Political CommenTerry

Neo-Con Terrorism Logic

When it comes to terrorism, President Barack Obama is in a no-win situation. Rest assured that the neo-cons are going to make sure of this. That’s part of their overall strategy for the next four to eight years.

Here’s the way it’s going to work: If at the end of Obama’s term(s) in office, the U.S. has been hit by one or more additional acts of terrorism, neo-cons are prepared to lay all of the blame at his feet. If, on the other hand, the U.S. has remained free of terrorism during Obama’s watch, those same neo-cons will credit none other than George W. Bush. He won’t just get some of the credit – he’ll get all of it.

How do I know this? Well, one need not be a mind reader to figure this one out. For one thing, people like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh have already signaled that this is part of their game plan. However, the easiest way to predict what they will do is to look at what they’ve done in the past.

They blamed Bill Clinton for 9/11 even though the terrorist attacks of that infamous day happened nearly eight month’s into Bush’s presidency. Had there been another one during Bush’s terms, guess who would have been have been the fall guy for it. Pat yourself on the back if you said it would have again been one William Jefferson Clinton. And it wouldn’t have mattered how deep it was into the Bush presidency.

As it was, of course, there were no subsequent terrorism attacks on U.S. soil. As a result, neo-cons and their ilk are falling all over themselves in praise of the former president. I have no problem with their giving credit where credit is due, and I think Bush is deserving of much of it. However, I do have a problem with fanatical partisanship and that results in absurd hypocrisy. 

Why the First Lady Is Irrelevant

A lot is being made about the performance of First Lady Michelle Obama. After only a little over 100 days in the White House, she is getting rave reviews from all parts. I have no doubt that all the accolades are justified. She is indeed an intelligent and greatly accomplished person in her own right.

However, no matter who she happens to be, the First Lady of United States is always irrelevant, at least from a political standpoint. Her "job" is strictly a ceremonial position, making her nothing more than a figurehead. The Constitution does not recognize the position of First Lady. There is no record of any of our Founding Fathers even mentioning her in any official document.

She is neither elected nor appointed to her post. She has no political power or authority to affect the lives of Americans or anyone else. Yes, she is given a bully pulpit that she can use to be an inspiration and example to many. The bottom line, though, is that no one has to listen. If the First Lady desires real power, then she should follow Hillary Clinton's example and run for a real office. 

What if Texas Really Tried to Secede?

Texas Governor Rick Perry recently stated that he believed his state would be within its legal rights to secede from the United States. Although he gave no indication that such a move is imminent or even under serious consideration, many Texas Democrats are furious at Perry over this assertion. However, some of the state’s Republicans seem to relish the idea. They realize that they would likely be the dominant party in a nation of Texas suddenly freed from a Democratically-controlled Washington.

Hypothetically, though, what if Texas really attempted to secede? In a complete 180 from the way state politicians are currently reacting, I believe it would be national Republicans – not Democrats – who would have the biggest problem with it and subsequently throw up the most roadblocks to such a move. You see, it’s a matter of simple arithmetic in Congress and in the Electoral College.

Texas has two Senators and 32 members in the House of Representatives, and therefore gets 34 electoral votes in presidential elections. If Texas were to leave the Union, its congressional delegation and electoral votes would be reapportioned to the remaining 49 states.

Texas is solidly Republican, having gone for the GOP candidates in the last eight presidential elections. In addition, both of its Senators, as well as 20 of its House members, are Republican. Out of the 20 most populous, you cannot find a more dependable state for the national GOP. Without Texas, Republicans would have difficulty not only winning presidential elections but ever having any hopes of regaining a majority in Congress.

Therefore, I believe President Obama and national Democrats would only go through the motions of blocking Texas from seceding, as it would be to their political advantage to let the Lone Star State go. The Republican National Committee, on the other hand, would no doubt fight to the bitter end to keep Texas in the fold – and be left crying in their beer if unsuccessful.

Who Wants to Be a Commerce Secretary?

President Barack Obama is having trouble finding a commerce secretary. Is it a just a coincidence that neither of his choices for this cabinet position worked out? Probably, but people are becoming concerned.

He initially settled on New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, a former rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, for the post. However, Richardson was forced to remove himself from consideration after news surfaced that he was being investigated by a federal grand jury in his home state for possible pay-to-play violations. Coming in the wake of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's corruption charges, that revelation was a sure disqualifier.

Then Obama decided on Senator Judd Gregg, a Republican from New Hampshire. Obama had hoped that offering a cabinet position to a senator from the opposite party would solidify the bipartisan image he is trying to build. The Democratic governor of New Hampshire even agreed to replace him in the Senate with another Republican or an independent who would caucus with the Republicans. This was done to alleviate GOP fears of that Obama had ulterior motives in choosing Gregg for the commerce position, i.e., to steal another Senate seat for the Democrats.

Gregg initially accepted Obama's offer to join his cabinet and started preparing for the transition, but ultimately backed out and decided that he would rather remain in the Senate instead. He said that, after he had time to carefully consider everything, he came to the conclusion that he just had too many differences of opinion with President Obama on key economic issues.

Now Obama will have to settle for his third choice – and that’s assuming whoever he picks next will have no skeletons in his or her closet and that this person actually wants the job. The President can’t afford another distracting screw-up here. He and his team of selectors need to be extremely cautious this time around. If so, the third time will likely be a charm and we’ll actually get a new U.S. Secretary of Commerce the near future.

Is McCarthyism Making a Comeback?

A certain one-note politician from the state of New York is angered by the fact that her governor selected Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand to replace Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the U.S. Senate. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a fanatical gun control proponent who represents Long Island in Congress, is upset at Gov. David Paterson’s choice because Gillibrand, who was beginning her second term as an upstate New York congresswoman, is a card-carrying member of the NRA.

Such a membership is apparently anathema to Ms. McCarthy, who is also a Democrat. In fact, she finds it so completely unacceptable that she now plans to challenge Gillibrand in a primary in 2010, when Gillibrand will be up for re-election to the Senate. McCarthy, who never previously articulated a desire to run for the Senate, now says she would even be willing to give up her seat in Congress to pursue this quest.

McCarthy was first elected to Congress in 1996. She decided to run that year in response to an incident in 1995 in which a gunman killed her husband and wounded her son. She immediately became a crusader for tougher gun laws. Her zealous activism in this arena lead her to victory in her initial run for the House and has gotten her re-elected in subsequent races.

However, the downside is that her stance on guns has so overshadowed everything else she has ever done that she is now seen by many as a fanatic. I’m sure she has expressed opinions about stuff other than guns and gun control, but very few people have ever heard them. She has cast many important votes in the House that have had nothing to do with gun control, but they have gone virtually unnoticed as well.

She comes off as an all-gun-control, all-the-time politician. And her recent media uproar over the appointment of Gillibrand to the Senate doesn’t help to refute that perception. It would even appear that she is trying to create a new form of McCarthyism, so to speak. This time, however, instead of Communists, its target will be gun owners.

Is the President Usurping Women’s Reproductive Decisions?

Before leaving office, President George W. Bush apparently plans to sign an executive order that will expand the rights of doctors, healthcare workers, and pharmacists to refuse to provide patients with various services and treatments, based on their own moral and religious beliefs. This will likely involve procedures such as abortion and artificial insemination and medications such as birth control pills and the so-called “morning after” pill. The uproar from women’s groups has already begun.

They claim that this is an attempt by Bush to usurp their rights to make their own reproductive decisions. They say this would deny them the services and medications they want and need.  But is this really the case? I say they’re making a fallacious argument. In reality, no one is denying them squat. Just because a woman can’t force a given doctor to perform an abortion and a given pharmacist to fill a prescription for birth control pills doesn’t mean she wouldn’t be able to get them. There are plenty of doctors and pharmacists who would be more than willing to oblige.

Also, this is not a matter of picking on women, as many of them would have us believe. This order will also allow medical professionals to refuse to prescribe or fill prescriptions for men’s erectile dysfunction therapies such as Viagra and Cialis, for example.

If I were a doctor, I would take full advantage of this right to choose and would not discriminate against either gender. I would not prescribe birth control to anyone (male or female) who was not married. Why would single people need birth control anyway? In addition, I would not do abortions except in cases of rape, non-consensual incest, or when the life or health of the mother would be in danger without one. I would only do artificial insemination procedures for married couples and only when they could not have a child any other way – and the sperm would have to come from the husband, not some stranger. Also, I would prescribe stuff like Viagra or Cialis only for married men.

Those who criticize this order are being disingenuous and hypocritical. Most of them talk the talk about choice but it’s obviously a one-way street for them. They strongly defend a woman’s right to choose but do not want to afford doctors and other medical workers the same. If we’re going to have true choice in this country, then it has to work both ways.

And what about those who are always screaming about religious freedom and the separation of church and state?  They are also being hypocritical when they criticize this order. Forcing people to do something that goes against their religion is a blatant imposition on their religious freedom. And when the government is doing the forcing, it’s a clear violation of the First Amendment. I guess, to some people, it’s okay for the government to bully religion, as long it never works the other way around.

Should a White Person Get Hillary’s Senate Seat?

Now that Hillary Clinton is set to become the next Secretary of State, who should New York Gov. David Patterson choose to replace her in the U.S. Senate? What if a white congressman from New York insisted that Patterson select a white person because Hillary is white? I bet there would be outrage from all parts, and rightfully so.

However, Illinois Congressman Bobby Rush, a former member of the Black Panthers, is pulling a similar stunt and few seem to be complaining. He says Illinois’ governor (possibly the successor of current governor Rod Blagojevich, who is now facing federal corruption charges) needs to select a black person to move into the vacated Senate seat of President-elect Barack Obama.

His rationale? Obama is black, so therefore his replacement must be black. That’s because, in his view, a white person couldn’t possibly carry on Obama’s Senate agenda and be true to his legacy the way a black person could. Rush is not merely suggesting that Obama be succeeded in the Senate by an African-American, he’s demanding it. He’s even launching a petition drive.

I find it rather ironic that Rep. Rush’s race bating comes in the wake of one of the most historic presidential elections in the history of our republic. Obama’s election shattered the political glass ceiling for black people in America and demonstrated that race is no longer a major consideration for most Americans when they go to the polls.

But Rush appears to want to have it both ways. While acknowledging the momentous significance of Obama’s victory, Rush seems to still view race as a primary determinant of how one will conduct himself or herself in public office. So much for Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream that people “will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Of course, all of this could soon become a moot point if Blagojevich is not removed from office and refuses to resign. Since one of the two corruption allegations against him involves his supposed offering of Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder, Illinois lawmakers are likely to enact legislation to strip him of his authority to pick Obama's successor and give that decision to the state's voters in the form of a special election. However, that still wouldn't make Congressman Rush's demands any less egregious.

No matter how the decision is ultimately made, the most qualified available candidate should be selected to serve out the remainder of Obama’s Senate term, regardless of that person’s race, ethnic background, gender, or religious affiliation. As a nation, we’ve taken such a giant leap forward. Now is no time to be turning back.

The Problem with God-on-Our-Side Politics

Although I adamantly oppose abortion and gay marriage, I'm a little leery of some of the folks who share my social conservative views. I’m referring to those politically-self-assured, it’s-all-black-and-white, God-is-a-Republican, fundamentalist type of people who insist that almost every national election is a battle for the heart and soul of America.

For one thing, people like that tend to take on an "end justifies the means" type of attitude. They know they are right and that God is on their side, so He surely wouldn't mind a little stretching of the truth – or even a little outright lying – to bring about His will on earth. And He will certainly overlook the misdeeds of the candidates who are on his side. After all, everyone is human, right?

Of course, those who are against Him will be held accountable for every single peccadillo in their life. And woe to the guys on the other side who have had associations with shady characters in the past. But what about some of the folks on their side who have associated with bad people? Well, come on now, that's okay because they are the good guys and gals and are therefore above being tainted by such associations.

In addition, this "God is on our side" assurance tends to foster a sense of paranoia. If you are not for them, you are against them, they feel. Likewise, if you are not for God, you are against Him, right? Then it becomes okay to hurt people who are a threat to their cause. After all, the forces of the "enemy" are just dangerous, they're scary, they're terrorists, … they're baby killers! They must be put in their place or even eliminated, if need be – before it's too late!

This kind of rhetoric, of course, has the potential to incite mob-like behavior. Remember the cries of “Terrorist!” and “Kill him!” in reference to Barack Obama at some of the John McCain-Sarah Palin rallies this year? That's why one should never be too sure about his or her own rightness on political issues. It can get ugly.

Should We Put Country First?

One of the slogans John McCain used during his presidential campaign was “country first” – and he meant it. Obviously, he is not the first to hold to such a notion. But should we really put country first? I say no – the rights of its individual citizens should be first and foremost.

The whole idea of putting country first is a fascist concept. Some of its past adherents include Napoleon, Mussolini, and Hitler. I don’t wish to be included in such company. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m in no way trying to say that those who claim to put country first are fascists or that they are comparable to tyrants. I would surmise that most people who use this phrase – McCain included – do so innocently, unaware of its true implications.

Our Founding Fathers valued the rights of individual citizens over those of the government. In fact, they feared a strong government because it could abuse its citizens with impunity. That’s why they formed our nation as a democratic republic. Note that the authors of the Bill of Rights went out of their way to enumerate the rights of individuals while purposely omitting any rights of the nation as a whole. This rationale was central to a recent Supreme Court decision regarding the rights of individuals to bear arms.

A fascist, on the other hand, will say that what’s good for a nation is automatically good for its citizens. Therefore, they will insist that people should be willing to surrender their rights for the good of the state. After all, they will ask, what good are rights without a strong and prosperous nation to guarantee one’s safety and standard of living? Little by little, through the use of exaggerated nationalism and scare tactics, they coax people to hand over their precious rights to the government. Before long, almost absolute power is in the hands of just a few people. And we all know what that kind of power does to people.

With all of this in mind, I never base my vote on what’s good for the country. Instead, I consider what would be the best for you and me and other citizens of this nation. I know that rights afforded to individual citizens tend to trickle up and benefit the nation as a whole. However, it seldom works the other way around, with the rights given to a nation trickling down and benefiting individual citizens. 

The Voting Season in the Rearview Mirror

Before the voting season that has just passed us by recedes any further into the rearview mirror, I would like to offer a few random thoughts on the subject.

(1) I don’t like early voting. Many states allow it, no questioned asked. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but there’s just something not right about that. If we’re going to let people arbitrarily vote weeks in advance, then why have the pretense of an official day to vote? I think early (absentee) voting should be allowed only for those who have a legitimate excuse as to why they can’t vote on Election Day. That’s the way my home state of Virginia handles it. I would like to see other states adopt this policy.

(2) I was lucky when I voted. I voted after work (as I customarily do) and it took all of about five minutes for me to get out of my car, enter my polling place, cast my vote, exit, and get back in my car. And it wouldn’t have taken that long if the guy in front of me hadn’t been challenged by poll workers because the address on his ID didn’t match the address they had on their roll for him.

Most of my co-workers, on the other hand, decided to “beat the crowd” by voting in the morning before coming to work. But you know what happens when everyone tries to beat the crowd. As a consequence, the majority of them had to wait in line in the rain for at least a half hour.

They are obviously more dedicated voters than I. While I make a habit of voting at nearly every election, I’m not going to allow myself to be inconvenienced by it. If I would have concluded that I’d be waiting in line in the rain for more than just a handful of minutes, I would have left without voting. Yes, as a U.S. citizen, I value my privilege to vote, but I’m realistic about it, i.e., I don’t see it making that much of a difference.

(3) The turnout for this election was quite impressive. It’s too bad voters don’t turn out in numbers like that at every election. Elections at the state and local levels are just as important – perhaps even more so – as presidential elections. Yet, I’ll bet few voters will encounter long lines at their next city council election, for example.

4) This year, I broke a personal tradition by not watching Election Night coverage on NBC. This tradition dated back to the time I was a small child, when my family would gather around the TV set to watch John Chancellor and David Brinkley deliver the election returns.

Oh, I started to watch NBC this time as well, but I couldn’t stick with it. It was something about the way they have changed their set and graphics that didn’t sit well with me. I guess it just wasn’t ergonomically correct. Of course, it wasn’t as bad as ABC, which had so many things moving across the screen at the same time that it was almost unwatchable.

One other factor that likely prompted me to abandon NBC was the fact that I missed the late Tim Russert and his whiteboard. Election Night on NBC just wasn’t the same without him.

Anyway, I finally settled on CNN. I thought its graphics were very clear and concise. I also liked CNN’s set, although I still can’t figure out how they did that hologram thing with correspondent Jessica Yellin. In addition, I found most of its analysts extremely knowledgeable. I was particularly impressed with John King’s astute analysis. He was the closest thing to Russert I could find that night.

5) Speaking of CNN, one of its commentators did get me a bit irked. On the Friday before the election, senior political analyst Gloria Borger came up with a cock and bull story to defend the inaccuracy of the polls heading into the New Hampshire Democratic primary. One of the other CNN analysts had brought this up in an effort to caution Barack Obama’s supporters to not get too complacent about his lead over John McCain in the pre-election polls.

To explain why Obama lost the New Hampshire primary to Hillary Clinton despite being ahead in all the polls, Borger asserted that polling actually stopped four days before the primary and therefore did not capture the late-breaking shift in voter sentiment toward Clinton. This claim is patently false.

Polls were conducted by several polling services right up to the day of the primary. Obama was ahead in all of the polls that were taken within two days of the primary and even lead in all the exit polls. Still, as it turned out, Clinton surprised everyone by winning. Borger just couldn’t bring herself to admit that the polls missed it.

Besides, her story makes no sense. The Iowa caucuses were held on January 3. The New Hampshire primary was held just five days later on January 8. Why would the pollsters have suddenly stopped polling New Hampshire voters the day after the Iowa caucuses – the very time when the public would be the most interested in such polls? But that’s apparently what Borger would have us believe. I emailed her this same rebuttal, but she never responded, of course. In fact, she was still stubbornly pushing her flawed argument on Election Night, even after Anderson Cooper had tried to set the record straight.