Month: January 2010

Confusing And Mixed Messages From President Obama

Ronald Leave a comment

President Obama seems very confused since the victory of Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate race last week, and he is sending mixed messages.

First, he goes out and speaks before public audiences, stating that he will “fight” for us, and will do so till his “last breath” and will “not rest” in doing what must be done for the American people.

Then his spokesmen on Sunday talk shows–Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, and Robert Gibbs–make it seem that he will continue to push his agenda, while admitting things will be more difficult to achieve with the recent Massachusetts election results.

Then, he tells Diane Sawyer on ABC that he would rather be a one term successful President than a two term mediocre President, which adds to the idea that he will fight for his programs, including health care reform. One thing is clear: The New York Times calls on him today in an editorial to continue to fight for a substantial health reform bill as something that cannot be abandoned after so much progress and commitment, the same as the author feels. But yet, one can wonder if the President will bend to the Massachusetts election results and back away from the fight for health care reform.

Now, the news comes out that he wants to cut domestic spending on education, nutrition, air traffic control, national parks and farm subsidies among others to a freeze level, which means behind inflation, over the next three budget years. This “freeze” would only affect the budget by three percent of the added national debt expected, about $250 million out of $9 billion!

The cuts would not affect military, homeland security, veterans, social security, medicare, medicaid, and Obama plans to ask for more money for such programs as child care, student loans, and retirement savings in his State of the Union address tomorrow night.

It is meant to be a gesture, it seems, to conservatives, Republicans and independents who complain about the budget deficit, but it really does little to deal with that issue, and is more just a political act that will not fool anyone, and may be subject to ridicule.

What it comes down to is that the budget deficit is going to grow no matter what is cut, as it is simply a political issue for both sides of the political equation, and no one is willing to do anything really tough in the midst of an economic recession and threats to national security.

But the fact that Obama said to Diane Sawyer about having one term of success rather than two terms of mediocrity may make some wonder if he intends to be aggressive in pursuit of his goals that he was elected on, even if it means not having a second term. Or could it be he may decide what seems hard to believe? That is, maybe NOT seek a second term and sacrifice it to fight for accomplishment of his goals? Is that what we will hear at some point in the next year if his party suffers major losses in the midterm elections? Or despite all his rhetoric and of those in his administration, will he instead abandon his goals at the end?

Stay tuned and be careful to analyze his State of the Union address on Wednesday night as I intend to do! 🙂

Progressive Era Reforms Under Assault By Supreme Court!

Ronald Leave a comment

During the Progressive Era (1900-1920), reforms were initiated to restore government back to the people.

The Gilded Age (1868-1896) had seen the growth in power of corporations who had used the Supreme Court promotion of monopoly capitalism to corrupt local and state governments, and particularly the US Senate. So we saw legislation pass in the time of Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson to limit corporate power over campaign spending; we had municipal and state reform; we had muckraker exposure of corporate giants; and we witnessed the need for a constitutional amendment to democratize the United States Senate and take away the ability of corporations to “own” Senators, causing the accomplishment of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, giving the people direct popular vote for the upper chamber.

Now a lot of that progress is subject to threat by the Supreme Court decision to allow unlimited spending by corporations on political campaigns under the guise that corporations are “people”. So we could have Wall Street senators, Oil industry senators, Banking senators, Health Insurance senators, Computer industry senators, Walmart senators, etc.

Is this what we want, that our Senate, our House of Representatives, and our state legislatures and city councils are “owned” by corporate interests instead of the American people? 🙁 The answer is a resounding “NO!”

There is urgency to do something legislatively to fight this outrageous Supreme Court decision, so that it does not distort the whole political system in 2010 and 2012 This is, in fact, a priority, or else we may lose the country totally to the “special interests”! 🙁

Surprise In Delaware: Joe Biden’s Son Not Running For Senate

Ronald Leave a comment

A big surprise emerged today when Beau Biden, Attorney General of Delaware and son of Vice President Joe Biden, announced he would not run for his father’s Senate seat.

It is believed possible that the loss of the Massachusetts Senate seat to Republican Scott Brown may have affected the younger Biden’s decision. It was seen as easier for him to keep his position as Attorney General, than to challenge Mike Castle, the present Delaware Congressman, who has had a long career in that chamber and is now running as the GOP candidate for the Senate.

The problem with this decision, however, is the message it sends, that the Democrats are basically giving up the seat that was Joe Biden’s for 36 years. Interim Senator Ted Kaufman, the former aide to Joe Biden, has made clear he will just finish out the two year term to the end of the year, rather than run for a full term.

The whole situation seems to make no sense, and it is a shame that the Democrats are ready to just concede the seat. At this rate, the Democrats could lose more seats than one once thought.

The Cook Political Report projects that the GOP will gain 5-7 seats in the Senate this year as things now stand. If that is the case, then the Democrats had better get moving now to get some of their agenda accomplished, including health care in some form, because if the Senate is something like only 52 to 54 seats for the Democrats in 2011-2012, it will be a major battle to get anything done before the Presidential election. And as stated earlier, it will make replacements of aging Supreme Court Justices Stevens and Ginsberg all the more complex and difficult!

Another Embarrassment For South Carolina! Lieutenant Governor Andre Bauer!

Ronald Leave a comment

As if South Carolina did not have enough government officials who are an embarrassment to the Palmetto State, now another person can be added to the list!

We already knew about Governor Mark Sanford, who went off to Argentina without telling his wife or family or even his staff, to pursue an affair outside his marriage. This has led to unsuccessful impeachment moves by the state legislature, and a recent move to censure him, but allow him to finish his term.

His lieutenant governor, Andre Bauer, who would be the successor if he were to leave office before the end of the year 2010, now has managed to get himself into trouble with his comments! Bauer showed lack of sensitivity and pure stupidity this week when he made a public statement in a speech comparing poor children to stray animals! He said that feeding stray animals or poor children both lead only to more reproduction, because you are giving them encouragement! He then apologized to animal lovers for comparing stray animals to poor children, but did not apologize to poor children and poor people in general for comparing them to stray animals! He criticized the giving of free lunches to poor children in school.  Is there anything more despicable than this?  🙁

Can you imagine if this jerk, this disgrace of a public official, were to become Governor of South Carolina? Can you actually realize that his accession to the Governorship would be worse than keeping Mark Sanford in office? What is it with South Carolina that they can elect such morons to high positions in state government? And to top it off, Andre Bauer obviously wants to be Governor, and might very well be elected if his state’s population is insensitive enough to do so this November! 🙁

So South Carolina has Mark Sanford and Andre Bauer as their two top state officials! And add to this the embarrassment of Congressman Joe Wilson who yelled “No” at President Obama last fall, and Senator Jim DeMint, considered the most right wing member of the Senate, and who became infamous for pushing the idea of stopping President Obama’s health care plan, in order to create Obama’s “Waterloo”!

One wonders why South Carolina seems incapable of electing mainstream, reasonable, decent political leaders. They seem never to have recovered from John C. Calhoun, the Civil War, Reconstruction, and Strom Thurmond! LOL

Time For Retirements On The Supreme Court!

Ronald Leave a comment

With this shocking Supreme Court decision on campaign financing by corporations last week, it becomes very clear of the need for the Supreme Court to have an overhaul while the Democrats still have 59 members of the Senate!

With the likelihood that the Democrats will lose some seats in the Senate in the midterm 2010 elections, it becomes essential to have the two oldest members of the Court retire this coming June, allowing President Obama to fill both appointments BEFORE the midterm elections!

It is not that there is a guarantee that all of the Democrats will support whoever Obama might choose, but since GOP support is hard to gauge, it is best to replace these Court Justices now while the amount of support is likely to be greater among Democrats.

The two Justices referred to, of course, are Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Stevens is reaching 90 this April, has been on the Court for 35 years and is two years away from a Court record on age and longevity, but there are hints that he might retire this summer. Ginsberg, in her high 70s, has been on the Court for 17 years, but has had serious bouts with colon and pancreatic cancer, and cannot be expected to remain on the Court much longer.

These two liberals need to do the right thing, and give President Obama the opportunity to add two choices to what would be a younger and refreshed Court, even though neither choice would change the ideological balance of the Court. But just imagine the ultimate scenario if, god forbid, the GOP somehow took over the Senate, which would mean Obama could not pick liberal choices for the Court as he would be likely to have a long drawn out battle to gain any new members’ confirmations.

Therefore, Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsberg, please do the right thing and retire at the end of this June, 2010, with the appreciation of the nation and congratulations on a job well done! 🙂

The Supreme Court’s Return To The Gilded Age: A Blow Against Democracy!

Ronald Leave a comment

The Supreme Court on Thursday dealt a major blow to democracy, which will reverberate throughout the American political system for a long time, unless somehow the Congress can overcome the decision by legislation, which is highly unlikely, certainly in the short run! 🙁

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the five member conservative Court majority of Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Chief Justice John Roberts radically reversed one hundred years of campaign law, including the more recent McCain-Feingold legislation, and allowed corporations unfettered access to involve themselves in any way they wish and in any amount of funding they wish to invest in electoral politics in America.

The Gilded Age of 1868-1896 was infamous for the corruption that was endemic with corporate support of politicians who backed corporate monopoly. This is what led to the Progressive Era, New Deal, Great Society and more recent efforts to restrict corporate ability to affect the American political system.

Now, in one fell swoop, the political system goes back to the late 19th century mentality, and highly benefits conservatives and Republicans over liberals and progressives and Democrats. At a time when it is obvious that there is too much coziness as it is between corporate America, conservatives and Republicans, the majority Republican court picked by Ronald Reagan and the two George Bushes now has the capacity to dominate the future of American politics, and defeat Democrats, liberals, and progressives attempting to equalize opportunity for those people and classes that have never had a fair shake in our country, and have seen brief bursts of reform followed by constant retrenchment once the conservative forces regained supremacy.

The chances of real change and reform now under President Obama are greatly restricted by this Court decision, and it makes a mockery of the idea that the Scalia influenced Court majority that is supposedly “originalist” and believers in limited powers, is pursuing that, as this marks another example of the radicalism and activism of the Court, as was the case in the infamous Bush v Gore case on the 2000 presidential election.

Now conservatives talk through both sides of their mouth, about limited government while establishing more activist government in favor of the rich and the powerful over the masses of Americans who are not rich and powerful.

Now the corporations with their unlimited treasuries can blackmail politicians to do their bidding or they will be defeated by funding campaigns that will make past spending look like a minor investment! To call this case free speech is a mockery of the First Amendment, as how can corporations be considered “people”? It is similar to the Gilded Age period when the Supreme Court corruptly used the 14th Amendment, originally passed to promote “due process” and “equal protection” for African Americans and other minorities, to protect corporations’ rights to develop into monopolies!

Have we come through a whole century of working toward electoral reform to see it destroyed by this radical Court majority that shows it has no principle but its own aggrandizement? 🙁 Chief Justice Roberts has been a sore disappointment, as he pledged a limited Court approach during his confirmation hearings in 2005, but now has been dazzled by the “activist conservative” approach of Antonin Scalia, who has “twins” named Thomas and Alito to copy him as if he is a deity! And Justice Kennedy, who occasionally swings to the left, unfortunately two thirds of the time swings to the right and seems more than ever to be the only hope for those on the left, but less and less often as each case arrives and he, more than ever, goes to the right!

More than ever, it is essential somehow to convince Justice Kennedy to reconsider his move to the right or else some other way gain a fifth vote to reverse the damage to democracy this horrible case has wrought! 🙁

Certainly, this is one of the very worst decisions of the Supreme Court in recent times, and really, in all the history of the Supreme Court. The Court majority should be condemned openly for what they have done, working against our democratic system! 🙁

Obama’s Campaign Chairman, David Plouffe, Now Back Working For Obama

Ronald Leave a comment

David Plouffe, the Obama campaign chairman in the successful 2008 election, is being brought back to coordinate the Democrats’ plans for the midterm elections in both the House of Representatives and Senate, as well as the governorships, as the President realizes that his whole agenda and purpose of being elected President is in danger if the Republican party makes major gains, or god forbid, takes over control of one or both houses of Congress.

There is realization that the President can ill afford to have another “Massachusetts” occur in the fall elections, and therefore it is necessary to centralize control over the election process, and for the President to assert his authority and influence over what happens within the Democratic party in the states and nationally.

In that sense, it is a good thing that this shock in Massachusetts occurred when it did, as it gives the party and the President time to recuperate and plan strategy to advance the purposes that Barack Obama was elected for in 2008.

It seems clear that Obama must go out to the country more in town halls situations and explain what his agenda is, and what he plans to do to bring it about. Early indications are that he is promoting a populist rhetoric to arouse support, stating that he will “fight” as long as he is President, and would not “rest” until his “last breath” in promoting jobs and economic revival for the American people. The rhetoric is lofty, but the important thing is results, and David Plouffe being part of the mechanism in the White House operations should be seen as a positive step!

Barack Obama, Other Presidents, And Polls: Not To Be Taken Seriously!

Ronald 1 Comment

In all of the discussions about President Obama’s first year in the White House, it is pointed out that his public opinion ratings have declined since he was inaugurated. Should that be a surprise? Can any President’s “honeymoon” or any person’s real honeymoon last forever? Of course not!

But, interestingly, when compared to former Presidents, it turns out that Obama’s ratings, about 50 percent, match those of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. The two Bushes were more lucky, as the first Bush saw a higher rating because of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, and the second Bush had higher grades because of the response to September 11.

So not much can be put into these ratings, as Reagan and Clinton won reelection despite lower ratings after one year, and Bush I lost reelection despite his high ratings after one year.

The President cannot allow public opinion polls to determine his agenda. He must fight for his agenda, and let the chips fall where they may!

Barack Obama And Health Care: Fight For Your Principles And Beliefs!

Ronald Leave a comment

As a result of the special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat in Massachusetts, an election won by Republican Scott Brown, Barack Obama is receiving all kinds of advice as to what should be done about health care.

Some say to abandon the health care plan completely. That is totally unacceptable after so much effort and time put into this crucial area of the American economy, and with so many millions of Americans excluded from having access to decent health care. If that is done by the President, he will lose his entire base, and he will be perceived as caving in to the right wing and the small number of people, about 100,000, who determined in Massachusetts that they did not want health care legislation, because, after all, that state already has a similar health care plan brought about under the governorship of Republican Mitt Romney in 2006.

A second alternative is just to go for the kinds of areas of the legislation that, theoretically, many Americans and even some Republicans in Congress would agree need to be worked on, such as the age for children to continue to be covered under their parents’ health care plan, to end annual and lifetime limits on coverage, to cover preexisting conditions, and to provide health care exchanges that would allow competition and allow cross state boundary plans. While that would be certainly better than the abandonment of the whole plan, it would be a piecemeal approach to health care, and still not deal with the reality that about 15 percent of the nation would still have no access to decent health care, an issue which has been promoted since the time of Theodore Roosevelt a hundred years ago, and advocated in specific legislation since Harry Truman 65 years ago.

A third approach and the right one is to utilize legislative rules and employ “reconciliation”, which allows a Senate majority of 51 votes to pass legislation, just as 218 votes is enough as a majority in the House of Representatives to pass legislation. Why should a determined minority be permitted to block progressive change by employing obstruction and negativism and therefore prevent the will of the majority? This tactic was used regularly by the Bush Administration, a few times with Dick Cheney’s vote breaking a tie in the Senate.

Some will say that a majority of the American people are opposed to the health care plan, but that is based on conflicting polls, many of them employing questioning that distorted the topic and confused the people who were being polled. There are many indications that when people are told in detail what the health care bill promotes, then in so many cases, they will say they certainly want such plans to be enacted. It is more a question of lack of understanding and knowledge, or to put it less nicely, ignorance of the facts of the plan, that causes many to oppose it. The opposition Republicans and talk radio and Fox News Channel spend inordinate amounts of effort to promote distortion, exaggeration and pure lies to scare people and promote fear of change. The President cannot allow this to happen, as he stands by and gives in to the hysteria and ignorance of the facts.

Therefore, President Obama, you need to uphold your convictions and beliefs of the necessity of this health care legislation when you deliver the State of the Union Address this Wednesday evening, rather than concede to the critics and those who over read the Massachusetts results!

You must show the American people and your political party that you are willing to stick your neck out for what you believe in! You must show real leadership, and stop just using the word “fight” in your speeches, but actually show you have the guts and the courage as Harry Truman regularly demonstrated to “fight” with every ounce of your strength for your agenda! You have to be aggressive, as Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson were, to push the party and the Congress and the American people toward your vision of what is needed! That is what you were elected to do, and you must therefore stop working at being a “nice guy”, and use the White House as a “Bully Pulpit”, as Theodore Roosevelt termed it!

So on Wednesday, come out fighting for your program, as that will inspire many millions of Americans that they have a true advocate! We have had enough of Presidents who speak for the wealthy upper class and the comfortable upper middle class! Come out for the struggling middle class and the poor, and that will inspire these people to come out and vote for you and your party in 2010 and 2012!

There are some who fear that if the President comes out slugging for his agenda, that it will be a disaster for his party in the midterm congressional elections. To me, it seems just like the exact opposite would occur, that if Obama fails to follow through, then his party will suffer a disaster. It could be that I am and other progressives are wrong, and if that turns out to be true, so be it! At least, we will know that we went down fighting for our principles! If the American people really give in to fear, hysteria, and ignorance, they will be the losers, but I don’t want this historic change in politics that occurred in 2008 to be destroyed by its advocates! If those who wish to destroy triumph, we will all be the losers, and it will lead to a counter reaction after the American people realize what a mistake they have made! But for now, Mr. President, stick to your beliefs and principles and know that we, the progressives, will be there at your back, supporting you with every ounce of our strength!

The “Split Personality” Of State Politics: Massachusetts, New York, California, And Wisconsin As Examples

Ronald Leave a comment

The election of conservative Republican Scott Brown to the US Senate in Massachusetts shocked many as that state was the home historically of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Edward Brooke, and Henry Cabot Lodge among others–liberal Democrats and moderate to liberal Republicans.

But the same thing was true in New York historically–senators such as Robert Wagner, Jacob Javits, Robert Kennedy, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Hillary Clinton–all liberal Democrats and moderate to liberal Republicans–and yet the state elected James Buckley to one term in the Senate in 1970.

California is another example, a state which elected Alan Cranston, Thomas Kuchel, John Tunney, Barbara Boxer, and Dianne Feinstein, and yet also elected S. I. Hayakawa to one term in the Senate in 1976.

The most tragic example of a “split personality” state, of course, is Wisconsin, the home of progressivism, which elected Republicans Robert La Follette, Sr., Robert La Follette, Jr., and also Democrats such as William Proxmire, Gaylord Nelson, Herb Kohl, and Russ Feingold, and yet infamously twice elected Joseph McCarthy, the “witch hunter” who exploited the “Red Scare” in the 1950s, and is regarded as the absolutely worst member in the US Senate’s history.

One issue or a small percentage of voters can transform the image of a state politically on a temporary basis, but to expect that conservative Republicanism is the future of Massachusetts is to believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy! 🙂 LOL