What's up with Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich accusing each other of being Liberals?
Asked whether they are Liberal or Conservative, just about anybody will say one or the other. But, when asked that question on specific issues, the answers are all over the place, depending on the issue. That is why it is not a good thing to peg someone, and put him in a box, as one or the other. But most do, and a few others do it to demonize an opponent. Here is the irony of our age: Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich calling each other Liberals, when each of them has done things in the past that could be construed as Liberal. But is either one a Conservative? Once again, depends on the issue, and past voting record, which tells the real story. When both say they are Conservative, they are both telling the truth. When each accuses the other of being a Liberal, again they are both telling the truth. Depends on the context.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Monday, January 30, 2012
The Republican Civil War - 2012 Edition
This is not the first time Republicans have fought each other for control of the minds and agenda of the Republiclan Party. You saw it after Reagan left office, when Neocons and Paleocons fought for control. But this year, the war is playing out much like it did in 1964. albeit with a different outcome looming.
In 1964, Barry Goldwater was the juggernaut, an ideological purist, and William Scranton, a Northeast establishment Republican pulled out all the stops in an attempt to derail Goldwater's nomination. During this attempt, he attempted to recruit Mit Romney's father, George, to carry the banner for the "Stop Goldwater" Campaign. George Romney turned down this request. That year, after Goldwater was nominated, a few of the establishment Republiclans, and Scranton himself, worked somewhat with the Democrats towards Goldwater's defeat, and in 1968, got their man, a moderate named Richard Nixon, elected.
This year, the shoe is on the other foot, with an establishment Republican being the juggernaut, with the ideological purists of the party attempting to stop him, but this battle is not that much unlike that of 1964, with establishment Republicans waging war with the purists. In this context, I have a few observations to make.
1) Romney will be the nominee. There is no doubt in my mind.
2) With Romney as the nominee, Republicans have an outside shot to knock off Obama this year.
3) Romney's lead over Gingrich shows that the influence of the Tea Party is waning.
4) For the Democrats, Occupy Wall Street is having a big say in the agenda.
5) For the record, both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street are excellent examples of grass roots movements, where people, fed up with how things work in Washington, are making their voices heard.
6) However, both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street have been coopted by the fringes on the right and left, respectively, and hijacked by the political parties which support them. Thus, they become not grass roots, but movements controlled by party apparatus.
7) Why will this election be close? Because, as people have become fed up with the Tea Party's extremism, they will also become fed up with the extremisim of Occupy Wall Street, and vote accordingly.
8) Who wins this year? IMHO, this election is Obama's to lose, but Democrats should not count their chickens, which are not in the bank yet. Obama could still blow this one, and if he does, Republicans will have the right candidate in place to take over. He will be a canddate who actually has a chance of winning.
9) It is Independent and moderate hearts both parties are going to have to win over, in order to win the election.
10) I don't care what the polls say. This one is going to be very close.
In 1964, Barry Goldwater was the juggernaut, an ideological purist, and William Scranton, a Northeast establishment Republican pulled out all the stops in an attempt to derail Goldwater's nomination. During this attempt, he attempted to recruit Mit Romney's father, George, to carry the banner for the "Stop Goldwater" Campaign. George Romney turned down this request. That year, after Goldwater was nominated, a few of the establishment Republiclans, and Scranton himself, worked somewhat with the Democrats towards Goldwater's defeat, and in 1968, got their man, a moderate named Richard Nixon, elected.
This year, the shoe is on the other foot, with an establishment Republican being the juggernaut, with the ideological purists of the party attempting to stop him, but this battle is not that much unlike that of 1964, with establishment Republicans waging war with the purists. In this context, I have a few observations to make.
1) Romney will be the nominee. There is no doubt in my mind.
2) With Romney as the nominee, Republicans have an outside shot to knock off Obama this year.
3) Romney's lead over Gingrich shows that the influence of the Tea Party is waning.
4) For the Democrats, Occupy Wall Street is having a big say in the agenda.
5) For the record, both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street are excellent examples of grass roots movements, where people, fed up with how things work in Washington, are making their voices heard.
6) However, both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street have been coopted by the fringes on the right and left, respectively, and hijacked by the political parties which support them. Thus, they become not grass roots, but movements controlled by party apparatus.
7) Why will this election be close? Because, as people have become fed up with the Tea Party's extremism, they will also become fed up with the extremisim of Occupy Wall Street, and vote accordingly.
8) Who wins this year? IMHO, this election is Obama's to lose, but Democrats should not count their chickens, which are not in the bank yet. Obama could still blow this one, and if he does, Republicans will have the right candidate in place to take over. He will be a canddate who actually has a chance of winning.
9) It is Independent and moderate hearts both parties are going to have to win over, in order to win the election.
10) I don't care what the polls say. This one is going to be very close.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Monday, January 9, 2012
Much ado over pro-forma sessions
Did President Obama violate the Constitution of the United States when he made recess appointments to the Labor Board, as well as the Consumer Protection Agency? Republicans claim that he did, so let's examine that claim, and consider the question of whether Obama's "recess" appointments are Constitutional.
From the US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for,and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
OK, that's a given. Advice and Consent. But what happens when the Senate refuses to do it's job, by refusing the Constitutional role of Advice and Consent? We will get to that later on. But first, let's get to the meat of the issue. From Article 1, Section 5:
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent ofthe other, adjourn for more than three days,nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
So the Republican-controlled House has not given it's consent to the Senate to adjourn. Therefore, the Senate has been holding pro-forma sessions every 3 days, in which no business is conducted, other than providing an "appearance" that it is still in session. But Obama, nevertheless, made his appointments. Unconstitutional? If you listen to Glenn Beck and company, yes. But it seems that Glen Beck doesn't know as much about the Constitution as he would like people to believe. He and Republicans seem to have conveniently forgotten this little part of the Constitution, namely Article 2, Section 3:
[The President] may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
That's correct. On extraordinary occasions, the president may consider Congress adjourned."to such time as he shall think proper". And what would be considered an extraordinary occasion? The Senate refusing to do it's job, of course. And there we have it. Republicans can whine all they want about this, but if they attempt to take it to court, they will look like idiots..... Wait, they already look like idiots, in attempting to create much ado over pro-forma sessions, or in other words, much ado about nothing.
From the US Constitution, Article 2, Section 2:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for,and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
OK, that's a given. Advice and Consent. But what happens when the Senate refuses to do it's job, by refusing the Constitutional role of Advice and Consent? We will get to that later on. But first, let's get to the meat of the issue. From Article 1, Section 5:
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent ofthe other, adjourn for more than three days,nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
So the Republican-controlled House has not given it's consent to the Senate to adjourn. Therefore, the Senate has been holding pro-forma sessions every 3 days, in which no business is conducted, other than providing an "appearance" that it is still in session. But Obama, nevertheless, made his appointments. Unconstitutional? If you listen to Glenn Beck and company, yes. But it seems that Glen Beck doesn't know as much about the Constitution as he would like people to believe. He and Republicans seem to have conveniently forgotten this little part of the Constitution, namely Article 2, Section 3:
[The President] may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
That's correct. On extraordinary occasions, the president may consider Congress adjourned."to such time as he shall think proper". And what would be considered an extraordinary occasion? The Senate refusing to do it's job, of course. And there we have it. Republicans can whine all they want about this, but if they attempt to take it to court, they will look like idiots..... Wait, they already look like idiots, in attempting to create much ado over pro-forma sessions, or in other words, much ado about nothing.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
2012 - The year of the twilight's last gleaming
From FOX News:
In a scathing statement, the head of the ACLU, and other leading civil liberties and human rights groups who were among President Obama's most ardent campaign supporters said the President's decision to sign a sprawling defense bill including controversial detainee provisions would tarnish his legacy.
And that it will. There is your hope and change, Democrats, shredding the Constitution of the United States, right where the Bush administration left off. And if that isn't enough, there is yet another piece of hypocrisy embedded in this law...... Obama added a signing statement, saying that his administration will interpret the new law in such a way that American citizens would not be detained without due process guaranteed by the Constitution. I have a LOT of problems with this signing statement:
1) First of all, and most obvious, Obama blasted Bush for using signing statements, and now here he is, using one.
2) An Obama signing statement doesn't mean a thing, once Obama leaves office. A different president could negate it in a New York minute.
3) Just because Democrats in Congress didn't have the backbone to challenge Bush on his signing statements doesn't mean that Congressional Republicans won't have the backbone too. On this, though, I must admit that Republicans will go along with the status quo, but their hatred of Obama does make this option pretty tempting. On that, I am rooting for the Republicans, should they decide to take this road.
Here is the deal, folks. The Obama administration has let loose upon the land a law that is just as Odious as the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were signed into law by John Adams. The law is unconstitutional. Period. But where is the Democratic outcry in Congress..... You know, the kind of outcry we heard almost every day during Bush's reign? I only hear Democratic hypocrisy, cloaked in silence.
Have we now entered the age of the twilight's last gleaming? It depends on the American people. If we are content to replace our interest in the political process with interest in Dancing with the Stars, Justin Bieber, and the rest of the garbage that passes for information these days, then we will get exactly the kind of Government we deserve. And Big Brother will be eternally grateful. Say goodbye to America, folks.
Finally, if a case is ever to be made for a third party, this is it, just as long as they don't sell America down the river too.
In a scathing statement, the head of the ACLU, and other leading civil liberties and human rights groups who were among President Obama's most ardent campaign supporters said the President's decision to sign a sprawling defense bill including controversial detainee provisions would tarnish his legacy.
And that it will. There is your hope and change, Democrats, shredding the Constitution of the United States, right where the Bush administration left off. And if that isn't enough, there is yet another piece of hypocrisy embedded in this law...... Obama added a signing statement, saying that his administration will interpret the new law in such a way that American citizens would not be detained without due process guaranteed by the Constitution. I have a LOT of problems with this signing statement:
1) First of all, and most obvious, Obama blasted Bush for using signing statements, and now here he is, using one.
2) An Obama signing statement doesn't mean a thing, once Obama leaves office. A different president could negate it in a New York minute.
3) Just because Democrats in Congress didn't have the backbone to challenge Bush on his signing statements doesn't mean that Congressional Republicans won't have the backbone too. On this, though, I must admit that Republicans will go along with the status quo, but their hatred of Obama does make this option pretty tempting. On that, I am rooting for the Republicans, should they decide to take this road.
Here is the deal, folks. The Obama administration has let loose upon the land a law that is just as Odious as the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were signed into law by John Adams. The law is unconstitutional. Period. But where is the Democratic outcry in Congress..... You know, the kind of outcry we heard almost every day during Bush's reign? I only hear Democratic hypocrisy, cloaked in silence.
Have we now entered the age of the twilight's last gleaming? It depends on the American people. If we are content to replace our interest in the political process with interest in Dancing with the Stars, Justin Bieber, and the rest of the garbage that passes for information these days, then we will get exactly the kind of Government we deserve. And Big Brother will be eternally grateful. Say goodbye to America, folks.
Finally, if a case is ever to be made for a third party, this is it, just as long as they don't sell America down the river too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
