Obviously, there are some huge news stories to be discussed below, and I will get there in good time, but first, on the lighter side:
That is the textbook definition of “historical accuracy.” At least it’s not the complete bastardization of history that you see nowadays.
So, Sarah Palin announced her impending resignation today. So far, the number one question I’ve gotten from everyone that I’ve talked to about it, political novice or experienced old hand alike, is somewhere along the line of “why would she do it?” Why would the woman widely considered to be the lone frontrunner, if not than at least one of the frontrunners to become the next GOP nominee for President in 2012 decide that she wants out of politics?
Let’s assume for the moment that all the whispers we’ve heard about her wanting out of politics are false, and there is some ulterior motive to her resignation. What are the possibilities? Well, she could be setting herself up for a run at the Presidency not in 2012, but 2016. That would give her time to sit out President Obama’s re-election run, and allow half of her potential opponents to waste their own viability in another doomed campaign against a popular Democrat. It also allows her take a couple years out of the spotlight before announcing her run for the Senate, not against Lisa Murkowski as previously ventured, but against Mark Begich when he runs for re-election. This way, she regains her public popularity just two years before running for the White House in a year where there will be no incumbent running (presumably).
Or, maybe she is looking at running in 2012. The GOP field certainly is narrowing with two popular dark horse candidates in Ensign and Sanford both being effectively removed from any serious Presidential discussion thanks to their extramarital affairs. Jindal took a hit back in February when he tried his hand at responding to the President’s first address to Congress. Most observers, including yours truly, viewed the attempt as a swing and a miss. Jindal may not have struck out of the 2012 race yet, but his shaky performance can certainly raise some legitimate questions about his ability to sell himself to voters nationwide. Ron Paul is a joke. That leaves Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Newt Gingrich, all popular among conservatives, but none are currently holding an elected office, and therefore all will find it more difficult than their elected counterparts to find media attention. The only other threat to Palin would be Tim Pawlenty, who will be leaving the Governor’s office in Minnesota in 2010, just in time for the invisible primary to start in Iowa and New Hampshire.
The last possibility, and the one that may be all too likely, may be that a skeleton could be in Governor Palin’s closet, and that skeleton could be finding its way towards a camera soon. Consider this, if Palin is planning on running in 2012, then her move to step down now is still puzzling for multiple reasons. First, the extra year out of the public eye will hurt her. The old saying “out of sight, out of mind” comes to me here. Even if Alaska is not an industrial or populous state, being Governor, if only until 2010, will keep her in the public eye and keep her fundraising numbers up. Now she just forfeited that advantage. Also, read the announcement itself. It is rambling, often times off message, and just seems poorly judged. The press conference itself was hastily thrown together, with reporters getting little warning as to its subject material beforehand. Also, consider the timing of the announcement. On the Friday of the holiday weekend, would there be a better time to make such a declaration than a weekend when hardly anyone will read their newspapers or watch the news? It was timed to draw as little attention as possible. And if the decision has “been in the works for a while,” like she claims, then why was she just earlier this week playing political games by challenging the President to a foot race? Something isn’t right about this, and I’m guessing we will be hearing a lot more about it soon.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Sex Scandals Galore
Sex scandals are an amazing thing. Rising GOP star Senator John Ensign (NV) was forced to apologize to the Senate yesterday for his affair with a former staffer. That scandal simply added another bruise to a party which has been knocked around like a piñata the last three years. There were whispers surrounding Ensign as a potential nominee for President. His promise lay in the fact that he would be a conservative alternative to the already-rans who are more or less already running (Palin, Romney, Huckabee, etc) That star has already faded. Ensign’s career may not be over, but he will have to keep his head down for so long that there is little chance of him seeking a higher office anytime soon.
Is that all? No.
South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford (also a Republican) went missing last Thursday. He left the governor’s office, turned off his cell phone and pager, and went for a drive. His staff didn’t know where he went. His family didn’t know where he went. He just went. It was originally reported by his staff that these short disappearances weren’t that unusual. His wife said that he sometimes would just go off somewhere quiet to work on journal articles or editorials that he has fallen behind on. When he got back, he said originally that he had taken a hike on the Appalachian trail, then quickly admitted that he had actually taken a vacation to Argentina.
Then he dropped another bombshell on the GOP. He admitted in a press conference this afternoon that he has had an affair with “a dear, dear friend” who lives in Argentina.
Sanford’s name was also getting a lot of play as a possible Anti-Obama for his steadfast rejection of stimulus funds to his state. Sanford could have run on the fiscal conservative tag and revitalized the GOP all by himself. Instead, his career will likely end in disgrace. Former South Carolina GOP Chair Katon Dawson is already talking about whether the Governor should resign or not.
If either the Senator or the Governor decides they want to take a look back to their comments they made during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, then they may rediscover what their own moral standards are concerning illicit affairs and officeholders. Said Sanford of Clinton, “Very damaging stuff. This one’s pretty cut and dried… I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally [to resign]." What did Ensign say? "The honorable thing for him to do is to resign and not put the country through this."
But then again, these men have already proven themselves to be hypocrites once. Why would it bother them to be proven that again?
Is that all? No.
South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford (also a Republican) went missing last Thursday. He left the governor’s office, turned off his cell phone and pager, and went for a drive. His staff didn’t know where he went. His family didn’t know where he went. He just went. It was originally reported by his staff that these short disappearances weren’t that unusual. His wife said that he sometimes would just go off somewhere quiet to work on journal articles or editorials that he has fallen behind on. When he got back, he said originally that he had taken a hike on the Appalachian trail, then quickly admitted that he had actually taken a vacation to Argentina.
Then he dropped another bombshell on the GOP. He admitted in a press conference this afternoon that he has had an affair with “a dear, dear friend” who lives in Argentina.
Sanford’s name was also getting a lot of play as a possible Anti-Obama for his steadfast rejection of stimulus funds to his state. Sanford could have run on the fiscal conservative tag and revitalized the GOP all by himself. Instead, his career will likely end in disgrace. Former South Carolina GOP Chair Katon Dawson is already talking about whether the Governor should resign or not.
If either the Senator or the Governor decides they want to take a look back to their comments they made during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, then they may rediscover what their own moral standards are concerning illicit affairs and officeholders. Said Sanford of Clinton, “Very damaging stuff. This one’s pretty cut and dried… I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally [to resign]." What did Ensign say? "The honorable thing for him to do is to resign and not put the country through this."
But then again, these men have already proven themselves to be hypocrites once. Why would it bother them to be proven that again?
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Quick News Bits
Politics in Minnesota is reporting from two sources on each side of the Coleman-Franken Senate recount epic that the Minnesota Supreme Court is expected to release its final decision sometime today. Rumors have been swirling that if the court sides decidedly with Franken that Coleman will call off the dogs and allow Franken to be seated, much to the dismay of the RNC. So is this the light at the end of the tunnel? It seems almost too much to think so, but I really think it is. It may be too late for Coleman to save his name and make a run at the Governor’s office, but then again, maybe he is thinking he still has a shot at that office. Expect to see Harry Reid doing a jig in some Capital hallway later today.
The theme of the week out of Washington (or more specifically, the Washington press corps) is that the President’s honeymoon is coming to an end. Honeymoon’s don’t last forever, but this isn’t the first time that different pundits have taken this story out for a spin. You may remember during the stimulus vote that quite a lot of writers were openly wondering if the President may even get a honeymoon at all, and that was at the beginning of February.
There are two indicators that show the honeymoon that was supposed to have ended in February may actually be coming to an end now. The first is a set of polls, one by the Wall Street Journal and the other by the New York Times which show that public attitudes towards the President’s policies may be faltering. Both polls cite public concerns about the rising deficit as well as government intervention in the economy. But both polls still give the President high public approval ratings.
The other indicator may just well be the mouth of George W. Bush. It was too much to hope that he would keep his thoughts to himself forever, the former President made his first sharp criticisms of the current administration earlier this week while speaking in Pennsylvania. It is significant if for no other reason than his defense of his own policies could serve as a potential rallying point for the GOP.
The administration is already responding to both problems. Secretary Geithner is out and about defending the administration’s economic oversight, as has the President who disparaged Wall Street’s “short memory” concerning how a lack of oversight led to this crisis in the first place. As far as the ex-President Bush is concerned, the Administration will likely continue to use him as a political punching bag because the more Bush tries to defend his various failed policies, the deeper a hole he digs himself.
The theme of the week out of Washington (or more specifically, the Washington press corps) is that the President’s honeymoon is coming to an end. Honeymoon’s don’t last forever, but this isn’t the first time that different pundits have taken this story out for a spin. You may remember during the stimulus vote that quite a lot of writers were openly wondering if the President may even get a honeymoon at all, and that was at the beginning of February.
There are two indicators that show the honeymoon that was supposed to have ended in February may actually be coming to an end now. The first is a set of polls, one by the Wall Street Journal and the other by the New York Times which show that public attitudes towards the President’s policies may be faltering. Both polls cite public concerns about the rising deficit as well as government intervention in the economy. But both polls still give the President high public approval ratings.
The other indicator may just well be the mouth of George W. Bush. It was too much to hope that he would keep his thoughts to himself forever, the former President made his first sharp criticisms of the current administration earlier this week while speaking in Pennsylvania. It is significant if for no other reason than his defense of his own policies could serve as a potential rallying point for the GOP.
The administration is already responding to both problems. Secretary Geithner is out and about defending the administration’s economic oversight, as has the President who disparaged Wall Street’s “short memory” concerning how a lack of oversight led to this crisis in the first place. As far as the ex-President Bush is concerned, the Administration will likely continue to use him as a political punching bag because the more Bush tries to defend his various failed policies, the deeper a hole he digs himself.
Monday, June 15, 2009
The Iranian Election Fraud and American Policy
It is not very often I intermingle my dueling interests in international relations and domestic policy making, but this week’s election farce in Iran begs to be put under the microscope for a few reasons.
First, to bring anyone up to speed who isn’t already there; An election was held in Iran on Saturday. Incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmedinijad won in a landslide, a landslide that should not have happened. Among hundreds of reports of irregularities at polling places, such as polls running out of paper, voters being turned away, and polls closing with long lines still outside, final vote tallies began pouring in hours early, and the returns showed Ahmedinijad winning re-election with 62.6% of the vote. His nearest rival, Hussein Moussavi, received only 34% of the vote, odd considering he was the odds on favorite to win only a week ago.
Moussavi, who campaigned on women’s rights and promised a more amenable relationship with the west, has denounced the election results as a fraud. People have taken to the streets in protest. The government has shut down access to cellular text messaging services, and internet networking sites such as twitter, and facebook.
Ayatollah Kahmenei, the real supreme leader in Iran, has closed the door on any possibility of a re-count, endorsing Ahmedinijad as the winner, and has asked the nation to unite behind the incumbent President. Ahmedinijad, for his part, has began threatening protesters for questioning the election results, and has even put reformist activists and moderate clerics under house arrest. The Interior Ministry, responsible for counting the votes, issued a statement that police were being stationed around their building, and if anyone approached, the police would have authority to open fire.
Reports from Iran seem to indicate that Tehran is quickly becoming a powder keg. Ahmedenijad may not be afraid of the protesters, but is afraid of Moussavi, and his political connections. Moussavi may even seek to try and dislodge Kahmenei as well as Ahmedinjaid.
For anyone who doesn’t quite understand just how volatile the situation is, look at these short videos:
These videos, along with dozens of pictures, have been put up on Revolutionary Road, a blog put together by an Iranian student calling for, you guessed it, a revolution. Things could get out of hand quickly there.
Meanwhile, back in DC, the Obama administration has been anxiously watching the results. Their hopes of dealing with a more moderate leader appear to be dashed, though they are being careful not to out and say that the election was completely fraudulent. Vice President Biden gave an interview on Meet the Press where he spoke about how skeptical the administration is of the election results.
The President proposed an openness policy in Dealing with America’s enemies during last year’s election. That proposed policy is part of the reason he won so much support from foreign policy analysts and intellectuals throughout 2008. But the Obama administration was anticipating a regime change in Iran when it began outlining that policy in January. Even if Ahmedinijad was replaced with another conservative puppet to be manipulated by the Ayatollah, he would have been easier to deal with than the inherently inflammatory Ahmedinijad. The administration will likely have to continue to seek a new line of dialogue with Iran, but it will be much more difficult now that Iran is in the game of flagrantly manipulating elections and arresting opposition.
In America, Obama’s openness policy will be an even tougher sell than it was before. Ahmedinijad gave tons of ammo to Obama’s critics, who will point to the election as even more evidence of anti-democratic principles taking hold in Tehran. While that may not stop the President from still dealing with Ahmedinijad (It’s not like the US doesn’t engage itself in talks with illegitimate dictatorships around the world on basically a daily basis or anything), it will make life more difficult for Obama at home.
Of course, the President’s recent speech in Cairo, Egypt makes things even more complicated than they were before. The picture presenting itself currently suggests that the people of the middle east are listening to Obama’s comments and can see the olive branch being extended from the US. But fundamentalists and dictators like the Ayatollah and Ahmedinijad, in firm control of state apparatus, continue to try and pull their state away. But it could potentially come to a head in Tehran. Actually, of all the people I’ve heard link the Cairo speech and the election in Iran together, Joe Scarburough of all people makes the most sense:
The Reality Based Community states it best, “Barack Obama has consistently displayed one of the politician's supreme gifts: the capacity to induce his opponents to self-destruct.” With the Iranian government and religious leadership no longer even acknowledging the people’s voice in elections, the outpouring of frustration could quickly tear Iran apart. The conservatives, engaging in erratic economic policy, repressive domestic policy, and antagonistic foreign policy could easily be ousted in favor of the more moderate (though not necessarily progressive) opposition.
There are two possible outcomes; either the Ayatollah holds steadfast, Ahmedinijad puts down the opposition, and nothing changes, or the Ayatollah is forced to give in, Ahmedinijad is forced from office or even arrested. Both scenarios have dramatically different effects on American foreign policy with regards to Iran, and even with regard to Iraq and Israel. But we may not know what will happen for weeks.
First, to bring anyone up to speed who isn’t already there; An election was held in Iran on Saturday. Incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmedinijad won in a landslide, a landslide that should not have happened. Among hundreds of reports of irregularities at polling places, such as polls running out of paper, voters being turned away, and polls closing with long lines still outside, final vote tallies began pouring in hours early, and the returns showed Ahmedinijad winning re-election with 62.6% of the vote. His nearest rival, Hussein Moussavi, received only 34% of the vote, odd considering he was the odds on favorite to win only a week ago.
Moussavi, who campaigned on women’s rights and promised a more amenable relationship with the west, has denounced the election results as a fraud. People have taken to the streets in protest. The government has shut down access to cellular text messaging services, and internet networking sites such as twitter, and facebook.
Ayatollah Kahmenei, the real supreme leader in Iran, has closed the door on any possibility of a re-count, endorsing Ahmedinijad as the winner, and has asked the nation to unite behind the incumbent President. Ahmedinijad, for his part, has began threatening protesters for questioning the election results, and has even put reformist activists and moderate clerics under house arrest. The Interior Ministry, responsible for counting the votes, issued a statement that police were being stationed around their building, and if anyone approached, the police would have authority to open fire.
Reports from Iran seem to indicate that Tehran is quickly becoming a powder keg. Ahmedenijad may not be afraid of the protesters, but is afraid of Moussavi, and his political connections. Moussavi may even seek to try and dislodge Kahmenei as well as Ahmedinjaid.
For anyone who doesn’t quite understand just how volatile the situation is, look at these short videos:
These videos, along with dozens of pictures, have been put up on Revolutionary Road, a blog put together by an Iranian student calling for, you guessed it, a revolution. Things could get out of hand quickly there.
Meanwhile, back in DC, the Obama administration has been anxiously watching the results. Their hopes of dealing with a more moderate leader appear to be dashed, though they are being careful not to out and say that the election was completely fraudulent. Vice President Biden gave an interview on Meet the Press where he spoke about how skeptical the administration is of the election results.
The President proposed an openness policy in Dealing with America’s enemies during last year’s election. That proposed policy is part of the reason he won so much support from foreign policy analysts and intellectuals throughout 2008. But the Obama administration was anticipating a regime change in Iran when it began outlining that policy in January. Even if Ahmedinijad was replaced with another conservative puppet to be manipulated by the Ayatollah, he would have been easier to deal with than the inherently inflammatory Ahmedinijad. The administration will likely have to continue to seek a new line of dialogue with Iran, but it will be much more difficult now that Iran is in the game of flagrantly manipulating elections and arresting opposition.
In America, Obama’s openness policy will be an even tougher sell than it was before. Ahmedinijad gave tons of ammo to Obama’s critics, who will point to the election as even more evidence of anti-democratic principles taking hold in Tehran. While that may not stop the President from still dealing with Ahmedinijad (It’s not like the US doesn’t engage itself in talks with illegitimate dictatorships around the world on basically a daily basis or anything), it will make life more difficult for Obama at home.
Of course, the President’s recent speech in Cairo, Egypt makes things even more complicated than they were before. The picture presenting itself currently suggests that the people of the middle east are listening to Obama’s comments and can see the olive branch being extended from the US. But fundamentalists and dictators like the Ayatollah and Ahmedinijad, in firm control of state apparatus, continue to try and pull their state away. But it could potentially come to a head in Tehran. Actually, of all the people I’ve heard link the Cairo speech and the election in Iran together, Joe Scarburough of all people makes the most sense:
“You know, the law of unintended consequences came in again. I suspect that Cairo speech really scared the grand ayatollahs in Iran. If they were going to fix an election, this was a time to fix it, because the last thing they wanted to do was Barack Obama to take credit for reformers winning in Iran, like they already have in Lebanon. And, and by the way, in the short-term that's bad news for us. I think in the long-term, though, if ayatollahs are seen stealing an election as a result from what Barack Obama did in Cairo, I actually think that's a positive for the United States and Iran in the long run.”
The Reality Based Community states it best, “Barack Obama has consistently displayed one of the politician's supreme gifts: the capacity to induce his opponents to self-destruct.” With the Iranian government and religious leadership no longer even acknowledging the people’s voice in elections, the outpouring of frustration could quickly tear Iran apart. The conservatives, engaging in erratic economic policy, repressive domestic policy, and antagonistic foreign policy could easily be ousted in favor of the more moderate (though not necessarily progressive) opposition.
There are two possible outcomes; either the Ayatollah holds steadfast, Ahmedinijad puts down the opposition, and nothing changes, or the Ayatollah is forced to give in, Ahmedinijad is forced from office or even arrested. Both scenarios have dramatically different effects on American foreign policy with regards to Iran, and even with regard to Iraq and Israel. But we may not know what will happen for weeks.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
On Right Win Extremism
When the Obama administration released a report earlier this year on the dangers of right wing extremism, Republicans (and specifically conservatives) were outraged. Furious that the President would liken even the most extreme fringes of their ideology to domestic terrorists, they argued that the Democratic administration was simply trying to reduce conservative opposition to Democratic policies to terrorism in order to crush dissenting opinion. Right-wing terrorism seemed too farfetched to be seriously considered. Consider this video put together by Media Matters:
After the execution in of Dr. George Tiller two weeks ago in the lobby of his Kansas church, along with today’s news that a guard at a Holocaust museum was also brutally murdered by a white supremacist, I think that we should revisit the question.
I feel for the community and the friends and family of the deceased, and I hope they find a way through these difficult times. But my blood has been boiling ever since I first heard the story. And I’m tired of waiting for the politically correct time to begin talking about these tragedies, which some people on the right haven’t had the decency to do. Anti-abortion activists have voiced concerns over the political fallout that such a murder can create for their cause. Reprehensible. They are concerned that their opponents will use the murder to expose the entire anti-abortion movement as extremist.
That shouldn’t be hard for me to accomplish. Kansas Jackass has provided excellent coverage of the tragedy that has occurred in their own back yard, including this collection of Twitter comments
These are only a few of the comments collected in the link above. The last one gets me the most. Was the person purposefully invoking a 9-11 reference with the “co-pilot” talk? Right wing groups have been quick to dismiss such comments as not indicative of their movement as a whole. But the sheer volume of this type of reaction from the right has left me unsure. It’s not one or two people, but rather dozens and even hundreds making similar comments.
So it’s time to take these threats seriously. This is not the first time that someone has carried out a violent action against someone working in a clinic in the name of the “Pro-Life” movement. Nor is this the first time that someone has carried out similar action out of anti-Semitic motivations. And until we recognize that it won’t be the last, they are just going to keep on happening. The FBI needs to begin paying more attention to the guy making threats on the message boards and forums on the internet from the conservative spectrum. They can be just as dangerous to the peace and stability of our nation as any terrorist half way around the world.
After the execution in of Dr. George Tiller two weeks ago in the lobby of his Kansas church, along with today’s news that a guard at a Holocaust museum was also brutally murdered by a white supremacist, I think that we should revisit the question.
I feel for the community and the friends and family of the deceased, and I hope they find a way through these difficult times. But my blood has been boiling ever since I first heard the story. And I’m tired of waiting for the politically correct time to begin talking about these tragedies, which some people on the right haven’t had the decency to do. Anti-abortion activists have voiced concerns over the political fallout that such a murder can create for their cause. Reprehensible. They are concerned that their opponents will use the murder to expose the entire anti-abortion movement as extremist.
That shouldn’t be hard for me to accomplish. Kansas Jackass has provided excellent coverage of the tragedy that has occurred in their own back yard, including this collection of Twitter comments
Doctor George Tiller was aborted today in his 204th trimester - aren't paybacks a bitch - Punch
George Tiller the baby killer was shot dead this morning. God bless the gunmen who hopefully won't be caught. - readnwatchchris, Creedmor. NC
The person who shot Tiller the baby killer simply exercised a man's right to choose. - Sami Shamieh, Walnut Creek, CA
Guy shoots a Dr. to death in Church. Me I'm willing to bet that Jesus was his co-pilot. - jeremyawhitman
These are only a few of the comments collected in the link above. The last one gets me the most. Was the person purposefully invoking a 9-11 reference with the “co-pilot” talk? Right wing groups have been quick to dismiss such comments as not indicative of their movement as a whole. But the sheer volume of this type of reaction from the right has left me unsure. It’s not one or two people, but rather dozens and even hundreds making similar comments.
So it’s time to take these threats seriously. This is not the first time that someone has carried out a violent action against someone working in a clinic in the name of the “Pro-Life” movement. Nor is this the first time that someone has carried out similar action out of anti-Semitic motivations. And until we recognize that it won’t be the last, they are just going to keep on happening. The FBI needs to begin paying more attention to the guy making threats on the message boards and forums on the internet from the conservative spectrum. They can be just as dangerous to the peace and stability of our nation as any terrorist half way around the world.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
President Names Supreme Court Nominee
President Barack Obama confirmed weeks of speculation in naming Judge Sonia Sotomayor his first selection to the Supreme Court. The consensus opinion from Democrats is that she is a level headed juror who considers the implications of the decisions she makes, Republicans will call her “liberal,” “activist,” and will question her temperament. But I’m most concerned with the opinions of the legal scholars and intellectuals who think her opinions are not as strong as the opinions of past liberal thinkers like John Marshall Harlan, or William Brennan.
Supreme Court nominations are much more complicated than they were even just twenty five years ago. Then, a nominee would be named, and the Senate would simply look over their credentials, and vote. There could be rocky nomination processes, but it was relatively easy to get a pick on the court compared to today. Activists, lobbyists, and of course the opposing party in the Senate will all throw roadblocks in the Presidents general direction to try and trip up the nomination process. Getting a nominee on the court now is a lot like running an election. The President will appeal to the public in order to pressure their Senators into voting for the nominee. Expect to see the President making trips to various parts of the county to sell the pick to the public. Also, just as the President became the first candidate to make truly effective use of the internet as a campaign tool, you can expect the White House to use tools like Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube to try and sell the pick.
I said a few weeks ago that the GOP would try to use this vacancy to knock the President once in the jaw just because they need the political victory. I still believe that. This could be a case where the Republicans could pick themselves up off the mat so to speak. But in order for that to happen, the GOP will have to truly band together in opposition, and I just do not know if that can happen this time around. There are the usual suspects like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins whom Democrats will try to pick off in order to defeat the filibuster, and you better believe the White House will be putting pressure on the newest Democrat in the Senate, Arlen Specter, to do what he is supposed to.
That would give Democrats more than enough votes to defeat a filibuster. But will the GOP go that far? They have to balance their need to defeat the Obama administration at least once before the 2010 midterms on major legislation with their equally important need of not angering a certain key constituency any more than they already have: Hispanic Americans. Ever since former President Bush embarked on one of the two most ill-informed policy crusades of his Presidency, his illegal-immigration reform package in spring 2006, Hispanics have been none too pleased with the GOP. Obama won Hispanics with almost 70% of the vote last fall. Hispanic activist groups will push hard for Sotomayor, and the GOP may crumble under the pressure and concede the President’s choice.
They may. I don’t think they will. After all, the GOP has already shown that they believe every demographic group is expendable as long as they hold on the Christian conservatives. So where will the conservative activist groups fall on Sotomayor? Guess.
Ironically, the GOP may not be able to use their favorite SCOTUS issue against Sotomayor. In the Federal Appeals Court, she actually voted against a pro choice group in the only case she heard concerning the issue of abortion. In any case, while most pundits are predicting an easy confirmation, I’m not going to hold my breath. After all, no one thought the GOP would be as united as it was against the Stimulus package.
Supreme Court nominations are much more complicated than they were even just twenty five years ago. Then, a nominee would be named, and the Senate would simply look over their credentials, and vote. There could be rocky nomination processes, but it was relatively easy to get a pick on the court compared to today. Activists, lobbyists, and of course the opposing party in the Senate will all throw roadblocks in the Presidents general direction to try and trip up the nomination process. Getting a nominee on the court now is a lot like running an election. The President will appeal to the public in order to pressure their Senators into voting for the nominee. Expect to see the President making trips to various parts of the county to sell the pick to the public. Also, just as the President became the first candidate to make truly effective use of the internet as a campaign tool, you can expect the White House to use tools like Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube to try and sell the pick.
I said a few weeks ago that the GOP would try to use this vacancy to knock the President once in the jaw just because they need the political victory. I still believe that. This could be a case where the Republicans could pick themselves up off the mat so to speak. But in order for that to happen, the GOP will have to truly band together in opposition, and I just do not know if that can happen this time around. There are the usual suspects like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins whom Democrats will try to pick off in order to defeat the filibuster, and you better believe the White House will be putting pressure on the newest Democrat in the Senate, Arlen Specter, to do what he is supposed to.
That would give Democrats more than enough votes to defeat a filibuster. But will the GOP go that far? They have to balance their need to defeat the Obama administration at least once before the 2010 midterms on major legislation with their equally important need of not angering a certain key constituency any more than they already have: Hispanic Americans. Ever since former President Bush embarked on one of the two most ill-informed policy crusades of his Presidency, his illegal-immigration reform package in spring 2006, Hispanics have been none too pleased with the GOP. Obama won Hispanics with almost 70% of the vote last fall. Hispanic activist groups will push hard for Sotomayor, and the GOP may crumble under the pressure and concede the President’s choice.
They may. I don’t think they will. After all, the GOP has already shown that they believe every demographic group is expendable as long as they hold on the Christian conservatives. So where will the conservative activist groups fall on Sotomayor? Guess.
Ironically, the GOP may not be able to use their favorite SCOTUS issue against Sotomayor. In the Federal Appeals Court, she actually voted against a pro choice group in the only case she heard concerning the issue of abortion. In any case, while most pundits are predicting an easy confirmation, I’m not going to hold my breath. After all, no one thought the GOP would be as united as it was against the Stimulus package.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Correspondents Dinner Speech
And thusly, I end my prolonged absence from the internet political community. I know updates have been sparse, and it has been a stressful spring, but now it’s back to business. New Congressional Power Rankings tomorrow. But for now, how about that Correspondents Dinner speech by the President?
“For the last time, the Republican Party does not qualify for a bailout. Rush Limbaugh does not count as a troubled asset.” Nice.
I loved the teleprompter joke at the beginning. Not a lot of people realize that the President does use a teleprompter at basically every event. It’s one of the reasons he speaks so well when he speaks, he doesn’t need to constantly look down to see where he is on the page or what his next line is. Previous Presidents have either leaned too heavily on the teleprompter so that they actually seemed disengaged from the audience he is speaking to, (George W. Bush) or have refused to use the thing at all, but the President has mastered the use of the machine so that he looks like he really is “speaking off the cuff” even at major speeches like his inaugural. The President has been known to drop a few funny one liners before minor speeches and events. But the only other truly satirical speech he has ever given was at the Al Smith dinner last fall during the campaign:
Correspondents Dinners have a history for funny speeches by the press as well, but I couldn’t get through a post on the Correspondents Dinner without mentioning the man himself, Stephen Colbert roasting W in 2006.
“For the last time, the Republican Party does not qualify for a bailout. Rush Limbaugh does not count as a troubled asset.” Nice.
I loved the teleprompter joke at the beginning. Not a lot of people realize that the President does use a teleprompter at basically every event. It’s one of the reasons he speaks so well when he speaks, he doesn’t need to constantly look down to see where he is on the page or what his next line is. Previous Presidents have either leaned too heavily on the teleprompter so that they actually seemed disengaged from the audience he is speaking to, (George W. Bush) or have refused to use the thing at all, but the President has mastered the use of the machine so that he looks like he really is “speaking off the cuff” even at major speeches like his inaugural. The President has been known to drop a few funny one liners before minor speeches and events. But the only other truly satirical speech he has ever given was at the Al Smith dinner last fall during the campaign:
Correspondents Dinners have a history for funny speeches by the press as well, but I couldn’t get through a post on the Correspondents Dinner without mentioning the man himself, Stephen Colbert roasting W in 2006.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
