Category: Politics

Posted on
by

Every schoolchild knows the story of George Washington’s resignation at the end of the Revolutionary War. Washington, the winning general who secured the independence of the United States, solemnly stepped down from his position. This action would set the standard that once one’s term in office is over, that person will leave and let the nation decide what different way they wanted to govern themselves. Washington would go on to reluctantly serve as the first president, and when he knew his time was over, he once again showed his character by stepping down and peacefully transferring power to the next president. Each president thereafter has respected the same precedent, assuming the choice to leave office was their own, and not forced by resignation or death.

That is until the election of 2020. Having lost, President Donald Trump was faced with a choice: accept his loss solemnly and peacefully pass power to Joe Biden – perhaps with a chance at trying for office again in 2024 – or press forward with a conspiracy that he had not lost, and try every effort, privately via his campaign and with his powers as president, to keep a grasp on power. We all know which option he chose. When it came time to do his one job as an outgoing president, he utterly failed to live up to the moment.

Continue reading →

Based on what I’m reading, some of the concessions being offered, like floor amendments and a review period for bills, are good. @justinamash has long highlighted issues in the current legislative process that should be fixed. If they are, his lobbying will have been worth it.

Posted on
by

Over the course of this campaign cycle, Donald Trump has frequently gone after people or organizations who have criticized him in some way. Usually that person or organization has been related to journalism. They’ll say something about him and he’ll hop on Twitter to fire off one or more tweets in anger about those he feels have slighted him.

I think many people will brush off criticisms about these Twitter, thinking something like “They’re just journalists. They definitely deserve it for lying about him.”

Continue reading →

Posted on
by

Globalization

I see a lot of commentary these days from liberals regarding the “globalism” boogeyman. I don’t get what’s so bad about countries competing to attract business to themselves. This even happens within a country. For example, in the U.S. Texas or Florida might attract businesses from Connecticut. There have actually been some high-profile wooing from both states toward CT businesses in the past several years. I’ve seen some snark and some grumbling about it, but never the same level of concern that “globalism” brings out.

Perhaps what is most concerning to these folks is that it’s easier for businesses to move than it is for people to move. This is even true within the U.S., though the obstacles for it are fewer. To move countries requires a lot more time, documentation, and money. It’s one thing to take a vacation in Europe for a while – an activity for which U.S. citizens have arguably the easiest of times – but it’s much more difficult to move countries on a permanent or semi-permanent basis.

Continue reading →

Posted on
by

Barack Obama Playing BasketballIt never ceases to amaze me how a single event, action, or activity can be shaped to produce a narrative intended to spread a viewpoint or bias. Then again, we are humans, who have long had the capability to tap into anything and create a story. Tonight I’ve been thinking of sports. It’s fascinating how different athletic and sporting activities have been perceived and interpreted by a group of people, depending on their bias.

Take golf: When the subject of a game of golf is Barack Obama, the narrative is often of a weak, ineffectual, and distant man, seemingly unbothered by the current events, and perhaps demonstrating a dereliction of duty to his office. On the other hand, golf has long been the game of choice of the rich and powerful. We’ve seen it in a thousand movies: the golf course is where lucrative business deals are and tycoons show their power. I don’t doubt reality is much different. When you end up on a golf course a businessman, you have “made it.” But for politicians – at least in Obama’s case – the narrative is complete opposite. It’s not one that’s entirely undeserved, but it is interesting.

Then there’s bicycling: When the subject is Barack Obama, he’s a sissy street bicycler, wearing helmets and taking it slow on the sidewalks (though in most pics he seems to be with his children). Bicycling isn’t always done by the “sissies,” of course. George W. Bush is a well known athletic bicycler, often taking to the dirt on off-road bikes. Of course, the narrative here is between the city biker, who doesn’t have a competitive, aggressive bone in his body, and the athletic competitor, who goes off road to compete.

Continue reading →

Posted on
by

dodd nancy_pelosi

We’re hearing a lot these days about the Republican Party.  We hear/read about where they’re were.  We hear a lot about where they’re supposedly going. Then we hear a lot about where they should be going, which is different depending on your exact political views.  It’s all exciting debate, and one that is necessary to ensure that the party is successful in the future.

What we don’t hear a lot about these days is the fortunes of the Democratic Party.  The assumption seems to be that there needs to be no discussion of this party’s future because they’re currently in power.  Yet, the actions of those inside the party, especially of those in positions of power, could have reverberations that affect the electoral success of the party come next year.  The only thing that is possibly more important than actions themselves is the response to those actions.

So far, the response to some of the scandals by party members has been pretty awful, and it could harm the Democrats in 2010.

Continue reading →

Posted on
by

In Michael’s article [ed: removed dead link] on the Specter cross-over, regular reader c3 asks:

Just for the sake of discussion.  How is this different than what Joe Leiberman did?

I think what’s different between Specter and Lieberman is that, as far as I know, Lieberman hasn’t flipped-flopped between saying one thing and then doing another, while Specter has.  Yes, Lieberman himself flirted with the idea of becoming a Republican once upon a time, and was John McCain’s first pick for running mate last year, but he hadn’t spent months telling us that it would never happen and then suddenly did it.  I actually found Lieberman to be quite transparent with his thought process.  He went public with the fact he was considering it.

Specter is a different animal altogether.

Continue reading →

Posted on
by

Former Ambassador Charles Freeman withdrew his name from consideration yesterday after controversy arose regarding some of his positions on Israel, and financial ties to Saudi Arabia and China, through his position on the board of a Chinese oil exploration company and an allegedly Saudi funded Middle East policy group.

More change in Washington, I see.

Yea, I’m in the dissent on this one, but not because I’m some rabid always-blame-Israel anti-semite.

Continue reading →

Posted on
by

(Cross-posted from Poligazette)

Liberals are shocked!  Shocked, I tell you.  Why?  Well, a recent Supreme Court concurring opinion to a ruling that will allow patients to sue drug companies for injuries related to the drugs was written by none other than Clarence Thomas, that avowedly conservative justice.

Of course, without even having to read his opinion, this LA Times article tells you all you need to know about why Thomas supported the right to sue.  In short, he supports state law:

Four years ago, for example, the court, with Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy in the majority, upheld the power of federal agents to raid the homes of Californians who grow marijuana for their personal use — legal under state law but not federal law. Thomas disagreed. […]

“If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything,” Thomas wrote in dissent. ” . . . Our federalist system, properly understood, allows California and a growing number of other states to decide for themselves how to safeguard the health and welfare of their citizens.”

Basically, Thomas is a federalist, a supporter of limited federal government interference into state affairs.  So, knowing this, his concurrence with the majority isn’t so surprising.

Continue reading →