that deals with prostitutes this harshly.
Adam Gelb - *Conducted bi-partisan poll using both Obama and McCain pollsters, focus groups and a national survey.
*First and foremost, people want to be safe. The key point is people believe it is possible to be safe while reducing the size and cost of the system.
*75% favored smaller prison time to cut budget.
*People expect toughness while demanding program effectiveness.
*Parole, probation not favored if viewed as a slap on the wrist.
The recurring theme from the panel was the need to continue to think outside of the box to solve budget crisis and still punish the violator. The overwhelming factor in crime is alcohol and drug abuse. More treatment facilities are needed to keep mentally ill people off the streets.
This panel focused on the use of community-based supervision for nonviolent offenders as an alternative to building more prisons. Not only did this save the State of Texas $2 billion but it also resulted in the state's lowest crime rate since 1973.
Panel participants: John Whitmire, Texas Senate
Jerry Madden, Texas House of Representatives
Adam Gelb, Pew Ctr on the States, Public Safety Performance Proj
Pat Lykos, District Attorney, Harris County
Pat Lykos - *10th Amendment debate is healthy. The question is, what is the role of government? Mission is to make Texas safer.
*Pre-probation program implemented in Harris Co has saved $1.4 million. Includes no charges filed when contract is signed between parents, child and office. More than 9,000 participated in 2010. Non-violent offenders, first time run-in with law, and juvenile has to agree to stay in school.
*Often have to file charges to get mental illness care.
*Gangs brag that they own the night in Harris County, to which Lykos responds, "We're shining the light of day on them."
*Urgent need for more residential treatment residences to keep mentally ill off the street.
*Need for a one-stop facility for parolees. When they are released, instead of dumping on the streets with $50 in their pockets, this facility would help them get ID papers, risk assessment, etc.
*"Houston cocktail" is vicodin, soma and Xanex.
*Thousands of rape kits not processed by Harris County medical examiners office.
*Criminal justice is 6% of the state budget.
Jerry Madden - *Critical fight to retain policy put in place in 2007 - includes drug abuse rehab, mental health funding for youth and adults.
John Whitmire - *aka "Dean of the Senate", longest serving Senator in Tx lege.
*System in place is a model for the country for successful reform.
*School districts writing tickets criminalizing student misbehavior results in disorderly conduct charges on record, even in elementary school.
*Keep urban violators near family as a support system, not transferred out into rural facilities.
*More alcohol treatment beds needed.
*12,000 women in prisons for drug and alcohol violations. 300 prostitutes. Texas is the only state that deals with prostitutes this harshly.
Adam Gelb - *Conducted bi-partisan poll using both Obama and McCain pollsters, focus groups and a national survey.
*First and foremost, people want to be safe. The key point is people believe it is possible to be safe while reducing the size and cost of the system.
*75% favored smaller prison time to cut budget.
*People expect toughness while demanding program effectiveness.
*Parole, probation not favored if viewed as a slap on the wrist.
The recurring theme from the panel was the need to continue to think outside of the box to solve budget crisis and still punish the violator. The overwhelming factor in crime is alcohol and drug abuse. More treatment facilities are needed to keep mentally ill people off the streets.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Texas Public Policy Foundation's Policy Orientation - Day One
I was pleased to accept an invitation to blog during the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Ninth Annual Policy Orientation in Austin. The sold-out event brought a stellar list of politicos from around the state.
The first day began with the kickoff breakfast and debate. Rep Jim Murphy, from my own district, led in prayer. Many members of the legislature were present. Then the first debate was ushered in by TPPF's President, Brooke Rollins.
Ted Cruz - former Tx Solicitor General and now a Senior Fellow at TPPF's Center for Tenth Amendment Studies faced off Scott McCown - Exec Dir at Center for Public Policy Priorities. And, by faced off, I mean Cruz soundly defeated McCown. The debate topic was Federalism.
Cruz - *Federalism allows us to value the beliefs of our citizens.
*Obamacare is a move to put health care into the arena of government. Congress doesn't have the power to go outside Bill of Rights. Under the 9th and 10th Amendments, Federal government only has the powers granted specifically to them.
*Anywhere government health care has been implemented, failure has resulted. Great Britain, Canada - results are price controls and rationing.
*If health care mandates for purchasing insurance are in Commerce Clause, then everything is in the Commerce Clause.
McCown - *Under enumerated powers, it is possible to find funds for health care reform.
*10th Amendment doesn't limit Federal power.
*Predicts eventually a majority will demand the public option not in place now. No democracy will tolerate some of its citizens to have health care while others don't.
*The term "Obamacare" is an insult.
*Advocates that "Affordable Care Act" is a Swiss-style insurance market system brought about by conservative opposition to public option.
Cruz - *Obamacare term is a reference to the jamming through of the legislation against the wishes of the majority of the people. Refers to hubris of the President.
*Predicts individual mandate will be overturned by SCOTUS.
*Can't rely solely on SCOTUS to "save" us. Predicts other parts will survive court challenges.
*Real solution is political - people standing up. Opposition can pass real Constitutional amendments limiting federal powers.
*Texas can engage in interstate compact to trump Obamacare. A tool for states to fight back.
*Different parts of government restrain each other. State's job to restrain Federal government.
McCown - *Enumerated powers clause is necessary and proper clause.
*Global world has changed.
*Predicts individual mandate will be Constitutional.
Hands down, Cruz won the debate. It was a respectful debate representing the two very different opinions between conservative and liberal participant.
Next up, Keynote Speaker Governor Rick Perry. To say Perry was warmly welcomed would be an understatement. This was his audience.
Perry opened by remarking that thanks to the huge income tax increase passed by the State of Illinois, Texas is recruiting the businesses of that state to come to Texas to do business. His office is writing letters to states raising taxes welcoming them to come to Texas and offering incentives.
"Don't believe everything you read in the paper", Gov Perry said. In particular, the recent story written about the state's budget crisis. Perry said the press got it wrong.
Best thing never done in Texas was to implement personal income tax. By remaining disciplined with sound policies, Texas is rebounding faster than other states. "I'm pretty fired-up about competing against other states". He noted other Governors have recently noted Texas successes in their speeches. "I do intend to be the most competitive guy in town."
Perry said a predictable regulatory structure needs to be maintained. He vowed to fend off EPA's excessive demands on Texas. He said he would continue to fight against lawsuit abuse and protect tort reform in place. He wants an early dismissal option power to be put in place for judges - Texas is one of the few states without it for frivolous lawsuits. This would improve the legal climate.
Perry wants investment in math, science and technology education to continue to build the economy and encourage new business.
"Nothing halts progress more quickly than raising taxes".
He outlines outlawing sanctuary cities and supporting eminent domain as his top priorities.
The first day began with the kickoff breakfast and debate. Rep Jim Murphy, from my own district, led in prayer. Many members of the legislature were present. Then the first debate was ushered in by TPPF's President, Brooke Rollins.
Ted Cruz - former Tx Solicitor General and now a Senior Fellow at TPPF's Center for Tenth Amendment Studies faced off Scott McCown - Exec Dir at Center for Public Policy Priorities. And, by faced off, I mean Cruz soundly defeated McCown. The debate topic was Federalism.
Cruz - *Federalism allows us to value the beliefs of our citizens.
*Obamacare is a move to put health care into the arena of government. Congress doesn't have the power to go outside Bill of Rights. Under the 9th and 10th Amendments, Federal government only has the powers granted specifically to them.
*Anywhere government health care has been implemented, failure has resulted. Great Britain, Canada - results are price controls and rationing.
*If health care mandates for purchasing insurance are in Commerce Clause, then everything is in the Commerce Clause.
McCown - *Under enumerated powers, it is possible to find funds for health care reform.
*10th Amendment doesn't limit Federal power.
*Predicts eventually a majority will demand the public option not in place now. No democracy will tolerate some of its citizens to have health care while others don't.
*The term "Obamacare" is an insult.
*Advocates that "Affordable Care Act" is a Swiss-style insurance market system brought about by conservative opposition to public option.
Cruz - *Obamacare term is a reference to the jamming through of the legislation against the wishes of the majority of the people. Refers to hubris of the President.
*Predicts individual mandate will be overturned by SCOTUS.
*Can't rely solely on SCOTUS to "save" us. Predicts other parts will survive court challenges.
*Real solution is political - people standing up. Opposition can pass real Constitutional amendments limiting federal powers.
*Texas can engage in interstate compact to trump Obamacare. A tool for states to fight back.
*Different parts of government restrain each other. State's job to restrain Federal government.
McCown - *Enumerated powers clause is necessary and proper clause.
*Global world has changed.
*Predicts individual mandate will be Constitutional.
Hands down, Cruz won the debate. It was a respectful debate representing the two very different opinions between conservative and liberal participant.
Next up, Keynote Speaker Governor Rick Perry. To say Perry was warmly welcomed would be an understatement. This was his audience.
Perry opened by remarking that thanks to the huge income tax increase passed by the State of Illinois, Texas is recruiting the businesses of that state to come to Texas to do business. His office is writing letters to states raising taxes welcoming them to come to Texas and offering incentives.
"Don't believe everything you read in the paper", Gov Perry said. In particular, the recent story written about the state's budget crisis. Perry said the press got it wrong.
Best thing never done in Texas was to implement personal income tax. By remaining disciplined with sound policies, Texas is rebounding faster than other states. "I'm pretty fired-up about competing against other states". He noted other Governors have recently noted Texas successes in their speeches. "I do intend to be the most competitive guy in town."
Perry said a predictable regulatory structure needs to be maintained. He vowed to fend off EPA's excessive demands on Texas. He said he would continue to fight against lawsuit abuse and protect tort reform in place. He wants an early dismissal option power to be put in place for judges - Texas is one of the few states without it for frivolous lawsuits. This would improve the legal climate.
Perry wants investment in math, science and technology education to continue to build the economy and encourage new business.
"Nothing halts progress more quickly than raising taxes".
He outlines outlawing sanctuary cities and supporting eminent domain as his top priorities.
State of the Union Address Seating Chart
With the State of the Union address approaching, the partisans on the left would like you to think they are all about bi-partisanship. Exploiting the mass shooting in Arizona is all the rage. First it was for the standard calls for stronger gun control legislation, then it was extra limits on public speech, and now it is the continued debate about political rhetoric. It's all about tone.
Senator Udall (D-CO) - the same one responsible for introducing legislation to change the rules of the filibuster - has another idea. He thinks it would be swell for the members of Congress to all intermingle and sit wherever they chose. All wily-nily. He thinks that the act of Republicans and Democrats mixing it up and sitting amongst each other will be a show of 'bi-partisanship'.
Udall said he hopes that such a seating arrangement will “begin to rekindle the common spark that brought us here from 50 different states and widely diverging backgrounds to serve the public good.”
It is nonsense.
Like it or not, there are two parties in politics and there is suppose to be a sound, distinct difference in philosophy, or else what is the need for both? The two parties sit separately to show unity within each party.
Trying to use the tragedy in Arizona to make cheap and grandiose gestures is not worthy of the memory of those lost in the shooting performed by a mad man. This is solely to score points in the name of politics. Again, this is the same guy who wants to tweak the filibuster rules to favor his party, now in a much smaller majority in the Senate.
Could it be that with the huge majority in the House the Democrats will actually look like the party in the minority? After controlling Congress since 2007, the Democrats are now re-learning the life of the minority party. When they sit or stand to show reaction to whatever is said by President Obama, the impact will be minimal.
All of a sudden the Democrats start talking the talk about bi-partisanship. They have yet to walk the walk. No further steps towards working with them by the Republicans should be taken until real movement is shown from them. These are the same people who voted into law the massive new entitlement of health care reform on a completely partisan vote. That has never happened before.
For those concerned about the opposition's reaction to the Obama State of the Union address, they should remember that all President's experience opposition. All Presidents experience very partisan reactions from Congress from the opposite party.
It is what it is. That's politics. Keep the seating chart in tact.
Senator Udall (D-CO) - the same one responsible for introducing legislation to change the rules of the filibuster - has another idea. He thinks it would be swell for the members of Congress to all intermingle and sit wherever they chose. All wily-nily. He thinks that the act of Republicans and Democrats mixing it up and sitting amongst each other will be a show of 'bi-partisanship'.
Udall said he hopes that such a seating arrangement will “begin to rekindle the common spark that brought us here from 50 different states and widely diverging backgrounds to serve the public good.”
It is nonsense.
Like it or not, there are two parties in politics and there is suppose to be a sound, distinct difference in philosophy, or else what is the need for both? The two parties sit separately to show unity within each party.
Trying to use the tragedy in Arizona to make cheap and grandiose gestures is not worthy of the memory of those lost in the shooting performed by a mad man. This is solely to score points in the name of politics. Again, this is the same guy who wants to tweak the filibuster rules to favor his party, now in a much smaller majority in the Senate.
Could it be that with the huge majority in the House the Democrats will actually look like the party in the minority? After controlling Congress since 2007, the Democrats are now re-learning the life of the minority party. When they sit or stand to show reaction to whatever is said by President Obama, the impact will be minimal.
All of a sudden the Democrats start talking the talk about bi-partisanship. They have yet to walk the walk. No further steps towards working with them by the Republicans should be taken until real movement is shown from them. These are the same people who voted into law the massive new entitlement of health care reform on a completely partisan vote. That has never happened before.
For those concerned about the opposition's reaction to the Obama State of the Union address, they should remember that all President's experience opposition. All Presidents experience very partisan reactions from Congress from the opposite party.
It is what it is. That's politics. Keep the seating chart in tact.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Arizona Memorial And Campaign Rally
Maybe under a different administration the decision for the Attorney General to speak at a memorial service for the victims of the shooting in Tucson would seem logical. In this instance, however, it was a bad decision. This is the same Attorney General who is suing the state over the state's illegal immigrant policy - voted into place by the majority of voters in Arizona. It is bad enough it took this horrible tragedy to get the President to the state. It would have been responsible of him to be there earlier in his term to do his duty as the President - to secure the border that is now out of control.
I confess I didn't watch the memorial. It looked to be too easy to become some kind of campaign rally - the memories of the Wellstone memorial during the Clinton administration still are fresh - and Obama is incapable to prevent such behavior of his audiences. He loves it. He encourages it with the slipping back and forth between formal and informal delivery of his remarks.
I did read the speech online. Here is the campaigning Obama:
But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.
Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world, and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding. In the words of Job, “when I looked for light, then came darkness.” Bad things happen, and we must guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.
For the truth is that none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped those shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man’s mind.
So yes, we must examine all the facts behind this tragedy. We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of violence in the future.
But what we can’t do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.
See, we don't know what set this guy off but it probably wasn't political rhetoric, Obama acknowledges. But, he instructs us to just knock it off anyway. Re-elect him so your hopes and dreams will come true.
A unicorn in every back yard.
It bothers me to hear of all the clapping and whistles with the clapping, during a memorial service. I understand the acknowledgement of the survivors and heroes. It just too easily gets carried away.
No wonder John Boehner didn't attend. He probably saw himself as the Bob Dole of the Wellstone memorial - boos and all.
I confess I didn't watch the memorial. It looked to be too easy to become some kind of campaign rally - the memories of the Wellstone memorial during the Clinton administration still are fresh - and Obama is incapable to prevent such behavior of his audiences. He loves it. He encourages it with the slipping back and forth between formal and informal delivery of his remarks.
I did read the speech online. Here is the campaigning Obama:
But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.
Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world, and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding. In the words of Job, “when I looked for light, then came darkness.” Bad things happen, and we must guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.
For the truth is that none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped those shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man’s mind.
So yes, we must examine all the facts behind this tragedy. We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of violence in the future.
But what we can’t do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.
See, we don't know what set this guy off but it probably wasn't political rhetoric, Obama acknowledges. But, he instructs us to just knock it off anyway. Re-elect him so your hopes and dreams will come true.
A unicorn in every back yard.
It bothers me to hear of all the clapping and whistles with the clapping, during a memorial service. I understand the acknowledgement of the survivors and heroes. It just too easily gets carried away.
No wonder John Boehner didn't attend. He probably saw himself as the Bob Dole of the Wellstone memorial - boos and all.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Straus Remains In Place As Texas Speaker
Representative Joe Straus has been elected Speaker of the House in the Texas legislature for a second term.
The far right Republicans in the Texas House of Representatives have made their point. Those who opposed Speaker Straus for his bid to remain in the position are on record for a no vote. A mere 15 are in this group.
To a packed crowd in the gallery and on the chamber floor, Ken Paxton gave a "personal privilege" speech, promising that "even though we lost this race, I am encouraged to say that we have not lost the fight." He then urged supporters to "watch what we're doing...hold us accountable."
Apparently his words were not lost on state Rep. Leo Berman. Though Straus was the only candidate for speaker, Berman objected to a vote by acclamation. Instead, a roll-call vote revealed 15 hard-line conservatives who voted against Straus, as well as two "present-not-voting" and one abstention. So while Straus gets to be speaker, the Tea Partiers now have their list of supposed betrayals. With 132 names, it's quite long, but something tells me this won't be a forgive-and-forget style session.
Straus is known for his ability to work with everyone in the Texas House to move legislation forward. During his time in leadership, Texas saw a huge victory for the Republican party and yet to the purists on the far right, this is not good enough. If Straus is to be condemned for alleged slights to the ultra conservative members, is he not to be congratulated for the victories?
"Straus has been the target of arch-conservative groups ever since the fall election when Republicans piled up a huge, 101-49 GOP majority in the state House. They demand a more conservative speaker and have used the Internet to fan their disdain for Straus."
Straus is a traditional mainstream Republican who calls himself a fiscal conservative. His opponents, however, do not trust him to lead a chamber amid expectations that lawmakers aggressively will pursue anti-immigration bills, Voter ID legislation and stronger anti-abortion bills.
His opponents allowed the constant barrage of spiteful and hateful accusations against Straus to continue right up until the Caucus was called. For the conservative purists, isn't it a bit ironic that a Caucus was called and the votes were taken while the sunshine laws were being trounced? With a majority, transparency rules are in play. Those looking to score points and try to build a base of support as they seek more power for themselves would be wise to remember that. By setting themselves up as the morality police, their own judgements may come back to haunt them.
Will those who claim conservative purity now join in with the majority of the Republican party serving in Austin and work for sound policy? Or will they continue to disrupt and grandstand? This is the time for the Republican party to seize the moment and get back to focusing on our agenda of fiscal conservatism and move those policy initiatives forward - especially as our state faces some tough decisions over budget shortfalls - and encourage honest debates.
Congratulations, Speaker Straus.
The far right Republicans in the Texas House of Representatives have made their point. Those who opposed Speaker Straus for his bid to remain in the position are on record for a no vote. A mere 15 are in this group.
To a packed crowd in the gallery and on the chamber floor, Ken Paxton gave a "personal privilege" speech, promising that "even though we lost this race, I am encouraged to say that we have not lost the fight." He then urged supporters to "watch what we're doing...hold us accountable."
Apparently his words were not lost on state Rep. Leo Berman. Though Straus was the only candidate for speaker, Berman objected to a vote by acclamation. Instead, a roll-call vote revealed 15 hard-line conservatives who voted against Straus, as well as two "present-not-voting" and one abstention. So while Straus gets to be speaker, the Tea Partiers now have their list of supposed betrayals. With 132 names, it's quite long, but something tells me this won't be a forgive-and-forget style session.
Straus is known for his ability to work with everyone in the Texas House to move legislation forward. During his time in leadership, Texas saw a huge victory for the Republican party and yet to the purists on the far right, this is not good enough. If Straus is to be condemned for alleged slights to the ultra conservative members, is he not to be congratulated for the victories?
"Straus has been the target of arch-conservative groups ever since the fall election when Republicans piled up a huge, 101-49 GOP majority in the state House. They demand a more conservative speaker and have used the Internet to fan their disdain for Straus."
Straus is a traditional mainstream Republican who calls himself a fiscal conservative. His opponents, however, do not trust him to lead a chamber amid expectations that lawmakers aggressively will pursue anti-immigration bills, Voter ID legislation and stronger anti-abortion bills.
His opponents allowed the constant barrage of spiteful and hateful accusations against Straus to continue right up until the Caucus was called. For the conservative purists, isn't it a bit ironic that a Caucus was called and the votes were taken while the sunshine laws were being trounced? With a majority, transparency rules are in play. Those looking to score points and try to build a base of support as they seek more power for themselves would be wise to remember that. By setting themselves up as the morality police, their own judgements may come back to haunt them.
Will those who claim conservative purity now join in with the majority of the Republican party serving in Austin and work for sound policy? Or will they continue to disrupt and grandstand? This is the time for the Republican party to seize the moment and get back to focusing on our agenda of fiscal conservatism and move those policy initiatives forward - especially as our state faces some tough decisions over budget shortfalls - and encourage honest debates.
Congratulations, Speaker Straus.
Absence of Leadership Caused Unfounded Conclusions in Tucson
Why am I writing about the battle over political rhetoric again? Because if conservatives and Republicans allow those on the other side of the political spectrum to continue to define us, we lose. It is as simple as that. It has gone on for decades. The stereotypes uttered about the right are wrong. It is time for us to stand and reject it all. Loudly. Every time it rears its ugly head.
Immediately after the horrific terrorist attack perpetrated by Major Nidal Hussein a Fort Hood, President Obama urged all to use caution and not jump to any conclusions about the shooter or motives. The media bent over backwards to honor that request. Too bad Obama didn't feel the need to repeat that response after the horrific assassination attempt on Rep Gabrielle Giffords in the parking lot of a grocery store in Tucson.
On November 6, 2009, the day after Maj. Nidal Hussein allegedly killed 13 people at Ft. Hood, Texas, President Obama made a brief statement to the nation. "This morning I met with FBI Director Mueller and the relevant agencies to discuss their ongoing investigation into what caused one individual to turn his gun on fellow service men and women," the president said. "We don't know all the answers yet, and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts."
The most interesting conclusion jumper is the sheriff of Pima County. He also may be one at whom an accusatory finger can be pointed in this tragedy. As it turns out, the shooter had a history of mental illness issues and was known, certainly to his friends, to be illogically angry at Rep Giffords after a meeting with her in 2007. Yes. 2007. That was before the rise of the Tea Party and of Sarah Palin, both early targets, if you will excuse the word, of the liberals and the press in the finger pointing after this shooting.
Sheriff Clarence Dupnik is enjoying his fifteen minutes of fame by going before every possible camera and microphone to blame conservatives, Republicans, talk show hosts, tv personalities and anyone else who is not identified as a liberal Democrat. The sheriff is not at all bashful to say that he is a liberal Democrat and he blames the GOP and political philosophies that will not allow the Democrats policies into place. Not only has his behavior been completely unprofessional and inappropriate, it just very well may result in placing him in an awkward position in this blame game.
It was not political rhetoric that got us here. It was, however, the balls that were dropped along the way in dealing with the shooter before the crime was committed. How big was the sheriff's role in allowing this young disturbed man to fall through the cracks?
A long time public servant, perhaps this is another example of a person serving too long in public life. A veteran of over 50 years in local law enforcement, Clarence W. Dupnik has served as the Sheriff of Pima County, Arizona, since his appointment in February 1980 That's right. This man has been in law enforcement for 50 years. He is well aware of what he is doing. For whatever reason, Dupnik is riding his newly found celebrity of is own making for all it's worth. He is calling out the likes of Rush Limbaugh as a person responsible for the actions of the shooter. He began on the day of the attack and continues today with the media interviews and shows no remorse for blaming innocent people without any form of evidence to back his claims. He says it is just his opinion.
When was the last time you heard of a sheriff putting out his opinion of an open criminal case before the criminal was even brought before a judge for arraignment? And, to add insult to injury, the sheriff blames a group of fellow Americans for this one individual's behavior.
If conservatives and Republicans and talk show hosts and tv personalities are responsible for this mentally ill person, why are there not daily tragedies? Why is there no concrete proof that he is a Tea Party person or a registered Republican, even? Because, so far, the evidence points to the opposite. The guy is a registered Independent and didn't vote in the 2010 elections where the Tea Party voters first voted. He was, in fact, known as a pot smoking liberal by his former professor. Most importantly, he is mentally ill.
The shooter's mother is a Pima County employee. Amy Joanne Loughner, mother of Tucson shooting suspect Jared Lee Loughner, works for Pima County as a manager at Agua Caliente Park. When the red flags began to fly over the shooter before the attack occured, did Sheriff Dupnik look the other way to protect a fellow county employee?
The sheriff brags that he is the only person telling the truth, as he sees it, about what most other Americans are feeling. He justifies his nonsensical conclusions by stating everyone else feels the same way but he is the only one 'brave' enough to say it. Wrong, again. A CBS News poll finds a clear majority of Americans do not see a connection between the shooting and political rhetoric.
Nearly six in 10 Americans say the country's heated political rhetoric is not to blame for the Tucson shooting rampage that left six dead and critically wounded U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, according to a CBS News poll.
The sheriff should stick to his day job and handle the criminal justice part of this crime. Leave the political commentary to others.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Clyburn Wants Special Treatment by TSA
Rep Clyburn thinks he's special.
“I really believe that that is the place where we feel the most ill at ease, is going through airports,” Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), who serves as assistant minority leader in the House, said on "Fox News Sunday."
Clyburn called for the Transportation Security Administration, which administers airport security checkpoints, to interact “a little better” with the Capitol Hill Police.
“We’ve had some incidents where TSA authorities think that congresspeople should be treated like everybody else,” he said. “Well, the fact of the matter is, we are held to a higher standard in so many other areas, and I think we need to take a hard look at exactly how the TSA interact with members of Congress.”
Clyburn has served in the House of Representatives since 1993. Maybe he is an example of those who become a bit too arrogant as the years pass. Actually, I think we would all like TSA to interact a little better with us as we travel through airports. And, yes, Rep Clyburn, you are just like everyone else. Our public servants, paid by our tax monies, are held to a higher standard because they serve at our pleasure. Representing thousands of people in Congress calls for a higher standard on the job.
Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers was more practical and humble. “I’m concerned about putting up more walls between myself and the people that I represent,” she said on Fox. “I want to make sure that we’re looking at it, that we’re making an appropriate response, that we as members are being smart in our interactions.”
Liberals will try to squeeze out more taxpayer money for their own office budgets - in the name of security.
“I really believe that that is the place where we feel the most ill at ease, is going through airports,” Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.), who serves as assistant minority leader in the House, said on "Fox News Sunday."
Clyburn called for the Transportation Security Administration, which administers airport security checkpoints, to interact “a little better” with the Capitol Hill Police.
“We’ve had some incidents where TSA authorities think that congresspeople should be treated like everybody else,” he said. “Well, the fact of the matter is, we are held to a higher standard in so many other areas, and I think we need to take a hard look at exactly how the TSA interact with members of Congress.”
Clyburn has served in the House of Representatives since 1993. Maybe he is an example of those who become a bit too arrogant as the years pass. Actually, I think we would all like TSA to interact a little better with us as we travel through airports. And, yes, Rep Clyburn, you are just like everyone else. Our public servants, paid by our tax monies, are held to a higher standard because they serve at our pleasure. Representing thousands of people in Congress calls for a higher standard on the job.
Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers was more practical and humble. “I’m concerned about putting up more walls between myself and the people that I represent,” she said on Fox. “I want to make sure that we’re looking at it, that we’re making an appropriate response, that we as members are being smart in our interactions.”
Liberals will try to squeeze out more taxpayer money for their own office budgets - in the name of security.
It Is Not About the Rhetoric
"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." - Ronald Reagan
As has been pointed out in other places, the immediate leap of the media and elected politicians on the left was to imply that it was the fault of the Tea Party people or conservative politicians that Congresswoman Giffords and others were shot. It was entirely predictable, this reaction, given recent history. There was attempt by the reporting media to bend over backwards to not mention this attacker was a Muslim extremist, until the explanation had to come out. Not a peep was heard from the left when Democratic strategist Mark Penn told advisers to President Obama that he needed an event "like 9/11" to beef up his support, following the shellacking of the November mid-term elections. The first comments from NYC Mayor Bloomberg after the attempted bombing in Times Square was that it was, no doubt, someone angry over Obamacare.
A screenshott of a far left website shows that the rhetoric on both sides of the political aisle have room for improvement.
"I am from the Tucson area and live in Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' district," BoyBlue wrote. "Today, just a little while ago, I saw on Andrea Mitchell Reports that Giffords voted against Nancy Pelosi as our minority leader. … Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is dead to me now."
We are led by a President who does nothing to tamp down the vitriol. Are we no longer all purple state friends, but to be at each other’s throats—and quite literally? Thus the great healer Obama just warned of impending “hand-to-hand combat” if the Republicans take over. He once declared of Sean Hannity that one of his supporters would “tear him up.” He thought he was a Chicagoan Sean Connery in the The Untouchables boasting that “if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” He advised Latinos “to punish” their Republican “enemies.” Not long ago candidate Obama pontificated that his supporters just had to confront Republicans and Independents and “get in their face.” We remember his “whose ass to kick” or his relegation of Republican opponents to “hostage takers” and suicide bombers: “Here’s the problem: It’s almost like they’ve got—they’ve got a bomb strapped to them and they’ve got their hand on the trigger. You don’t want them to blow up.” Some believe the quick pointing of fingers - proven false each time - is a result of frustrations felt on the left, now that the policies and hopes held by them have been soundly rejected by the American populace.
I understand the desperation that Democrats must feel after taking a historic beating in the midterm elections and seeing the popularity of ObamaCare plummet while voters flee the party in droves. But those who purport to care about the health of our political community demonstrate precious little actual concern for America's political well-being when they seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.
The fact is, this blaming of conservatives for heinous acts has been going on for decades. When JFK was killed, it was a popular meme to blame the killer as a right-wing wacko gone wild. I don't recall the same leaping of conclusions when Ronald Reagan was shot.
The logical conclusion should be that the shooter is mentally ill. That is what all of them have in common. Not political ideology.
It seems that Palin derangement syndrome has replaced the Bush derangement syndrome. Why didn't the media bother to make note of the DLC's map, similar to Palin's using target marks in 2004? The slobbering press is only too happy to go along with it. The media was certainly only too happy to report the opinions of Pelosi and Reid and other Democrats - the majority party in Washington at the time - that the Tea Party members were fascists, Nazi loving propagandists, astroturf, racists, fear mongers and so on. One black Congress person felt emboldened to lie about being spit on and yelled racial insults to by Tea Party crowds. When he was challenged to prove some evidence of those charges, he retracted his charges. Is that responsible behavior?
Barbara Walters, producer and star of The View - an all-female hate fest against conservatives, especially conservative women - weighed in on the blame game:
Walters added she hoped this might offer time for introspection in terms of political rhetoric, but told viewers that this wasn’t the time to place blame.
“Whether that speared him on or whether he is just a very sick person, we don’t know,” she continued. “We don’t know what his motives are and we can hope that all the vitriol calms down. But to blame Sarah Palin as some are doing I think is very unfair to her. She issued a statement offering her condolences and hasn’t said more. But I don’t think this is the time now to start finding – you should excuse me – other targets to blame.”
Nice try, Barbara, but no cigar. She is capable of hiring decent people for her show and its roundtable discussions that dominate the beginning of each show. She doesn't. Plus, her idea is like that of other liberal news people - a token conservative voice is enough. In the case of The View it is a conservative that is not too bright and not consistent, either. She hires the very vile Joy Behar and previously Rosie O'Donnell. Nothing is too hateful for either of these two to say when it comes to Republicans or conservatives.
Freedom of speech brings the good and the bad. It is a freedom, however, that must not be squashed.
As has been pointed out in other places, the immediate leap of the media and elected politicians on the left was to imply that it was the fault of the Tea Party people or conservative politicians that Congresswoman Giffords and others were shot. It was entirely predictable, this reaction, given recent history. There was attempt by the reporting media to bend over backwards to not mention this attacker was a Muslim extremist, until the explanation had to come out. Not a peep was heard from the left when Democratic strategist Mark Penn told advisers to President Obama that he needed an event "like 9/11" to beef up his support, following the shellacking of the November mid-term elections. The first comments from NYC Mayor Bloomberg after the attempted bombing in Times Square was that it was, no doubt, someone angry over Obamacare.
A screenshott of a far left website shows that the rhetoric on both sides of the political aisle have room for improvement.
"I am from the Tucson area and live in Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' district," BoyBlue wrote. "Today, just a little while ago, I saw on Andrea Mitchell Reports that Giffords voted against Nancy Pelosi as our minority leader. … Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords is dead to me now."
We are led by a President who does nothing to tamp down the vitriol. Are we no longer all purple state friends, but to be at each other’s throats—and quite literally? Thus the great healer Obama just warned of impending “hand-to-hand combat” if the Republicans take over. He once declared of Sean Hannity that one of his supporters would “tear him up.” He thought he was a Chicagoan Sean Connery in the The Untouchables boasting that “if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” He advised Latinos “to punish” their Republican “enemies.” Not long ago candidate Obama pontificated that his supporters just had to confront Republicans and Independents and “get in their face.” We remember his “whose ass to kick” or his relegation of Republican opponents to “hostage takers” and suicide bombers: “Here’s the problem: It’s almost like they’ve got—they’ve got a bomb strapped to them and they’ve got their hand on the trigger. You don’t want them to blow up.” Some believe the quick pointing of fingers - proven false each time - is a result of frustrations felt on the left, now that the policies and hopes held by them have been soundly rejected by the American populace.
I understand the desperation that Democrats must feel after taking a historic beating in the midterm elections and seeing the popularity of ObamaCare plummet while voters flee the party in droves. But those who purport to care about the health of our political community demonstrate precious little actual concern for America's political well-being when they seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to call their political opponents accomplices to murder.
The fact is, this blaming of conservatives for heinous acts has been going on for decades. When JFK was killed, it was a popular meme to blame the killer as a right-wing wacko gone wild. I don't recall the same leaping of conclusions when Ronald Reagan was shot.
The logical conclusion should be that the shooter is mentally ill. That is what all of them have in common. Not political ideology.
It seems that Palin derangement syndrome has replaced the Bush derangement syndrome. Why didn't the media bother to make note of the DLC's map, similar to Palin's using target marks in 2004? The slobbering press is only too happy to go along with it. The media was certainly only too happy to report the opinions of Pelosi and Reid and other Democrats - the majority party in Washington at the time - that the Tea Party members were fascists, Nazi loving propagandists, astroturf, racists, fear mongers and so on. One black Congress person felt emboldened to lie about being spit on and yelled racial insults to by Tea Party crowds. When he was challenged to prove some evidence of those charges, he retracted his charges. Is that responsible behavior?
Barbara Walters, producer and star of The View - an all-female hate fest against conservatives, especially conservative women - weighed in on the blame game:
Walters added she hoped this might offer time for introspection in terms of political rhetoric, but told viewers that this wasn’t the time to place blame.
“Whether that speared him on or whether he is just a very sick person, we don’t know,” she continued. “We don’t know what his motives are and we can hope that all the vitriol calms down. But to blame Sarah Palin as some are doing I think is very unfair to her. She issued a statement offering her condolences and hasn’t said more. But I don’t think this is the time now to start finding – you should excuse me – other targets to blame.”
Nice try, Barbara, but no cigar. She is capable of hiring decent people for her show and its roundtable discussions that dominate the beginning of each show. She doesn't. Plus, her idea is like that of other liberal news people - a token conservative voice is enough. In the case of The View it is a conservative that is not too bright and not consistent, either. She hires the very vile Joy Behar and previously Rosie O'Donnell. Nothing is too hateful for either of these two to say when it comes to Republicans or conservatives.
Freedom of speech brings the good and the bad. It is a freedom, however, that must not be squashed.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Staff Turnovers in Key Positions for Team Obama
Robert Gibbs is leaving his position as White House Press Secretary and moving on to the paid speakers circuit. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
A combative presidential mouthpiece with a tendency to go one sentence too far in his criticism of the president's opponents, it is not particularly unusual that Gibbs leaves now. Those in the position usually stay about two years and Gibbs is at that mark now. He has a young son and was not a wealthy man by the standards of others in the Obama administration. He can profit quite nicely now and bank some premium speaking fees. Maybe he will parlay that into a book deal, too. That would be common as well.
William Daley, longtime Washington insider and executive with JP Morgan, will step into the role as Chief of Staff. Another one of those famous exceptions/waivers will have to be used by President Obama as Daley is a lobbyist, violating Obama's pledge to stop the revolving door in Washington between political appointments and lobbyists.
Larry Summers is leaving, too. Another former Clinton administration member coming aboard Obama's sinking ship.
In his second major staffing announcement of the week, President Obama on Friday said he's tapping another former Clinton administration official to head his National Economic Council.
Former Clinton economic adviser Gene Sperling, currently an aide to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, will replace Lawrence Summers, another Clinton White House alumnus who left the post in December to return to a teaching post at Harvard.
It is not unusual that Obama would turn to former Clinton administration members to beef up his team, especially as he is now in full-on re-election mode. Clinton is the only former Democratic president since the days of the failed Carter presidency, decades ago. The Clinton people are business friendly and realists. They are exactly what this president needs, as his far left ideologues from Chicago and academia have proven to be unwise choices.
Will President Obama have the maturity and wisdom to move more to the center in governing? Will he begin to push business-friendly policy to bring about job creation and lower unemployment numbers? Time will tell, but it is his only path to re-election in 2012.
A combative presidential mouthpiece with a tendency to go one sentence too far in his criticism of the president's opponents, it is not particularly unusual that Gibbs leaves now. Those in the position usually stay about two years and Gibbs is at that mark now. He has a young son and was not a wealthy man by the standards of others in the Obama administration. He can profit quite nicely now and bank some premium speaking fees. Maybe he will parlay that into a book deal, too. That would be common as well.
William Daley, longtime Washington insider and executive with JP Morgan, will step into the role as Chief of Staff. Another one of those famous exceptions/waivers will have to be used by President Obama as Daley is a lobbyist, violating Obama's pledge to stop the revolving door in Washington between political appointments and lobbyists.
Larry Summers is leaving, too. Another former Clinton administration member coming aboard Obama's sinking ship.
In his second major staffing announcement of the week, President Obama on Friday said he's tapping another former Clinton administration official to head his National Economic Council.
Former Clinton economic adviser Gene Sperling, currently an aide to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, will replace Lawrence Summers, another Clinton White House alumnus who left the post in December to return to a teaching post at Harvard.
It is not unusual that Obama would turn to former Clinton administration members to beef up his team, especially as he is now in full-on re-election mode. Clinton is the only former Democratic president since the days of the failed Carter presidency, decades ago. The Clinton people are business friendly and realists. They are exactly what this president needs, as his far left ideologues from Chicago and academia have proven to be unwise choices.
Will President Obama have the maturity and wisdom to move more to the center in governing? Will he begin to push business-friendly policy to bring about job creation and lower unemployment numbers? Time will tell, but it is his only path to re-election in 2012.
Constitution Read on House Floor As Session Opens
The reading of the Constitution was the first item on the agenda as the House of Representatives opened for the new session. The commotion that erupted as this announcement was made would lead a person to think this was some sort of radical idea.
Hardly. This is the perfect nod to the newly engaged American voter - the Tea Party members in particular - who elected the new Republican majority by demanding a renewed focus on the Constitution. There is even a new House rule which will be imposed on any member of the House who wants to introduce new legislation which requires a constitutionality test.
The Constitution has never been read on the floor before. Ever.
One problem arose as two Republican members were not present to take the oath of office and then performed as though sworn in by casting votes.
Rep. Pete Sessions, Texas Republican and a member of the GOP leadership, and freshman Rep. Michael G. Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania Republican, were not in the House chamber when new Speaker John A. Boehner administered the oath, which all sides now agree meant they were not duly sworn in.
On Friday, the House voted 257-159 to invalidate the votes the two men had cast but to ratify the other business they conducted, such as introducing bills, submitting statements and participating in committee action.
Embarrassing? Yes. If the integrity of the Constitution is to be restored in importance by the governing body, all must abide by its words. To do otherwise, to use short cuts or bypassing protocol, is to invite criticism.
Hardly. This is the perfect nod to the newly engaged American voter - the Tea Party members in particular - who elected the new Republican majority by demanding a renewed focus on the Constitution. There is even a new House rule which will be imposed on any member of the House who wants to introduce new legislation which requires a constitutionality test.
The Constitution has never been read on the floor before. Ever.
One problem arose as two Republican members were not present to take the oath of office and then performed as though sworn in by casting votes.
Rep. Pete Sessions, Texas Republican and a member of the GOP leadership, and freshman Rep. Michael G. Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania Republican, were not in the House chamber when new Speaker John A. Boehner administered the oath, which all sides now agree meant they were not duly sworn in.
On Friday, the House voted 257-159 to invalidate the votes the two men had cast but to ratify the other business they conducted, such as introducing bills, submitting statements and participating in committee action.
Embarrassing? Yes. If the integrity of the Constitution is to be restored in importance by the governing body, all must abide by its words. To do otherwise, to use short cuts or bypassing protocol, is to invite criticism.
Sunday, January 09, 2011
Sheriff Dupnik Asserts Himself Into the Blame Game
Pima County Sheriff Dupnik was quick to blame political dialogue for the shooting of Rep Giffords. He was to present information to the press gathered for a news conference and yet went into his own thoughts of the shooter's motives. This was completely unacceptable and, at the very least, unprofessional.
As a law enforcement agent, Dupnik is sworn to uphold the rights of our country's people.
It is not usual for me to agree with much of anything Jack Shafer writes. This article, however, is spot-on.
Our spirited political discourse, complete with name-calling, vilification—and yes, violent imagery—is a good thing. Better that angry people unload their fury in public than they let it fester and turn septic in private. The wicked direction the American debate often takes is not a sign of danger but of freedom. And I'll punch out the lights of anybody who tries to take it away from me.
Inflammatory political rhetoric does not cause a murderous act. Mental illness is behind criminal behavior and in the case of the Giffords attack, the red flags were all over the place on this shooter. He was rejected by the U.S. Army when he went to enlist. He was dismissed from school due to concern over his mental health. He put up videos on the Internet and on other social media broadcasting is beliefs and thoughts.
During the reading of the Constitution on the first day of the new Congress, Rep Gabrielle Giffords read the 1st Amendment. It serves no purpose now to call for limits on political speech. Yes, civility is the preferred manner of conduct. When we limit the speech of anyone, we limit ourselves, too. Freedom of speech was so important to our Founding Fathers that it was in the very First Amendment.
It is not due to political rhetoric that these souls were killed and injured at the hands of a man so mentally ill he carried out his impulses. Our nation has men and women on the battlefields of two wars protecting our country and our freedom.
Sheriff Dupnik no doubt was feeling emotional pressure as well as professional pressure in the immediate aftermath of this murderous attack. It was wrong, however, to let his emotions override his professionalism. Political discourse was not a fault. The mentally ill shooter was at fault.
As a law enforcement agent, Dupnik is sworn to uphold the rights of our country's people.
It is not usual for me to agree with much of anything Jack Shafer writes. This article, however, is spot-on.
Our spirited political discourse, complete with name-calling, vilification—and yes, violent imagery—is a good thing. Better that angry people unload their fury in public than they let it fester and turn septic in private. The wicked direction the American debate often takes is not a sign of danger but of freedom. And I'll punch out the lights of anybody who tries to take it away from me.
Inflammatory political rhetoric does not cause a murderous act. Mental illness is behind criminal behavior and in the case of the Giffords attack, the red flags were all over the place on this shooter. He was rejected by the U.S. Army when he went to enlist. He was dismissed from school due to concern over his mental health. He put up videos on the Internet and on other social media broadcasting is beliefs and thoughts.
During the reading of the Constitution on the first day of the new Congress, Rep Gabrielle Giffords read the 1st Amendment. It serves no purpose now to call for limits on political speech. Yes, civility is the preferred manner of conduct. When we limit the speech of anyone, we limit ourselves, too. Freedom of speech was so important to our Founding Fathers that it was in the very First Amendment.
It is not due to political rhetoric that these souls were killed and injured at the hands of a man so mentally ill he carried out his impulses. Our nation has men and women on the battlefields of two wars protecting our country and our freedom.
Sheriff Dupnik no doubt was feeling emotional pressure as well as professional pressure in the immediate aftermath of this murderous attack. It was wrong, however, to let his emotions override his professionalism. Political discourse was not a fault. The mentally ill shooter was at fault.
Rep Gabrielle Giffords Shot at Arizona Meet & Greet
"An attack on one who serves is an attack on all who serve." ~ Speaker Boehner
On Saturday, Congresswoman Gabrielle (Gabby) Giffords was shot as she spoke with a couple at her Tucson meet and greet. Held at a grocery store and billed as "Congress on Your Corner", this appears to have been Congresswoman Gifford's approach to public service - to encourage her constituents to come up and speak with her, in a casual setting, about whatever was on their minds. This was her third one of such meetings with constituents since her November 2010 re-election.
This was her last 'tweet' on Twitter:
My 1st Congress on Your Corner starts now. Please stop by to let me know what is on your mind or tweet me later.
Multiple shots were taken at the gathering and multiple injuries resulted. Among the victims - a nine year old girl was shot and killed.
The Congresswoman was shot at close range in the temple of her head and the bullet exited from the other side of her head. She was rushed to a hospital in Tucson with a trauma center. Originally reported as dying on the scene or en route to the hospital, she survived the surgery performed as she reached the hospital.
As with most early reports after a tragedy, they were wrong. Even when the media takes an abundance of caution into reporting, this happens. And, as also happens, the political ideologues ran wild on social media venues. The vileness from the left, in particular, was stomach turning and heart wrenching. It is hard to understand the motivation so important to some that this tragedy would be turned into such a spectacle.
From all reports of Gabby, as she is called, would not at all appreciate such politically motivated vitriol. Instead of calling on their supporters to stand with the victims and encase everyone in positive energy, they spiraled out of control. Early blaming of the Tea Party and of Sarah Palin, in specific, was strong. In a bit of irony, one blogger who fancies himself important in politics of the left was found to have on his own website the very same that he was so indignant of others over. He then did what all cowards do - he 'scrubbed' his website of all such examples. The shooter was not motivated by his political leanings. He was motivated by mental illness.
Someone on scene tackled the shooter and he was taken away in police custody.
Those in favor of gun control were quick to blame the gun. Silly but true. It is not the presence of guns in society, it is the misuse of them and guns in the hands of those not worthy of them. It may surprise some on the left to know that Rep Giffords is a strong advocate of the 2nd Amendment. She is a gun owner herself.
A former Republican, she is a moderate Democrat. A Blue Dog coalition member, she is in strong support of border protection and fiscal responsibility. She comes from the private sector - having run her parents' small business in Tucson before entering politics. She is a friend of Governor Brewer. Her meet and greet gatherings attract hundreds. She is well liked and a dedicated public servant.
Giffords introduced a bill to lower Congressional salaries. She said since that hadn't been done since the 1930's, it was high time for Congress members to lead by example.
She won her re-election in November 2010 by a mere 4,000 votes. Her opponent was a Tea Party candidate. She dealt with office vandalism and threats after casting a vote in favor of Obamacare. This is the dark side of politics. House Majority Leader Cantor reached out to her family immediately. He also experienced office vandalism and threats in the recent past for some of his political stands. It is wrong of the far left to assume only those who think like them experience personal attacks.
This horrific attack was a time for everyone to come together and pray and support those dead and injured. Too bad so many failed to rise to the occasion.
On Saturday, Congresswoman Gabrielle (Gabby) Giffords was shot as she spoke with a couple at her Tucson meet and greet. Held at a grocery store and billed as "Congress on Your Corner", this appears to have been Congresswoman Gifford's approach to public service - to encourage her constituents to come up and speak with her, in a casual setting, about whatever was on their minds. This was her third one of such meetings with constituents since her November 2010 re-election.
This was her last 'tweet' on Twitter:
My 1st Congress on Your Corner starts now. Please stop by to let me know what is on your mind or tweet me later.
Multiple shots were taken at the gathering and multiple injuries resulted. Among the victims - a nine year old girl was shot and killed.
The Congresswoman was shot at close range in the temple of her head and the bullet exited from the other side of her head. She was rushed to a hospital in Tucson with a trauma center. Originally reported as dying on the scene or en route to the hospital, she survived the surgery performed as she reached the hospital.
As with most early reports after a tragedy, they were wrong. Even when the media takes an abundance of caution into reporting, this happens. And, as also happens, the political ideologues ran wild on social media venues. The vileness from the left, in particular, was stomach turning and heart wrenching. It is hard to understand the motivation so important to some that this tragedy would be turned into such a spectacle.
From all reports of Gabby, as she is called, would not at all appreciate such politically motivated vitriol. Instead of calling on their supporters to stand with the victims and encase everyone in positive energy, they spiraled out of control. Early blaming of the Tea Party and of Sarah Palin, in specific, was strong. In a bit of irony, one blogger who fancies himself important in politics of the left was found to have on his own website the very same that he was so indignant of others over. He then did what all cowards do - he 'scrubbed' his website of all such examples. The shooter was not motivated by his political leanings. He was motivated by mental illness.
Someone on scene tackled the shooter and he was taken away in police custody.
Those in favor of gun control were quick to blame the gun. Silly but true. It is not the presence of guns in society, it is the misuse of them and guns in the hands of those not worthy of them. It may surprise some on the left to know that Rep Giffords is a strong advocate of the 2nd Amendment. She is a gun owner herself.
A former Republican, she is a moderate Democrat. A Blue Dog coalition member, she is in strong support of border protection and fiscal responsibility. She comes from the private sector - having run her parents' small business in Tucson before entering politics. She is a friend of Governor Brewer. Her meet and greet gatherings attract hundreds. She is well liked and a dedicated public servant.
Giffords introduced a bill to lower Congressional salaries. She said since that hadn't been done since the 1930's, it was high time for Congress members to lead by example.
She won her re-election in November 2010 by a mere 4,000 votes. Her opponent was a Tea Party candidate. She dealt with office vandalism and threats after casting a vote in favor of Obamacare. This is the dark side of politics. House Majority Leader Cantor reached out to her family immediately. He also experienced office vandalism and threats in the recent past for some of his political stands. It is wrong of the far left to assume only those who think like them experience personal attacks.
This horrific attack was a time for everyone to come together and pray and support those dead and injured. Too bad so many failed to rise to the occasion.
Saturday, January 08, 2011
HCRP Program Criticized by Local Democrat
After a program is in effect for a decade, one would think any criticism would have already happened. In today's hyper-partisan atmosphere, the nastiness has made its way to the local level.
Recently, a Houston man complained to the local Fox news affiliate about a program run by the Harris County Republican Party (HCRP) that encourages and rewards students in an elementary school for passing the TAKS test. John Cobarruvias wants to end the relationship between the local political party and the students.
For ten years, the local GOP has been handing out bicycles after the TAKS test to kids at JR Harris Elementary in southwest Houston, a school that is predominantly Hispanic. More recently, the GOP has also been distributing free frozen turkeys during the holidays.
“They give us the bird and then they call our children ‘anchor babies,’" says Cobarruvias, who is Hispanic and a Democrat. “I'm insulted. I'm insulted by it.”
HCRP Chairman Jared Woodfill responds: "What we do,” counters Harris County Republican Chairman Jared Woodfill, “we come in with private funds and we purchase bicycles. And we say to every single child (at Harris Elementary) who passes the TAKS test, we will give you a bicycle. And we come in early on, we have a nice big rally and usually there is an elected official invited to come to inspire the kids.”
He is a Democrat and claims to be offended as an Hispanic person. He mouthed Democratic talking points about anchor babies and terror babies and the like as his proof of discrimination towards the population offered a hand up, not a hand out. This program encourages children and supplies local politicians and public figures to speak to the children about the possibilities of success in our country for everyone.
The man complains about Republicans wanting to 'take credit' for doing something good for children attending a predominantly Hispanic populated school. If that were true, the program would be better known. It makes a person think he is being used as a rube by the local Democratic party. It sounded like the guy just wants to stir the pot, at the expense of innocent children.
Encouraging school children to do their best is a good thing, no matter from which political party it comes. The program is privately funded and tax dollars are not used. Maybe he should encourage his party to do similar work in the community.
Isn't it the Democrats that justify everything as 'for the children'?
Recently, a Houston man complained to the local Fox news affiliate about a program run by the Harris County Republican Party (HCRP) that encourages and rewards students in an elementary school for passing the TAKS test. John Cobarruvias wants to end the relationship between the local political party and the students.
For ten years, the local GOP has been handing out bicycles after the TAKS test to kids at JR Harris Elementary in southwest Houston, a school that is predominantly Hispanic. More recently, the GOP has also been distributing free frozen turkeys during the holidays.
“They give us the bird and then they call our children ‘anchor babies,’" says Cobarruvias, who is Hispanic and a Democrat. “I'm insulted. I'm insulted by it.”
HCRP Chairman Jared Woodfill responds: "What we do,” counters Harris County Republican Chairman Jared Woodfill, “we come in with private funds and we purchase bicycles. And we say to every single child (at Harris Elementary) who passes the TAKS test, we will give you a bicycle. And we come in early on, we have a nice big rally and usually there is an elected official invited to come to inspire the kids.”
He is a Democrat and claims to be offended as an Hispanic person. He mouthed Democratic talking points about anchor babies and terror babies and the like as his proof of discrimination towards the population offered a hand up, not a hand out. This program encourages children and supplies local politicians and public figures to speak to the children about the possibilities of success in our country for everyone.
The man complains about Republicans wanting to 'take credit' for doing something good for children attending a predominantly Hispanic populated school. If that were true, the program would be better known. It makes a person think he is being used as a rube by the local Democratic party. It sounded like the guy just wants to stir the pot, at the expense of innocent children.
Encouraging school children to do their best is a good thing, no matter from which political party it comes. The program is privately funded and tax dollars are not used. Maybe he should encourage his party to do similar work in the community.
Isn't it the Democrats that justify everything as 'for the children'?
Friday, January 07, 2011
Oil Spill Commission Faults Management Decisions
The president's oil spill commission has concluded the Deepwater Horizon tragedy was caused by the poor decisions of management. They concluded it was the result of cost cutting and rushing to finish the work. The final report is not expected to be released until January 11.
All of this was known inside the oil drilling industry before the President appointed his commission to investigate the explosion and aftermath of April 20, 2009. The report mostly blames BP and Halliburton with less blame aimed at Transocean.
This panel of non-experts in the oil drilling industry point to the obvious. A rushed drilling schedule on a dangerous well site resulted in the tragic loss of eleven human beings and injury of others. It produced an environmental emergency to the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf coastline of the U.S.
Here is a wrap-up of various reports on the findings:
pp
Passing the buck is typical.
To make things worse, the report noted that, “whether purposeful or not,” many of the decisions made by the companies that increased the risk of a blowout clearly saved them significant time and money.
Ever since the accident, BP, Transocean and Halliburton have tried to shift the blame and repeatedly said they didn’t take any shortcuts.
In its own 193-page investigation of the blowout, published in early September, BP admitted it was partly responsible for the disaster but stressed that Transocean and Halliburton also made decisions that contributed to it.
As in all businesses, the oil and natural gas drilling industry looks to extract the product as quickly and cost efficiently as possible. In this industry, however, cost cutting can not be allowed to affect human safety. The deaths of eleven rig workers on the Deepwater Horizon must be honored and remembered. They must not, however, be used as an excuse to shut down an entire industry.
Layering on more regulations on an industry already the most regulated in the country does not promote stronger safety measures, or better decision making from human beings. Enforce the regulations already on the books. Stop the cronyism that promotes an acceptance of such coziness between MMS inspections, for example, and rig managers. It is not unusual to hear such jokes as inspections typically occur on the days steak is on the menu in the chow hall.
It is wrong to blame Halliburton for the cement that BP ordered and then told Halliburton how to run the cement. Halliburton warned of an inadequate number of centralizers used but BP ordered them to continue with the cement job as ordered. Make no mistake, BP was in charge of that drilling rig.
This explosion and spill was the result of a series of decisions made by those on the drilling rig. There is no one 'aha' moment. It is a dangerous business, drilling for oil and natural gas. One decision brought about the next and so on. There is no extra layer of regulations that would have prevented the outcome.
All of this was known inside the oil drilling industry before the President appointed his commission to investigate the explosion and aftermath of April 20, 2009. The report mostly blames BP and Halliburton with less blame aimed at Transocean.
This panel of non-experts in the oil drilling industry point to the obvious. A rushed drilling schedule on a dangerous well site resulted in the tragic loss of eleven human beings and injury of others. It produced an environmental emergency to the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf coastline of the U.S.
Here is a wrap-up of various reports on the findings:
pp
Multisource political news, world news, and entertainment news analysis by Newsy.com
Passing the buck is typical.
To make things worse, the report noted that, “whether purposeful or not,” many of the decisions made by the companies that increased the risk of a blowout clearly saved them significant time and money.
Ever since the accident, BP, Transocean and Halliburton have tried to shift the blame and repeatedly said they didn’t take any shortcuts.
In its own 193-page investigation of the blowout, published in early September, BP admitted it was partly responsible for the disaster but stressed that Transocean and Halliburton also made decisions that contributed to it.
As in all businesses, the oil and natural gas drilling industry looks to extract the product as quickly and cost efficiently as possible. In this industry, however, cost cutting can not be allowed to affect human safety. The deaths of eleven rig workers on the Deepwater Horizon must be honored and remembered. They must not, however, be used as an excuse to shut down an entire industry.
Layering on more regulations on an industry already the most regulated in the country does not promote stronger safety measures, or better decision making from human beings. Enforce the regulations already on the books. Stop the cronyism that promotes an acceptance of such coziness between MMS inspections, for example, and rig managers. It is not unusual to hear such jokes as inspections typically occur on the days steak is on the menu in the chow hall.
It is wrong to blame Halliburton for the cement that BP ordered and then told Halliburton how to run the cement. Halliburton warned of an inadequate number of centralizers used but BP ordered them to continue with the cement job as ordered. Make no mistake, BP was in charge of that drilling rig.
This explosion and spill was the result of a series of decisions made by those on the drilling rig. There is no one 'aha' moment. It is a dangerous business, drilling for oil and natural gas. One decision brought about the next and so on. There is no extra layer of regulations that would have prevented the outcome.
Thursday, January 06, 2011
Speaker Boehner Takes Charge
John Boehner had a most excellent day Wednesday. On January 5, 2011 the U.S. House of Representatives saw a significant change in leadership. Rep John Boehner is now the Speaker of the House. The vote was 241 to 173 with 19 Other/Present.
For the first time ever, Congress was live streamed on Facebook. Boehner has long been a leader in using new technology to connect with the American people. For example, he was among the first lawmakers to begin using Twitter in early 2007. And on his watch in 2010, House Republicans launched the successful America Speaking Out project giving Americans a platform to discuss and share their priorities with national leaders – a platform that led to the Pledge to America, Republicans’ new governing agenda for the country. Look for Republicans to continue aggressively using new tools like these in the 112th Congress.
A more humble tone has been set than seen in recent years. In his speech as he accepted the gavel, Boehner made good progress in working for a more civil tone in politics. His first sentence was "It's still me".
“Let’s start with the rules package the House will consider today. If passed, it will change how this institution operates, with an emphasis on real transparency, greater accountability, and a renewed focus on the Constitution. Our aim will be to give government back to the people. In seeking this goal, we will part with some of the rituals that have come to characterize this institution under majorities Republican and Democratic alike. We will dispense with the conventional wisdom that bigger bills are always better; that fast legislating is good legislating; that allowing additional amendments and open debate makes the legislative process ‘less efficient’ than our forefathers intended.
“These misconceptions have been the basis for the rituals of modern Washington. The American people have not been well served by them. Today, mindful of the lessons of the past, we open a new chapter.
“Legislators and the public will have three days to read bills before they come to a vote. Legislation will be more focused, properly scrutinized, and constitutionally sound. Committees, once bloated, will be smaller, with a renewed mission, including oversight. Old rules that have made it easy to increase spending will be replaced by new reforms that make it easier to cut spending. We will start by cutting Congress’ own budget.
“Above all else, we will welcome the battle of ideas, encourage it, and engage in it – openly, honestly, and respectfully. As the chamber closest to the people, the House works best when it is allowed to work its will. I ask all members of this body to join me in recognizing this common truth before the public it serves.
Increased transparency, reading the bills before the votes occur, cutting Congress' budget, reconcile legislation with the Constitution? It all sounds like music to the ears of voters. And a healthy dose of humility doesn't hurt either.
For the first time ever, Congress was live streamed on Facebook. Boehner has long been a leader in using new technology to connect with the American people. For example, he was among the first lawmakers to begin using Twitter in early 2007. And on his watch in 2010, House Republicans launched the successful America Speaking Out project giving Americans a platform to discuss and share their priorities with national leaders – a platform that led to the Pledge to America, Republicans’ new governing agenda for the country. Look for Republicans to continue aggressively using new tools like these in the 112th Congress.
A more humble tone has been set than seen in recent years. In his speech as he accepted the gavel, Boehner made good progress in working for a more civil tone in politics. His first sentence was "It's still me".
“Let’s start with the rules package the House will consider today. If passed, it will change how this institution operates, with an emphasis on real transparency, greater accountability, and a renewed focus on the Constitution. Our aim will be to give government back to the people. In seeking this goal, we will part with some of the rituals that have come to characterize this institution under majorities Republican and Democratic alike. We will dispense with the conventional wisdom that bigger bills are always better; that fast legislating is good legislating; that allowing additional amendments and open debate makes the legislative process ‘less efficient’ than our forefathers intended.
“These misconceptions have been the basis for the rituals of modern Washington. The American people have not been well served by them. Today, mindful of the lessons of the past, we open a new chapter.
“Legislators and the public will have three days to read bills before they come to a vote. Legislation will be more focused, properly scrutinized, and constitutionally sound. Committees, once bloated, will be smaller, with a renewed mission, including oversight. Old rules that have made it easy to increase spending will be replaced by new reforms that make it easier to cut spending. We will start by cutting Congress’ own budget.
“Above all else, we will welcome the battle of ideas, encourage it, and engage in it – openly, honestly, and respectfully. As the chamber closest to the people, the House works best when it is allowed to work its will. I ask all members of this body to join me in recognizing this common truth before the public it serves.
Increased transparency, reading the bills before the votes occur, cutting Congress' budget, reconcile legislation with the Constitution? It all sounds like music to the ears of voters. And a healthy dose of humility doesn't hurt either.
Pelosi Passes Gavel to Boehner
Nancy Pelosi, the first female Speaker of the House, went out not with a whimper but with a whine. She was graceless up until the very end of her remarks when it came time to pass the Speaker's gavel to John Boehner, her successor.
She began by congratulating herself for her record as Speaker.
In her remarks before handing over the gavel Pelosi celebrated the accomplishment of the 111th Congress. Pelosi noted the passage of health care and Wall Street reform. Through much of her remarks the Republican members withheld their applause.
Why would Republicans applaud as Pelosi devolved into run of the mill Democratic talking points? She was suppose to be introducing Boehner and handing off the gavel, after all. It truly was not suppose to be all about Nancy Pelosi.
She even reminded her audience that she, too, is from a large family. Maybe she is jealous of the attention paid to the large family that Boehner is so passionate about. And, she went on to claim the title of being the first Italian American Speaker of the House. I'm not kidding.
Pelosi finally focused on the task at hand. She acknowledged Mrs. Boehner and their two daughters in attendance.
She felt the need to comment on the size of the gavel Boehner chose to use. She said it was larger than the normal one used. Maybe she forgot the size of the clownishly large one she used when she was first sworn into the office in 2007.
While Congress may soon focusing on problems like the impending debt ceiling, repealing health care and changing filibuster rules, the biggest question today is: Is the new Speaker’s gavel really that big?
The short answer is “yes,” but he’ll probably only pull that one out every two years. According to CNN, John Boehner had a specially made gavel specially made for the occasion, although Boehner’s office won’t confirm any other details.
That isn’t to suggest Pelosi’s was any smaller. Since 1999, every new congress has used the same, large gavel, according to NPR:
“The clerk of the House used a gavel to open the proceedings of Congress and decided to save that gavel and use it again to open every Congress. So the clerk took that one gavel, put a piece of Scotch tape around it so he would remember to use that gavel next time, and kept it,” she says
She did focus in the very end and gracefully hand the gavel over to Boehner and said God Bless You to him.
She went on far longer than Boehner did, which was odd and perhaps another bit of historical accomplishment. She touted the very legislation rammed through under her guidance in the House that was so completely unpopular with the American voter that she lost her position over it. The woman is still in very deep denial.
Pelosi is not a relaxed speaker. She is stiff and not comfortable with her sentences as she utters them. This makes it a bit painful to listen to her. She is not a humble presence. It was noted that Boehner declined to vote for himself during the roll call vote for Speaker. Pelosi, however, voted for herself.
For Nancy Pelosi, today was all about her. For John Boehner, today ushered in a new time of humility in elected officials.
A change in leadership will do the House good.
She began by congratulating herself for her record as Speaker.
In her remarks before handing over the gavel Pelosi celebrated the accomplishment of the 111th Congress. Pelosi noted the passage of health care and Wall Street reform. Through much of her remarks the Republican members withheld their applause.
Why would Republicans applaud as Pelosi devolved into run of the mill Democratic talking points? She was suppose to be introducing Boehner and handing off the gavel, after all. It truly was not suppose to be all about Nancy Pelosi.
She even reminded her audience that she, too, is from a large family. Maybe she is jealous of the attention paid to the large family that Boehner is so passionate about. And, she went on to claim the title of being the first Italian American Speaker of the House. I'm not kidding.
Pelosi finally focused on the task at hand. She acknowledged Mrs. Boehner and their two daughters in attendance.
She felt the need to comment on the size of the gavel Boehner chose to use. She said it was larger than the normal one used. Maybe she forgot the size of the clownishly large one she used when she was first sworn into the office in 2007.
While Congress may soon focusing on problems like the impending debt ceiling, repealing health care and changing filibuster rules, the biggest question today is: Is the new Speaker’s gavel really that big?
The short answer is “yes,” but he’ll probably only pull that one out every two years. According to CNN, John Boehner had a specially made gavel specially made for the occasion, although Boehner’s office won’t confirm any other details.
That isn’t to suggest Pelosi’s was any smaller. Since 1999, every new congress has used the same, large gavel, according to NPR:
“The clerk of the House used a gavel to open the proceedings of Congress and decided to save that gavel and use it again to open every Congress. So the clerk took that one gavel, put a piece of Scotch tape around it so he would remember to use that gavel next time, and kept it,” she says
She did focus in the very end and gracefully hand the gavel over to Boehner and said God Bless You to him.
She went on far longer than Boehner did, which was odd and perhaps another bit of historical accomplishment. She touted the very legislation rammed through under her guidance in the House that was so completely unpopular with the American voter that she lost her position over it. The woman is still in very deep denial.
Pelosi is not a relaxed speaker. She is stiff and not comfortable with her sentences as she utters them. This makes it a bit painful to listen to her. She is not a humble presence. It was noted that Boehner declined to vote for himself during the roll call vote for Speaker. Pelosi, however, voted for herself.
For Nancy Pelosi, today was all about her. For John Boehner, today ushered in a new time of humility in elected officials.
A change in leadership will do the House good.
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Boehner Responds to Senate Democrats' Letter on HCR Repeal
Hoping to appear important in the agenda setting of the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives, Senate Democrats Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Murray and Stabenow sent a letter to about-to-be Speaker John Boehner about that matter of repealing the Health Care reform.
As usual, they led with scaring Senior Citizens about the bad, bad Republicans who want to kick them to the curb to eat cat food and beg for quarters:
"We urge you to consider the unintended consequences that the law’s repeal would have on a number of popular consumer protections that help middle class Americans,” the senators wrote. “The ‘donut hole’ fix is just one measure that would be threatened by a repeal effort. Taking this benefit away from seniors would be irresponsible and reckless at a time when it is becoming harder and harder for seniors to afford a healthy retirement.”
The senators added: “If House Republicans move forward with a repeal of the health care law that threatens consumer benefits like the “donut hole” fix, we will block it in the Senate. This proposal deserves a chance to work. It is too important to be treated as collateral damage in a partisan mission to repeal health care.
To his credit and our amusement, Boehner reciprocated with his own letter to them.
Senators Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Murray and Stabenow:
Thank you for reminding us – and the American people – of the backroom deal that you struck behind closed doors with ‘Big Pharma,’ resulting in bigger profits for the drug companies, and higher prescription drug costs for 33 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D, at a cost to the taxpayers of $42.6 billion.
The House is going to pass legislation to repeal that now. You’re welcome.
- Speaker-Designate John Boehner’s Press Office
Onward, Mr. Speaker.
As usual, they led with scaring Senior Citizens about the bad, bad Republicans who want to kick them to the curb to eat cat food and beg for quarters:
"We urge you to consider the unintended consequences that the law’s repeal would have on a number of popular consumer protections that help middle class Americans,” the senators wrote. “The ‘donut hole’ fix is just one measure that would be threatened by a repeal effort. Taking this benefit away from seniors would be irresponsible and reckless at a time when it is becoming harder and harder for seniors to afford a healthy retirement.”
The senators added: “If House Republicans move forward with a repeal of the health care law that threatens consumer benefits like the “donut hole” fix, we will block it in the Senate. This proposal deserves a chance to work. It is too important to be treated as collateral damage in a partisan mission to repeal health care.
To his credit and our amusement, Boehner reciprocated with his own letter to them.
Senators Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Murray and Stabenow:
Thank you for reminding us – and the American people – of the backroom deal that you struck behind closed doors with ‘Big Pharma,’ resulting in bigger profits for the drug companies, and higher prescription drug costs for 33 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D, at a cost to the taxpayers of $42.6 billion.
The House is going to pass legislation to repeal that now. You’re welcome.
- Speaker-Designate John Boehner’s Press Office
Onward, Mr. Speaker.
Obama's Comments on Air Force One Post-Christmas Vacation
While flying home on Air Force One from his extended Christmas holiday in Hawaii, President Obama told the press corps on board that there will be "plenty of time to campaign for 2012 in 2012" and hopes Boehner and McConnell will work with him to move the country forward. He said he expects the new Speaker of the House and the Senate Minority Leader to play to their base.
That is quite a lot of chutzpah from President Obama, a man in a perpetual campaign mode as he tries to govern the entire country. He states his low expectations of the political atmosphere and then cluck clucks about early campaigning.
Speaking on Air Force One, Obama acknowledged that a chilly reception awaited him from the Republicans, as they pledged tougher oversight of his administration.
"They are going to play to their base for a certain period of time, but I'm pretty confident that they're going to recognize that our job is to govern and make sure that we are delivering jobs for the American people and that we're creating a competitive economy for the 21st century -- not just for this generation but the next one," Obama said.
The President's newly found enthusiasm toward job creation is refreshing. Now it is up to him to convince the business community of his sincerity. This is the same President who stifled job creation and growth along the Gulf coast as his overzealous Interior Secretary issued an unnecessary drilling moratorium on offshore oil and natural gas drilling. This is the same President who came into office making speech after speech about Wall Street greed and the villains in the financial world. This is the same President who demanded the ramming through of an unnecessary monstrosity of a health care bill which includes unrealistic demands on small business and the medical practitioners. This is the same President who time and time again uses class warfare - middle class versus top earners - to push through his agenda.
This is a President who has never worked in the private sector. This is a President who has never owned or worked within a small business. This President only knows taxpayer funded jobs.
Let's hope he has completed his on the job training and is ready to be serious about turning job creation into a reality.
That is quite a lot of chutzpah from President Obama, a man in a perpetual campaign mode as he tries to govern the entire country. He states his low expectations of the political atmosphere and then cluck clucks about early campaigning.
Speaking on Air Force One, Obama acknowledged that a chilly reception awaited him from the Republicans, as they pledged tougher oversight of his administration.
"They are going to play to their base for a certain period of time, but I'm pretty confident that they're going to recognize that our job is to govern and make sure that we are delivering jobs for the American people and that we're creating a competitive economy for the 21st century -- not just for this generation but the next one," Obama said.
The President's newly found enthusiasm toward job creation is refreshing. Now it is up to him to convince the business community of his sincerity. This is the same President who stifled job creation and growth along the Gulf coast as his overzealous Interior Secretary issued an unnecessary drilling moratorium on offshore oil and natural gas drilling. This is the same President who came into office making speech after speech about Wall Street greed and the villains in the financial world. This is the same President who demanded the ramming through of an unnecessary monstrosity of a health care bill which includes unrealistic demands on small business and the medical practitioners. This is the same President who time and time again uses class warfare - middle class versus top earners - to push through his agenda.
This is a President who has never worked in the private sector. This is a President who has never owned or worked within a small business. This President only knows taxpayer funded jobs.
Let's hope he has completed his on the job training and is ready to be serious about turning job creation into a reality.
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
RNC Chairman Candidates Debate
The debate among those running for the chairmanship of the RNC was moderated by Tucker Carlson of the Daily Caller and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. Also participating was Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List. She was the self-proclaimed 'social conservative' representative. The mission of the Susan B. Anthony List is to promote pro-life candidates in politics.
The debate was live streamed via the Internet and broadcast on C-SPAN. The election is set for January 14.
An interesting nod to the virtual participant occurred when Tucker Carlson reminded those participants that the hash tag for the debate was #RNCDebate.
It wasn't much of a debate, per se, but more of a standard question and answer session.
The first shot was fired with the first candidate's opening statement. There is a need for some "tough love" according to Ann Wagner. Former co-chair of the RNC, and former chair of the Missouri GOP, as well as former Ambassador, candidate Ann Wagner has the broadest range of political experience of those hoping to oust current Chairman Michael Steele. And, just for the record, she wins the who-owns-guns contest, too. She and her family own 16, thank you. Plus the bonus of a son who is attending West Point and owner of an assault weapon.
Got all that? The woman is poised and articulate. She stays on message. As a former Ambassador, one would have to think she won't be the source of verbal gaffes. Right?
Next up was Saul Anuzis, former Michigan GOP Chair, and current National Committee member. His most memorable line was that the RNC Chair should "make the trains run on time." He used that line more than once. Anuzis ran for the position against Steele in 2008 and has been running ever since. He is very active on Twitter and Facebook. He spoke to the need for inclusion of all conservatives into the Republican party, as did Michael Steele.
Maria Cino was the third candidate to speak. She is a former Deputy RNC Chair and was Political Director for the 2000 Bush Presidential Campaign. She receives credit for the implementation of the 50 state victory program and also that she, as she said, "ran the national convention" of 2008. She is very strong in fundraising fundamentals and implementation.
Current Chairman Michael Steele was next. He described himself as a "glass is half full kind of guy" and took credit for the "we fired Pelosi" campaign success. He reminded the audience that there was not a state that didn't have GOP victories as he defended himself against the charges that the get out the vote program was not fully funded or as successful as it might have been.
Reince Priebus was the last to speak. Wisconsin GOP Chair and proud of the last election results in his state, he stressed that Republicans are not in competition with conservatives such as those in the Tea Party. "We are part of the conservative movement." A former supporter of Steele, now Priebus is quick to draw a line on inclusion into the party. He was clear that if you are not towing the party line then you are not a Republican. That is unfortunate at this point in time. The GOP needs to expand with all willing conservatives instead of encouraging small minded labels and in-fighting.
Other candidates were vocal in calling for RNC leadership that acknowledged the three pillars of conservatism - fiscal, social and strong national security. National security was basically ignored during this debate, however. The candidates were most interested in speaking to fiscal conservatism and yet the questions were centered around social conservatism at every opportunity.
All candidates agreed that Planned Parenthood should be de-funded of any tax dollars or government support. All proclaimed to be pro-life. All support the traditional definition of marriage. None claimed The Bible as their favorite book, which was refreshing. Michael Steele did incorrectly quote "War and Peace", is favorite book pick by using a quote from "A Tale of Two Cities" - "It was the best of times; it was the worst of times." English lit majors noticed.
Kudos to the moderators who insisted that when candidates answered the "who is your favorite President" question, Ronald Reagan's name was not allowed. I like that Maria Cino answered Margaret Thatcher!
All said yes to the question of the possibility of Sarah Palin winning the general election in 2012. All quickly mentioned that it is the Chairman's job to promote and support a candidate, not choose the candidate. This was another waste of time question.
The RNC Chairman has no role in making GOP policy. This fact makes the insistence on purity on social issues a waste of time. There is no question that all of these candidates are good people who want to work to make the GOP successful. As a couple of them rightfully said, it is the job of the RNC Chairman to insure victories. And, raise money. All the other fussing is white noise.
Now more than in years past, the RNC Chairman must be a person who brings people together and into the party to pave the way for victory in 2012.
The debate was live streamed via the Internet and broadcast on C-SPAN. The election is set for January 14.
An interesting nod to the virtual participant occurred when Tucker Carlson reminded those participants that the hash tag for the debate was #RNCDebate.
It wasn't much of a debate, per se, but more of a standard question and answer session.
The first shot was fired with the first candidate's opening statement. There is a need for some "tough love" according to Ann Wagner. Former co-chair of the RNC, and former chair of the Missouri GOP, as well as former Ambassador, candidate Ann Wagner has the broadest range of political experience of those hoping to oust current Chairman Michael Steele. And, just for the record, she wins the who-owns-guns contest, too. She and her family own 16, thank you. Plus the bonus of a son who is attending West Point and owner of an assault weapon.
Got all that? The woman is poised and articulate. She stays on message. As a former Ambassador, one would have to think she won't be the source of verbal gaffes. Right?
Next up was Saul Anuzis, former Michigan GOP Chair, and current National Committee member. His most memorable line was that the RNC Chair should "make the trains run on time." He used that line more than once. Anuzis ran for the position against Steele in 2008 and has been running ever since. He is very active on Twitter and Facebook. He spoke to the need for inclusion of all conservatives into the Republican party, as did Michael Steele.
Maria Cino was the third candidate to speak. She is a former Deputy RNC Chair and was Political Director for the 2000 Bush Presidential Campaign. She receives credit for the implementation of the 50 state victory program and also that she, as she said, "ran the national convention" of 2008. She is very strong in fundraising fundamentals and implementation.
Current Chairman Michael Steele was next. He described himself as a "glass is half full kind of guy" and took credit for the "we fired Pelosi" campaign success. He reminded the audience that there was not a state that didn't have GOP victories as he defended himself against the charges that the get out the vote program was not fully funded or as successful as it might have been.
Reince Priebus was the last to speak. Wisconsin GOP Chair and proud of the last election results in his state, he stressed that Republicans are not in competition with conservatives such as those in the Tea Party. "We are part of the conservative movement." A former supporter of Steele, now Priebus is quick to draw a line on inclusion into the party. He was clear that if you are not towing the party line then you are not a Republican. That is unfortunate at this point in time. The GOP needs to expand with all willing conservatives instead of encouraging small minded labels and in-fighting.
Other candidates were vocal in calling for RNC leadership that acknowledged the three pillars of conservatism - fiscal, social and strong national security. National security was basically ignored during this debate, however. The candidates were most interested in speaking to fiscal conservatism and yet the questions were centered around social conservatism at every opportunity.
All candidates agreed that Planned Parenthood should be de-funded of any tax dollars or government support. All proclaimed to be pro-life. All support the traditional definition of marriage. None claimed The Bible as their favorite book, which was refreshing. Michael Steele did incorrectly quote "War and Peace", is favorite book pick by using a quote from "A Tale of Two Cities" - "It was the best of times; it was the worst of times." English lit majors noticed.
Kudos to the moderators who insisted that when candidates answered the "who is your favorite President" question, Ronald Reagan's name was not allowed. I like that Maria Cino answered Margaret Thatcher!
All said yes to the question of the possibility of Sarah Palin winning the general election in 2012. All quickly mentioned that it is the Chairman's job to promote and support a candidate, not choose the candidate. This was another waste of time question.
The RNC Chairman has no role in making GOP policy. This fact makes the insistence on purity on social issues a waste of time. There is no question that all of these candidates are good people who want to work to make the GOP successful. As a couple of them rightfully said, it is the job of the RNC Chairman to insure victories. And, raise money. All the other fussing is white noise.
Now more than in years past, the RNC Chairman must be a person who brings people together and into the party to pave the way for victory in 2012.
Oil Prices Rise As Team Obama Sabotages Drilling Industry
The price of a barrel of crude oil is over $90. The price of a gallon of gas is predicted to be over $4.00 this year.
Normally, when the price of oil rises, folks in the oil and natural gas drilling industry are smiling. That's good news. Drilling speculation increases and it's full speed ahead with hiring. Service companies expand and those employers hire workers.
These are not normal times. Not only will increasing prices harm the economic recovery of the country and stifle consumer spending, our dependence on foreign oil producers increases. There is no winning in this situation.
This is not a game. The Obama administration and especially Interior Secretary Salazar are determined to shut down offshore oil and natural gas drilling. An exaggerated response to the tragedy of the Gulf oil spill in 2010 - both the loss of human life and environmental damage - does not honor those lost or support those left behind. Holding hearings and allowing those with no experience in the industry to make and enforce new layers of red tape and governmental regulations does not produce good energy policy.
Issuance of drilling permits remains non-existent.
More than two months after the Obama administration lifted its ban on drilling in the deep-water Gulf of Mexico, oil companies are still waiting for approval to drill the first new oil well there. Experts now expect the wait to continue until the second half of 2011, and perhaps into 2012.
And this: The slowdown also has long-term implications for U.S. oil production. The Energy Information Administration, the research arm of the Department of Energy, last month predicted that domestic offshore oil production will fall 13% this year from 2010 due to the moratorium and the slow return to drilling; a year ago, the agency predicted offshore production would rise 6% in 2011. The difference: a loss of about 220,000 barrels of oil a day.
With growing instability in Venezuela and in Russia, why would this administration allow shortages in oil drilling to continue? All methods of obtaining energy are needed, not just alternative energy ideas at the expense of oil and natural gas exploration. Obama approved millions to be sent to Brazil for their oil drilling efforts. Our oil and gas industry is the most regulated and taxed of any U.S. industry.
The lengthy delays in reviewing new permits have caught the industry off guard. When the Obama administration lifted its ban on deep-water drilling on Oct. 12, many experts had expected a few permits to be issued before the end of 2010, followed by a gradual ramp-up of activity this year.
Blind ideology - illogical prejudice - against any national industry with international repercussions is no way to make energy policy. Drilling for oil and natural gas has successfully and safely been done for decades in our country.
It is time to drill here and drill now.
Normally, when the price of oil rises, folks in the oil and natural gas drilling industry are smiling. That's good news. Drilling speculation increases and it's full speed ahead with hiring. Service companies expand and those employers hire workers.
These are not normal times. Not only will increasing prices harm the economic recovery of the country and stifle consumer spending, our dependence on foreign oil producers increases. There is no winning in this situation.
This is not a game. The Obama administration and especially Interior Secretary Salazar are determined to shut down offshore oil and natural gas drilling. An exaggerated response to the tragedy of the Gulf oil spill in 2010 - both the loss of human life and environmental damage - does not honor those lost or support those left behind. Holding hearings and allowing those with no experience in the industry to make and enforce new layers of red tape and governmental regulations does not produce good energy policy.
Issuance of drilling permits remains non-existent.
More than two months after the Obama administration lifted its ban on drilling in the deep-water Gulf of Mexico, oil companies are still waiting for approval to drill the first new oil well there. Experts now expect the wait to continue until the second half of 2011, and perhaps into 2012.
And this: The slowdown also has long-term implications for U.S. oil production. The Energy Information Administration, the research arm of the Department of Energy, last month predicted that domestic offshore oil production will fall 13% this year from 2010 due to the moratorium and the slow return to drilling; a year ago, the agency predicted offshore production would rise 6% in 2011. The difference: a loss of about 220,000 barrels of oil a day.
With growing instability in Venezuela and in Russia, why would this administration allow shortages in oil drilling to continue? All methods of obtaining energy are needed, not just alternative energy ideas at the expense of oil and natural gas exploration. Obama approved millions to be sent to Brazil for their oil drilling efforts. Our oil and gas industry is the most regulated and taxed of any U.S. industry.
The lengthy delays in reviewing new permits have caught the industry off guard. When the Obama administration lifted its ban on deep-water drilling on Oct. 12, many experts had expected a few permits to be issued before the end of 2010, followed by a gradual ramp-up of activity this year.
Blind ideology - illogical prejudice - against any national industry with international repercussions is no way to make energy policy. Drilling for oil and natural gas has successfully and safely been done for decades in our country.
It is time to drill here and drill now.
Monday, January 03, 2011
Reid to Change Senate Rule on Filibusters
As the politicians head back to Washington for the opening of the new Congress, one top priority on the agenda of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is to change the rule in the Senate as it pertains to filibusters.
Currently, under Senate Rule 22 it takes a three-fifths vote, or 60 senators, for cloture to shut off the potentially endless debate known as a filibuster. But it takes a two-thirds vote, or 67 Senators, to change a Senate rule.
Now that the Democratic majority has dramatically shrunk in the Senate, Reid wants to change the rules. He was against it before he was for it, this rule change.
When Harry Reid was hawking his book "The Good Fight" on C-Span's "Book Notes" in 2008, he described how he had vehemently opposed GOP plans for the "nuclear option," changing the rules to break a Democratic filibuster on President George W. Bush's judicial nominees.
See, it is a "good fight" if it is Democrats fighting a Republican agenda. Not so much if it is Republicans fighting a Democratic agenda. Back in the days of the Bush administration, the party of no was the Democrats. From the time the Democrats won the majority in the House and Senate in 2007 until President Bush left office, the Democrats were the masters of blocking nominations and legislation. When it was apparent a crucial number of federal judicial openings would not be filled, a group of fourteen senators met to try and work a compromise. This group was equally divided between Democrats and Republicans and led by Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham and referred to as the Gang of Fourteen.
Ideologically blinded members of both parties cried foul. No compromises, ever. Sounds good but in the real world it is a losing policy. Had the Republican majority succumbed and changed the rules, that short sighted victory would have allowed the now majority Democratic party the same leeway. Graham, at the time branded with the usual RINO label, wisely counseled fellow Republicans to avoid the easy way out. He understood that majority control ebbs and flows.
Reid, at the time, was quite vocal at the perceived power grab by the Republican majority. Now, however, the shoe is on the other foot. Now he has a plan to go ahead and change the number of votes required to break a filibuster. He is using a freshman as his willing rube,Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico.
The National Journal reports that all Democratic senators returning next year have signed a letter to Reid that a simple majority of the Senate can change the rule governing filibusters that has been in existence since 1975.
They are pushing the idea that like the House, the Senate is not a "continuing body" and is therefore free to adopt new rules each time it meets.
Emily Miller, writing in Human Events, reports that Reid held a closed-door meeting last week in which he said he may by a simple majority change the rules, including Rule 22, on the first day of the 112th Congress.
Got that? All of the Democrats in the Senate signed on to Reid's plan behind closed doors. Another failure towards the pledge of the strongest measure of transparency from the Democrats. Reid wants to turn the Senate into the House. He intends to use that logic to make it up as he goes, using whatever rules benefit him.
Currently, under Senate Rule 22 it takes a three-fifths vote, or 60 senators, for cloture to shut off the potentially endless debate known as a filibuster. But it takes a two-thirds vote, or 67 Senators, to change a Senate rule.
Now that the Democratic majority has dramatically shrunk in the Senate, Reid wants to change the rules. He was against it before he was for it, this rule change.
When Harry Reid was hawking his book "The Good Fight" on C-Span's "Book Notes" in 2008, he described how he had vehemently opposed GOP plans for the "nuclear option," changing the rules to break a Democratic filibuster on President George W. Bush's judicial nominees.
See, it is a "good fight" if it is Democrats fighting a Republican agenda. Not so much if it is Republicans fighting a Democratic agenda. Back in the days of the Bush administration, the party of no was the Democrats. From the time the Democrats won the majority in the House and Senate in 2007 until President Bush left office, the Democrats were the masters of blocking nominations and legislation. When it was apparent a crucial number of federal judicial openings would not be filled, a group of fourteen senators met to try and work a compromise. This group was equally divided between Democrats and Republicans and led by Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham and referred to as the Gang of Fourteen.
Ideologically blinded members of both parties cried foul. No compromises, ever. Sounds good but in the real world it is a losing policy. Had the Republican majority succumbed and changed the rules, that short sighted victory would have allowed the now majority Democratic party the same leeway. Graham, at the time branded with the usual RINO label, wisely counseled fellow Republicans to avoid the easy way out. He understood that majority control ebbs and flows.
Reid, at the time, was quite vocal at the perceived power grab by the Republican majority. Now, however, the shoe is on the other foot. Now he has a plan to go ahead and change the number of votes required to break a filibuster. He is using a freshman as his willing rube,Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico.
The National Journal reports that all Democratic senators returning next year have signed a letter to Reid that a simple majority of the Senate can change the rule governing filibusters that has been in existence since 1975.
They are pushing the idea that like the House, the Senate is not a "continuing body" and is therefore free to adopt new rules each time it meets.
Emily Miller, writing in Human Events, reports that Reid held a closed-door meeting last week in which he said he may by a simple majority change the rules, including Rule 22, on the first day of the 112th Congress.
Got that? All of the Democrats in the Senate signed on to Reid's plan behind closed doors. Another failure towards the pledge of the strongest measure of transparency from the Democrats. Reid wants to turn the Senate into the House. He intends to use that logic to make it up as he goes, using whatever rules benefit him.
Obama Pledges to Create Jobs in 2011
In the President's weekly address he promised to "do everything I can" to boost the economy; to create jobs. "In the year that lies ahead" Obama claims he is committed to job creation and growing jobs with an eye towards the future.
With a different president, this might be a reasonable address to the American business person. Coming from Barack Obama, however, the irony is ripe for comment. It is hard to imagine a more anti-business president from recent times. Unless Obama is speaking about government and union jobs, both of which he has focused on like a laser beam and grown out of proportion to private sector jobs, he appears to have little knowledge of how to grow jobs. This is in no small way attributable to the fact that the man has never worked in the private sector or created jobs in any business.
Obama pledges to work with both sides of the political aisle.
"In a few days, a new Congress will form, with one house controlled by Democrats, and one house controlled by Republicans - who now have a shared responsibility to move this country forward," he said. "And here's what I want you to know: I'm willing to work with anyone of either party who's got a good idea and the commitment to see it through. And we should all expect you to hold us accountable for our progress or our failure to deliver."
Thanks to the 'shellacking' which occurred on November 2, the President finds himself without a majority in the House and a limited one in the Senate. He no longer has the luxury of shutting out Republican and the GOP ideas on his policies. He no longer has the luxury of the lie told and re-told that the GOP doesn't offer solutions or different approaches, only criticizes his ideas. Now the Democrats - his party - can be the "party of no" in the House. That's politics.
The term 'witch hunt' has emerged as of recent weeks in the press. Now that Rep Issa is the incoming chairman of the House Government and Oversight Committee, and he promises to do the job, suddenly it is a GOP witch hunt. Some oversight would be refreshing in the House as we didn't get much of that under the guidance of Speaker Pelosi, though she promised the highest level of transparency and to drain the swamp of corruption. Pelosi chose to use her power in pushing through legislation instead of honoring those commitments. So much for all that change the voters expected with Pelosi's history making as the first female Speaker of the House.
President has Senate Majority Leader McConnell to thank for the amount of success he experienced during the lame duck session. McConnell drew a line and said no business will be conducted until the tax policy is handled. All of the Republican senators signed on to that decision as it was presented to Harry Reid. Obama had no choice but to move forward by bringing Republicans to the table.
With the public pledge to work with 'both sides' the time is now to live up to the words. The key is to watch what this president does, not what he says.
With a different president, this might be a reasonable address to the American business person. Coming from Barack Obama, however, the irony is ripe for comment. It is hard to imagine a more anti-business president from recent times. Unless Obama is speaking about government and union jobs, both of which he has focused on like a laser beam and grown out of proportion to private sector jobs, he appears to have little knowledge of how to grow jobs. This is in no small way attributable to the fact that the man has never worked in the private sector or created jobs in any business.
Obama pledges to work with both sides of the political aisle.
"In a few days, a new Congress will form, with one house controlled by Democrats, and one house controlled by Republicans - who now have a shared responsibility to move this country forward," he said. "And here's what I want you to know: I'm willing to work with anyone of either party who's got a good idea and the commitment to see it through. And we should all expect you to hold us accountable for our progress or our failure to deliver."
Thanks to the 'shellacking' which occurred on November 2, the President finds himself without a majority in the House and a limited one in the Senate. He no longer has the luxury of shutting out Republican and the GOP ideas on his policies. He no longer has the luxury of the lie told and re-told that the GOP doesn't offer solutions or different approaches, only criticizes his ideas. Now the Democrats - his party - can be the "party of no" in the House. That's politics.
The term 'witch hunt' has emerged as of recent weeks in the press. Now that Rep Issa is the incoming chairman of the House Government and Oversight Committee, and he promises to do the job, suddenly it is a GOP witch hunt. Some oversight would be refreshing in the House as we didn't get much of that under the guidance of Speaker Pelosi, though she promised the highest level of transparency and to drain the swamp of corruption. Pelosi chose to use her power in pushing through legislation instead of honoring those commitments. So much for all that change the voters expected with Pelosi's history making as the first female Speaker of the House.
President has Senate Majority Leader McConnell to thank for the amount of success he experienced during the lame duck session. McConnell drew a line and said no business will be conducted until the tax policy is handled. All of the Republican senators signed on to that decision as it was presented to Harry Reid. Obama had no choice but to move forward by bringing Republicans to the table.
With the public pledge to work with 'both sides' the time is now to live up to the words. The key is to watch what this president does, not what he says.
Sunday, January 02, 2011
The Obama Presidency as Grand Social Experiment
It is a false claim, the one that compares Obama favorably as a reincarnation of JFK. The two men share little in common and certainly not the same personalities.
Now and then Mr. Obama's devotees nodded to American history with evocations of FDR's New Deal and superficial parallels to JFK—the good looks, the glamour, the young children. But Kennedy had seen combat, was a Cold Warrior, and believed in the burdens of American power. Yes, he charmed Parisians and Berliners—but as the standard-bearer of an American empire of liberty. He never journeyed abroad to apologize on behalf of his country.
The voters that placed Barack Obama into the highest office in the land have now mostly soured on his abilities to govern. The country, it turns out, is not willing to continue on this path of Obama's grand social experiment. We are not a socialist leaning nation. We accept the need of big government programs, such as social security and unemployment insurance, but not for socialized medicine at the expense of 1/6 of our national economy.
Now the hard stuff begins for President Obama.
The era of charisma, which began when Barack Obama was swept into office by delirium and enthusiasm, has drawn to a close. With the resounding repudiation of the midterm elections, the tax legislation, the ratification of a strategic arms pact with Russia and the end of "don't ask, don't tell" thanks to the support of Republican senators, the Obama presidency has just begun.
Which way will this president go? Will he heed the cries of the general public and moderate? Will he continue to whine and blame when his agenda meets opposition? I predict a resounding 'yes' to both questions. The man really, really want to be re-elected in 2012 and yet his own stunted personality will not allow him to be gracious in either victory ("I won") or defeat. He was able to push through his health care boondoogle on Christmas Eve 2009 with a completely Democratic dominated Congress. Come January, the game changes.
Now President Obama no longer has super fan Nancy Pelosi as head cheerleader and agenda setting leader in the House of Representatives. Now President Obama will have to work with incoming Speaker of the House Boehner, of whom he previously ridiculed and trash-talked for political points during policy debates. Some of the change this White House has provided comes in the lowered political rhetoric - that of personal attacks of those with a different political philosophy. This White House has provided the change of dialogue more fitting of middle school students than of the highest levels of political leadership.
The man ushered into power on the basis of skin color - a hard reality often not spoken about out of fear of criticism if we were honest - as a 'historical' presidency, the first bi-racial president had little experience to qualify him for the office. The man delivered a speech in 2004 at the Democratic convention that impressed many people, including myself at the time, and his path was set. He would be a future presidential candidate. Then he decided it was his time in 2008. With only a very brief Senatorial career in Washington,after time in the state legislature in Illinois where his claim to fame was voting 'present' an unprecedented amount of times, his fan club grew. He was able to parlay his teleprompter reading skills into capturing the imagination of the voters. John McCain ran a lackluster campaign and then relied on Sarah Palin to draw the crowds and woo conservative voters. The slobbering press never bothered to investigate some very troubling aspects of Obama's past - decisions that clearly showed character faults that would bleed into future presidential decisions. The press was hell-bent on the first bi-racial presidential bid. The American public was scared and nervous about the financial climate and rising unemployment. A majority of voters latched onto candidate Obama as a hope for a new path to recovery.
We have a slobbering press to thank for much of the Obama popularity leading into his electoral victory in 2008. Reporters - a term used loosely here - tasked with the campaign trail coverage of Obama turned their collective heads and then used the experience to write tell-all books which included the stories that should have been reported during the campaign. "Journalists" cashing in on a professional assignment instead of actually doing the job for the American reader and voter was a new low for them. It appeared to be the last nail in the coffin of the death of journalism in this country. The slobbering press is at it again - the very ones who profited before are looking for greener rewards now. The move to Chicago for the re-election headquarters, for example, is being 'reported' as 'daring' and other nonsensical descriptions.
The man in the Oval Office is a master of deception. He bends with whatever will be best for his legacy. It is hard to believe this selfish man has anyone but himself at the forefront of his thoughts.
How did Barack Obama invent himself into a bi-partisan, working across the aisle, no more red state/blue state unifying figure? Mellifluous rhetoric and a partisan myth helped to promulgate that myth, I grant. But still, how did the U.S senator with the most partisan voting record in the Senate (to the left of the socialist Bernie Sanders from Vermont) and a devout attendee of one of the most divisive and racist preachers imaginable refashion himself so successfully? Was it the simple declarations — as in something like “I say I am bipartisan, therefore I am bipartisan”? Did all forget that our pre-mid-term election president evoked phrases such as “enemies,” “sit in the back of the car,” and “hand to hand”?
No matter — as soon as Obama was “shellacked” with a 63 seat loss in the House, and his polls hit 42 percent approval, he dropped all the prior rhetoric about “I won and you lost” or “elections matter”—and now announced to his “enemies” that he could “work together” to get things done. Had Obama increased the House Democratic majority by 30 more seats in November, would he now be praising the virtues of bipartisanship? Had the vanity of Rev Wright not convinced the huckster preacher to hawk his Trinity racist rants on incriminating DVDs, would he now be a frequent “healing” presence at the White House?
America deserves better.
Now and then Mr. Obama's devotees nodded to American history with evocations of FDR's New Deal and superficial parallels to JFK—the good looks, the glamour, the young children. But Kennedy had seen combat, was a Cold Warrior, and believed in the burdens of American power. Yes, he charmed Parisians and Berliners—but as the standard-bearer of an American empire of liberty. He never journeyed abroad to apologize on behalf of his country.
The voters that placed Barack Obama into the highest office in the land have now mostly soured on his abilities to govern. The country, it turns out, is not willing to continue on this path of Obama's grand social experiment. We are not a socialist leaning nation. We accept the need of big government programs, such as social security and unemployment insurance, but not for socialized medicine at the expense of 1/6 of our national economy.
Now the hard stuff begins for President Obama.
The era of charisma, which began when Barack Obama was swept into office by delirium and enthusiasm, has drawn to a close. With the resounding repudiation of the midterm elections, the tax legislation, the ratification of a strategic arms pact with Russia and the end of "don't ask, don't tell" thanks to the support of Republican senators, the Obama presidency has just begun.
Which way will this president go? Will he heed the cries of the general public and moderate? Will he continue to whine and blame when his agenda meets opposition? I predict a resounding 'yes' to both questions. The man really, really want to be re-elected in 2012 and yet his own stunted personality will not allow him to be gracious in either victory ("I won") or defeat. He was able to push through his health care boondoogle on Christmas Eve 2009 with a completely Democratic dominated Congress. Come January, the game changes.
Now President Obama no longer has super fan Nancy Pelosi as head cheerleader and agenda setting leader in the House of Representatives. Now President Obama will have to work with incoming Speaker of the House Boehner, of whom he previously ridiculed and trash-talked for political points during policy debates. Some of the change this White House has provided comes in the lowered political rhetoric - that of personal attacks of those with a different political philosophy. This White House has provided the change of dialogue more fitting of middle school students than of the highest levels of political leadership.
The man ushered into power on the basis of skin color - a hard reality often not spoken about out of fear of criticism if we were honest - as a 'historical' presidency, the first bi-racial president had little experience to qualify him for the office. The man delivered a speech in 2004 at the Democratic convention that impressed many people, including myself at the time, and his path was set. He would be a future presidential candidate. Then he decided it was his time in 2008. With only a very brief Senatorial career in Washington,after time in the state legislature in Illinois where his claim to fame was voting 'present' an unprecedented amount of times, his fan club grew. He was able to parlay his teleprompter reading skills into capturing the imagination of the voters. John McCain ran a lackluster campaign and then relied on Sarah Palin to draw the crowds and woo conservative voters. The slobbering press never bothered to investigate some very troubling aspects of Obama's past - decisions that clearly showed character faults that would bleed into future presidential decisions. The press was hell-bent on the first bi-racial presidential bid. The American public was scared and nervous about the financial climate and rising unemployment. A majority of voters latched onto candidate Obama as a hope for a new path to recovery.
We have a slobbering press to thank for much of the Obama popularity leading into his electoral victory in 2008. Reporters - a term used loosely here - tasked with the campaign trail coverage of Obama turned their collective heads and then used the experience to write tell-all books which included the stories that should have been reported during the campaign. "Journalists" cashing in on a professional assignment instead of actually doing the job for the American reader and voter was a new low for them. It appeared to be the last nail in the coffin of the death of journalism in this country. The slobbering press is at it again - the very ones who profited before are looking for greener rewards now. The move to Chicago for the re-election headquarters, for example, is being 'reported' as 'daring' and other nonsensical descriptions.
The man in the Oval Office is a master of deception. He bends with whatever will be best for his legacy. It is hard to believe this selfish man has anyone but himself at the forefront of his thoughts.
How did Barack Obama invent himself into a bi-partisan, working across the aisle, no more red state/blue state unifying figure? Mellifluous rhetoric and a partisan myth helped to promulgate that myth, I grant. But still, how did the U.S senator with the most partisan voting record in the Senate (to the left of the socialist Bernie Sanders from Vermont) and a devout attendee of one of the most divisive and racist preachers imaginable refashion himself so successfully? Was it the simple declarations — as in something like “I say I am bipartisan, therefore I am bipartisan”? Did all forget that our pre-mid-term election president evoked phrases such as “enemies,” “sit in the back of the car,” and “hand to hand”?
No matter — as soon as Obama was “shellacked” with a 63 seat loss in the House, and his polls hit 42 percent approval, he dropped all the prior rhetoric about “I won and you lost” or “elections matter”—and now announced to his “enemies” that he could “work together” to get things done. Had Obama increased the House Democratic majority by 30 more seats in November, would he now be praising the virtues of bipartisanship? Had the vanity of Rev Wright not convinced the huckster preacher to hawk his Trinity racist rants on incriminating DVDs, would he now be a frequent “healing” presence at the White House?
America deserves better.
Saturday, January 01, 2011
Bill Richardson Denies Pardon to Billy the Kid
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is at the end of his term. What is the burning issue Richardson has brought to the forefront of the end of his time in office? Should he or shouldn't he issue a pardon to the very dead Billy the Kid?
Why is Richardson pursuing this? Who knows what the long time politician is thinking here but it mostly appears to be a grab at headlines as he leaves office. It looks desperate. Isn't it enough for Richardson that the rumors are growing loud that he will replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State?
That was the buzz at the end of the year, the slow news days at the end of 2010.
A little background to refresh our memories on the Old West legend:
Billy the Kid, who also went by the name William H. Bonney, was convicted of murdering Lincoln County Sheriff William Brady in 1878. Lew Wallace, the governor of territorial New Mexico in the late 1870s, purportedly offered the Kid a pardon if he testified against other members of Billy Campbell's posse in a separate murder case. The Kid testified, but no pardon was granted.
In April 1881, shortly before the Kid was to be hanged, he escaped from jail and killed two deputies. Sheriff Pat Garrett tracked him down and killed him on July 14, 1881.
And, then for added drama, Richardson made his decision public at the last minute.
Richardson said he decided against a pardon "because of a lack of conclusiveness and the historical ambiguity as to why Gov. Wallace reneged on his promise."
Maybe he did it because of all the publicity outgoing Florida Governor Crist has garnered over the pardon of singer Morrison of the Doors. I would argue that a rock and roller's drug conviction does not fall in the same light as a potential pardon of a murdering thief.
Maybe that is just me, though.
Sheriff Pat Garrett's grandson J.P. Garrett and Wallace's great-grandson William Wallace expressed outrage over a pardon after Richardson set up a website in mid-December to hear from the public.
The website was established after Albuquerque attorney Randi McGinn submitted a formal petition for a pardon.
Richardson's office received 809 e-mails and letters in the survey that ended Sunday, with 430 favoring a pardon and 379 opposed. Comments came from all over the world.
McGinn argued that Lew Wallace promised to pardon the Kid, also known as William Bonney or Henry McCarty.
State resources were used in this exercise, it appears. The attorney requesting the pardon also appears to have been a factor, considering her husband was appointed to the state's Supreme Court by Richardson.
Doesn't New Mexico have greater issues to be handled? Incoming Republican Governor Susana Martinez thinks so. Richardson fancies himself an Old West history buff. He said in an interview that considering this pardon was "fun".
Pardons are serious decisions. It's just as well that Richardson's time is up.
Why is Richardson pursuing this? Who knows what the long time politician is thinking here but it mostly appears to be a grab at headlines as he leaves office. It looks desperate. Isn't it enough for Richardson that the rumors are growing loud that he will replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State?
That was the buzz at the end of the year, the slow news days at the end of 2010.
A little background to refresh our memories on the Old West legend:
Billy the Kid, who also went by the name William H. Bonney, was convicted of murdering Lincoln County Sheriff William Brady in 1878. Lew Wallace, the governor of territorial New Mexico in the late 1870s, purportedly offered the Kid a pardon if he testified against other members of Billy Campbell's posse in a separate murder case. The Kid testified, but no pardon was granted.
In April 1881, shortly before the Kid was to be hanged, he escaped from jail and killed two deputies. Sheriff Pat Garrett tracked him down and killed him on July 14, 1881.
And, then for added drama, Richardson made his decision public at the last minute.
Richardson said he decided against a pardon "because of a lack of conclusiveness and the historical ambiguity as to why Gov. Wallace reneged on his promise."
Maybe he did it because of all the publicity outgoing Florida Governor Crist has garnered over the pardon of singer Morrison of the Doors. I would argue that a rock and roller's drug conviction does not fall in the same light as a potential pardon of a murdering thief.
Maybe that is just me, though.
Sheriff Pat Garrett's grandson J.P. Garrett and Wallace's great-grandson William Wallace expressed outrage over a pardon after Richardson set up a website in mid-December to hear from the public.
The website was established after Albuquerque attorney Randi McGinn submitted a formal petition for a pardon.
Richardson's office received 809 e-mails and letters in the survey that ended Sunday, with 430 favoring a pardon and 379 opposed. Comments came from all over the world.
McGinn argued that Lew Wallace promised to pardon the Kid, also known as William Bonney or Henry McCarty.
State resources were used in this exercise, it appears. The attorney requesting the pardon also appears to have been a factor, considering her husband was appointed to the state's Supreme Court by Richardson.
Doesn't New Mexico have greater issues to be handled? Incoming Republican Governor Susana Martinez thinks so. Richardson fancies himself an Old West history buff. He said in an interview that considering this pardon was "fun".
Pardons are serious decisions. It's just as well that Richardson's time is up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)