One of the questions that have arisen following the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court is that why President Obama didn't pick a liberal version of Antonin Scalia.
No one is questioning that Judge Sotomayor is probably left of center but few believe she is as left as Scalia is right. In fact Peter Baker of the New York Times pointed out that in reviewing potential judges "Favorites of the Left Don't Make Obama's Court List."
"It has been more than 40 years since a Democratic president appointed someone who truly excited the left, but Mr. Obama appears to be following President Bill Clinton’s lead in choosing someone with more moderate sensibilities."
This leaves many on the left wondering why conservatives were able to appoint extremists like Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist yet Democrats appoint judges like Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor.
One reason is the double standard that exist in appointments. Conservatives are able to appoint extreme conservatives as long as they aren't total extremists (i.e. Bork) while appointing anyone more than slightly left of center will bring the wrath of conservatives down upon them, threatening to harm their presidency.
Already fringe groups on the right have started the attack. In Politico, the Judicial Confirmation Network claimed she was a favorite of far-left special interest groups. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee claimed "she comes from the far left.”
In reality there is a little concern that she isn't the liberal judge that conservatives claim she is and that it would have been nice to appoint the liberal Scalia.
Except that if one really think about it would they really want a liberal Scalia? A judge whose opinions range from the bizarre to the nonseniscal? Do liberal want a judge they could be proud and who uses logic and law to form opinions or a judge who has given up on thinking?
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
No Profiles in Courage for Congress
What does a credit card reform package and packing heat in national parks have in common? Apparently a lack of courage by Congress.
The Senate passed the credit card reform bill overwhelming 90-5 but Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) introduced the gun amendment to the credit card bill, probably figuring since the GOP was going to lose on giving consumers more rights, one has to wonder if he thought he could kill it by allowing park goers to bring allowing loaded weapons. The House had enough sense to require the measure to be in a separate bill, however it was included in the consolidated bill.
Republicans, perhaps under the belief that people need to be allowed to carry guns in national parks because the parks aren't safe (and parks aren't safe because there are too many people with guns?) promoted the measure to counteract recent action by a federal judge.
Democrats, no longer willing to challenge conservatives on this issues, apparently are willing to sacrifice their constituents to the NRA alter for votes. Unfortunately the people who act concerned about the ability to carry guns probably are rural voters who live outside of areas where there is a need for a gun. Those who should be concerned about guns live in urban areas where guns are are a too real fact of life.
So the Democratic Party, which brought in a number of conservative candidates to win in red states, apparently has decided that many of their constituents, and people who voted for them, are expendable.
So short term goals of getting reelected trump the lives of people in their district. Somehow I don't think that will get them a chapter in a future edition of "Profiles In Courage."
The Senate passed the credit card reform bill overwhelming 90-5 but Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) introduced the gun amendment to the credit card bill, probably figuring since the GOP was going to lose on giving consumers more rights, one has to wonder if he thought he could kill it by allowing park goers to bring allowing loaded weapons. The House had enough sense to require the measure to be in a separate bill, however it was included in the consolidated bill.
Republicans, perhaps under the belief that people need to be allowed to carry guns in national parks because the parks aren't safe (and parks aren't safe because there are too many people with guns?) promoted the measure to counteract recent action by a federal judge.
Democrats, no longer willing to challenge conservatives on this issues, apparently are willing to sacrifice their constituents to the NRA alter for votes. Unfortunately the people who act concerned about the ability to carry guns probably are rural voters who live outside of areas where there is a need for a gun. Those who should be concerned about guns live in urban areas where guns are are a too real fact of life.
So the Democratic Party, which brought in a number of conservative candidates to win in red states, apparently has decided that many of their constituents, and people who voted for them, are expendable.
So short term goals of getting reelected trump the lives of people in their district. Somehow I don't think that will get them a chapter in a future edition of "Profiles In Courage."
Sunday, May 17, 2009
The Wealthy's PR Problem
Faced with the prospect that the public is no longer going to put up with the excesses of the wealthy, the wealthy are now claiming to be the victims of the recent economic crisis.
The Wall Street Journal reports that a letter by the editor of Elite Traveler said the rich are being wrongly prosecuted and that they should ignore the attacks. The wealthy are facing the twin prospects of paying higher taxes and no longer being able to command excessive salaries. Apparently all the prospect of living slightly excessively compared to extremely excessively is too much for the wealthy to take.
While the spending of the wealthy does provide jobs for others, the problem that too few people consider is the impact the excesses of the wealthy had on the country over the past eight or so years. As the wealthy commanded a larger slice of the income pie it forced everyone else, who were getting a smaller slice of the pie, to compete for housing at escalated prices. As a result people overpaid for housing, setting in motion the housing bubble. Bankers made the situation worse by getting many of these people into loans they could not pay back, setting in motion the 2008 collapse.
The only true wealthy victims are those that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Those who voted for Bush have no one to blame but themselves, and of course the Supreme Court. By 2000 the U.S. was on the way to paying off the national debt, which could have set the stage for a true tax cut or at least the ability for the country to pay its bills without borrowing, allowing the wealthy to keep more of their income.
One has to imagine that a President Gore would not have pushed for a massive tax cut, forced into a war with a country that didn't attack us, or appoint Chris Cox as head of the SEC. Those three decisions have helped put the country into a very deep economic hole.
Today people question the amount of borrowing the country is doing but one has to wonder where those people were over the past eight years. Perhaps if people voted for a real tax cut in 2000 based on sound economic policies rather than a fuzzy math tax cut, or if they had voiced their displeasure before this year the wealthy might be better off today.
The Wall Street Journal reports that a letter by the editor of Elite Traveler said the rich are being wrongly prosecuted and that they should ignore the attacks. The wealthy are facing the twin prospects of paying higher taxes and no longer being able to command excessive salaries. Apparently all the prospect of living slightly excessively compared to extremely excessively is too much for the wealthy to take.
While the spending of the wealthy does provide jobs for others, the problem that too few people consider is the impact the excesses of the wealthy had on the country over the past eight or so years. As the wealthy commanded a larger slice of the income pie it forced everyone else, who were getting a smaller slice of the pie, to compete for housing at escalated prices. As a result people overpaid for housing, setting in motion the housing bubble. Bankers made the situation worse by getting many of these people into loans they could not pay back, setting in motion the 2008 collapse.
The only true wealthy victims are those that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Those who voted for Bush have no one to blame but themselves, and of course the Supreme Court. By 2000 the U.S. was on the way to paying off the national debt, which could have set the stage for a true tax cut or at least the ability for the country to pay its bills without borrowing, allowing the wealthy to keep more of their income.
One has to imagine that a President Gore would not have pushed for a massive tax cut, forced into a war with a country that didn't attack us, or appoint Chris Cox as head of the SEC. Those three decisions have helped put the country into a very deep economic hole.
Today people question the amount of borrowing the country is doing but one has to wonder where those people were over the past eight years. Perhaps if people voted for a real tax cut in 2000 based on sound economic policies rather than a fuzzy math tax cut, or if they had voiced their displeasure before this year the wealthy might be better off today.
Friday, May 01, 2009
Obama & the Stock Market at 100 Days
By early March when the stock market was finishing the collapse started last fall conservatives and prognosticators like CNBC's Jim Cramer were quick to blame Obama and his policies for “the greatest wealth destruction I have seen by a president.”
Flash forward a couple of months and the Dow Jones is up 25% from the low reached in early March and overall up 3% since Obama became president on January 20. So where is the media and conservatives now? Are they give Obama credit for 25% increase? How about the 3%? The silence you hear is deafening.
It's all part of the "Blame the Democrats First" approach for anything and everything. Now the economy is far from settled and its hard to tell whether the market is recovering and stopped dropping, or if this is a temporary uptick, but it is ridiculous to try to assign blame this early in an administration when any policies implemented have just started.
Especially considering the circumstances President Obama inherited. Outside of what President Franklin Roosevelt saw in 1933 it is hard to imagine becoming president under much worse circumstances. The global economy was teetering on collapse, the U.S. was involved in two wars (one of which contributed greatly to the currently budgetary problems facing the country) and the country was dependent upon financial system that had rotted from eight years of neglect.
Yet conservatives basically proclaimed anything other than an immediate turnaround meant that President Obama was at fault. It's not hard to understand the reasoning. After eight years of a disastrous presidency the GOPHers wanted to shed blame and responsibility for their actions. Unfortunately for them, as Abraham Lincoln said "You may deceive all the people part of the time, and part of the people all the time, but not all the people all the time."
The people don't seem fooled.
Flash forward a couple of months and the Dow Jones is up 25% from the low reached in early March and overall up 3% since Obama became president on January 20. So where is the media and conservatives now? Are they give Obama credit for 25% increase? How about the 3%? The silence you hear is deafening.
It's all part of the "Blame the Democrats First" approach for anything and everything. Now the economy is far from settled and its hard to tell whether the market is recovering and stopped dropping, or if this is a temporary uptick, but it is ridiculous to try to assign blame this early in an administration when any policies implemented have just started.
Especially considering the circumstances President Obama inherited. Outside of what President Franklin Roosevelt saw in 1933 it is hard to imagine becoming president under much worse circumstances. The global economy was teetering on collapse, the U.S. was involved in two wars (one of which contributed greatly to the currently budgetary problems facing the country) and the country was dependent upon financial system that had rotted from eight years of neglect.
Yet conservatives basically proclaimed anything other than an immediate turnaround meant that President Obama was at fault. It's not hard to understand the reasoning. After eight years of a disastrous presidency the GOPHers wanted to shed blame and responsibility for their actions. Unfortunately for them, as Abraham Lincoln said "You may deceive all the people part of the time, and part of the people all the time, but not all the people all the time."
The people don't seem fooled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)