Month: May 2009

President Obama has shown again his unique ability to promote a centrist agenda when a controversy arises that is highly emotional.  The issue was wreath laying ceremonies on Memorial Day.

The tradition has been that the President of the United States lays a wreath at Arlington National Cemetery and also at a Confederate Memorial in that cemetery.  But Obama had emotional demands  by many critics that he stop the wreath laying at the Confederate Memorial because the Confederacy represented racism and discrimination to African Americans.

Rather than antagonize Southerners, his decision was to continue the wreath laying but also start a new tradition: to lay a wreath at the African American Civil War Memorial located in the nation’s capital.  This was, it seems to me, an appropriate way to handle this controversy, and again demonstrates that Obama has a good sense of how to deal with issues that seem unresolvable.  Congratulations,  Mr. President!

Within the next few days, President Obama will be selecting a Supreme Court Justice to replace retiring Justice David Souter.

He has emphasized the need for a Justice with "empathy" and "real life experiences", and that makes me wonder if he is leaning against selection of a sitting judge.  It has been a long  time since a non-judge has been picked for the Court,  and there is strong reason to pick a person who has dealt with the world outside a court room to add diversity and a different perspective to the Supreme Court.

That is what makes me think that an excellent choice would be Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm,  who was elected Attorney General in 1998, and twice has been elected Governor of her state.  With excellent education at the University of California, Berkeley and Harvard Law School, and with her experiences governing a state which has had major economic problems throughout this decade, I think Granholm is the perfect person to pick for the Court. 

Of course, some would say that she has presided over the Michigan economic disaster brought about by the collapse of the domestic auto industry, but that cannot realistically be said to be caused by her policies, but simply by circumstance.  She has been a strong advocate of her state’s interests in difficult times but cannot be expected to solve the problems all by herself.  She also has the advantage of being only 50 years of age this year, allowing for the possibility of a long career on the Court.

It can also be said that being a white woman of Canadian birth does not satisfy the issue of putting an Hispanic or black woman on the court, but remember that there will be probably two more opportunities for Obama to go in those directions when Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and John Paul Stevens retire in the next few years, which is certainly likely based on age alone.

So let’s see whether my projection of Governor Granholm as the next Supreme Court Justice pans out!  🙂

Today, two leading moderate Republicans spoke up in defense of promoting inclusion and a broad base for the future of the Republican party.

Colin Powell said he was not going to allow Dick Cheney or Rush Limbaugh or anyone else to read him out of the GOP.  He said that the party is self destructing as it stands now, losing the coastlines, much of the Midwest, both genders,  the suburbs,  the different racial groups, and generally those with an open mind, and that this was counterproductive, and he was willing to fight to promote his view of the future of the party.

Tom Ridge, former Governor of Pennsylvania and Homeland Security Secretary,  also was aggressive in promoting a party that is open to different views and does not expect absolute slavish loyalty to every view held by the conservatives who control the party apparatus at this time.   He was not afraid to challenge Cheney and Limbaugh and the other talk radio spokesmen.

To have a former heroic General and Secretary of State and a Homeland Security Secretary speak so openly and defiantly of the conservative capture of the party apparatus is a sign that possibly the GOP will finally start to really reconsider its future,  which is so gloomy at this point.  The health of our political system requires a strong opposition party, and there was even a hint that just possibly Ridge himself might consider a Presidential run in 2012, with his socially progressive views on  issues such as gay rights and abortion.   The moderates are not giving up, and this is good news!

President Obama, in his speech on Thursday relating to national security, set up the concept of "prolonged detention" of terrorism suspects who are security risks but cannot be tried because of lack of evidence, or tainted evidence. 

Having learned of national security details like no one who is privy to it other than if in the Presidency, Obama seems to have changed course in a way that dismays civil libertarians who believe that what he proposes to do, after closing Guantanomo as a prison for detainees, is unconstitutional.  These critics say that a justice system requires putting suspects on trial or releasing them, but Obama is making clear that he has no such intention, as many of the detainees are jihadists who are still committed to violence and bloodshed if released.  Obama has been sobered by reality and is therefore adapting to the information that he has, which his critics do not have.

Obama wants oversight by Congress and the judicial system, but the whole controversy reminds one of the Lincoln policy during the Civil War of detention of suspects without trial, something generally regretted but yet accepted and understood by Civil War and Lincoln scholars as unavoidable.

I am torn on this issue, as I am a full believer in civil liberties, but also feel that national security MAY require what Obama proposes to do.  However, it does  make wonder if someday scholars will look back at the Bush policy of "indefinite detention" and, instead of the general tendency at this time to condemn it, to come to a conclusion similar to that of Lincoln’s time–that it was unavoidable.  Such is the reality of changing views of Presidential decisions.

President Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney both gave national security speeches today, with Cheney’s speech coming exactly two minutes after the end of the Obama speech.

Obama defended his decisions to ban torture and close Guantanamo as a base for holding of terrorists.  He also made clear the need to keep the constitutional guarantees given to us in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as he delivered his nearly 50 minute speech at the National Archives, the repository of these sacred documents, along with the Declaration of Independence.  He also asserted that the Bush-Cheney policies did not make the country safer, alienated our allies in the world, put our soldiers who might be captured under greater threat, and undermined our moral standing, and that torture had not and could not gain information that was crucial to our safety.  As usual, Obama delivered a convincing and articulate speech, and I think gained more backing from the American people for his approach to the issue of national security.

Cheney made the usual arguments favoring torture and keeping Guantanomo open in his 36 minute speech,  and continues to make the connection between Al Qaeda terrorists and Saddam Hussein.  He distorts reality and uses the Big Lie technique, which is that the more you repeat something, the more people will believe it.  Thankfully, only a minority of the American people, and not a large one, believes that Cheney is legitimate in his arguments and reasoning.  But the battle continues for public opinion over the issue of how best to preserve national security.  It will not end anytime soon.

A new poll reveals that the gap between Democrats and Republicans has grown wider, and that the percentage of independents has grown to be the largest voting group.

According to the poll, 36 percent are now independents, while 35 percent are Democrats and 23 percent are Republicans.  The number of Independents is the highest in 70 years and the number who are Republican is the lowest in 25 years. 

While Independents have problems with both major parties, they tend to favor the Democrats when it comes to the issues of government regulation of business in the public interest,  social values, the issue of religion’s role, and the issue of national security.  Only on the issue of expanding the social safety net do we find Independents siding more with the Republican view.

Additionally, the average age of Republicans is getting older, and the younger generation is less socially conservative than they have been in earlier times.  This all bodes well for the future of the Democratic party, along the lines of James Carville’s prediction that his party should hold national power for the next forty years, although not necessarily in every election and every circumstance. 

Of course, if the voting registration continues to favor Democrats, if not the voting in every election, it will set an unbelievable voting registration edge, which began with the accession to power of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932, and would, theoretically, with Carville’s projection, mean dominance until at least 2048.  This would mean 116 years of Democratic dominance, as compared to the previous GOP  advantage from 1860-1932,  a  total of 72 years.

In any case, this poll is good news for the Democrats and bad news for the Republicans.

President Obama is rapidly pushing for action on regulation of finance, specifically mortgages and mutual funds; and also calling for auto emission standards to raise mileage per gallon,  lessen the need for foreign oil, and contribute to the fight against global warming.

The steps on regulation of mortgages and mutual funds are necessary, considering the abuses that have been going on in the finance industry, and the lack of regulation that has been endemic in the past thirty years.

At the same time,  the auto industry must be pushed into higher mileage standards that will promote better cars for consumers while working on the oil importation problem and the danger of global warming.

Of course, conservatives will scream and yell that Obama is promoting socialism, and if that their charge,  I say we need more of it after decades of de-regulation that have led to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  However, it is NOT socialism, but progressivism, the public interest, that is being promoted!

The voters of California, or just the small minority who took the time to vote yesterday, have rejected five ballot measures designed to lessen the budget crisis facing the state.

As a result of their refusal to understand the dire need of the state to increase taxes, the following will result: the cutting of tens of thousands of education jobs; the ending of health insurance for needy children;  cuts in firefighters and law enforcement positions statewide;  and the freeing of thousands of inmates, including illegal immigrants, who in many cases have serious criminal backgrounds.

I wonder what the taxpayers think is more important–paying higher taxes or drastically cutting education, health care, firefighting, and law enforcement.  The state already has so many problems that are massive.  For a state with so many fire problems annually, high crime statistics, and major problems in education and health care, it amazes me that the taxpayers, 60 percent of those who voted,  can have their heads in the sand like an ostrich.  While life in California is not good now, it will become far worse, and the voters will be the ones responsible for the disastrous outcome by their narrowmindedness–as if by voting these measures down, the problems will somehow, magically,  disappear.

The old saying is that people get the government they deserve.  That is certainly going to be the case in California, and it is a warning to all gubernatorial candidates in California: being Governor in the next term and beyond will not be a glorious opportunity but a burden that should make all of them stop and think:  Are you ready to take this on?   With the attitude of the voters and their apathy about reality,  one has to say that one would have to be crazy to want to be Governor of California!

At the South Carolina GOP party state convention,  Senator Lindsey Graham asserted that he wanted to see his party appeal to independents.

Graham became combative when people in the audience criticized his approach to the future.  Graham said he wanted  his party to be able to win, and that it must appeal to voters in states such as Connecticut and Pennsylvania in order to succeed nationally again.

Graham proved again that he is one of those rare Republican leaders to have a common sense approach to the future, but at this time, the purists are in control and only helping the Obama Administration to keep public support behind its massive, multifaceted agenda.

The "Open Tent" is ultimately what the Republican party must do to be a serious alternative to the Democratic party,  but when that will be adopted as party policy is anyone’s guess.

Arnold Schwarzenegger came to power as Governor of California in 2003 due to the economic problems facing Governor Grey Davis, which led to the infamous recall election of that fall.  In a race in which the people of the state could choose their new governor out of a list of 165 candidates, along with voting Governor Davis out of office,  "The Terminator" came to office with the belief that he somehow had magical powers that would make all of California’s troubles go away.

Instead,  Schwarzenegger has alienated members of his own Republican party,  acted in many ways more like a Democrat, and yet antagonized most of the state due to the all time,  any state budget deficit situation,  therefore causing anger among public employees and the powerful labor unions in his state.  Major tax increases in a state already overwhelmingly expensive to reside in, and the move to cut education and health care drastically,  is causing a total erosion of support, and even leading to a move to recall Schwarzenegger and forcing another special recall election like the one that brought Schwarzenegger to power nearly six years ago.

What people seem not to understand is that it is not an issue of WHO is in office; it is an issue of the fact that we are in the worst economic downturn in seventy years,  and it leads unavoidably to tax increases and budget cuts, something that wins no one popular support.  It also makes one wonder why anyone would want to be governor of any state and have to deal with these divisive budgetary issues.  It makes one understand why a governor like Florida Governor Charlie Crist has chosen to run for the Senate, which takes him away from direct confrontation with state economic issues,  and allows a national platform but with less ultimate responsibility.