Showing posts with label Republican Party moderates. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Republican Party moderates. Show all posts

Saturday, April 3, 2010

Is All The Anger Messing with Our National Culture

I would say a big YEP! This is what deception, in the form of misinformation and over-stating, and fear-mongering does to a community and, if on a large enough scale, an entire nation.

Apparently anger has become the crucible upon which our national culture is to be forged - - an acceptable means of expression on the campaign trail, at town-hall meetings and in Congress. The lunatic fringe engages in the interchange of opinions without factual underpinnings or respect for rational debate. And since especially politicians on the right fail to condemn outrageous statements by political opportunists in their ranks the lunatic fringe moves ever closer to defining conservatives and the Republican Party.

There doesn’t seem to be any sense of honor among fanatics, just irresponsible partisan rage from politicians and media hucksters who say, with a straight face, that they are true patriots. Those Republicans in Congress who refuse to state unequivocally that they believe President Obama to be a natural-born citizen provide cover for ‘birthers’, the latest of whom is Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, who says he won’t follow orders issued by the president unless he sees his birth certificate. Will the Army actually put up with this, issue an order to cease and desist or go straight to a court martial proceeding?

Somehow we have reached a point in our history where civil disobedience has become synonymous with armed resistance and a total misreading of what our early forbears fought against in the early days of British dominance on our shores. “No taxation without representation” and the flinging of tea into Boston Harbor has morphed into a false analogy that even what an elected majority of our own citizens proposes is unacceptable, as if there were no such thing as free elections and legislative initiatives. Accompanied by blissfully incoherent rhetoric, supporters cling to irrational premises to feed their angst encouraged by irresponsible pols who turn logic on its head.

The recent arrest of homegrown insurgents who believed they could start an insurrection by attacking law enforcement personnel followed by armed assaults at their funerals is a disturbing extension of the violence and anti-government sentiment that has begun to permeate our world. When the initial shock wears off among the information-challenged rank-and-file voting public the inflammatory violence to decent discourse will no doubt continue unabated. Instigators are unlikely to acknowledge that words can have serious consequences and that their verbal assaults often bear bitter fruit.

It seems to amuse listeners when Sarah Palin tells them to stop motorists who have Obama stickers on their cars and ask them “how’s that hopey, changey thing workn’ out for ya?” Either she is unaware or doesn’t care that a driver in Tennessee was forced off the road by an angry partisan for just that reason. Neither does it concern her that her November electoral map highlights Democratic candidates in the cross-hairs that all gun handlers will recognize. In fact conservatives in general dismiss any connection between their overblown rhetoric and the behavior of would be government removalists.

And it isn’t just among the obvious disrupters in the political world where violence and incivility occurs. Anyone who has attended a child’s sporting event will probably have experienced a parent yelling at an official or even physically attacking a coach. At one game when my own eleven-year-old son was pitching I could hear “meatball, meatball” from the bleachers across the field and remarked that the coach shouldn’t allow his team to behave that way, only to be told it wasn’t the kids but the parents of the opposing team.

Sadly the lack of respect and deeply disturbing behavior of both adults and young people in our midst played out in the tragic suicide of a young female student at South Hadley High School last week. No adequate explanation has yet been made as to why members of the faculty and other students who knew of the bullying and harassment of the girl took no action or why such behavior is often tolerated nationwide. Is it a sign of our times that violent words and actions are simply accepted as part of growing up? And is it only after some dreadful incident that a knee-jerk response is generated in the community and guilt-ridden overreaction confounds the original transgression? A local resident told me that a friend has stopped going to meetings in South Hadley because there is such disruptive shouting and screaming on the part of attendees. Sound familiar?

Whatever disagreements continue to exist in the political world and in our communities it is well past time that we took a critical look at the environment we have created and for partisans to acknowledge that radical elements in the media and among supporters do great damage to our way of life.

Please respond to Ann Davidow's commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community.

FINDING A VOICE by Ann Davidow


Let The Sun Shine In......

Friday, May 29, 2009

Sotomayor Is No Leftist

But is she a corporatist?

Posted on May 28, 2009

By E.J. Dionne
    
Republicans would be foolish to fight the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court because she is the most conservative choice that President Obama could have made.

And even though they should support her confirmation, liberals would be foolish to embrace Sotomayor as one of their own because her record is clearly that of a moderate. It is highly unlikely that she will push the court to the left. Indeed, on many issues of concern to business, she is likely to make the Chamber of Commerce perfectly happy.

In this battle, it’s important to separate Obama’s reasons for choosing Sotomayor from her actual record. He was drawn to her not simply because the politics of naming the first Latina justice were irresistible, but also because he saw her as the precise opposite of Chief Justice John Roberts.In his September 2005 speech explaining his vote against Roberts, Obama argued that 95 percent of court cases are easily settled on the basis of the law and precedent. But in “those 5 percent of hard cases,” Obama said, the “legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision” and “the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.”
    
And that is where Obama found Roberts wanting. The young senator insisted that Roberts “far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak” and “seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process.”
    
Obama believes Roberts’ subsequent behavior on the court has justified his initial suspicions. He hopes that Sotomayor will be the anti-Roberts, a person whose experience growing up in the projects of the South Bronx will allow her to see life and the quest for justice in a way Roberts never will.
    
Conservatives—particularly those who run direct mail outfits and want a big court fight—would love the decision over Sotomayor to hang on Obama’s call for judges who show “empathy.” They would cast her as a dangerous activist willing to bend the law to produce the results she wants.
    
They want to turn Obama’s argument on its head and claim that Sotomayor would show bias in favor of those who share her background—and never mind that they dismiss such assertions when they are raised with respect to white, conservative, male nominees.
    
The problem is that this approach is untrue to who Sotomayor has been and has little relationship to the decisions she has actually rendered as a judge. News accounts from the 1990s consistently described her as a “centrist” in her politics. Her lead sponsor when she was first named as a judge, the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, was hardly a conventional liberal. Obama may have found himself an empathetic judge, but she practices her empathy from the middle of the road.
    
A careful analysis of her record by Business Week, for example, concluded that she is a “moderate on business issues” and would fit the court’s current alignment of such questions.
    
She also upheld a ban on federal funds going to family planning groups that provided abortions overseas. Sotomayor wrote that “the Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds.”

Dan Gilgoff, on his excellent “God and Country” blog, points out that Sotomayor also ruled in favor of a group of Connecticut anti-abortion protesters who asserted that police “used excessive force against them at a demonstration.” He concludes that her “thin record on abortion is most likely a relief” to pro-life groups. In picking her, Obama sent another signal that he is serious in seeking common ground on abortion.
   
Liberals should not take the bait of the right-wingers by allowing the debate over Sotomayor to be premised on the idea that she is a bold ideological choice. She’s not. But if conservatives succeed in painting this moderate as a radical, they will skew future arguments over the court. In fact, liberals should press Sotomayor on her more conservative decisions on business issues, an area in which the current court already tilts too far right.
    
As for Republican senators, they have to ask if it’s worth alienating Latino voters to wage a fierce battle against a woman who is, from their point of view, the best nominee Obama was likely to give them. 
     
E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com.
    © 2009, Washington Post Writers Group   
White House / Pete Souza
IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.

"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Arlen Joins The Democrats

The consensus here is; WAIT AND SEE.
During his press conference today, what what I largely heard is that Specter didn't feel he could be re-elected as a Republican because of the Club for Growth backing a far-right candidate against him in a primary. 

He did, rightly state, that there is no room for moderates in the Republican Party anymore. While I agree that this is true and disturbing, does he not believe that the pendulum must swing away from the far right and their shameful cover-ups of any scandal having to do with the Bush years; one of the most criminal in the history of this nation?

We are in a wait and see mode as we hope Pennsylvania Democrats and independents are?


Arlen Specter has crushed Republican spirits while causing Democrats to rejoice, but his stunning party switch came with a warning label: The Obama agenda isn’t suddenly a slam dunk just because he’s a Democrat now.

“I will not be an automatic 60th vote,” Specter said Tuesday afternoon. “I would illustrate that with my position on employee choice, also known as card check. I think it’s a bad deal and I’m opposed to it. I will not vote to impose cloture. … If the Democratic Party asks too much, I will not vote with them."

Specter will be the 59th Democratic senator, and if Al Franken eventually pulls out his Senate race in Minnesota, Democrats will have a filibuster-resistant 60-vote majority in the Senate, something the party could only have dreamed of at this time last year.

But even though he promises to be no rubber stamp for Democrats, Specter's party switch could have a dramatic effect on some of the most challenging issues before the Senate, changing the dynamic on health care reform, economic policy and it may even tilt the global warming debate back toward the Democrats. The impact could extend to the Supreme Court, where Specter — a senior member of the Judiciary Committee — could be a key ally if the president makes a Supreme Court justice pick in the future.

Specter’s abandonment of the Republican Party also sets off an internal Senate shuffle in which he may leapfrog some Democratic senators on key committees like Appropriations, and it means that several Republican staffers who worked for him on the Judiciary Committee may now be without jobs.

Specter had been in secret talks with Senate Democratic leaders for months, according to Senate sources, but his final move to become a Democrat came after a recent poll showed him badly losing a Pennsylvania Republican primary next year. Specter talked with Obama Tuesday morning, and the president said he was "thrilled" to have Specter joining the Democratic side of the aisle. According to White House aides, Obama was handed a note by an aide that read: "Specter is announcing he is changing parties."

Specter said Tuesday afternoon that Obama told him he would campaign for him in Pennsylvania.

In a statement, Specter said he does not want to be "judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate." Specter was mobbed by reporters Tuesday and joked, "I don't think Lee Harvey Oswald had this big a crowd trailing him." (Geebus, what a very odd thing to say, as he joined the party of John F. Kennedy!)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), still stymied by filibusters on key issues, may have been one of the happiest people in Washington on Tuesday.

“Sen. Specter and I have had a long dialogue about his place in an evolving Republican Party. (I believe the word, Senator Reid, is "devolving".) We have not always agreed on every issue, but Sen. Specter has shown a willingness to work in a bipartisan manner, put people over party and do what is right for Pennsylvanians and all Americans,” Reid said. “I welcome Sen. Specter and his moderate voice to our diverse caucus and to continuing our open and honest debate about the best way to make life better for the American people.”

Republicans in the Senate were in disarray on Tuesday afternoon, reacting with surprise, anger and cynicism. Specter’s abandonment of the Republican Party is as significant as any electoral blow the party has experienced over the past two election cycles.

"I'm stunned ... I'm very surprised. I had no idea this was coming," said Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.). "I'm stunned."

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), who’s in charge of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said Specter’s move was a pure political play.

“I think it's about Sen. Specter's sense of political self-preservation," said Cornyn. “[Specter] knew he'd have a hard time winning the Republican primary. He wasn't ready to quit, so he decided to quit [the party]. I think it's as simple as that."

But Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), a fellow moderate, didn't seem surprised. On the national level, she says, "you haven't certainly heard warm encouraging words of how [the GOP] views moderates. Either you are with us or against us." 

Now, where have we heard that before?



 Let The Sun Shine In......