Texas Senator Ted Cruz is rallying the conservative base of the Republican Party with a simple message. "A
significant amount of Republicans assume, with an impasse, that
President Obama will never ever give up his principles, so
Republicans have to give up theirs," Cruz said Tuesday evening at a town hall meeting. "If you have an impasse,
you know -- one side or the other has to blink. How do we win this
fight? Don't blink." But the ambitious Cruz knows better, and so do many in the Republican Party.
The ever-cocksure Cruz has set his sites on defunding Obamacare at all costs. "Under no circumstances will I vote for a continuing
resolution that funds even one penny of Obamacare," Cruz said in his town hall remarks. But a continuing resolution is necessary to provide funds for the federal government to operate. If Congress fails to act in a timely manner it risks shutting down the government.
A growing number of leading Republicans are opposed to this strategy because they believe that the GOP will be blamed for the consequences. "I
think it's the dumbest idea I've ever heard of," Sen. Richard Burr,
R-N.C., said last month. "I'm for stopping Obamacare, but shutting down the government will
not stop Obamacare," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told a
Kentucky town hall meeting earlier this month. And Sen. Bob Corker,
R-Tenn., commissioned a Congressional Research Service report that shows
that the health care law would get its funding even if the rest of the
government shuts down.
Former John McCain presidential campaign aide Nicolle Wallace said on MSNBC Wednesday, “The reason we’re going to lose this debate about defunding Obamacare
is because we don’t occupy the White House." She added, “We don’t
have the ability to pass laws and then sign them. The best way to win
this fight is to elect a Republican president.” Wallace also denounced Cruz for doing "a whole lot of fear mongering" and being "intellectually dishonest" when he was asked at a recent event about impeaching the president. She said Cruz responded, "Because we don't have the votes (in Congress)." Wallace bluntly corrected the senator, "The true answer, the intellectually honest answer: Because he’s
not committed an impeachable offense."
Senator Cruz is on a crusade to become president. He has deftly deflected criticism that he may not qualify because he was born in Canada. Most constitutional scholars appear to agree he does in fact qualify because his mother is American, though it says nothing about persons with a dual citizenship. Cruz said in a statement Monday, "Now the Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have
dual
citizenship. Assuming that is true, then sure, I will
renounce any Canadian citizenship. Nothing against Canada, but I'm an
American by birth and as a U.S. Senator, I believe I should be only an
American." Ironically, President Obama's qualifications for office are still questioned by some who wrongly believe he was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii, even though his mother was American. Perhaps leading "Birther" mogul Donald Trump should make a ruling?
Bertrand Russell once wrote, "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are always cocksure and the intelligent are always filled with doubt. " But Senator Cruz is not stupid, and he knows it. He exudes self-confidence and swagger. Famed Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz, who taught Cruz, told The Daily Caller this past May, “Without a doubt he is among the smartest students I’ve ever had… I’ve had great students but he has to be at the
top of anyone’s short list, in terms of raw brain power.”
Senator Cruz knows that if he can win over the conservative wing of his party with stirring speeches, he will be in a formidable position for the 2016 Republican presidential primaries. This strategy may indeed secure him the nomination. However, Cruz is smart enough to realize that he will have to move more to the center on health care, immigration, and social issues in order to attract the number of independent voters needed to win the White House. No doubt, he will have no problem doing that.
Conservatives, take off your blinders, and don't blink!
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
North Carolina and Voter Suppression
What should a political party do when it is demographically challenged because its position on many important issues does not appeal to a majority of Blacks, Latinos, Asians and young voters? The Republican Party's solution is to make voting less accessible to minority voters. But this is a losing strategy for a party that has lost its way.
North Carolina Governor Patrick McCrory signed a so-called voting reform bill that imposes strict photo identification requirements on the state's 4.5 million voters, rolls back the early voting period and repeals one-stop registration during early voting. The governor and the state's Republican controlled legislature have imposed a solution is search of a problem. Nearly 7 million votes were cast in the state's 2012 general and two primary elections. But only 121 alleged cases of voter fraud were referred to a district attorney's office, about 1/1000 of a percent of the total votes.
North Carolina is the first state to change its voting laws following this past June's Supreme Court ruling that struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That section gave the Justice Department the power to block changes in voting laws in states that had a history of discrimination. The law will take effect in 2016, just in time for the presidential election. The governor says 34 states now require some form of ID to vote. North Carolina would be the 20th state to require a photo ID.
Governor McCrory explained why he signed the law in a YouTube video. "The integrity of our election process is vital to our Democracy, which is why I have signed today several common sense reforms into law, including voter ID," the governor said. He pointed out that photo ID "has become a part of our everyday life", noting that one is needed to board an airplane, cash a check or to apply for government benefits. He then said, "Many of those from the extreme left, who have been criticizing photo ID are using scare tactics."
The fact is that the law falls disproportionately on minorities, who tend to vote Democratic. Half of the state's registered voters who lacked a photo ID in 2012 are registered Democrats, a third of whom are Black. A large number of minorities vote early. Under the new law, the days for early voting will be reduced from 17 to 10, even though 61% of the state's voters cast their ballots early in 2012.
The American Civil Liberties Union announced joined two other groups in announcing they would file a suit against parts of the new law. "Eliminating a huge part of early voting will cut off voting opportunities for hundreds of thousands of citizens. It will turn Election Day into a mess, shoving more voters into even longer lines," said Dale Ho, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. "Florida similarly eliminated a week of early voting before the 2012 election, and we all know how that turned out - voters standing in line for hours, some having to wait until after the President's acceptance speech to finally vote, and hundreds of thousands giving up in frustration. Those burdens fell disproportionately on African-American voters, and the same thing will happen in North Carolina."
In 2008, President Barack Obama carried North Carolina by a few thousand votes. But the new law may make it harder for the Democratic presidential candidate to carry the state in 2012. The party's likely standard bearer, Hillary Clinton, attacked the new North Carolina law Monday at the American Bar Association's annual conference. Ms. Clinton said the bill "reads like the greatest hits of voter suppression." "In the weeks since the ruling, we've seen an unseemly rush by previously covered jurisdictions to enact or enforce laws that will make it harder for millions of our fellow Americans to vote," Clinton said.
Earlier this year, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus released an autopsy of the party's poor showing in the 2012 national election. The report suggested that the party reach out to minority groups. But Republican voter suppression tactics seem aimed at making it harder for minorities to vote. However, these tactics will likely have the opposite effect in 2016 because they will certainly mobilize more minorities to vote and will turn off independent voters.
As Dale Ho, of the ACLU, said, "We should be making it easier for people to vote, not harder."
North Carolina Governor Patrick McCrory signed a so-called voting reform bill that imposes strict photo identification requirements on the state's 4.5 million voters, rolls back the early voting period and repeals one-stop registration during early voting. The governor and the state's Republican controlled legislature have imposed a solution is search of a problem. Nearly 7 million votes were cast in the state's 2012 general and two primary elections. But only 121 alleged cases of voter fraud were referred to a district attorney's office, about 1/1000 of a percent of the total votes.
North Carolina is the first state to change its voting laws following this past June's Supreme Court ruling that struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. That section gave the Justice Department the power to block changes in voting laws in states that had a history of discrimination. The law will take effect in 2016, just in time for the presidential election. The governor says 34 states now require some form of ID to vote. North Carolina would be the 20th state to require a photo ID.
Governor McCrory explained why he signed the law in a YouTube video. "The integrity of our election process is vital to our Democracy, which is why I have signed today several common sense reforms into law, including voter ID," the governor said. He pointed out that photo ID "has become a part of our everyday life", noting that one is needed to board an airplane, cash a check or to apply for government benefits. He then said, "Many of those from the extreme left, who have been criticizing photo ID are using scare tactics."
The fact is that the law falls disproportionately on minorities, who tend to vote Democratic. Half of the state's registered voters who lacked a photo ID in 2012 are registered Democrats, a third of whom are Black. A large number of minorities vote early. Under the new law, the days for early voting will be reduced from 17 to 10, even though 61% of the state's voters cast their ballots early in 2012.
The American Civil Liberties Union announced joined two other groups in announcing they would file a suit against parts of the new law. "Eliminating a huge part of early voting will cut off voting opportunities for hundreds of thousands of citizens. It will turn Election Day into a mess, shoving more voters into even longer lines," said Dale Ho, director of the ACLU's Voting Rights Project. "Florida similarly eliminated a week of early voting before the 2012 election, and we all know how that turned out - voters standing in line for hours, some having to wait until after the President's acceptance speech to finally vote, and hundreds of thousands giving up in frustration. Those burdens fell disproportionately on African-American voters, and the same thing will happen in North Carolina."
In 2008, President Barack Obama carried North Carolina by a few thousand votes. But the new law may make it harder for the Democratic presidential candidate to carry the state in 2012. The party's likely standard bearer, Hillary Clinton, attacked the new North Carolina law Monday at the American Bar Association's annual conference. Ms. Clinton said the bill "reads like the greatest hits of voter suppression." "In the weeks since the ruling, we've seen an unseemly rush by previously covered jurisdictions to enact or enforce laws that will make it harder for millions of our fellow Americans to vote," Clinton said.
Earlier this year, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus released an autopsy of the party's poor showing in the 2012 national election. The report suggested that the party reach out to minority groups. But Republican voter suppression tactics seem aimed at making it harder for minorities to vote. However, these tactics will likely have the opposite effect in 2016 because they will certainly mobilize more minorities to vote and will turn off independent voters.
As Dale Ho, of the ACLU, said, "We should be making it easier for people to vote, not harder."
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Bezos and The Washington Post
For journalists throughout America, The Washington Post is the second greatest monument in the nation's capital. Its legacy of independence, public service, political and investigative reporting stands as a powerful beacon and inspiration for all who enter the craft.
The Graham family has had editorial leadership and control of the venerable newspaper for 80 years. A commitment to aggressive, responsible and fair reporting has been a constant throughout their ownership. The paper's code of ethics states, "We fully recognize that the power we have inherited as the dominant morning newspaper in the capital of the free world carries with it special responsibilities: to listen to the voiceless, to avoid any and all acts of arrogance, to face the public politely and candidly."
Legendary journalists have plied their trade under the paper's banner. They include, Ben Bradlee, David Broder, Art Buchwald, Meg Greenfield, Mary McGrory, Shirley Povich, George Will, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. The paper has received 47 Pulitzer Prizes, including eight Pulitzer Prizes in 2008, the second largest number given to a newspaper in one year.
Perhaps the most significant time in the paper's history was the Watergate era, when the investigative reporting of Woodward and Bernstein, the tenacious editorial guidance of editor Ben Bradlee, and the unflinching leadership of Katherine Graham, the newspaper's publisher, combined to bring President Richard Nixon down. "Deep Throat", who was Woodward and Bernstein's primary source, became a household name. Their work was the inspiration for the movie All The President's Men.
Katherine Graham was a remarkable figure in American publishing. She expressed great anxiety when she officially took over as publisher of The Washington Post in 1979; after all, few women had run a newspaper. Yet she won the admiration and respect of Washington's power brokers, and the loyalty of her own staff. It was a family. Ms. Graham also served as chairman of the board from 1973 to 1991. And her son, Donald Graham, continued the paper's traditions after he replaced his mother as publisher in 1979, and as chief executive officer and chairman in the early 90's.
So it is no wonder that news of the sale of The Washington Post came as a shock to reporters and editors at the paper. But the company had been struggling for years with financial challenges brought on by declining subscriptions and increased competition. Yet, the fact that the new owner, billionaire Jeff Bezos, who founded Amazon, bought the paper offered many staffers a sign of hope.
Bezos is a brilliant Internet entrepreneur who revolutionized the book publishing industry. At Amazon, he has continually emphasized what he calls his six core values: customer obsession, ownership, bias for action, frugality, high hiring bar and innovation. It is unclear how some of these values will be applied to the Post, but Bezos would not make a $250 million purchase of a financially challenged company unless he had a plan.
In a letter to the newspaper's employees, Bezos said, "The values of The Post do not need changing. The paper’s duty will remain to its readers and not to the private interests of its owners. We will continue to follow the truth wherever it leads, and we’ll work hard not to make mistakes." But he did admit that, over time, there will be changes. “The Internet is transforming almost every element of the news business: shortening news cycles, eroding long-reliable revenue sources, and enabling new kinds of competition, some of which bear little or no news-gathering costs,” he wrote.
Innovation and tradition are often opposing forces. The paper is at an important crossroads. Should The Washington Post's legacy of investigative journalism, outstanding writing and reporting, and service to the public become the victim of "frugality" and "customer obsessions", the paper will precipitously decline. On the other hand, should Bezos make this legacy his top priority, and preserve The Washington Post's editorial independence while expanding its readership on all platforms, all of America will benefit.
The Graham family has had editorial leadership and control of the venerable newspaper for 80 years. A commitment to aggressive, responsible and fair reporting has been a constant throughout their ownership. The paper's code of ethics states, "We fully recognize that the power we have inherited as the dominant morning newspaper in the capital of the free world carries with it special responsibilities: to listen to the voiceless, to avoid any and all acts of arrogance, to face the public politely and candidly."
Legendary journalists have plied their trade under the paper's banner. They include, Ben Bradlee, David Broder, Art Buchwald, Meg Greenfield, Mary McGrory, Shirley Povich, George Will, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. The paper has received 47 Pulitzer Prizes, including eight Pulitzer Prizes in 2008, the second largest number given to a newspaper in one year.
Perhaps the most significant time in the paper's history was the Watergate era, when the investigative reporting of Woodward and Bernstein, the tenacious editorial guidance of editor Ben Bradlee, and the unflinching leadership of Katherine Graham, the newspaper's publisher, combined to bring President Richard Nixon down. "Deep Throat", who was Woodward and Bernstein's primary source, became a household name. Their work was the inspiration for the movie All The President's Men.
Katherine Graham was a remarkable figure in American publishing. She expressed great anxiety when she officially took over as publisher of The Washington Post in 1979; after all, few women had run a newspaper. Yet she won the admiration and respect of Washington's power brokers, and the loyalty of her own staff. It was a family. Ms. Graham also served as chairman of the board from 1973 to 1991. And her son, Donald Graham, continued the paper's traditions after he replaced his mother as publisher in 1979, and as chief executive officer and chairman in the early 90's.
So it is no wonder that news of the sale of The Washington Post came as a shock to reporters and editors at the paper. But the company had been struggling for years with financial challenges brought on by declining subscriptions and increased competition. Yet, the fact that the new owner, billionaire Jeff Bezos, who founded Amazon, bought the paper offered many staffers a sign of hope.
Bezos is a brilliant Internet entrepreneur who revolutionized the book publishing industry. At Amazon, he has continually emphasized what he calls his six core values: customer obsession, ownership, bias for action, frugality, high hiring bar and innovation. It is unclear how some of these values will be applied to the Post, but Bezos would not make a $250 million purchase of a financially challenged company unless he had a plan.
In a letter to the newspaper's employees, Bezos said, "The values of The Post do not need changing. The paper’s duty will remain to its readers and not to the private interests of its owners. We will continue to follow the truth wherever it leads, and we’ll work hard not to make mistakes." But he did admit that, over time, there will be changes. “The Internet is transforming almost every element of the news business: shortening news cycles, eroding long-reliable revenue sources, and enabling new kinds of competition, some of which bear little or no news-gathering costs,” he wrote.
Innovation and tradition are often opposing forces. The paper is at an important crossroads. Should The Washington Post's legacy of investigative journalism, outstanding writing and reporting, and service to the public become the victim of "frugality" and "customer obsessions", the paper will precipitously decline. On the other hand, should Bezos make this legacy his top priority, and preserve The Washington Post's editorial independence while expanding its readership on all platforms, all of America will benefit.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Christie vs. Paul
The escalating public dispute between New Jersey
Governor Chris Christie and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has exposed the deep
rift that exists between factions of the Republican Party. But these two
men have turned their differences into a food fight over "pork" and
"bacon".
The dispute began last week when Christie raised concerns about the dangers of libertarianism, espoused by Senator Paul, who has been an outspoken critic of the National Security Agency and other national security issues. "I just want us to be really cautious because this strain of libertarianism going through both parties right now and making big headlines I think is very dangerous," Christie told a gathering of Republican governors at the Aspen Institute in Colorado.
The dispute began last week when Christie raised concerns about the dangers of libertarianism, espoused by Senator Paul, who has been an outspoken critic of the National Security Agency and other national security issues. "I just want us to be really cautious because this strain of libertarianism going through both parties right now and making big headlines I think is very dangerous," Christie told a gathering of Republican governors at the Aspen Institute in Colorado.
The always blunt governor then said,
"These esoteric intellectual debates, I want them to come to New
Jersey and sit in front of the widows and orphans and have that conversation,
" referring to the people who lost family members in the September 11
terrorist attacks. He concluded, "And they won't, because that's a
much tougher conversation to have."
On Sunday, a prickly Senator Paul lashed back,
attacking the governor for his federal funding requests following Hurricane
Sandy. "They're precisely the same people who are unwilling to cut
spending, and their "gimme, gimme, gimme, give me all of my Sandy money
now," he told reporters. "Those are the people who are
bankrupting the government and not letting enough money be left over for
national defense."
Gimme, gimme, gimme a break, Mr. Paul! The annual U.S. defense
budget is $700 billion, larger than the combined defense budgets of the next
dozen countries. Meanwhile, Hurricane Sandy was the second most
destructive storm in U.S. history; it left in its wake 159 dead and an estimated $69 billion in damage. Nonetheless, Mr. Paul tore into the governor on Monday night in an interview with Fox News, "It's really, I think, kind of sad and cheap that he would use the cloak of 9/11 victims and say, 'I'm the only one who cares about these victims.'"
Governor Christie, a
former prosecutor, responded to Mr. Paul in a press conference Tuesday. “So if Senator Paul wants to
start looking at where he’s going to cut spending to afford defense, maybe he
should start looking at cutting the pork barrel spending that he brings home to
Kentucky, at $1.51 for every $1.00 and not look at New Jersey, where we get
$0.61 for every $1.00,” Christie said, referring to the amount of money each
state receives for each dollar it pays to the federal government. “So
maybe Senator Paul could — could, you know, deal with that when he’s trying to
deal with the reduction of spending on the federal side. But I doubt he
would, because most Washington politicians only care about bringing home the
bacon so that they can get reelected.”
On Tuesday evening, Senator Paul struck back at the
governor in a CNN interview. “This is the king of bacon talking about
bacon,” he said. “You know, we have two military bases in Kentucky. And is
Governor Christie recommending that we shut down our military bases?”
Then he raised the ante. “He’s making a big mistake picking a fight
with other Republicans, because the Republican Party is shrinking in — in New
England and in the northeast part of our country." He continued,
“I’m the one trying to grow the party by talking about liberation ideas of
privacy and the Internet. And attacking me isn’t helping the party.
He’s hurting the party.”
Paul then puffed, “Why would he want to pick a fight with the one
guy who has the chance to grow the party by appealing to the youth and
appealing to people who would like to see a more moderate and less aggressive
foreign policy."
Governor Christie and Senator Paul are both positioning themselves for the 2016 presidential election. The Republican Party suffered a stinging defeat at the ballot box one year ago that resulted in a self-examination of its core values. But there is a wide chasm between its conservative right and its more centrist members on the future direction of the party.
These differences are reflected in the public spat between Mr. Christie and Mr. Paul. With three more years remaining before the election, Democrats, who will likely nominate Hillary Clinton as their standard-bearer, are certainly enjoying the show.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Weiner's Chutzpah
“It’s in our rearview mirror, but it’s not far,” former New York Representative Anthony Weiner said in a hastily called news conference Tuesday, where he confirmed that he continued to send sexual images of himself to female fans for more than a year after he resigned from Congress. He admitted he did not stop until last summer.
Weiner has every right to run for mayor of New York City. But, given these latest embarrassing revelations, why does he want to expose (pardon the pun) himself and his family to such painful humiliation? Does he really think he is worthy of leading America's greatest city?
On Tuesday, The Dirty, a website that is a self-described purveyor of gossip, reported it had spoken with a 22 year-old woman, whom it did not name, who described her sexual communications with Weiner. She said they discussed explicit sexual acts and that he sent her a picture of his penis. Later, Weiner requested that she delete their chats, admitting that, “I’m deeply flawed.”
In a statement released before his news conference Tuesday, Weiner said, “While some things that have been posted today are true and some are not, there is no question that what I did was wrong.” He would not specify what things were not true at his news conference. “I said that other texts and photos were likely to come out and today they have,” Mr. Weiner told reporters. “I want to again say that I am very sorry to anyone who was on the receiving end of these messages and the disruption this has caused.”
Weiner's admission runs counter to a narrative that such unseemly incidents were well behind him. In fact, they continued until just a few months before he announced his mayoral candidacy. In that announcement, Weiner asked New Yorkers for a "second chance to work for you."
At Weiner's Tuesday news conference, his wife, Huma Abedin, a long-time aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, joined him. Ms. Abedin put on a brave face as she watched Weiner speak. She then read a statement to reporters, “Anthony’s made some horrible mistakes, both before he resigned from Congress and after.” She added, “We discussed all of this before Anthony decided he would run for mayor, so really what I want to say is, I love him, I have forgiven him, I believe in him.”
Despite her reassurances, and her admission that their marriage had its ups and downs, the question is will New York City voters believe in Weiner. He lied when news of the sexting scandal first broke two years ago. He attacked reporters at the time for raising the issue. He then misled New Yorkers by giving the impression that the incidents had ceased when he resigned from Congress. They hadn't.
Weiner is a bright and energetic figure. He is a passionate spokesman for the middle class, for gay rights and health care. Recent polls have put him in the lead among the Democratic candidates for mayor, who will face off in a primary on September 5. But Tuesday's revelations will hurt his candidacy.
For sure, Weiner does not suffer from a lack of chutzpah. That is a characteristic that is normally appealing to New Yorkers. But it is clear that Weiner is flawed. He lacks good judgment and he has consistently failed to be fully truthful.
In a campaign appearance following his Tuesday news conference, Weiner told his audience that he was the only candidate who could "shake things up." He is right. But to what end, Mr. Weiner?
Weiner has every right to run for mayor of New York City. But, given these latest embarrassing revelations, why does he want to expose (pardon the pun) himself and his family to such painful humiliation? Does he really think he is worthy of leading America's greatest city?
On Tuesday, The Dirty, a website that is a self-described purveyor of gossip, reported it had spoken with a 22 year-old woman, whom it did not name, who described her sexual communications with Weiner. She said they discussed explicit sexual acts and that he sent her a picture of his penis. Later, Weiner requested that she delete their chats, admitting that, “I’m deeply flawed.”
In a statement released before his news conference Tuesday, Weiner said, “While some things that have been posted today are true and some are not, there is no question that what I did was wrong.” He would not specify what things were not true at his news conference. “I said that other texts and photos were likely to come out and today they have,” Mr. Weiner told reporters. “I want to again say that I am very sorry to anyone who was on the receiving end of these messages and the disruption this has caused.”
Weiner's admission runs counter to a narrative that such unseemly incidents were well behind him. In fact, they continued until just a few months before he announced his mayoral candidacy. In that announcement, Weiner asked New Yorkers for a "second chance to work for you."
At Weiner's Tuesday news conference, his wife, Huma Abedin, a long-time aide to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, joined him. Ms. Abedin put on a brave face as she watched Weiner speak. She then read a statement to reporters, “Anthony’s made some horrible mistakes, both before he resigned from Congress and after.” She added, “We discussed all of this before Anthony decided he would run for mayor, so really what I want to say is, I love him, I have forgiven him, I believe in him.”
Despite her reassurances, and her admission that their marriage had its ups and downs, the question is will New York City voters believe in Weiner. He lied when news of the sexting scandal first broke two years ago. He attacked reporters at the time for raising the issue. He then misled New Yorkers by giving the impression that the incidents had ceased when he resigned from Congress. They hadn't.
Weiner is a bright and energetic figure. He is a passionate spokesman for the middle class, for gay rights and health care. Recent polls have put him in the lead among the Democratic candidates for mayor, who will face off in a primary on September 5. But Tuesday's revelations will hurt his candidacy.
For sure, Weiner does not suffer from a lack of chutzpah. That is a characteristic that is normally appealing to New Yorkers. But it is clear that Weiner is flawed. He lacks good judgment and he has consistently failed to be fully truthful.
In a campaign appearance following his Tuesday news conference, Weiner told his audience that he was the only candidate who could "shake things up." He is right. But to what end, Mr. Weiner?
Friday, July 19, 2013
Obama: "A More Perfect Union"
When future historians write about America's long struggle for racial equality, they will include the moment when the country's first African American president broke his silence about the 2012 death of young Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida. President Barack Obama said, "When Trayvon Martin was first shot I said that this could have been my
son. Another way of saying that is Trayvon Martin could have been me 35
years ago."
President Barack Obama made that startling observation in a surprise visit to reporters gathered in the White House pressroom on Friday afternoon. His comments came nearly one week after a Florida jury found George Zimmerman not guilty in the shooting death of Martin. Many civil rights leaders, who were unhappy about the verdict, had been pressuring the president to say something.
President Obama did not challenge the jury's finding. He said, "The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury has spoken, that's how our system works."
The president's purpose was to provide what he called "context" about how some people were responding the verdict. He spoke of their pain and observed, "I think it's important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn't go away."
Among the experiences he cited, "There are very few African American men in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me. There are very few African American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me — at least before I was a senator." He said it is through these kinds of experiences that "the African American community interprets what happened one night in Florida."
President Obama added that "things are getting better" with each generation when it comes to racial bias. But he did propose training for law enforcement and the justice system to lessen potential bias in the system. And, in a clear reference to the controversial "stand your ground" laws, which exist in 26 states, he called for their review, "to see if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kind of confrontations we saw in the Florida case rather than diffuse them."
He then wondered aloud, "If Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws."
The president offered no federal programs. He also said he didn't feel he should convene a national conversation on race because it would become politicized. Instead, he suggested that families, local communities and churches reflect on the issue. He also asked that they consider how they are doing a better job helping young African Americans feel they are a full part of society who have pathways for success.
Mr. Obama's heartfelt words Friday were powerful, personal and presidential. While the Zimmerman-Martin verdict has divided the nation, it has once again exposed an underlying problem in our society. But the president concluded his remarks on a hopeful note, "Along this long, difficult journey, we're becoming a more perfect union — not a perfect union, but a more perfect union."
President Barack Obama made that startling observation in a surprise visit to reporters gathered in the White House pressroom on Friday afternoon. His comments came nearly one week after a Florida jury found George Zimmerman not guilty in the shooting death of Martin. Many civil rights leaders, who were unhappy about the verdict, had been pressuring the president to say something.
President Obama did not challenge the jury's finding. He said, "The judge conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that in a case such as this reasonable doubt was relevant, and they rendered a verdict. And once the jury has spoken, that's how our system works."
The president's purpose was to provide what he called "context" about how some people were responding the verdict. He spoke of their pain and observed, "I think it's important to recognize that the African American community is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history that doesn't go away."
Among the experiences he cited, "There are very few African American men in this country who haven't had the experience of being followed when they were shopping in a department store. That includes me. There are very few African American men who haven't had the experience of walking across the street and hearing the locks click on the doors of cars. That happens to me — at least before I was a senator." He said it is through these kinds of experiences that "the African American community interprets what happened one night in Florida."
President Obama added that "things are getting better" with each generation when it comes to racial bias. But he did propose training for law enforcement and the justice system to lessen potential bias in the system. And, in a clear reference to the controversial "stand your ground" laws, which exist in 26 states, he called for their review, "to see if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kind of confrontations we saw in the Florida case rather than diffuse them."
He then wondered aloud, "If Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws."
The president offered no federal programs. He also said he didn't feel he should convene a national conversation on race because it would become politicized. Instead, he suggested that families, local communities and churches reflect on the issue. He also asked that they consider how they are doing a better job helping young African Americans feel they are a full part of society who have pathways for success.
Mr. Obama's heartfelt words Friday were powerful, personal and presidential. While the Zimmerman-Martin verdict has divided the nation, it has once again exposed an underlying problem in our society. But the president concluded his remarks on a hopeful note, "Along this long, difficult journey, we're becoming a more perfect union — not a perfect union, but a more perfect union."
Thursday, July 11, 2013
Growing Republican Irrelevance
The Republican Party's refusal to accept the fact that the United States is evolving socially and demographically will drive the party to irrelevance on the national political scene.
The debate over immigration reform is the latest example of how the party is seems to be out of step with the nation. Hispanics make up the largest minority in America. They voted overwhelmingly for President Barack Obama in the 2012 election, by a margin of 71% to 27% for Governor Mitt Romney. In 2012, Asians became the fastest growing minority population in the U.S., edging out Hispanics. President Obama also got 71% of the Asian vote last November.
While only 39% of the white vote went for President Obama in 2012, the white population is declining as a share of the country's total population. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that whites will become the minority by 2043.
There are currently more than 50 million Hispanics in the United States. According to the Census Bureau, that number will grow to 132 million by 2050, or about 30% of the projected U.S. population.
Faced with the stark reality of these numbers, many leading Republicans have spoken out in favor of immigration reform. Earlier this week, former President George W. Bush said, “I do hope there is a positive resolution to the debate.” He added, "At its core, immigration is a sign of a confident and successful nation.” Bush's relatively strong showing among Hispanic voters in 2004, about 44%, helped him win reelection.
But many Republicans in the House of Representatives don't care; especially those who occupy gerrymandered districts with small minority populations. None has been more outspoken that Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). Speaking of the Senate's comprehensive immigration plan, he said, “It would hurt Republicans, and I don’t think you can make an argument otherwise.” Why? “Two out of every three of the new citizens would be Democrats,” he said.
King's candid reasoning is exactly why House Republicans are trying to kill immigration reform. Instead, they are proposing a piecemeal approach to immigration that will leave out a pathway to citizenship. Their first priority is securing the border because there has been a recent increase in illegal immigration in some Southwestern states.
There are 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the United States. The Senate's bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill, which includes a "border surge" to secure the Southwest border with Mexico, would decrease illegal immigration by up to 50% according to the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO further projected that the bill would cut federal deficits by $158 billion over the first ten years after enactment.
It would seem that the Senate bill would at least be worthy of consideration by the House. But House Speaker John Boehner refuses to do so citing the Hastert rule, which means a majority of the majority House Republicans must agree. So the Senate bill appears dead.
Following the Republican's disappointing results in the 2012 elections, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said, "When Republicans lost in November, it was a wakeup call." He issued a report that included the following recommendation: "We must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform. If we do not, our party's appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only."
Apparently House Republicans didn't get the message.
The debate over immigration reform is the latest example of how the party is seems to be out of step with the nation. Hispanics make up the largest minority in America. They voted overwhelmingly for President Barack Obama in the 2012 election, by a margin of 71% to 27% for Governor Mitt Romney. In 2012, Asians became the fastest growing minority population in the U.S., edging out Hispanics. President Obama also got 71% of the Asian vote last November.
While only 39% of the white vote went for President Obama in 2012, the white population is declining as a share of the country's total population. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that whites will become the minority by 2043.
There are currently more than 50 million Hispanics in the United States. According to the Census Bureau, that number will grow to 132 million by 2050, or about 30% of the projected U.S. population.
Faced with the stark reality of these numbers, many leading Republicans have spoken out in favor of immigration reform. Earlier this week, former President George W. Bush said, “I do hope there is a positive resolution to the debate.” He added, "At its core, immigration is a sign of a confident and successful nation.” Bush's relatively strong showing among Hispanic voters in 2004, about 44%, helped him win reelection.
But many Republicans in the House of Representatives don't care; especially those who occupy gerrymandered districts with small minority populations. None has been more outspoken that Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). Speaking of the Senate's comprehensive immigration plan, he said, “It would hurt Republicans, and I don’t think you can make an argument otherwise.” Why? “Two out of every three of the new citizens would be Democrats,” he said.
King's candid reasoning is exactly why House Republicans are trying to kill immigration reform. Instead, they are proposing a piecemeal approach to immigration that will leave out a pathway to citizenship. Their first priority is securing the border because there has been a recent increase in illegal immigration in some Southwestern states.
There are 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the United States. The Senate's bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill, which includes a "border surge" to secure the Southwest border with Mexico, would decrease illegal immigration by up to 50% according to the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO further projected that the bill would cut federal deficits by $158 billion over the first ten years after enactment.
It would seem that the Senate bill would at least be worthy of consideration by the House. But House Speaker John Boehner refuses to do so citing the Hastert rule, which means a majority of the majority House Republicans must agree. So the Senate bill appears dead.
Following the Republican's disappointing results in the 2012 elections, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said, "When Republicans lost in November, it was a wakeup call." He issued a report that included the following recommendation: "We must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform. If we do not, our party's appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only."
Apparently House Republicans didn't get the message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)