Values Be Damned!

This mosque (really a cultural center) "controversy" has me thinking: why is it that certain issues are so heated, so emotional, so visceral, that facts, values and normal principles are cast aside for appearances? We have ourselves a case like that right here in Georgia: Republican candidate for Governor Nathan Deal hedged on the Islamic Center even more so than Roy Barnes did. Former Governor Barnes took a tougher stand, saying that it was a poor choice, and that it was in bad taste. As badly as it pains me to say it, Mr. Deal came out on top in this case. It was Roy who threw the American values aside in hopes of garnering a few more middle-of-the-road voters, and I was ashamed to watch it happen.

Issues like this tend to do this to candidates and parties; they're completely torn apart, split down the middle, and turned on their respective heads. Conservative Republicans are screaming about Constitutional rights when it comes to the Tea Party, but seem blind when it comes to this issue of religion. The Democratic Party prides itself on being the party of inclusion; less judgmental, more accepting...more "liberal." But majority leader Reid broke ranks and called it a poor choice. That's not even the issue. Mr. Deal nailed it when he said he wouldn't want New Yorkers telling Georgians where to put a church. It is, at best, an issue of religious freedom. I could only imagine the Fox-News-led uproar if someone attempted to stop a baptist church from being built someone in America. An at its worst, it's still a property rights issue. They can build it. Period.

Just today, Orrin Hatch, who in my opinion is pretty clear conservative, broke ranks with his party to support to the right to build. And I can almost guarantee when he's up for election again, someone will pin him down on it. Every single time a Republican breaks ranks with the party, he or she incurs a primary challenger. Ask Lisa Murkowski. Wait a couple of years, and ask Lindsey Graham. Nobody seems to have any fundamental principles anymore. If you believe in religious freedom, believe in it for all. If you believe in private property rights, believe in it for all. Don't let your emotional reaction, potential voters (or the generally anti-anyone-who's-not-like-us-feeling that your party normally projects) stand in your way. I commend Nathan Deal, Orrin Hatch, Chris Christie, and the like for standing on principle and not party line. Tea Partiers, ultra-conservatives, and voters with no real basis for beliefs will take the Republican party to hell in a tea pot. If more men like those listed don't show up, then the Republican party will not be in existence in a shorter time than most people think.

Going National, Part 2

Earlier, for my friends over at the newly revamped gapolitico.com, I published a short blog about non-Georgia Senate and Governor's races that I thought would be important (or at least noteworthy) come this November. I've stated previously that I would not release a support list until all the "TBD" had been filled in, and I'm sticking to that; but some of those were filled in last night.

Here are the top 8 that I'm watching:

1. Florida Senate: Crist (I) vs. Rubio (R) vs. Meek (D)

2. California Senate: Fiorina (R) vs. Boxer (D)

3. Connecticut Senate: Blumenthal (D) vs. McMahon (R)

4. Delaware Senate: Castle (R) vs. Democrat TBD

5. Indiana Senate: Coats (R) vs. Ellsworth (D)

6. Rhode Island Governor: Chaffee (I) vs. Democrat TBD vs. Republican TBD

7. California Governor: Whitman (R) vs. Brown (D)

8. Maine Governor: LePage (R) vs. Mitchell (D) vs. Cutler (I)

After last night's primary results, I'm actually going to expand my list:

9. Florida Governor: Sink (D) vs. Scott (R)

10. Alaska Senator: Republican Too Close to Call vs. McAdams (D)

Now, the reason I've added numbers nine and ten is not really because I feel like my endorsement could go either way, which does apply to some of the others. It's because I think they will be races to watch in the context of the influence of the Tea Party and this Republican "wave" that everyone keeps talking about. I know today's first poll out of Florida has the Democrat, Alex Sink, in the lead. Her opponent Mr. Scott is the poster-child for being anti-Obamacare. He ran a healthcare clinic company (in the ground no less), and received the largest ever Medicare fraud fine in the history of this country. Can he overcome it all simply because he's a Republican? And as far as the Alaska Senate race goes, the only reason I find it interesting is this: I think if Sarah Palin is proud of what's she has (potentially) done, then she's setting herself up for heartbreak. She endorsed a FAR right, fringe candidate in Joe Miller, and it looks like he may win the primary. The problem I see is the general: Alaskans have shown that they are willing to elect one Democratic Senator, could they possibly elect two? I think this mirrors Ms. Palin's own 2012 problem: that she could win the Republican nomination handily...and subsequently be crushed in the general election. She always tends to live in a Republican-only world (in her head), and it may just catch up with Joe Miller (and Sarah herself) later on down the road. Again, if any of the races jump out at you, let me know! I'm particularly interested in the effects of Independent candidates in many of these races. Either way, KEEP PAYING ATTENTION!!!

No Deal

I think this is a pretty damn good start. As I was driving home from UGA today I heard on the radio that Nathan Deal's campaign had requested not to appear at the same time as Roy Barnes in Savannah, at a venue where they were both going to appear. This is exactly what the radio newsman said, reading and/or paraphrasing from a statement by Deal's campaign:

"We are ready to debate Roy Barnes, just not today."

I love it. If I am willing and ready to debate someone, I couldn't care less what time, place, or audience it was in front of. If I'm not ready, I would say that I wasn't ready. But I guess Nathan Deal doesn't want to come across as hollow and unprepared; in other words, what he really is. I don't know that I blame Nathan Deal, I guess he does need all the time he can buy to dress up his answers to questions about his business dealings, ethics violations, investigations, and why he is refusing to release his tax returns...which may have something to do with the previous things mentioned.

I'm willing to bet Roy was fired up and ready to go. I'm willing to bet if somebody called Roy in the middle of the night, he'd debate Nathan Deal in his pajamas, and still not look like half the fool that Deal is. I think this spells a pretty good start for Roy. He's going to need middle of the road voters, and if I know those voters, I don't think they really appreciate the kind of pre-grooming that Nathan Deal wants to get. They want answers to their questions. And if you can't give them openly and honestly on the spot, then you probably don't know enough about this state to hold the office of Governor.

So I say: Run, Roy, Run; Because Nathan's already running away.

"Professional" Left?

I don't think I'd be considered part of the "professional" left. Do you? Robert Gibbs (and the White House in general) have leveled complaints at those they call the "professional" left for not appreciating the accomplishments of this administration so far. He seems to believe that nothing would ever be good enough for the members of that segment of the population. Now, I don't know if he's talking about all the news pundits, plus the bloggers, and the stellar academics, or just the zealous, passionate liberal thinkers in America, but I know one thing...I don't think he appreciates them enough either.


I really wish Mr. Gibbs would stop playing to the Republican hand in this situation. Republicans have been saying for months now (somewhat unsubstantiated) that this White House is very good at whining about what they don't like. I haven't thought that was true, but Robert Gibbs doesn't need to take it upon himself to make it SEEM true. Yes, we know, this White House has gotten healthcare reform, they're on track to end the Iraq War, pushed through financial regulatory reform and nominated TWO magnificent women to the Supreme Court; what Robert Gibbs doesn't seem to understand is that it isn't up to a presidential administration to be "good enough." Voters didn't elect them with a list of those 4 things I just mentioned, and now that they've checked them off, everything is peachy. That's just not how it goes. The job isn't finished. They NEED to be pushed by this "professional" left a little bit. They NEED to be kept on their toes. And they NEED to STOP TALKING ABOUT IT. This White House has claimed since the get-go that they were above the cable news cycle, but that cycle very visibly gets under their skin. And you NEVER SHOOT DOWN! Don't use administration time and venues to respond to every news story or host that got on your nerves one night.


Mr. Gibbs, I do appreciate the work that has been done so far. I appreciate it to an even greater degree knowing that you've really had less than no help from Republicans, and some Democrats. But that doesn't make this country perfect, and it certainly doesn't mean your job is done. Maybe you should listen to the "professional" left a little bit more and talk about them a little bit less. They did get you elected (at least partly). And you feel free to bash them because you know they'll never vote Republican. You're safe to drag them through the mud all you want because those like the people at MoveOn or the Rachel Maddow's aren't suddenly going to support uber-conservative candidates. But you're not doing them, or yourself, any good. If those of you in the White House really are concerned with the long term effects of your accomplishments, and not the short term polling like you say, then pass immigration reform, bring down this national deficit, let the Bush Tax Cuts expire completely, replace Summers and Geithner with people who are less oblivious, shut down Guantanamo, support, and I mean FULLY support gay marriage, stop Don't Ask Don't Tell, and end BOTH the wars in Iraq AND Afghanistan. Seems like a lot to do, right? Well, that's what I mean by "the job isn't finished."




*I would also like to mention, once again, that every time something like this comes up, people begin to talk about Democratic Primary challengers to the president in 2012. I do, still, believe that it could happen. Especially if the complaints come at a faster rate than the accomplishments.


Original story: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/113431-white-house-unloads-on-professional-left

I reiterate...

Again, this is exactly what my problem was with Christina Romer leaving:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/06/romers-departure-raises-q_n_673586.html

Believe me, I know that nobody could "force" Christina Romer to stay if she wanted to leave, but as the article states, why would she want to stay? She doesn't have the intellectual line to the president that Summers does and she doesn't have the power that Geithner does. She'll lose her university tenure if she stays any longer, and if she's not moving up the chain-of-advice in the White House, I can't blame her for wanting to go.

She deserves better than this. I don't normally pull out hackneyed phrases like "good ole boys club", but this kind of strikes me in that manner. It seems that the deep, internal circle is still made up of good ole boys that each individually think that he, himself, is the end-all-be-all when it comes to policy. And that's not right. Summers stifled Romer and now can't come to terms with the fact that he was wrong and she was right. I mean, is it really surprising? He thinks (based on his statements at Harvard) that he should genetically be better at math than her. And he isn't. I reiterate, the Summers/Geithner dream team of naivete is the problem. They are Wall Street. They are oblivious. Put into kindergarten terms, they just don't play well with others. They represent big banks, big greed, and big mistakes. Gordon Gekko could be their lovechild. THEY NEED TO GO.

Mr. President, I Have A Problem With This...

From The Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/06/christina-romer-resigning_n_672984.html

Mr. President, I've got a big problem with this, and ever since the buck started stopping there in the Oval Office with Harry Truman, my beef is ultimately with you. Christina Romer is the second high-level official to leave your administration, and this is the second time it's been cast as "unsurprising." We have a saying here: that dog won't hunt.

President Obama, as vehemently as I supported you in the election, and as intellectually sound as I believe most of your advisers are, I think it's safe to say that there are cracks in the armor. You have surrounded yourself with some of the most brilliant people in this country, but that doesn't always translate to positive results. Quite frankly, brilliant people CAN, in fact, give terrible advice. My problem with what keeps happening is that all the WRONG people are leaving because they're frustrated. And who the hell could blame them? This article outlines how Larry Summers simply ignored some of the work Ms. Romer did in her economic analysis, forecast, etc., and then we're supposed to turn around and act surprised when some of the promises that were made don't come to fruition? I don't think so. In a parallel universe, I would be completely comfortable sitting here talking about how two economic advisers had left your administration if those two advisers were not Orzag and Romer. Quite frankly Mr. President, there are two who should be gone. Their names? Summers and Geithner. That's right, Geithner. Your closest economic advisor and your Secretary of the Treasury should be the two taking the fall. They are the two with the direct shot to your ear, and that's fine; the problem isn't with your ear. Those two are simply incapable of taking the PULSE of the country. Both come from Wall Street. Geithner is the definition of fox guarding the hen house; and anyone who's scared of Elizabeth Warren (who should be Treasury Secretary) heading the Consumer Protection Agency is ludicrous in my book. Larry Summers is still trying to run things like he ran Harvard; and there's a reason (or many) why he's not at Harvard anymore. They operate as if they exist in an administrative vacuum. And I don't know if you know it yet or not, but it's costing you. You are weakening your standing, and even your right to relay an economic message, by keeping the wrong people around.

The similarity between you and Ronald Reagan at this point in his presidency is striking. The two polling positions are almost identical. The fall from the top is almost identical. But one thing is left to be seen: where it goes from here. Your current approval rating is about 41%, right where Reagan was; but he WON A SECOND TERM! Why? Because the economy turned upward. There is an unmistakable, incontrovertible correlation between economic performance and presidential approval rating. Now, maybe you won't run again. Maybe you'll shake things up with a new Vice Presidential candidate. Maybe the economy will brighten over the next few months. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Let me give you a sure thing: you do not need to make it any more difficult an electoral environment than it's already going to be. Decisions (and advisers) like these, I believe, are truly opening you up to a Democratic Primary challenger. And we all see how well that worked out for both Carter and Kennedy. Letting the likes of Christina Romer go is not the direction you need to take. Sir, Summers and Geithner are the two bad apples in the room with you; and if you're not careful, voters are just going to throw out the whole bunch.

You included.

Dustin Baker and Healthcare

This is just going to be a short little post/rant. My good friend Dustin Baker (over at GaLiberal), posted a facebook status the other day and has accumulated many responses, some in agreement, some otherwise; some substantive, some otherwise. I like his technique: every time he sees Republican hypocrisy, he makes it out to be a joke. I.e., Car Insurance vs. Health Insurance..."why does the state of Georgia mandate that I have car insurance?...no citizen should be forced to buy something by the government." Republicans, I don't blame you. It's hard to exist in this world with the positions that you take unless you resign yourself to enjoying the way your foot tastes. Understood. The funniest part about it is when Republicans don't even understand that the joke is being played on them. They're pro-life...until it comes to the death penalty; they want government out of healthcare...but don't have the guts to call for Medicare's repeal; they welcome everyone into their big tent party...unless you disagree with the party on even one issue, then you're out; they want to decrease the deficit...except with the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, they'd like to keep handing those out. I would say that it's unbelievable, but that would be a lie. It's common now. I mean, if you're the party whose highest positive rating for a 2012 candidate goes to Ms. I-Make-Up-My-Own-Words Sarah Palin, I'm not really expecting anything substantive out of you. But I've really digressed now.

My problem with the comments on Dustin's post is simple: they miss the point. While everyone with healthcare sits and argues about who should or should not have, or how we should or should not pay for it...PEOPLE ARE DYING. I'm just about tired of hearing about the problems that privileged, upper-middle class white people have with national healthcare. There are actual human beings in this country being buried by their families because they could not AFFORD to stay alive. Not because the treatment doesn't exist, not because the doctors aren't out there, but because they aren't well-off enough to pay for life. I really do not a give a damn if I pay for healthcare, in a national pool or otherwise, and never go to the hospital. If it means that someone else is benefiting from it, so be it. Those people are somebody's someone. They are grandparents, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, children, aunts, uncles, cousins, in-laws, etc. They have value. They have human value. The soul has value. Dignity has value. And that value is far and beyond any dollar amount that you have a "conservative", self-righteous, political problem with.