Disapproval of Pelosi Growing
May 31, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under General
Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, has come under fire over the past few months for her knowledge of the waterboarding techniques used at Guantanamo Bay, and her subsequent handling of the outcry over the double standard within which she has been operating. Her consistently polarizing comments regarding the Republican party have served to put a significant divide between the two parties, as well, instead of encouraging the parties to work together towards common goals.
As time continues to move on, a growing number of people have become dissatisfied with Pelosi’s handling of her comments regarding the CIA, as well as her attitude and performance in the House of Representatives in general:
Despite the California Democrat’s insistence that she has no more to say about her May 14 assertion that in 2002 the Central Intelligence Agency misled her and Congress on torture policy, the political firestorm it created continues to smolder.
The latest GOP effort includes a television ad titled “Explanation: Impossible,” as well as 32-second recorded phone calls with a woman telling listeners she had an “important voter alert” about how the local congressman “voted to block an investigation” into Pelosi’s May 14 comments.
Republicans note that the day after Pelosi made her statement about the CIA , Leon Panetta , the agency director and a former Democratic congressman from California , said CIA officials told her the truth.
The next week, however, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives soundly rejected a Republican-led effort to create a bipartisan committee to investigate Pelosi’s statements. Rep. John Boehner of Ohio , the House GOP leader, wants Pelosi to either document her claims or to apologize…
“For any negative ad to work, it has to have a kernel of truth, and this one does,” said Adam Hoffman , professor of political science at Salisbury University in Maryland , in a district where the TV ad is running…
Republicans see Pelosi as increasingly vulnerable. A May 19 Gallup poll that found of the 22 percent of Americans paying close attention to the matter, 63 percent disapproved of how she’s handled it, while 30 percent approved.
And a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey taken May 14-17 found 39 percent approved of how she’s handling her job as speaker, while 48 percent disapproved.
“Pelosi (is) largely losing the public relations game, as she gets a significantly more negative review for her handling of the matter than do the other major players in the controversy, including the CIA ,” said Gallup analyst Jeffrey Jones .
However, he added, “Americans are much more critical of Pelosi’s handling of the matter than they are of the broader group of the Democrats in Congress she leads as speaker of the House.”
Pelosi’s respect and political standing stands in jeopardy due to her aggressive comments and duplicity, with the refusal of allowing herself to be evaluated for truth and integrity.
How’s Our Potential Justice’s Temper?
May 30, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under General, Politics
Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, has been said to be aggressive and bordering on rude at times in the courtroom. The temperment of a judge can say a lot about her character and the way she may conduct herself in the courtroom in relationship to the issues and working with other judges on the panel of the Supreme Court.
Here is part of a story that raises concerns about her brusque characteristics:
Sotomayor earned considerable praise among the lawyers quoted in the almanac. However, she also elicited critiques that range from “she can be a terror on the bench” and “she is temperamental and excitable” to “she can be a bit of a bully” and “she can get harsh at oral argument.”
All told, her temperament drew a dozen highly critical comments. Another appellate judge who was considered for the Supreme Court opening, Diane Wood of the Chicago -based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals , has uniformly positive almanac reviews concerning judicial temperament.
Lawyers who have worked with her have stated that many of the comments she has made that have led to her temper being scrutinized have been to keep them on task, and she often requires extra preparation on the part of the attorneys. While a single judge in her own court, there would be more freedom to exercise her temperament, but as part of a panel of judges, requiring everything and everyone to meet with her individual expectations may be less possible, and much less desirable. Especially as a judge, it is very important not to act in a way that will be intimidating to others, considering the magnitude of any ruling by the Supreme Court.
The comment that Sotomayor made during a speech that has many people concerned that she may be a racist, for instance, seemed to be bringing more emotion and personal judgment to issues that come before the court than should have been there. Even certain Democratic advisors are recommending that the White House or Sotomayor herself address this issue head on:
Some Democrats and political analysts are urging the White House to shift course and concede that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor made an error when she suggested in 2001 that Hispanic women would make better judges than white men.
“She misspoke,” said Lanny Davis, a White House lawyer and spokesman for President Bill Clinton. “Every day that goes by that they don’t say she misspoke and she used the wrong words … they just feed it and give it life …”
Said Democratic strategist Chris Lehane: “In this day and age, six or seven or eight weeks is a long time to go without addressing an issue that can potentially take on a life of its own and evolve and grow.”
Lehane… said allowing talk show hosts, blogs and cable shows to continue to fulminate about Sotomayor’s Berkeley comments was risky…
The controversy is swirling around this comment from Sotomayor during a 2001 speech to a University of California, Berkeley conference on law and diversity: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life…”
“Judge Sotomayor would be wise not to tap dance around this. Don’t just ‘clarify’ the statement, take it back,” University of Virginia politics professor Larry Sabato wrote in a posting at POLITICO’s Arena. “Explain that she simply meant to say that we are all a product of our unique backgrounds and experiences and that those backgrounds and experiences inform our decisions. But no one’s gender or ethnic background inherently leads to superior decisions. It would be refreshing to hear a Supreme Court nominee say, ‘I’m not perfect. I made a mistake here.’”
Davis said it makes little sense to allow the comment to linger until late July, which is the earliest likely time for confirmation hearings to begin.
All these are concerns that conservatives as well as liberals would do well to consider.
Conservatives Concerned With Sotomayor’s Nomination
May 29, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under General, Politics
President Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court Justice fulfills two expectations that have been under speculation: that he would choose a woman, and/or a minority (Ms. Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice). Conservatives are uneasy with Sotomayor’s nomination for several reasons. First, there are not many cases that can clearly illustrate her views on issues such as abortion, and it is difficult to guess what she might rule, especially with a secure lifetime appointment:
In addition, some conservatives privately concede that Obama’s selection of Sotomayor, whose judicial ruling rarely have touched on divisive social issues, will make it harder to galvanize the grass roots and put pressure on the Senate…
Obama’s list of finalists did have other candidates, including Judge Diane Wood of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago, with more defining records on the sort of social issues that could transformed into political attacks…
The National Right to Life Committee issued a statement Tuesday that acknowledged her record “so far sheds little light on her views” regarding abortion issues.
But, it adds, “pro-life concerns are reinforced by the knowledge that Judge Sotomayor has been nominated to the Supreme Court by a president who himself criticized the Supreme Court majority for upholding the ban on partial-birth abortion.”
Second, conservatives are concerned about some statements and court decisions she has made that hint at the possibility of racism and sexism being part of her views, which would be very dangerous in a Supreme Court justice.
Here is a court case that points to that possibility:
The primary court case conservatives will try to use to derail Sotomayor is a discrimination case brought by white firefighters from New Haven, Conn., who claimed a promotion test was improperly tossed out because minorities performed poorly on it.
Sotomayor participated in a three-judge panel that supported the city’s decision to not to certify the test results. The case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Here is an account referring to a statement she made as part of a 2001 speech at Berkeley Law School at UC (emphasis mine):
[Sotomayor] said, “Our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions.”
In discussing discrimination cases, Sotomayor also referred to a remark at times attributed to former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor that “a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion” and said that she didn’t necessarily agree.
“First, as Professor Martha Minow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise,” Sotomayor said. “Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., suggested Sotomayor was a racist, writing in a blog posting: “Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.’ Wouldn’t they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism. A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”
One other reason many conservatives are concerned with her nomination to Supreme Court Justice is that President Obama has stated that he believes Sotomayor takes the same views on the constitution as himself, and as the most liberal president that the country has ever had, that is a great cause for concern. Here is an article from the Associated Press on this subject:
The White House says President Barack Obama is “very comfortable” that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor shares his philosophy about the Constitution, including rights not specifically spelled out in the document.
Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama did not specifically ask Sotomayor about the right to privacy. The debate over that right has come up in the context of several matters involving the court, including abortion rights.
As a candidate for president, Obama promised that he would not appoint anyone who doesn’t believe in the right to privacy.
Pressed on the matter, Gibbs would only answer broadly, saying Obama was very comfortable with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to his.
The ambiguity of Sotomayor’s positions may dissolve into a disturbingly activist stance once she no longer has to worry about being elected, having been appointed to a lifetime position. The course of action that conservatives are going to take to oppose her appointment has not yet been decided.
Obama requires Leap of Faith
May 28, 2009 by Steven Ting
Filed under General, Politics
A recent Wall Street Journal article compared the life of Obama by using “South Park” as an analogy.
Consider the 1998 “Gnomes” episode — possibly surpassing Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose” as the classic defense of capitalism — in which the children of South Park, Colo., get a lesson in how not to run an enterprise from mysterious little men who go about stealing undergarments from the unsuspecting and collecting them in a huge underground storehouse.
What’s the big idea? The gnomes explain:
“Phase One: Collect underpants.
“Phase Two: ?
“Phase Three: Profit.”
Lest you think there’s a step missing here, that’s the whole point. (“What about Phase Two?” asks one of the kids. “Well,” answers a gnome, “Phase Three is profits!”)
The article then goes to describe a bunch of other Obama policies. Let’s look at Guantanamo, the Middle East, North Korea and Nuclear Weapons, Energy, Health Care, and the Government Deficit. You’ll get the idea once we get started.
Guantanamo
- Order that Guantanmo is Closed during first weeks of Presidency
- ???
- Close Gitmo!
Umm. What’s Step 2? In this case, it could be to move the prisioners somewhere else. It could be to get funding for the closure. Have any of these happened? No. Is Obama Dumb? Yes.
The Middle East
- Talk to Iran, Syria, Antagonist States
- ???
- Peace!
So what’s missing here? From the article:
In this case, the administration seems to think that diplomacy, like aspirin, is something you take two of in the morning to take away the pain. But as Boston University’s Angelo Codevilla notes in his book, “Advice to War Presidents,” diplomacy “can neither create nor change basic intentions, interests, or convictions. . . . To say, ‘We’ve got a problem. Let’s try diplomacy, let’s sit down and talk’ abstracts from the important questions: What will you say? And why should anything you say lead anyone to accommodate you?”
North Korea and Nuclear Weapons
- Tell NK they’ll be punished if they continue Nuclear development.
- ???
- No more nukes!
This is a fail by both Bush and Obama. We told NK that they were doing bad things. We told them they would have consequences. We even condemned their actions. But what was done? Nothing. What did the United Nations do? Nothing. I thought everyone loved Obama and would do what he said. With the ballistic missle launch by NK last month, the UN Security Council failed to get the votes for a resolution condeming NK. And even if they did, does it affect NK? No. It’s just a piece of paper. Is Obama dumb because he thinks he can bring change? Yes!
Global Warming and Energy
- Use Renewal and Clean Sources of Energy
- ???
- Carbon Neutrality!
Universal Health Care
- Provide Insurance to the Uninsured
- ???
- Everyone Has Insurance!
Reduce the Deficit
- Spend Trillions of Dollars
- ???
- No More Deficit!
Save the Automobile Industry from Bankruptcy
- Raise the CAFE standards to 35.5 MPG
- ???
- Auto Industry is Strong!
Is there a pattern here with Obama? As you can see, Obama has all of these dreams. He hasn’t woken up to experience reality. It’s great to have an idea and to have an end result. We just need to know how to get there. Anyone can propose ideas. An effective president will show us how to achieve these ideas. So far Obama is lacking on the effective side and on the leadership side. Since November 2008, things have just gotten worse. I thought once he took office, there would be some type of change? The only change I see is from bad to worse.
Just because Obama went to Harvard does not mean that he is smart. In many instances, Obama is Dumb.
Obama and GM (Government Motors)
May 27, 2009 by Steven Ting
Filed under Business, General
Bondholders of GM soundly rejected the offer placed before them, to swap their debt for 10 percent of the new company. I am one of those bondholders and the numbers presented just did not make sense. Bondholders hold $27 Billion in GM Debt. The UAW Trust has $20 Billion owed to them. The Government has loaned an additional $20 Billion to GM. But under the proposal required by the Obama Administration, the bondholders would receive 10 percent, the UAW Trust would receive 39 percent, the Government would receive 50 percent, and existing shareholders would receive 1 percent.
Just taking a ratio of the numbers, the bondholders are getting screwed. It is not surprising since Obama seems to be against industry. Looking at the numbers alone, bondholders should receive 40 percent, UAW Trust 29 percent, Government 29 percent, and existing shareholders 2 percent.
But yesterday during negotiations, the UAW Trust agreed to only take 17.5 percent with the option of an additional 2.5 percent through warrants. This leaves an additional 19 percent to be split, on the table. But according to the government, the most GM can offer bondholders is 10 percent of the company. This is a guarantee fail. Instead of offering the bondholders the additional 19 percent, bringing it up to a total of 29 percent, the remainder goes to the government.
So if the bondholders were to approve the debt swap, they would still only get 10 percent, UAW 20 percent, Government 69 percent, and existing shareholders 1 percent. We’ve talked about socialism. This seems more like communism. The Government is placing demands on a private entity and will take 69 percent of the company.
If Obama lets his plan happen, things will get tougher for the lower and middle class. The largest of the bondholders are banks. If banks are not able to recover their money, how likely are they to provide future loans or to purchase debt? If the Government can come in and take over a company, I don’t want to have any part of it. Why would I buy their stock? Why would I buy their debt?
We’ve seen how the Government runs things. Government and business don’t mix. The government runs the postal service. The government runs the VA hospitals. The government runs the DMV. Now we want to let the government run an automobile company?
