Today President Obama announced his choice to replace David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor. Ms. Sotomayor is a dream candidate and likely to be quickly approved. She was first nominated to the bench by a Republican, the first President Bush, and she had the wisdom never to have children, which eliminates the otherwise automatic nanny-gate fiasco any time a woman is nominated for anything.
She has a compelling story which the Republicans will fail to jump on even though it provides ample proof – as does our President’s ascendancy -- that America is the land of opportunity and that anyone who works hard can achieve beyond their wildest dreams in this great country.
But we will probably miss the opportunity to tell that story and instead we will allow the Democrats to bathe in her glory while simultaneously telling the average American that you cannot achieve anything without the government’s help.
How did she manage to graduate summa cum laude from Princeton and become editor of the Yale Law Review when the United States is such a white-male-dominated bastion of unequal opportunity and institutionalized racism? Perhaps she did it by not believing the Democrats’ version of two Americas and by realizing that the American dream is available to all its citizens.
Now, all this is not to say that I’m thrilled with her selection. She has written some opinions recently that I am entirely opposed to, most notably her ruling supporting the City of New Haven’s decision to discard the firefighter promotion exam results when no black or Latino passed the exam. I would think her own life story would tell her that it is not one’s race or ethnicity that matters, but their abilities. Somehow, she was able to make her way through three separate exams to achieve her goals.
Her confirmation hearing will be interesting because, as an appellate court judge, she has been the author of a number of appellate decisions that her future brethren on the court have overturned. While Obama may want to paint her as a centrist, moderate jurist, that does not seem to reconcile with her record.
Yes, she “saved” baseball by ending the strike when, as a district court judge, she ruled in favor of the player’s association and against the owners who had been trying to end free agency and salary arbitration. With this pro-union decision, her liberal bona fides were secured.
But, as they say in the TV infomercials, that’s not all. We also have her statements to guide us as to her view of not just race and gender issues, but the issue of the role of the Supreme Court. And none of these will warm a Republican’s heart.
In a speech given at the liberal Valhalla, U.C. Berkeley, back in 2002, Sotomayor embraced the idea that a jurist’s gender and racial identity would influence their decision-making. She said in part, "I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society....” She then elaborated, “I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others....”
"Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
I haven’t seen such blatant white male bashing since the Wanda Sykes baby shower.
With her belief that the gender and race of a jurist i is at all relevant to making a just decision, one wonders how the all white Supreme Court gave us Brown v. Board of Education or an all male Supreme Court gave us Roe v. Wade.
There is no question that Sotomayor intends to be an activist judge as she has gone on record that it is in the highest courts that does more than merely interpret the law.
During a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University, Sotomayor answered a student’s question about the difference between the Federal District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals, by saying that the Court of Appeals is where "policy is made." She went on to say, "All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't 'make law,' I know. [Audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. [Audience laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application."
In addition to obvious elocutionary gifts, Ms. Sotomayor seems to suffer a bit of Biden-esque excessive sharing. This could make this question and answer session during the confirmation hearings DVR-worthy.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Obama's Foreign Policy -- I'm Sorry, So Sorry
We all remember Michelle Obama’s statement in early 2008 that “for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.” I am sorry to say that after fewer than one hundred days into her husband’s administration, I am not proud of my country. At least, not proud of the America that Obama and his administration represent.
In less than three months, Obama has dramatically refashioned the domestic and foreign policy of the United States, ignoring over 200 years of his predecessors’ policies and approaches. Over the centuries, the U.S. has been isolationist or imperialistic, we have been a market economy and we have embraced Keynesian economics. But whatever policies were in place, the presidents were motivated by the belief that his responsibility was towards protecting and defending the United States and maintaining its position as the most powerful country in the world. Even Jimmy Carter did not actively seek to undermine our power and prestige in the world to this extent (and we all saw where his show of weakness led us).
Then along came the chosen one, the messiah, the giver of hope, the promise of change. Well, he was partially right, he is giving us change. A new economy – wealth redistribution, a government funded by a fraction of the population. Where 10% of tax payers pay over 75% of federal taxes. Where 50% pay nothing. Zero. Even though we all share equally in the roads, the defense, the numerous governmental services.
And he’s giving us a new foreign policy – one of contrition and self-flagellation. Where our president panders to thugs who have ridiculed, maligned and threatened our country. Where our president embraces those who deny their own citizens civil rights. Where the president and the rest of his cabinet is on a mission to apologize to as many foreign leaders as possible for the United States.
Obama is going around the world apologizing for the United States and saying, in effect, we were a terrible, horrible, no good country but now that I’m president, all that is going to change. We will embrace Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, any of our so-called enemies. We will open our hands to you as friends, because you couldn’t possibly mean all the anti-American things you’ve been saying all these years. You will be hypnotized, like the rest of my country, by my awkward, halting speaking style and my feigned Christ-like sincerity and you will stop your attacks on the U.S.
I can’t possibly express how dangerous this is for America. Having someone as ill-informed, ill-prepared and plain naïve running around the world spewing all this mea culpa garbage without the faintest idea of what he is doing is like having a three-year-old playing with a loaded gun.
I just hope all the damage that is being done can be fixed in 2012.
In less than three months, Obama has dramatically refashioned the domestic and foreign policy of the United States, ignoring over 200 years of his predecessors’ policies and approaches. Over the centuries, the U.S. has been isolationist or imperialistic, we have been a market economy and we have embraced Keynesian economics. But whatever policies were in place, the presidents were motivated by the belief that his responsibility was towards protecting and defending the United States and maintaining its position as the most powerful country in the world. Even Jimmy Carter did not actively seek to undermine our power and prestige in the world to this extent (and we all saw where his show of weakness led us).
Then along came the chosen one, the messiah, the giver of hope, the promise of change. Well, he was partially right, he is giving us change. A new economy – wealth redistribution, a government funded by a fraction of the population. Where 10% of tax payers pay over 75% of federal taxes. Where 50% pay nothing. Zero. Even though we all share equally in the roads, the defense, the numerous governmental services.
And he’s giving us a new foreign policy – one of contrition and self-flagellation. Where our president panders to thugs who have ridiculed, maligned and threatened our country. Where our president embraces those who deny their own citizens civil rights. Where the president and the rest of his cabinet is on a mission to apologize to as many foreign leaders as possible for the United States.
Obama is going around the world apologizing for the United States and saying, in effect, we were a terrible, horrible, no good country but now that I’m president, all that is going to change. We will embrace Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, any of our so-called enemies. We will open our hands to you as friends, because you couldn’t possibly mean all the anti-American things you’ve been saying all these years. You will be hypnotized, like the rest of my country, by my awkward, halting speaking style and my feigned Christ-like sincerity and you will stop your attacks on the U.S.
I can’t possibly express how dangerous this is for America. Having someone as ill-informed, ill-prepared and plain naïve running around the world spewing all this mea culpa garbage without the faintest idea of what he is doing is like having a three-year-old playing with a loaded gun.
I just hope all the damage that is being done can be fixed in 2012.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Obama in Europe
President Obama's first trip to Europe has been hailed -- as pretty much everything he does -- as an enormous success. The media applauded his humility and conciliatory approach. They cheered the end of the age of arrogance, the hallmark of the Bush Administration.
Yet the fact that the president is so wildly popular, and literally bowed himself in front of the world, makes the fact that he left Europe without much that he had hoped is a troubling development.
Obama’s trip had three main goals, only one of which was reached. The first, and easiest, was to convey to the rest of the world that George Bush was gone for good. The cowboy who irritated them with his talk of a war on terror and the axis of evil had left the building. Replacing him was Mr. Congeniality, the man voted most likely to cause teenage girls to swoon, right after the guy who plays Edward in the Twilight series.
He was met with cheering crowds and fawning fellow leaders. They reacted to his manifest charms with adoration and adulation. He was just what they were looking for in a U.S. president. Obama was apologetic. He was contrite. He was self-effacing. Well, he was Bush-effacing, but still. He thrust his hand out more eagerly than a car salesman at a Chrysler lot.
This was no just a kinder-gentler president, this was the ostensible leader of the free world practically lying prostrate in front of the rest of Europe, begging them to like him, to forgive him for our myriad past sins, to let us back into the club. Our president only knows one mode of operation that works for him – he always has to be running for something. He wasn't the U.S. president -- he was an ambassador to the world.
Begging the question is it more important for the U.S. to be liked or feared?
Of the goals Obama wasn't able to accomplish, the first was to get the leaders of the G-20 to agree to more governmental spending to stimulate the economy. Our good fiends, France and Germany, flatly refused to increase domestic spending.
Obama had hoped to get Europe to agree to take some of the detainees from Guantanamo Bay detention center, yet France agreed to take only one Algerian prisoner from the center and no one else.
Neither was he successful in getting Europe to participate more significantly in the war in Afghanistan. European leaders offered only limited civilian aid and noncombat troops to help train Afghan police and soldiers, but no commitment to sending combat troops to serve alongside the American fighters.
France's Sarkozy said, "We totally endorse and support America's new strategy in Afghanistan." Merkel of Germany said, "We have a great responsibility here." Yet neither would put the combat troops where they are needed.
And if Obama thought his gestures of friendship and humility would help gather support from the rest of the world against North Korea's missile launch, he was quickly disabused of that idea.
After the launch, Obama said, "North Korea broke the rules, once again, by testing a rocket that could be used for long range missiles." He went on to add, "Words must mean something . . . The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons."
Well, the U.N. didn't think it needed to stand with the U.S. and EU against the missile launch, failing to agree on a joint resolution denouncing North Korea's aggressive action.
So what's the lesson for Obama? There's the theoretical world, and the real one. In his world, you can reach out to your friends and enemies alike, speak from the heart, offer support and contrition, hope that your good will might win people over to your side. In the real world, the one Ronald Reagan lived in, you could be friendly and affable, but your friends knew they had our undying support and our enemies knew they should fear us.
I've said it before, but it's applicable here. Obama needs to do more than be anti-Bush. He has to find a way to use his formidable interpersonal gifts to portray a good, but determined and strong, U.S. It is simply not in our best interest as a nation to come across to the rest of the world as scared, or needy, or subservient.
When Obama was seen apparently bowing before the king of Saudi Arabia, that was an uncomfortable sight. Our country, and our leaders, should bow to no one. Our president is answerable to the American public, but to no one else.
Obama represents all of us when he travels abroad, and we want that representative to hold his head high and be proud that he is leading the greatest country in the world. I don't think we want to see him as the prostrate penitent almost embarrassed of his country.
I know that I don't even want him to act as just another head of state, as if the U.S. did not have a special position in the world. I want the U.S. president to project power, confidence and conviction. Instead, Obama seemed to heed only half of Teddy Roosevelt's advice -- he spoke softly, but is trying to bury our big stick.
Yet the fact that the president is so wildly popular, and literally bowed himself in front of the world, makes the fact that he left Europe without much that he had hoped is a troubling development.
Obama’s trip had three main goals, only one of which was reached. The first, and easiest, was to convey to the rest of the world that George Bush was gone for good. The cowboy who irritated them with his talk of a war on terror and the axis of evil had left the building. Replacing him was Mr. Congeniality, the man voted most likely to cause teenage girls to swoon, right after the guy who plays Edward in the Twilight series.
He was met with cheering crowds and fawning fellow leaders. They reacted to his manifest charms with adoration and adulation. He was just what they were looking for in a U.S. president. Obama was apologetic. He was contrite. He was self-effacing. Well, he was Bush-effacing, but still. He thrust his hand out more eagerly than a car salesman at a Chrysler lot.
This was no just a kinder-gentler president, this was the ostensible leader of the free world practically lying prostrate in front of the rest of Europe, begging them to like him, to forgive him for our myriad past sins, to let us back into the club. Our president only knows one mode of operation that works for him – he always has to be running for something. He wasn't the U.S. president -- he was an ambassador to the world.
Begging the question is it more important for the U.S. to be liked or feared?
Of the goals Obama wasn't able to accomplish, the first was to get the leaders of the G-20 to agree to more governmental spending to stimulate the economy. Our good fiends, France and Germany, flatly refused to increase domestic spending.
Obama had hoped to get Europe to agree to take some of the detainees from Guantanamo Bay detention center, yet France agreed to take only one Algerian prisoner from the center and no one else.
Neither was he successful in getting Europe to participate more significantly in the war in Afghanistan. European leaders offered only limited civilian aid and noncombat troops to help train Afghan police and soldiers, but no commitment to sending combat troops to serve alongside the American fighters.
France's Sarkozy said, "We totally endorse and support America's new strategy in Afghanistan." Merkel of Germany said, "We have a great responsibility here." Yet neither would put the combat troops where they are needed.
And if Obama thought his gestures of friendship and humility would help gather support from the rest of the world against North Korea's missile launch, he was quickly disabused of that idea.
After the launch, Obama said, "North Korea broke the rules, once again, by testing a rocket that could be used for long range missiles." He went on to add, "Words must mean something . . . The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons."
Well, the U.N. didn't think it needed to stand with the U.S. and EU against the missile launch, failing to agree on a joint resolution denouncing North Korea's aggressive action.
So what's the lesson for Obama? There's the theoretical world, and the real one. In his world, you can reach out to your friends and enemies alike, speak from the heart, offer support and contrition, hope that your good will might win people over to your side. In the real world, the one Ronald Reagan lived in, you could be friendly and affable, but your friends knew they had our undying support and our enemies knew they should fear us.
I've said it before, but it's applicable here. Obama needs to do more than be anti-Bush. He has to find a way to use his formidable interpersonal gifts to portray a good, but determined and strong, U.S. It is simply not in our best interest as a nation to come across to the rest of the world as scared, or needy, or subservient.
When Obama was seen apparently bowing before the king of Saudi Arabia, that was an uncomfortable sight. Our country, and our leaders, should bow to no one. Our president is answerable to the American public, but to no one else.
Obama represents all of us when he travels abroad, and we want that representative to hold his head high and be proud that he is leading the greatest country in the world. I don't think we want to see him as the prostrate penitent almost embarrassed of his country.
I know that I don't even want him to act as just another head of state, as if the U.S. did not have a special position in the world. I want the U.S. president to project power, confidence and conviction. Instead, Obama seemed to heed only half of Teddy Roosevelt's advice -- he spoke softly, but is trying to bury our big stick.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Obama's Iran Problem
In a three minute address to the people and government of Iran, President Obama demonstrated his foreign policy -- apologetic, unrealistic and weak. Here is what he -- as President of the United States -- told this hostile regime and its people.
"I would like to speak clearly to Iran's leaders. We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.
You too have a choice. The United states wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place among the community of nations. You have that right. But it comes with real responsibilities. And that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.
So on the occasion of your new year, I want you, the people and leaders of Iran, to understand the future that we seek. It's a future with renewed exchanges among our people and greater opportunities for partnership and commerce. It's a future where the old divisions are overcome where you and all your neighbors and the wider world can live in greater security and greater peace.
I know that this won't be reached easily. There are those who insist that we be defined by our differences. But let us remember the words that were written by the poet Sadi, so many years ago: the children of Adam are limbs to each other having been created of one essence.
With the coming of a new season, we are reminded of this precious humanity which we all share. And we can once again call upon this spirit as we seek the promise of a new beginning. Thank you and (here he signed of in what was probably Farsi)."
Is anyone else having a Jimmy Carter flashback? Haven't we already seen the folly in the "can't we all just get along" approach to our enemies -- and do not mistake for a moment that as long as we support Israel, we are Iran's mortal enemy. It's hard not to react to the Neville Chamberlain-esque naivete inherent in treating a dangerous, hostile regime who has vowed the destruction of one of your strongest allies as a potential friend.
While we can debate how much bombast needs to come from the White House in dealing with our enemies, this mealy-mouthed supplication is not the answer. It was, frankly, embarrassing.
The Iranian response? Let's just say, they weren't conciliatory.
"We welcome the interest of the American government to settle differences. The American government should realise its previous mistakes and make an effort to amend them in order to put aside differences.
The Obama administration so far has just talked. By words and talking the ... problems between Iran and America can not be solved.
Nowruz (the Iranian New Year which falls on Friday) is a sign of fundamental development in nature and Obama should learn from this to make fundamental changes in his policy towards Iran.
Supporting Israel is not a friendly gesture and the new year is an opportunity for the United States to change this policy.
By fundamentally changing its behaviour America can offer us a friendly hand. So far what we have received have been unfriendly fists. Unlimited sanctions which still continue and have been renewed by the United States are wrong and need to be reviewed.
The Iranian nation has shown that it can forget hasty behaviour but we are awaiting practical steps by the United States."
Iran's spokesman had no problem making his country's position crystal clear. So long as the United States supports Israel, we will be Iran's enemy. There will be no peace between our two countries while the United States maintains a pro-Israel position.
Iran has maintained this position for over three decades and has not wavered in wanting the destruction of Israel. The only peace Iran will accept they have told us repeatedly is one that results in the death to Israel. Trying to reason with Iran's leadership, trying to deal with them as other than the hate-filled, terrorist-supporters they are, is a mistake that could have grave consequences for us and our allies.
Obama's only goal this first hundred days seems to be to do precisely the opposite of what George Bush did.
That is not policy or ideology; it's petulance.
"I would like to speak clearly to Iran's leaders. We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.
You too have a choice. The United states wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place among the community of nations. You have that right. But it comes with real responsibilities. And that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.
So on the occasion of your new year, I want you, the people and leaders of Iran, to understand the future that we seek. It's a future with renewed exchanges among our people and greater opportunities for partnership and commerce. It's a future where the old divisions are overcome where you and all your neighbors and the wider world can live in greater security and greater peace.
I know that this won't be reached easily. There are those who insist that we be defined by our differences. But let us remember the words that were written by the poet Sadi, so many years ago: the children of Adam are limbs to each other having been created of one essence.
With the coming of a new season, we are reminded of this precious humanity which we all share. And we can once again call upon this spirit as we seek the promise of a new beginning. Thank you and (here he signed of in what was probably Farsi)."
Is anyone else having a Jimmy Carter flashback? Haven't we already seen the folly in the "can't we all just get along" approach to our enemies -- and do not mistake for a moment that as long as we support Israel, we are Iran's mortal enemy. It's hard not to react to the Neville Chamberlain-esque naivete inherent in treating a dangerous, hostile regime who has vowed the destruction of one of your strongest allies as a potential friend.
While we can debate how much bombast needs to come from the White House in dealing with our enemies, this mealy-mouthed supplication is not the answer. It was, frankly, embarrassing.
The Iranian response? Let's just say, they weren't conciliatory.
"We welcome the interest of the American government to settle differences. The American government should realise its previous mistakes and make an effort to amend them in order to put aside differences.
The Obama administration so far has just talked. By words and talking the ... problems between Iran and America can not be solved.
Nowruz (the Iranian New Year which falls on Friday) is a sign of fundamental development in nature and Obama should learn from this to make fundamental changes in his policy towards Iran.
Supporting Israel is not a friendly gesture and the new year is an opportunity for the United States to change this policy.
By fundamentally changing its behaviour America can offer us a friendly hand. So far what we have received have been unfriendly fists. Unlimited sanctions which still continue and have been renewed by the United States are wrong and need to be reviewed.
The Iranian nation has shown that it can forget hasty behaviour but we are awaiting practical steps by the United States."
Iran's spokesman had no problem making his country's position crystal clear. So long as the United States supports Israel, we will be Iran's enemy. There will be no peace between our two countries while the United States maintains a pro-Israel position.
Iran has maintained this position for over three decades and has not wavered in wanting the destruction of Israel. The only peace Iran will accept they have told us repeatedly is one that results in the death to Israel. Trying to reason with Iran's leadership, trying to deal with them as other than the hate-filled, terrorist-supporters they are, is a mistake that could have grave consequences for us and our allies.
Obama's only goal this first hundred days seems to be to do precisely the opposite of what George Bush did.
That is not policy or ideology; it's petulance.
Obama's Special Olympics Gaffe
During the Bush administration, every act of bumbling, tumbling, and stumbling was reenacted ad nauseam on the various talk shows. David Letterman and Keith Olbermann in particular seemed to take perverse pleasure at any opportunity -- and, I admit, there were many -- to make fun of our former president.
One wonders if President Obama's late night gaffe -- where he said on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno that his inability to bowl "was like the Special Olympics" -- will be played on an endless loop on any of the talk shows tonight.
How many times were we shown the video of George Bush trying to go in a locked door on his way to a dinner in China? How hard did they laugh at and relish in his awkwardness and embarrassment? Mocking Bush was a sport and everyone tried to out-score the other.
Now that it's Obama starting up the presidential gaffe-o-meter, will we be subjected to endless showings of his less-than-noble moments?
I doubt it.
One wonders if President Obama's late night gaffe -- where he said on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno that his inability to bowl "was like the Special Olympics" -- will be played on an endless loop on any of the talk shows tonight.
How many times were we shown the video of George Bush trying to go in a locked door on his way to a dinner in China? How hard did they laugh at and relish in his awkwardness and embarrassment? Mocking Bush was a sport and everyone tried to out-score the other.
Now that it's Obama starting up the presidential gaffe-o-meter, will we be subjected to endless showings of his less-than-noble moments?
I doubt it.
Obama's Manipulation
President Obama is one of the most skillful politicians we've seen in a long time. His "Blame me," speech earlier this week is a prime example. Obama managed to portray himself as George Washington, Harry Truman and Mahatma Gandhi all rolled into one when addressing the AIG bonus fiasco.
Obama told a town hall meeting in Costa Mesa, California, "Washington is all in a tizzy and everybody is pointing fingers at each other and saying it's their fault, the Democrats' fault, the Republicans' fault. Listen, I'll take responsibility. I'm the President."
He went on to add: "We didn't draft these contracts. We've got a lot on our plate. But it is appropriate when you're in charge to make sure stuff doesn't happen like this. So for everybody in Washington who's busy scrambling to try to figure out how to blame somebody else, just go ahead and talk to me, because it's my job to fix these messes even if I don't make them."
That was brilliant. By nobly falling on his sword, he gave the impression that he had nothing to do with the problem but was so saintly, so selfless that he would accept the responsibility of others as his own. Obama the martyr.
Instead, this was a display of Obama the devious, deceptive manipulator of public opinion. Because as we all now know, it was his administration that pressured Senator Chris Dodd into adding the very language in the stimulus bill that allowed the AIG bonuses to be paid.
So by seeming to take responsibility then immediately following it up with a deft denial -- "we didn't draft these contracts" -- he was shielding himself and his administration from any further attention to their part in the AIG mess. Don't look behind the curtain, don't investigate any further, don't ask any more questions. I've said it's my fault, even though I went on to say it wasn't really my fault, so let's move on.
It really is quite a feat. And it scares me that our president is so comfortable with his popularity, especially with the mainstream media, that he can do this masterful bit of manipulation and come out unscathed.
Obama's administration knew about the AIG bonuses, pushed for language in the Dodd Amendment to ensure the bonuses would be paid, then claimed outrage when the public got wind of them. He then deflected further scrutiny by pretending to take responsibility for something he pretended was someone else's fault.
Obama may be a terrible president, but he's a great politician.
Obama told a town hall meeting in Costa Mesa, California, "Washington is all in a tizzy and everybody is pointing fingers at each other and saying it's their fault, the Democrats' fault, the Republicans' fault. Listen, I'll take responsibility. I'm the President."
He went on to add: "We didn't draft these contracts. We've got a lot on our plate. But it is appropriate when you're in charge to make sure stuff doesn't happen like this. So for everybody in Washington who's busy scrambling to try to figure out how to blame somebody else, just go ahead and talk to me, because it's my job to fix these messes even if I don't make them."
That was brilliant. By nobly falling on his sword, he gave the impression that he had nothing to do with the problem but was so saintly, so selfless that he would accept the responsibility of others as his own. Obama the martyr.
Instead, this was a display of Obama the devious, deceptive manipulator of public opinion. Because as we all now know, it was his administration that pressured Senator Chris Dodd into adding the very language in the stimulus bill that allowed the AIG bonuses to be paid.
So by seeming to take responsibility then immediately following it up with a deft denial -- "we didn't draft these contracts" -- he was shielding himself and his administration from any further attention to their part in the AIG mess. Don't look behind the curtain, don't investigate any further, don't ask any more questions. I've said it's my fault, even though I went on to say it wasn't really my fault, so let's move on.
It really is quite a feat. And it scares me that our president is so comfortable with his popularity, especially with the mainstream media, that he can do this masterful bit of manipulation and come out unscathed.
Obama's administration knew about the AIG bonuses, pushed for language in the Dodd Amendment to ensure the bonuses would be paid, then claimed outrage when the public got wind of them. He then deflected further scrutiny by pretending to take responsibility for something he pretended was someone else's fault.
Obama may be a terrible president, but he's a great politician.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Geithner On His Way Out?
Timothy Geithner should be out at Treasury by the end of next week. How do I know? Look at the following statements made today by President Obama about his Treasury Secretary:
"I have complete confidence in Tim Geithner and my entire economic team."
"Nobody's working harder than this guy. You know, he is making all the right moves in terms of playing a bad hand."
Those are precisely the kind of statements made just before the, "for personal reasons, the secretary has decided to step down from his position...."
Geithner has already given us one of our first, "what did he know and when did he know it?" moments. According to AIG Chief Executive Edward Liddy, Geithner knew about the bonus payouts two weeks ago, but a Treasury spokesman has disputed this, claiming Geithner only discovered the bonuses on March 10.
Absolutely no one has been wowed by his performance so far -- he has appeared torpid, unfocused and disorganized, not exactly what is needed in a time of economic uncertainty. He has been unable to confidently articulate a plan for the economy. And now this mess, with the government admitting at best that it had no idea where some of the bailout money was going. At worse, they knew and did nothing.
Which takes us to Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd, who one day after denying that he played any role in the loopholes that allowed AIG to payout these huge bonuses, today admitted that he lied. According to a report from CNN, Dodd acknowledged that he in fact was responsible adding language to the federal stimulus bill which ensured that the pre-existing contracts for bonuses at companies receiving federal bailout money were honored.
It is hard to imagine this senior Democrat, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, was acting without the knowledge and consent of the administration. And, indeed, it turns out he wasn't.
Dodd told CNN that the Obama administration pushed for the additional language because it was worried that without allowing for these bonus payments, the bill might be threatened. Dodd would not name who in the Treasury Department urged him to add the bonus payments loophole, but said it was a number of different staffers.
This is not something Geithner can explain his way out of. He really has no other choice but to just step down. And maybe Dodd should join him on the way out.
"I have complete confidence in Tim Geithner and my entire economic team."
"Nobody's working harder than this guy. You know, he is making all the right moves in terms of playing a bad hand."
Those are precisely the kind of statements made just before the, "for personal reasons, the secretary has decided to step down from his position...."
Geithner has already given us one of our first, "what did he know and when did he know it?" moments. According to AIG Chief Executive Edward Liddy, Geithner knew about the bonus payouts two weeks ago, but a Treasury spokesman has disputed this, claiming Geithner only discovered the bonuses on March 10.
Absolutely no one has been wowed by his performance so far -- he has appeared torpid, unfocused and disorganized, not exactly what is needed in a time of economic uncertainty. He has been unable to confidently articulate a plan for the economy. And now this mess, with the government admitting at best that it had no idea where some of the bailout money was going. At worse, they knew and did nothing.
Which takes us to Democratic Senator Christopher Dodd, who one day after denying that he played any role in the loopholes that allowed AIG to payout these huge bonuses, today admitted that he lied. According to a report from CNN, Dodd acknowledged that he in fact was responsible adding language to the federal stimulus bill which ensured that the pre-existing contracts for bonuses at companies receiving federal bailout money were honored.
It is hard to imagine this senior Democrat, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, was acting without the knowledge and consent of the administration. And, indeed, it turns out he wasn't.
Dodd told CNN that the Obama administration pushed for the additional language because it was worried that without allowing for these bonus payments, the bill might be threatened. Dodd would not name who in the Treasury Department urged him to add the bonus payments loophole, but said it was a number of different staffers.
This is not something Geithner can explain his way out of. He really has no other choice but to just step down. And maybe Dodd should join him on the way out.
You May Be a Republican If...
According to a recent Rasmussen survey, the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as Republicans is currently hovering around 33.6%, compared with 40% who identify as Democrats. There are a number of reasons the Republican party is currently the minority party, not the least of which is the public's perception of what a Republican is -- a white, middle-aged, right-wing, Evangelical, gun-toting, uneducated fascist.
But if you disregard the negative stereotype of the average Republican that is perpetuated in the media, and focus instead on the core values that most Republicans share, you might find that you are closer ideologically to Republican than Democrat.
Borrowing from the Jeff Foxworthy routine, I've come up with a few ideas that might help you determine where you belong in the political spectrum and reevaluate your image of the Republican party.
You might be a Republican if:
You love and are proud of America.
We all remember Michelle Obama's famous declaration during her husband's run for President that, for the first time in her adult life, she was proud to be an American. The reason that statement drew such ire was that the vast majority of us always feel proud to live in this country.
Pride doesn't mean we don't acknowledge faults and mistakes, but pride means believing that the freedoms and opportunities available in this country make it the greatest country in the world. And it is those freedoms that shine a light on our country's mistakes and help us grow even stronger.
You don't hate the wealthy.
Republicans view those who have attained wealth through hard work, talent and perseverance as the beacons for the rest of us. Those who make money -- create something of value, earn their wealth -- are esteemed and emulated. We go to school or send our children to school in hopes that they too can become wildly successful. We don't view them as thieves or greedy or evil. We know that since the beginning of our country, there have been entrepreneurs and visionaries who have taken risks and become wealthy as a result. And that their wealth helped build this country and create opportunities for others.
Republicans realize that the vast majority of the wealthy in America deserve what they have. Back in 1996, Professors Thomas Stanley and William Danko wrote a book on America's wealthy entitled The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America’s Wealthy . This book debunked many myths about the rich being mere inheritors of wealth, who were merely lucky, lazy, and irresponsible. In fact, they found that very few of the wealthy had inherited their wealth. Instead, they found that there were common traits shared by this group and they were the old stalwarts --taking risks, becoming an entrepreneur, getting a good education, going into a profession, saving your money, spending wisely.
Republicans don't hate the wealthy, they aspire to join them, whereas -- judging by their economic policies -- Democrats mostly want to tear the wealthy down.
You believe charity begins at home.
Many mocked George Bush's call for "compassionate conservatism" and claimed that Republicans, basically, do not care about the poor and misfortunate. In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Sociology Professor Arthur C. Brooks provided data that supports what Republicans have said all along. The Republicans want people to help people, the Democrats want the government to do it.
Brooks, found that religious conservatives were far more charitable than secular liberals, and that "those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others." And the charity imbalance was not just to "religious" charities, but for all types.
Brooks also found, according to Philanthropy.com, "that households headed by a conservative give roughly 30 percent more to charity each year than households headed by a liberal, despite the fact that the liberal families on average earn slightly more."
It boils down to who do you think will do a better job with the money, the charity or the government. Republicans have faith in the local charities, Democrats have faith in the federal government. The Democrats have so little interest in privately-supported charities, in fact, that Obama's new budget includes drastic reductions in the deductions for charitable giving.
You believe there is good and evil, right and wrong.
One of the surprising semantic differences between Democrats and Republicans is the lack of "judgmental" language from the left when it comes to admitted enemies of the U.S. The Democrats want to talk with Iran, talk with North Korea, talk with Hamas. The Democratic Party Platform, for example, talks about diplomacy -- "going the extra diplomatic mile" -- with a country run by a man who wants nothing less than the complete destruction of Israel.
Republicans do not believe in moral relativism and have no trouble saying that some countries and some leaders are evil. Democrats want you to see things from the other person's perspective and extend understanding and a friendly hand, even to Hugo Chavez, even to Kim Jong-Il, even to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
You can find many more Democrats who are willing to call Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter "evil" than are willing to extend that epithet to any of our true enemies.
You don't expect government to have all the answers.
You only have to look at the recent stimulus package and the new budget proposals to see that the Democrats' motto is "in government we trust." If you look at the most recent pieces of legislation to come from the Democrats, ask yourself if this is your vision of America. Do you support the redistribution of wealth through higher taxes on America's top earners? Do you support raising the tax on capital gains and dividend income? Do you support reducing tax deductions for mortgage interest and charitable donations? Do you support increased government spending, auto company bailouts, financial institution bailouts? Do you want the government to have that much power?
The country, as its founders envisioned it, was to be of the people, by the people and for the people. The government was to serve the people, not the other way around. The Democrats want the government to be your father and mother, they know best what's good for you, after all. You can't be trusted to do the right thing, to spend your own money, to run your own business. If you fall, the government will be there to catch you. There are no consequences for anything you do -- if you succeed, the government will take more of your money. If you fail, the government will pay you to make you whole.
What does that sound like? And, more importantly, does it sound like something you believe in?
Understandably, you may be loath to associate yourself with Limbaugh and Coulter and the other extremist talking heads who proclaim they speak for the Republican party. But they are not our leaders and they do not represent us.
The Republican party is a party of ideals and if you share those ideals, you just may be one of us.
But if you disregard the negative stereotype of the average Republican that is perpetuated in the media, and focus instead on the core values that most Republicans share, you might find that you are closer ideologically to Republican than Democrat.
Borrowing from the Jeff Foxworthy routine, I've come up with a few ideas that might help you determine where you belong in the political spectrum and reevaluate your image of the Republican party.
You might be a Republican if:
You love and are proud of America.
We all remember Michelle Obama's famous declaration during her husband's run for President that, for the first time in her adult life, she was proud to be an American. The reason that statement drew such ire was that the vast majority of us always feel proud to live in this country.
Pride doesn't mean we don't acknowledge faults and mistakes, but pride means believing that the freedoms and opportunities available in this country make it the greatest country in the world. And it is those freedoms that shine a light on our country's mistakes and help us grow even stronger.
You don't hate the wealthy.
Republicans view those who have attained wealth through hard work, talent and perseverance as the beacons for the rest of us. Those who make money -- create something of value, earn their wealth -- are esteemed and emulated. We go to school or send our children to school in hopes that they too can become wildly successful. We don't view them as thieves or greedy or evil. We know that since the beginning of our country, there have been entrepreneurs and visionaries who have taken risks and become wealthy as a result. And that their wealth helped build this country and create opportunities for others.
Republicans realize that the vast majority of the wealthy in America deserve what they have. Back in 1996, Professors Thomas Stanley and William Danko wrote a book on America's wealthy entitled The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America’s Wealthy . This book debunked many myths about the rich being mere inheritors of wealth, who were merely lucky, lazy, and irresponsible. In fact, they found that very few of the wealthy had inherited their wealth. Instead, they found that there were common traits shared by this group and they were the old stalwarts --taking risks, becoming an entrepreneur, getting a good education, going into a profession, saving your money, spending wisely.
Republicans don't hate the wealthy, they aspire to join them, whereas -- judging by their economic policies -- Democrats mostly want to tear the wealthy down.
You believe charity begins at home.
Many mocked George Bush's call for "compassionate conservatism" and claimed that Republicans, basically, do not care about the poor and misfortunate. In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Sociology Professor Arthur C. Brooks provided data that supports what Republicans have said all along. The Republicans want people to help people, the Democrats want the government to do it.
Brooks, found that religious conservatives were far more charitable than secular liberals, and that "those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others." And the charity imbalance was not just to "religious" charities, but for all types.
Brooks also found, according to Philanthropy.com, "that households headed by a conservative give roughly 30 percent more to charity each year than households headed by a liberal, despite the fact that the liberal families on average earn slightly more."
It boils down to who do you think will do a better job with the money, the charity or the government. Republicans have faith in the local charities, Democrats have faith in the federal government. The Democrats have so little interest in privately-supported charities, in fact, that Obama's new budget includes drastic reductions in the deductions for charitable giving.
You believe there is good and evil, right and wrong.
One of the surprising semantic differences between Democrats and Republicans is the lack of "judgmental" language from the left when it comes to admitted enemies of the U.S. The Democrats want to talk with Iran, talk with North Korea, talk with Hamas. The Democratic Party Platform, for example, talks about diplomacy -- "going the extra diplomatic mile" -- with a country run by a man who wants nothing less than the complete destruction of Israel.
Republicans do not believe in moral relativism and have no trouble saying that some countries and some leaders are evil. Democrats want you to see things from the other person's perspective and extend understanding and a friendly hand, even to Hugo Chavez, even to Kim Jong-Il, even to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
You can find many more Democrats who are willing to call Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter "evil" than are willing to extend that epithet to any of our true enemies.
You don't expect government to have all the answers.
You only have to look at the recent stimulus package and the new budget proposals to see that the Democrats' motto is "in government we trust." If you look at the most recent pieces of legislation to come from the Democrats, ask yourself if this is your vision of America. Do you support the redistribution of wealth through higher taxes on America's top earners? Do you support raising the tax on capital gains and dividend income? Do you support reducing tax deductions for mortgage interest and charitable donations? Do you support increased government spending, auto company bailouts, financial institution bailouts? Do you want the government to have that much power?
The country, as its founders envisioned it, was to be of the people, by the people and for the people. The government was to serve the people, not the other way around. The Democrats want the government to be your father and mother, they know best what's good for you, after all. You can't be trusted to do the right thing, to spend your own money, to run your own business. If you fall, the government will be there to catch you. There are no consequences for anything you do -- if you succeed, the government will take more of your money. If you fail, the government will pay you to make you whole.
What does that sound like? And, more importantly, does it sound like something you believe in?
Understandably, you may be loath to associate yourself with Limbaugh and Coulter and the other extremist talking heads who proclaim they speak for the Republican party. But they are not our leaders and they do not represent us.
The Republican party is a party of ideals and if you share those ideals, you just may be one of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)