Month: March 2009

Unfortunately, it seems we have entered the silly season very early, with Republican National Chairman Michael Steele of Maryland telling CNN that he might run for President if God sends him the message, and that he believes God reveals what he wants one to do.  Steele somehow seems to consider himself the Republican Black alternative to Barack Obama, but he fails to understand that he is NOT on the same level of competency and ability of the President!

This statement brings back memories of Pat Robertson, the TV evangelist, who ran for President in the early primaries and caucuses of 1988, and claimed God was behind his candidacy.  Even with God’s backing, somehow Pat Robertson did not become the GOP presidential nominee (thank you God LOL 🙂 ) , and instead George HW Bush went on to win the Presidency.

Why is it that the Republican party seems unable to have viable candidates, and instead presents foolish, ridiculous aspirants such as Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, and now Michael Steele?

If this is the best the GOP can come up with for 2012, then President Obama will have a easy victory!  At this point, only Mitt Romney seems like a serious, rational candidate, but will the evangelical right that considers Mormons such as Romney as NOT Christian, be willing to back him?  That is a major question at this point!

The governors of some of the poorest states in the Union, all Southern, have joined Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, in turning down some of the stimulus package money made available by the Obama Administration, supposedly based on principle.

This includes Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Rick Perry of Texas, Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Bob Riley of Alabama, and Mark Sanford of South Carolina.  These states have such dire poverty and desperately need any federal aid made available, but for political and ideological reasons, their governors are ready to sacrifice their population, in a number of cases for strategy reasons, with the Presidential race of 2012 on their minds.  I am referring not only to Sarah Palin here, but also all the above named Southern governors except maybe for Bob Riley of Alabama.

All I can say is that IF the GOP goes ahead and nominates Palin, Jindal, Perry, Barbour, or Sanford as their 2012 Republican nominee, the party will have committed suicide, and finally will disappear as the opposition party.  These six governors, including Sarah Palin, should be ashamed of themselves, and it is interesting how many of them have incurred the wrath of their own state legislatures. Hopefully, these legislatures will be able to reverse the crazy decisions of their irresponsible governors!

During the 2008 Presidential campaign, Independent Senator Joe Lieberman  of Connecticut and Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California made clear their strong support of Senator John McCain, the GOP Presidential nominee. 

Suddenly, two months into the Obama Administration, both political figures have major compliments and positive statements to make about the President’s programs, actions, and rhetoric.

It is almost like one wonders how these two men could have so quickly switched their loyalties from McCain to Obama.  The transformation is amazing, but it is also a testimonial to both men that they could realize the principled intentions and strong actions of the President are good for the country, at a time when we have divisive radio talk show hosts working very hard to divide the country and promote the failure of the President’s agenda.

It is good to see some good people show their loyalty to the nation’s welfare despite earlier political differences, and this includes not only Lieberman and Schwarzenegger, but also GOP senators Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins, and Republican governor Charlie Crist of Florida.  In the midst of demagoguery, there is also present, thankfully, some real statesmanship!

It is absolutely amazing how Republicans and conservative talk show hosts complain about President Obama’s plan to raise the marginal tax rate on the top five percent of the population from 36 to 39 percent.  They tell us that Obama is a socialist because of this attempt  to make the super rich pay more after years of very low marginal tax rates which have seen the wealth of the country flow ever more into the hands of a small elite, at the same time that the middle class has been collapsing.

When one looks at the highest tax rates on the wealthy throughout the past century, one discovers that the tax rate was above 60 percent from 1932 to 1980 and reached a peak of 90 percent in the Eisenhower (Republican) Presidency! It was only 40 percent or lower since 1988, even being 50 percent in the Reagan years.The only time it was in the mid 20s was in the Coolidge-Hoover years in the 1920s. 

So, in other words, the only times it was really low was when poverty grew, the middle class shrunk, and corporate corruption and greed and materialism prevailed, the 1920s and the years since 1988.  Is that not enough evidence of the need to raise the rate to try to address the horrible inequities that have developed in the last generation?  Realize in the two periods just mentioned, the result of the low tax policy on the elite was the coming of the Great Depression in the 1930s and the coming of what is now called by many the Great Recession that we are suffering right now. 

So my thought is that if the elite rich have a problem with paying more taxes, I would just say "sorry", but to assert that the time for selfishness and greed is over, and it is time to be thankful for the great opportunities this country has presented to you, and you now owe the country your appreciation by paying up at a higher tax rate without complaint!

Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, one of the three GOP senators to back the President’s economic stimulus bill, now faces a tough reelection battle and must make a decision as to strategy for the 2010 senatorial battle.

If he chooses to run as an independent, he will be involved in a three way race, and would be unlikely to win.  If he runs in the Republican primary, he is likely to lose to a more conservative Republican, and then under Pennsylvania law, could not run as an independent, as Joe Lieberman did in Connecticut in 2006 after losing the Democratic primary to an antiwar Democrat.

Of course, since he will be reaching the age of 80 and has been courageously battling cancer twice in the last few years, he could also retire after 30 years in the Senate. However, he seems to be leaning against retirement,and certainly continues as an active, involved member of the Senate.

Were he to choose to switch parties and run as a Democrat, it is likely he would have little opposition in the Democratic primary and would win reelection in a state heavily tilting to the Democratic party in recent years.  He actually was a Democrat early in his career in the 1960s, and since he votes so often with the Democrats and is often considered a RINO (Republican in Name Only), it would be a natural move on his part.

Senator Specter has had a long, distinguished and also controversial career.  Looking back over three decades, I see him as a Senator who has contributed much to the Senate and the nation, so I hope he will decide to switch over to the Democrats, the party that he probably never should have left over 40 years ago.

President Obama went on Jay Leno’s nighttime show last night and made a major gaffe.

Referring to his improved bowling score (129) after performing miserably in a bowling alley during the campaign, Obama compared his effort to the Special Olympics athletes.  He realized immediately after the appearance that he had blundered, and from Air Force One, called Timothy Shriver, the head of the Special Olympics and profusely apologized, and his press secretary also issued an apology for Obama’s poor choice of words and his using the comment as a joke.

This was obviously an insensitive action and use of words by the President, but out of it may come a realization that special needs people need more recognition and understanding, and it seems likely that the President will take action to promote a commitment to doing more and showing more sensitivity to this very important part of our population.  He can set an example for the nation by learning from this gaffe and applying the lesson in public policy.

Meanwhile, Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, who had a special needs child last year, just months before her entrance into the Presidential campaign, denounced the President for his insensitivity and poor choice of words.  One could actually agree with Palin on this, but then she joined a few other GOP governors in  rejecting some of the federal stimulus aid offered to her state.  That in itself may seem irrelevant, but get this:  The aid rejected was for education, including for special needs children.  Now if that is not hypocrisy on her part, then what is it?  She had a good point in her favor, and then went ahead and lost the credibility she had momentarily earned. 

Somehow, I would rather trust that Obama will deal with this issue of special needs better than Sarah Palin, based on her rejection of aid to help these people, most of whom do not have the fortune of being related to the governor of the state, who has her own assets to help bring up her own special needs son.  Obama may have blundered, but Sarah Palin symbolically shot herself in the foot.  A moment of moral superiority was quickly lost by her extremely narrow minded, insensitive and totally political action shortly after issuing her criticism of the President.

President Obama has been criticized by some observers as trying to do too much too soon, with two months in office to be marked on Friday, March 20.

Public opinion polls, however, still show strong backing of Obama and his agenda.  He is dealing with the banking crisis, the auto industry debacle, the unemployment emergency, plus trying to come up with big changes in energy, education and health care.  He also has by executive order brought about major changes in social policy, and has opened up the possibility of a new relationship with the world, overcoming the negative image that George W. Bush created in his eight years in office.  He also has made a commitment to increase US involvement in Afghanistan, the one area that I feel is a bad choice on his part.

He and his wife Michelle have together made a commitment to address the important economic, social  and foreign policy issues that we face, the worst situation since the Great Depression.  And the President has been refreshing in his willingness to admit shortcomings and take responsibility when and if his programs don’t succeed.  The situation requires the willingness to experiment and to gamble, and  no criticism by the right wing talk radio and television hosts or the remnants of the Republican party in Congress are going to stop Obama.  He is following the lead of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who did not let his enemies deflect him from the work at hand.

So I believe that Barack Obama’s direction, given time, will produce desirous results.  He is NOT trying to do too much too soon, as the situation requires someone with a vision to do great things, and we are fortunate to have Barack Obama as our President at this time!

It is now 50 days since Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Overall, he has made a great start, but he faces many challenges and has already shown evidence that he wants to tackle many things at once.

He has inspired the American people and kept public support despite a rapidly declining stock market.

He has shown the proper balance of judgment and political acumen that is required of a successful President.

We can only hope that the next 50 days will see much more progress and success, but again Obama has had a good beginning and given the American people hope!

His actions in many areas reversing George W. Bush is the best about him, as he has shown understanding of the many injustices that have occurred in the past eight years, and is trying to change the playing field and promote the best in America in many different areas.

One thing is certain:  all Americans, whether they supported him or not, should wish him the best, as his successes will be to the benefit of the nation!

President Obama today came out for merit pay for teachers, so as to reward the best teachers and promote competition among teachers for excellence in the classroom.

As an educator myself, the concept of merit pay sounds very appealing.  I certainly do NOT believe in blindly backing the National Education Association in its opposition to any major change in the way teachers are judged. 

However, I also see REAL problems with Obama’s approach.  The method of judging excellence is in reality a very subjective one, which can involve politics and personalities.  And the question arises:  Should a teacher be considered for merit pay solely on the basis of student performance?  I would say NO to that, as I am well aware that even the best teachers at any level still have limited impact on a student’s performance.  It is still the responsibility of the students and their parents that homework  is completed and to come to school with the right attitude and desire to learn.  Fighting a lackadaisical attitude by students and parents can be overwhelming even for the best teachers.  Nothing can guarantee good results on testing, but yet the concept of merit pay seems to be based on student performance alone. 

Certainly, teachers who disrespect their students and are lazy and have no desire for excellence should leave the teaching profession, but a teacher’s own drive and motivation and seriousness of purpose and dedication MUST be part of the equation of judging for merit pay, not just student performance which can also be artificial and manipulated and often has been in the past.

It all comes down to what Colin Powell said today on a CNN interview:  Students have to have the right attitude and motivation, and parents need to put the burden on their kids to PERFORM and show respect for teachers and authority.  Even the best teaching must be based on more than pure test scores, if we are to gain the best and the brightest in the teaching profession in the future.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, infamous for promoting divisiveness and extreme partisanship during his four years in power from 1995-1999, and also well known for hypocrisy in pursuing Bill Clinton on the Monica Lewinsky scandal when he was himself involved in an extramarital affair, has indicated his interest in pursuing the Presidency in 2012.

Gingrich would certainly add intelligence and his articulate manner of speaking and presenting ideas, were he to enter the race, but it is hard to imagine that a person with his shady reputation could actually unite the GOP and overcome President Obama in a 2012 matchup.

However, he would certainly be more interesting than many of the others on the long list of potential GOP hopefuls.  By indicating his interest this early, it makes it seems likely that the Republicans will start the pursuit to replace Barack Obama earlier than ever, meaning there will be no respite from Presidential politics.  For a political junkie like myself, however, who can complain?  :)  LOL