"I think one of the biggest mistakes we've made strategically after 9/11 was to fail to finish the job here, focus our attention here. We got distracted by Iraq,"
- Presidential Candidate Barack Obama – July 2008
In February 17, 2009 Obama deployed 17,000 troops to Afghanistan. His March 27, announcement deploys an extra 4,000 troops for a total of 21,000 additional troops.
Nobody should be surprised he’s done this. Since his visit to Afghanistan in July of 2008 Obama has been talking about increasing troop levels in Afghanistan. "For at least a year now, I have called for two additional brigades, perhaps three. I think it's very important that we unify command more effectively to coordinate our military activities. But military alone is not going to be enough." (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/20/obama.afghanistan/).
This is part of an overall shift in US military and diplomatic strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. President Obama’s announcement outlines a strategy that mixes diplomacy, aid and military support. (http://www.cfr.org/publication/18952/obamas_strategy_for_afghanistan_and_pakistan_march_2009.html).
Since his March announcement, there has been a lot of solemn punditry on how this is now “Obama’s War.” But this isn’t Obama’s war at all. This is Bush’s war that Obama has decided to fight.
Bush started the war and then lost interest when he unwrapped the shiny new war in Iraq – the war he wanted to fight all along. After Iraq started, he was content to let the Afghan conflict drift along without a strategy or goal. He sent in just enough Americans so that he wouldn’t have to say he withdrew and let the country fall apart. Americans fought and died in a war that the President had no plans for and little interest in.
Throughout his campaign Obama called for an increase in military support for the Afghan war, drawn from the resources that were going to be leaving Iraq. He was very upfront and open with the American voter – “vote for me and you are voting for an escalation in Afghanistan.”
Many in the blogosphere and advocacy groups are now organizing their antiwar efforts to oppose Obama’s new strategy. But the time to argue about whether we should be in Afghanistan is long past. The reality is we are there and as a result we have obligations we must meet. As a result of the aimless Bush policy the Taliban has regained strength, and is spreading into Pakistan.
These are not nice guys. The Taliban had the habit of executing Buhrka clad women in the national stadium for the amusement of their supporters. The list of their atrocities are long. They have begun to destabilize Pakistan. If there is any question of what the stakes are imagine a Pakistan controlled by the Taliban – with its nuclear arsenal – facing India in the Kashmir.
Candidate Obama said resolving the conflict in Kashmir was a key to bringing stability to the entire region. If Pakistan and India are not at risk of going nuclear over Kashmir, the region will be safer with fewer opportunities for extremist to launch terror attacks in the region. Pakistan and India will be able to assume their rightful places of leadership in the area helping stabilize and resolve regional conflicts and support struggling governments like Afghanistan.
Obama has proposed a policy in Pakistan that is more than Bush’s previous policy of writing a check to Mushariff and letting him do whatever he wanted – including allowing Taliban and Al Qaeda sanctuary along the Afghan border. Obama is proposing comprehensive training of local police, so all involved can begin to take care of their own security. He has also proposing aid that will enable locals to draw away from Taliban and Al Qaeda.
The war finally has a plan with an exit strategy. Americans won’t be sent aimless into harm’s way without any hope of peace for the region. President Obama has done in Afghanistan what Candidate Obama said he would do. Let’s hope he succeeds as he tries to resolve the second of Bush’s wars. Success will bring stability and peace to a volatile region.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Bonus Rounds
It is with deep regret I submit my notice of resignation from A.I.G Financial Products.
- Resignation letter from Jake DeSantis, EVP in AIG Financial Products Group published in the New York Times on March 25, 2009
Yesterday Jake DeSantis, an EVP at AIG resigned his position in a letter to Edward M. Liddy, AIG’s CEO that was published on the New York Time’s Op Ed page. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?_r=1&ref=opinion)
Judging from the response his letters drew, it is clear Mr. DeSantis struck a nerve. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/opinion/l26aig.html).
He reminded us that in all the uproar over retention bonuses, Congress and the public lost sight of the fact that AIG employees are people - not numbers , or symbols or initials. These are men and women, who by in large are honest and hard working. To “blame, name and shame” as some politicians want to do, make real people and their families real targets.
Here is a man who felt he had been let down by his company and thrown to the wolves. There is some truth to that. AIG’s meltdown cost him a significant portion of his savings. When his company asked him, he stepped up and he is doing the complex job of winding down his Division on a $1 a year salary.
Mr. DeSantis’ letter is emotional. He feels betrayed by a CEO that did not stand up to the public vilification of the people in AIG’s Financial Products Group. He feels angry that he will have his retention bonus taxed. He feels a deep sadness in taking apart a company to which he has given 11 years of his life.
I sympathize with him.
Years ago I worked for a company that was sold, and I was part of the team that closed it down. I literally handed over the keys to the buyer. It is a hard, sad, frightening experience, to watch your coworkers leave, take apart something you have built together, while worried about your future. I will never forget sitting around the main conference room table on that last day. After the CEO thanked us, we got up, walked out, turned off the lights and our company was gone.
Any yet…
The more I read his letter, the more his letter bothered me. Clearly Mr. DeSantis wants the reader to feel his personal and financial pain. Except by his own account Mr. DeSantis can work for $1 a year and keep his house, and his car. His wife and children will not go wanting. Furthermore, he is able to give up a bonus worth nearly $750,000.
He wants us to understand how hard he works - 10-14 hours a day. But that is a normal day for me and my co-workers. And we are paid a fraction of his salary. He wants us to understand what a good fellow he really is. He pledges to give the 10% of his bonus that is left over after taxes to charities that support the people hurt by the Great Recession.
But Mr. DeSantis, makes no mention what he will do with his $750,000 if the Senate does not pass its 90% tax or if President Obama vetoes the measure. Would he have made the same gift if no one knew or cared about AIG? I don’t think so. Character is what you do when nobody is looking. True charity is motivated by compassion, not anger and disgust.
Finally, I was struck by his perfunctory sympathy for the people who are suffering in the Great Recession. It was after all, triggered in large measure by his Division. He was paid for doing something for which we all took the risk, but only a small chosen few reaped the rewards. There was no attempt to explain to the person losing his house, job, farm, savings and future, what went on and what went wrong. Instead of taking the opportunity to provide some constructive insight that will help guide us, the main motivation of his letter was to complain about his boss.
His lack of understanding of how his actions connect to the world around him was the most illuminating aspect of his letter. It is exactly this lack of understanding by a handful of Wall Street titans that has helped land us in this mess.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
The Fourth (or Fifth) Largest City in Nevada
10.1% - Unemployment Rate in Nevada as of March 2009 - Stateline.Org
8.1% - National Unemployment Rate as of March 2009 - US Bureau of Labor Statistics
“Unemployment is so high in the state that if the jobless formed their own city it would be the fourth or fifth largest in Nevada.” – Spokesman for Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons, describing the Governor’s disappoint with the level of unemployment insurance help provided in the stimulus package.
Jim Gibbons, the Republican Governor of Nevada seems a little more confused than most of his colleagues on what to do with the money allocated in the Obama stimulus package. Gibbons originally opposed the stimulus package because he felt the $77 Billion Obama targeted for unemployment assistance was not enough to help the State. At that time a spokesman for Gov. Gibbons said “the Governor was surprised and a little disappointed we didn’t receive more in the stimulus package for the state. Unemployment is so high in the state that if the jobless formed their own city it would be the fourth or fifth largest in Nevada. The Governor feels Nevada deserved more because our state was particularly hard hit.”
With this background you would think Gov. Gibbons would take the money and run – but you would be wrong.
The New York Times reported Governor Gibbons is prepared to reject unemployment assistance funding. If he does, Nevada’s unemployment insurance program will run out of money by the end of the year, and the State will have to borrow from the Federal Government to keep it going. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/us/21nevada.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Gov%20Gibbons&st=cse).
The Governor said he was turning down the funds because Nevada would have to change its eligible rules to accept the funds. This, according to Gibbons, is an unacceptable intrusion into the State’s sovereignty. Gov. Gibbons’ earlier demands for more money has destroyed the credibility of this explanation.
His current position has set off a major backlash. The Nevada legislature is scheduled to vote on a bill Monday, taking the stimulus money anyway. The pro-business Nevada Chamber of Commerce has come out strongly for taking the stimulus unemployment money. As a result of his decision, at least two Republicans are lining up to challenge him in the primary for re-election.
What was Gibbons thinking?
There is no political upside to his position. South Carolina’s Mark Sanford, Alaska’s Sarah Palin, and Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal are all three in some phase of running for President. Only Sanford seems to have reaped any political benefits from his position. But, it will be interesting to see how long that lasts – in February, Michigan was the only state with a higher unemployment rate than South Carolina.(http://www.stateline.org/live/issues/Economy+&+Business)
Gov. Palin is taking hits for turning down education funds. A portion of that money was going to support students with special needs. Gov. Palin made support for special needs children a central theme of her VP Campaign, using her own Down’s syndrome child as a way to spotlight the issue. Now she is turning back education money for special needs children like her own.
Jindal quietly announced he would take the funds he had earlier so loudly refused. He changed his position after his disastrous response to President Obama’s State of the Union speech – which many saw as dealing a fatal blow to his Presidential aspirations. This only underscored people’s perception he had his political interest more at heart more than their financial welfare.
In 1968 The Republicans were able to break the South with the message “we care about the little guy, who gets up, goes to work, and plays by the rules.” These people were the “Silent Majority.” The Democrats were protesters, hippies, and liberals who were elitists and did not understand the concerns of real people. They used this message between 1968 and 1992 to build a strong national party.
In 1992 Clinton won by painting the first President Bush as out of touch with the concerns of the average person. Like the Republicans who broke the grip of the Democrats on the South by playing up their concern for the little guy, the Democrats are now breaking the grip of the Republicans on the West and Midwest using the same themes.
Gov. Gibbon’s refusal of stimulus money plays into the Democrat’s hands. Along with Palin, Sanford and Jindahl, the Republicans can be painted as more interested in their own political future than in the welfare of the people of their respective States. The backlash against Gibbons also highlights that the standard Republican arguments against big government and for states’ rights have run out of gas. People need help, and are turning away from the Republicans as the party offers up the same old ideas it has used since 1980.
The Democrats can build on this by highlighting the Republican’s apparent callous disregard for the voter’s needs and suffering, and commitment to its outdated and discredited ideas. This strategy can tighten the Democrat’s Electoral grip on the rest of the country.
The confused actions of Gov Gibbons only serve to reinforce the Democrat’s argument and to speed his Party’s retreat.
Friday, March 13, 2009
We Hope Third Time is the Charm
"I shall propose a sweeping new program that will assure comprehensive health-insurance protection to millions of Americans who cannot now obtain it or afford it, with vastly improved protection against catastrophic illnesses.”
- President Richard Nixon – State of the Union Speech 1974
Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
Nixon’s 1974 plan contained provisions for employer mandates to buy worker’s health insurance, a broader use of HMO’s as a cost control measure, and States contracting with private insurance companies to provide coverage for the poor and unemployed. Unfortunately his 1974 plan sank under the waves of Watergate. The AFL-CIO killed the plan, in hopes of getting a better deal after the 1976 election. A serious discussion of health care was put off for another 20 years.
In 1993 -94, President and Hillary Clinton tried again. The Clinton plan also relied on a mix of employer purchased health insurance, cost cutting, and State assistance for the poor and unemployed to buy health insurance. Similar in concept to Nixon’s, it was significantly more complex.
But in the 10 months it took them to create the proposal, the impetus for health care reform subsided. Furthermore, since Congress was not allowed to participate in the plan’s design, no one on the Hill had a stake in its success and it died without a vote.
Now, once again the window of opportunity is open. Obama is proposing a plan that relies on employer mandates, cost cutting, and States supporting the purchase of health insurance. Its broad outlines are similar to both Nixon’s and Clinton’s proposals.
What are the differences that will help Obama succeed where others have failed?
One difference is the political climate. When Nixon proposed his plan he was 8 months from resignation. His ability to lead was rapidly draining away and he faced a congress controlled by the opposition that was preparing to impeach him. The Democrats had every reason to believe that they could either get a better plan from a weak President Ford, or the 1976 election would tighten their control over Congress and put a Democrat in the White House. They killed Nixon’s plan with confidence that one way or the other they would get a better deal. It didn’t work that way.
Clinton didn’t move fast enough. Economic fear help put him in the White House. The 1992 recession was unusual in its reach. Suddenly white collar voters who had felt safe in past downturns were afraid of losing their health insurance at layoff time. By the time Clinton actually proposed his plan the recession had eased and as had economic people’s fears. The political drive for reform waned.
The Clinton proposal might still had survived except they made a fatal mistake. The White House developed and presented a complete health care plan without consulting Congress. Consequently no one on Capitol Hill felt any ownership for the Clinton plan or had any stake in its success.
To make matters worse there was no strong Democratic leadership to guide it through. Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, was under a cloud of scandal. Senator Lloyd Bentsen left his post as Chair of Senate Finance to join the Clinton cabinet. With no one to take ownership, fend off endless revision, and steer it through Congress the Clinton plan was ripped to shreds and died without a vote.
Obama’s situation is different. Unlike Nixon he has strong support from the voters and political capital to spend. His party is in control of both houses of Congress. In Ted Kennedy he has at least one strong player on his side in the Senate, and a House of Representatives run with a firm hand by Nancy Pelosi.
Obama is also letting Congress get into the act of drawing up the proposals. People on Capitol Hill will have a stake in the success or failure of any reform plan they develop. It will be created with legislative compromises that will make passage politically possible. So he is already ahead of where Nixon and Clinton started.
But Nixon and Clinton both let the opposition define the debate over their health reform plans, and that helped kill both proposals. Now opponents are already taking parts of Obama’s health care plan out of context and exaggerating its effects. The President can’t approach this like he did the stimulus package, where he let Congress work out the details but he left the dialog to the Republicans. Obama didn’t get involved in selling the stimulus package until it was almost too late.
Obama must start hammering away in clear broad terms on what his proposals actually do. He must constantly remind the American people what he is actually trying to achieve and not let his opponents govern the debate. If he does, there is a good chance Americans will finally have health care reform. If he doesn’t, his proposals will join line of failure stretching back to 1974.
He must not fail because we can’t afford to wait another 35 years.
- President Richard Nixon – State of the Union Speech 1974
Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
Nixon’s 1974 plan contained provisions for employer mandates to buy worker’s health insurance, a broader use of HMO’s as a cost control measure, and States contracting with private insurance companies to provide coverage for the poor and unemployed. Unfortunately his 1974 plan sank under the waves of Watergate. The AFL-CIO killed the plan, in hopes of getting a better deal after the 1976 election. A serious discussion of health care was put off for another 20 years.
In 1993 -94, President and Hillary Clinton tried again. The Clinton plan also relied on a mix of employer purchased health insurance, cost cutting, and State assistance for the poor and unemployed to buy health insurance. Similar in concept to Nixon’s, it was significantly more complex.
But in the 10 months it took them to create the proposal, the impetus for health care reform subsided. Furthermore, since Congress was not allowed to participate in the plan’s design, no one on the Hill had a stake in its success and it died without a vote.
Now, once again the window of opportunity is open. Obama is proposing a plan that relies on employer mandates, cost cutting, and States supporting the purchase of health insurance. Its broad outlines are similar to both Nixon’s and Clinton’s proposals.
What are the differences that will help Obama succeed where others have failed?
One difference is the political climate. When Nixon proposed his plan he was 8 months from resignation. His ability to lead was rapidly draining away and he faced a congress controlled by the opposition that was preparing to impeach him. The Democrats had every reason to believe that they could either get a better plan from a weak President Ford, or the 1976 election would tighten their control over Congress and put a Democrat in the White House. They killed Nixon’s plan with confidence that one way or the other they would get a better deal. It didn’t work that way.
Clinton didn’t move fast enough. Economic fear help put him in the White House. The 1992 recession was unusual in its reach. Suddenly white collar voters who had felt safe in past downturns were afraid of losing their health insurance at layoff time. By the time Clinton actually proposed his plan the recession had eased and as had economic people’s fears. The political drive for reform waned.
The Clinton proposal might still had survived except they made a fatal mistake. The White House developed and presented a complete health care plan without consulting Congress. Consequently no one on Capitol Hill felt any ownership for the Clinton plan or had any stake in its success.
To make matters worse there was no strong Democratic leadership to guide it through. Rep. Dan Rostenkowski, Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, was under a cloud of scandal. Senator Lloyd Bentsen left his post as Chair of Senate Finance to join the Clinton cabinet. With no one to take ownership, fend off endless revision, and steer it through Congress the Clinton plan was ripped to shreds and died without a vote.
Obama’s situation is different. Unlike Nixon he has strong support from the voters and political capital to spend. His party is in control of both houses of Congress. In Ted Kennedy he has at least one strong player on his side in the Senate, and a House of Representatives run with a firm hand by Nancy Pelosi.
Obama is also letting Congress get into the act of drawing up the proposals. People on Capitol Hill will have a stake in the success or failure of any reform plan they develop. It will be created with legislative compromises that will make passage politically possible. So he is already ahead of where Nixon and Clinton started.
But Nixon and Clinton both let the opposition define the debate over their health reform plans, and that helped kill both proposals. Now opponents are already taking parts of Obama’s health care plan out of context and exaggerating its effects. The President can’t approach this like he did the stimulus package, where he let Congress work out the details but he left the dialog to the Republicans. Obama didn’t get involved in selling the stimulus package until it was almost too late.
Obama must start hammering away in clear broad terms on what his proposals actually do. He must constantly remind the American people what he is actually trying to achieve and not let his opponents govern the debate. If he does, there is a good chance Americans will finally have health care reform. If he doesn’t, his proposals will join line of failure stretching back to 1974.
He must not fail because we can’t afford to wait another 35 years.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
A Shopping List of Rights
As Harvey would say, when you let the majority deprive the minority of their civil rights, you start a shopping list, who is next?"
- Stuart Milk, Harvey Milk’s nephew speaking to a rally Wednesday, supporting overturning California Proposition 8.
On Thursday March 5, the California State Supreme Court heard three hours of arguments regarding the validity of California Proposition 8. Proposition 8, which passed with 52% of the voters, define marriage as legal only between a man and woman.
Arguments revolved around three distinct points of law.
The first was whether or not Proposition 8 was a revision to the State Constitution or an amendment to the constitution. The second point was whether the voters may revoke the rights of a specific group of people. The third was on the legality of 18,000 marriages between gay and lesbian couples, performed between May 15, 2008 when the California Supreme court ruled in favor of marriage equality and the November 4th passage of Proposition 8. The court will not directly rule on the legality of Marriage equality.
The first point that was argued was whether Prop 8 was a revision to the constitution. This is an important point. A revision is structural change to government and is difficult to pass. An amendment I fairly easy to get on the ballot and only requires a majority vote to be enacted.
It did not seem to go well for the Anti-Prop 8 Lawyers
(http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202428843102. The Anti-Prop 8 lawyers argued it was revision as the proposition took away acknowledged rights for a specific group of citizens. Kenneth Starr (yes that Kenneth Starr) argued for the Pro-Prop 8 forces that Prop 8 was simple amendment to the constitution that could be passed by a majority of voters. Prop 8 was not a structural change to how California government is run. His argument seemed to carry the day.
Next up was whether Prop 8 actually denied a class of citizens their rights. Kenneth Starr argued the “bundle of rights” afforded to gays and lesbians by civil unions were untouched by the redefinition of marriage. He further argued that the right offered by civil unions was no different than the rights offered by marriage in California. The Anti-8 legal team argued that, regardless of the rights offered, the term civil unions was in and of itself discriminatory and a violation of privacy. Furthermore, the voters could not take away rights already guaranteed by the courts. Starr’s position was that voters had the “raw power” to decide who had rights. The Justices themselves asked questions trying to draw the line where the voters' rights to revises the constitution ends and the rights of citizen begins.
The one area where the Anti-8 lawyers were on solid ground with the Justices was their argument that 18,000 couples had put their faith in the Court’s earlier ruling on their rights to marry. The Justices seemed to agree.
Based on questions the Justices were asking predict the Court will uphold Proposition 8 by 5-2. The only ray of hope here is the most observers predict that the Court will unanimously uphold the legality of same sex marriages performed before November 5th are still legal.
It will be devastating if the Court upholds Proposition 8. If this happens, the court would seem to say that everyone’s rights could be put on the ballot at any time. This is what the framers of the US Constitution feared. They structured the government as a republic and not as a democracy, precisely because they were afraid that “mob rule” of democracy would trample on the rights of the minority. For this reason they made it difficult to amend the US Constitution so people’s rights would not be subject to politic whim and trend.
In the long term having the court uphold Proposition 8 actually speeds marriage equality in California. It is only a matter of time before marriage equality is once again on the ballot. Since Prop 8, there has been a strong and distinctive shift in favor of marriage equality. One of the main indications on whether a voter was for or against Proposition 8 was age not race. The younger the voter more likely that voter was to vote against Prop 8. In two to five years these young voters will be a solid block voting for marriage equality and making it the law.
If however the courts overturn Proposition 8 it may take a full generation for the issue to be settled. Like abortion marriage equality will become the staple of the culture wars to be used over and over again as a wedge issue. Arguably a woman’s right to choose is more vulnerable because of the outrage over Roe v. Wade and its use as a political rally cry for social conservatives. If Proposition 8 is upheld I hope the shopping list of rights is short and what is lost can be restored.
- Stuart Milk, Harvey Milk’s nephew speaking to a rally Wednesday, supporting overturning California Proposition 8.
On Thursday March 5, the California State Supreme Court heard three hours of arguments regarding the validity of California Proposition 8. Proposition 8, which passed with 52% of the voters, define marriage as legal only between a man and woman.
Arguments revolved around three distinct points of law.
The first was whether or not Proposition 8 was a revision to the State Constitution or an amendment to the constitution. The second point was whether the voters may revoke the rights of a specific group of people. The third was on the legality of 18,000 marriages between gay and lesbian couples, performed between May 15, 2008 when the California Supreme court ruled in favor of marriage equality and the November 4th passage of Proposition 8. The court will not directly rule on the legality of Marriage equality.
The first point that was argued was whether Prop 8 was a revision to the constitution. This is an important point. A revision is structural change to government and is difficult to pass. An amendment I fairly easy to get on the ballot and only requires a majority vote to be enacted.
It did not seem to go well for the Anti-Prop 8 Lawyers
(http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202428843102. The Anti-Prop 8 lawyers argued it was revision as the proposition took away acknowledged rights for a specific group of citizens. Kenneth Starr (yes that Kenneth Starr) argued for the Pro-Prop 8 forces that Prop 8 was simple amendment to the constitution that could be passed by a majority of voters. Prop 8 was not a structural change to how California government is run. His argument seemed to carry the day.
Next up was whether Prop 8 actually denied a class of citizens their rights. Kenneth Starr argued the “bundle of rights” afforded to gays and lesbians by civil unions were untouched by the redefinition of marriage. He further argued that the right offered by civil unions was no different than the rights offered by marriage in California. The Anti-8 legal team argued that, regardless of the rights offered, the term civil unions was in and of itself discriminatory and a violation of privacy. Furthermore, the voters could not take away rights already guaranteed by the courts. Starr’s position was that voters had the “raw power” to decide who had rights. The Justices themselves asked questions trying to draw the line where the voters' rights to revises the constitution ends and the rights of citizen begins.
The one area where the Anti-8 lawyers were on solid ground with the Justices was their argument that 18,000 couples had put their faith in the Court’s earlier ruling on their rights to marry. The Justices seemed to agree.
Based on questions the Justices were asking predict the Court will uphold Proposition 8 by 5-2. The only ray of hope here is the most observers predict that the Court will unanimously uphold the legality of same sex marriages performed before November 5th are still legal.
It will be devastating if the Court upholds Proposition 8. If this happens, the court would seem to say that everyone’s rights could be put on the ballot at any time. This is what the framers of the US Constitution feared. They structured the government as a republic and not as a democracy, precisely because they were afraid that “mob rule” of democracy would trample on the rights of the minority. For this reason they made it difficult to amend the US Constitution so people’s rights would not be subject to politic whim and trend.
In the long term having the court uphold Proposition 8 actually speeds marriage equality in California. It is only a matter of time before marriage equality is once again on the ballot. Since Prop 8, there has been a strong and distinctive shift in favor of marriage equality. One of the main indications on whether a voter was for or against Proposition 8 was age not race. The younger the voter more likely that voter was to vote against Prop 8. In two to five years these young voters will be a solid block voting for marriage equality and making it the law.
If however the courts overturn Proposition 8 it may take a full generation for the issue to be settled. Like abortion marriage equality will become the staple of the culture wars to be used over and over again as a wedge issue. Arguably a woman’s right to choose is more vulnerable because of the outrage over Roe v. Wade and its use as a political rally cry for social conservatives. If Proposition 8 is upheld I hope the shopping list of rights is short and what is lost can be restored.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Churls Gone Wild
“Michael Steele you da’ man”
- Rep. Michelle Bachman – R Minn. CPAC 2009
Dr. Jim Bunning – R. Kentucky
“During a wide-ranging 30-minute speech on Saturday at the Hardin County Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner, Bunning said he supports conservative judges "and that's going to be in place very shortly because Ruth Bader Ginsburg … has cancer. Bad cancer. The kind that you don't get better from," he told a crowd of about 100 at the old State Theater. Even though she was operated on, usually, nine months is the longest that anybody would live after (being diagnosed) with pancreatic cancer," he said.
- Sen. Jim Bunning as reported in the Louisville, KY Courier-Journal (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090222/NEWS01/902230303/1008)
In the same article on Sen. Bunning’s apology to Justice Ginsburg, Courier-Journal also reported that the American Cancer Society estimates people like Justice Ginsburg who are treated for Stage I pancreatic cancer have between a 21-37% chance of surviving for 5 years.
Rush Limbaugh’s High Hopes for America
“This notion that I want the president to fail, this shows you the problem we've got. This is nothing more than common sense and to not be able to say it? Why in the world would I want what we just described: rampant government growth, wealth that is not being created yet is being spent? What is in this, what is possibly in this that any of us want to succeed?....what is so strange about being honest and saying I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation?"
- Rush Limbaugh delivering the closing remarks at CPAC 2/28/2009
Rush Limbaugh's, who at best can be called a budget deficit “Chicken Hawk”, description of Obama’s economic plan sounds a lot like what Bush did in his eight years in office. As a result of the Bush policies, income stagnated, the surplus vanished, while the government grew at a rate not seen since the great society. Rush had no complaints then, just so long taxes were cut for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.
It is rants like Limbaugh’s that continue to convince the American people that Republicans are more concerned about scoring points than helping people.
Gov. Jindal - Compassionate Conservative
“Our state is facing a serious budget situation and it would be irresponsible to enter into an expansion of benefits right now that would ultimately increase taxes on the very businesses we are working to support during these tough economic times. The federal money in this bill will run out in less than three years for this benefit and our businesses would then be stuck paying the bill. We must be careful and thoughtful as we examine all the strings attached to the funding in this package. We cannot grow government in an unsustainable way."
- Press release from Gov Jindal on 2/20/2009, explaining why he is not accepting stimulus $100 Million to increase unemployment benefits.
Gov. Jindal refused $100 Million that would have helped 25,000 citizens of his state. Louisiana has the third lowest unemployment insurance in the country and these funds would have raised unemployment benefits by $25 a week over the 20 week eligibility period. Federal support would end in 3 years, whereupon the state would be under no obligation to keep the increase in place.
The Governor did not show the same concern when he accepted the highway dollars allocated to his state in the stimulus package.
The Ever Changing World of Lou Dobbs
In a 2/25/2009 press conference the Attorney General, Eric Holder was asked the following question as a follow-up:
Q: "I understand Mexico is interested in the U.S. reviewing the enforcement of its assault weapons regulations. Are you doing something about that?"
Holder: "Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum."
The next night on CNN, Lou Dobbs and his Lou Dobbs Tonight correspondent Bill Tucker went after Atty Gen. Holder.
Tucker: …"as you well know and we reported here often," [drug cartel members are] "often armed with weapons that were issued by the Mexican military."
Dobbs: "Eric Holder has no empirical basis for anything he's saying. The man is completely at sea on this."
In September of 2008 the ATF issued a fact sheet which said in part: Mexican DTO [drug trafficking organization] infrastructures have become the leading gun trafficking organizations operating in the southwest U.S." (http://www.atf.gov/press/factsheets/0908-factsheet-project-gunrunner.pdf)
In August of 2008, Speaking at the 5th Annual Border Security Conference in El Paso Texas, ATF Acting Director Michael Sullivan said investigators have traced 90 – 95% of illegal guns in Mexico back to the US. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-08-11-mexico-guns_N.htm)
Right on target Lou, right on target.
Abel Maldonado - Budget Cutter
California Republican State Sen. Abel Madonado, was able to get a $1 Million appropriation for new furniture for the State Controller John Chiang (a Democrat) cut from the CA State Budget. Sen. Maldonado has gotten a lot of positive press in conservative circles for this move.
But as the San Francisco Chronicle reported on 2/22/2009, (http://sfchronicle.us/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/22/BAK7161NTJ.DTL) the furniture was to be used in the smaller less expensive offices Chiang was moving to. Now with no furniture, Chiang and his staff can’t move in and have to stay in their old offices - costing the state an additional $4.8 Million in rent over the next six years. To make matters worse, the furniture Chiang does have is 20 years old and is not compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act, so legally they can’t use it.
Save a quarter, spend a dollar. Well done.
Churls Gone Wild
Republican Mayor Dean Grose of Los Alamitos will resign as a result of the controversy surrounding an email he forwarded showing a watermelon patch on the White House lawn under the title: "No Easter egg hunt this year." Grose has apologized and promised to resign at the 3/2/2009 City Council meeting.
He said wasn't aware of the racial stereotype that blacks like watermelon. So why did he think it was funny?
- Rep. Michelle Bachman – R Minn. CPAC 2009
Dr. Jim Bunning – R. Kentucky
“During a wide-ranging 30-minute speech on Saturday at the Hardin County Republican Party's Lincoln Day Dinner, Bunning said he supports conservative judges "and that's going to be in place very shortly because Ruth Bader Ginsburg … has cancer. Bad cancer. The kind that you don't get better from," he told a crowd of about 100 at the old State Theater. Even though she was operated on, usually, nine months is the longest that anybody would live after (being diagnosed) with pancreatic cancer," he said.
- Sen. Jim Bunning as reported in the Louisville, KY Courier-Journal (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090222/NEWS01/902230303/1008)
In the same article on Sen. Bunning’s apology to Justice Ginsburg, Courier-Journal also reported that the American Cancer Society estimates people like Justice Ginsburg who are treated for Stage I pancreatic cancer have between a 21-37% chance of surviving for 5 years.
Rush Limbaugh’s High Hopes for America
“This notion that I want the president to fail, this shows you the problem we've got. This is nothing more than common sense and to not be able to say it? Why in the world would I want what we just described: rampant government growth, wealth that is not being created yet is being spent? What is in this, what is possibly in this that any of us want to succeed?....what is so strange about being honest and saying I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation?"
- Rush Limbaugh delivering the closing remarks at CPAC 2/28/2009
Rush Limbaugh's, who at best can be called a budget deficit “Chicken Hawk”, description of Obama’s economic plan sounds a lot like what Bush did in his eight years in office. As a result of the Bush policies, income stagnated, the surplus vanished, while the government grew at a rate not seen since the great society. Rush had no complaints then, just so long taxes were cut for the wealthiest 2% of Americans.
It is rants like Limbaugh’s that continue to convince the American people that Republicans are more concerned about scoring points than helping people.
Gov. Jindal - Compassionate Conservative
“Our state is facing a serious budget situation and it would be irresponsible to enter into an expansion of benefits right now that would ultimately increase taxes on the very businesses we are working to support during these tough economic times. The federal money in this bill will run out in less than three years for this benefit and our businesses would then be stuck paying the bill. We must be careful and thoughtful as we examine all the strings attached to the funding in this package. We cannot grow government in an unsustainable way."
- Press release from Gov Jindal on 2/20/2009, explaining why he is not accepting stimulus $100 Million to increase unemployment benefits.
Gov. Jindal refused $100 Million that would have helped 25,000 citizens of his state. Louisiana has the third lowest unemployment insurance in the country and these funds would have raised unemployment benefits by $25 a week over the 20 week eligibility period. Federal support would end in 3 years, whereupon the state would be under no obligation to keep the increase in place.
The Governor did not show the same concern when he accepted the highway dollars allocated to his state in the stimulus package.
The Ever Changing World of Lou Dobbs
In a 2/25/2009 press conference the Attorney General, Eric Holder was asked the following question as a follow-up:
Q: "I understand Mexico is interested in the U.S. reviewing the enforcement of its assault weapons regulations. Are you doing something about that?"
Holder: "Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons. I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum."
The next night on CNN, Lou Dobbs and his Lou Dobbs Tonight correspondent Bill Tucker went after Atty Gen. Holder.
Tucker: …"as you well know and we reported here often," [drug cartel members are] "often armed with weapons that were issued by the Mexican military."
Dobbs: "Eric Holder has no empirical basis for anything he's saying. The man is completely at sea on this."
In September of 2008 the ATF issued a fact sheet which said in part: Mexican DTO [drug trafficking organization] infrastructures have become the leading gun trafficking organizations operating in the southwest U.S." (http://www.atf.gov/press/factsheets/0908-factsheet-project-gunrunner.pdf)
In August of 2008, Speaking at the 5th Annual Border Security Conference in El Paso Texas, ATF Acting Director Michael Sullivan said investigators have traced 90 – 95% of illegal guns in Mexico back to the US. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-08-11-mexico-guns_N.htm)
Right on target Lou, right on target.
Abel Maldonado - Budget Cutter
California Republican State Sen. Abel Madonado, was able to get a $1 Million appropriation for new furniture for the State Controller John Chiang (a Democrat) cut from the CA State Budget. Sen. Maldonado has gotten a lot of positive press in conservative circles for this move.
But as the San Francisco Chronicle reported on 2/22/2009, (http://sfchronicle.us/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/22/BAK7161NTJ.DTL) the furniture was to be used in the smaller less expensive offices Chiang was moving to. Now with no furniture, Chiang and his staff can’t move in and have to stay in their old offices - costing the state an additional $4.8 Million in rent over the next six years. To make matters worse, the furniture Chiang does have is 20 years old and is not compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act, so legally they can’t use it.
Save a quarter, spend a dollar. Well done.
Churls Gone Wild
Republican Mayor Dean Grose of Los Alamitos will resign as a result of the controversy surrounding an email he forwarded showing a watermelon patch on the White House lawn under the title: "No Easter egg hunt this year." Grose has apologized and promised to resign at the 3/2/2009 City Council meeting.
He said wasn't aware of the racial stereotype that blacks like watermelon. So why did he think it was funny?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)