May 12-14, 2008
May 12 03:49 Obama's Racial Problems May 12 13:36 A Significant And Growing Problem May 12 15:07 Making the Most of a Teachable Moment May 13 04:40 When Rights Collide May 13 08:32 Justin's Bill Set to Become Law May 14 11:16 Popularity is Fleeting, Principles are Forever
Obama's Racial Problems
I'll give Juan Williams credit for talking about the Obamessiah's race-related problems. It's something that Democrats better come to grips with. Here's the heart of Juan Williams' article :
Hillary Clinton , down to her last straw, is making the case that she is the better candidate to run against the Republicans because, unlike Barack Obama , she can win white Democrats.It would be wrong to think that this problem is all because of Jeremiah Wright. I think Obama's problem stems as much from his SF fundraising speech as it stems from Jerremiah Wright. The combination of the Wright videos and the fundraising speech are a toxic mix that've sucked the air out of Obama's campaign, especially with white voters.
She is right. But because she is daring to touch the hot button of racial politics, she is being told to shut up or risk being charged with exploiting racial tensions for political advantage.
The facts are stubborn, however. Since his phenomenal win with 33% of the white vote in nearly all-white Iowa , Obama has been unable to get a firm grip on white Democrats. He has won a majority of these voters in only six states, the biggest of which is his home state of Illinois . Clinton has defeated Obama among white voters in key states such as California , Texas , Ohio , Pennsylvania and North Carolina . Exit polls show Clinton winning an overwhelming average of 57% of white Democrats since the February Super Tuesday elections.
If you think none of this is a real issue for Democrats as they try to win the White House , then listen to Republican guru Karl Rove . Citing Obama's inability to get more than 30% of Catholics or working-class white voters in a big state such as Pennsylvania, Rove recently wrote: "Defections like this elect Republicans."
And now we are heading into a general election with an even larger group of white voters in play, key independents and suburbanites in "toss-up" districts that swing between Republicans and Democrats.
More than anything, Obama has a credibility gap. The polling doesn't show it yet but it will before the conventions. Sen. Obama's credibility will take another hit once Stanley Kurtz's article hits the airwaves. Kurtz's article adds to the growing impression that Barack Obama is just another slick politician, not the postpartisan, post-racial candidate he's been telling people.
Wright founded Trumpet Newsmagazine in 1982 as a "church newspaper", primarily for his own congregation, one gathers, to "preach a message of social justice to those who might not hear it in worship service." So Obama's presence at sermons is not the only measure of his knowledge of Wright's views. Glance through even a single issue of Trumpet, and Wright's radical politics are everywhere, in the pictures, the headlines, the highlighted quotations, and above all in the articles themselves. It seems inconceivable that, in 20 years, Obama would never have picked up a copy of Trumpet. In fact, Obama himself graced the cover at least once (although efforts to obtain that issue from the publisher or Obama's interview with the magazine from his campaign were unsuccessful).I've maintained for some time that the Wright controversy isn't going away. I've also said that it doesn't matter whether we're talking about Jeremiah Wright the last month of the campaign. Wright will continue hurting Obama because the damage is already done.
Because we don't know that much about Obama, it's possible to sway opinion of him. We can't do that with Hillary. We know more than enough to form an opinion of her. Each time we hear about Wright's radical politics, we ask whether Obama knew about the latest controversial statement. Anytime that questions surface that question Sen. Obama's integrity, it's more likely that he'll take a hit. Be prepared to be disgusted while you read this Wright diatribe in the May, 2006 issue of Trumpet Magazine:
We need to educate our children to the reality of white supremacy.Hillary can win voters that Obama can't get in his wildest dreams. Obama's been underperforming amongst whites since the Wright tapes surfaced. If the Democrats want to give away this election, all they need do is nominate Obama.
We need to educate our children about the white supremacist's foundations of the educational system.
When the levees in Louisiana broke alligators, crocodiles and piranha swam freely through what used to be the streets of New Orleans. That is an analogy that we need to drum into the heads of our African American children (and indeed all children!).
In the flood waters of white supremacy...there are also crocodiles, alligators and piranha!
The policies with which we live now and against which our children will have to struggle in order to bring about "the beloved community," are policies shaped by predators.
We lay a foundation, deconstructing the household of white supremacy with tools that are not the master's tools. We lay the foundation with hope. We deconstruct the vicious and demonic ideology of white supremacy with hope. Our hope is not built on faith-based dollars, empty liberal promises or veiled hate-filled preachments of the so-called conservatives. Our hope is built on Him who came in the flesh to set us free.
Awhile back I wrote about Karl Rove's electoral map. Against Hillary, McCain started with a base of 214 EVs. Against Obamessiah, McCain starts with 260 EVs locked down. That doesn't give Obama any margin for error. We all know that he'll commit more unforced errors as the head-to-head matchup takes center stage.
One last thing that'll weigh Obama down is Michelle Obama. She's more dispiriting than Obama is uplilfting. That won't play well either.
Posted Monday, May 12, 2008 3:50 AM
No comments.
A Significant And Growing Problem
This Washington Times editorial higlights the problems Barack Obama is having with Jewish voters. It's bad enough that Sen. Obama has a problem with that voting block. What's worse for Sen. Obama is that John McCain knows it and is exploiting the situation:
On Friday, Robert Malley, an Obama advisor, resigned from the senator's campaign as reports surfaced that he had met with the terrorist group Hamas. Last month, Hamas political advisor Ahmad Yousef said on WABC Radio in New York that he hoped Mr. Obama would be elected president. Mr. McCain said Hamas would never want him to be president, "so if Mr. Obama is favored by Hamas, I think people can make judgments accordingly."People who know the importance of the Jewish vote will remember that Joe Lieberman essentially lived in Florida the last 6 weeks of the 2000 campaign. If not for his work in the Jewish community, Al Gore would've lost Florida by 25,000 votes minimum.
Mr. Obama sternly rejected the Hamas endorsement, but the latest Gallup polls suggest he has a significant and growing problem in keeping Jewish voters in the Democratic fold. The latest Gallup polls show that in a contest with Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama would secure 61 percent of the Jewish vote to the Republican's 32 percent. In 2004 and 2006 elections, by contrast, Jewish voters favored the Democratic Party by a 75 percent to 25 percent margin. This suggests that support for the Democratic Party standard-bearer among Jews could be approaching its lowest levels in decades. The Republicans' best showing was achieved by Ronald Reagan in 1980, when he won 40 percent of the Jewish vote.
Jews comprise just 2 percent of the American population. But they could play a large role in a close election because they are geographically concentrated and are more likely than other groups to turn out to vote. States with large Jewish populations, such as California, New York, Florida and New Jersey, account for 128 of the 270 electoral votes needed to win. Illinois, Pennsylvania and Ohio also have large numbers of Jewish voters. Consider two states: Florida, a critical swing state, has 400,000 Jewish voters and Pennsylvania 200,000. In these states, a shift among Jews from one party to the other can determine the overall final result. This is part of the reason that Mrs. Clinton tried to position herself as a "centrist" in foreign affairs: voting in favor of the Iraq war in 2002 and talking tough about Iran. But she undermined her own credibility by stridently denouncing the war during this year's Democratic primaries and staking out a position to the left of Mr. Obama on withdrawing troops from Iraq.
There's another principle at play here that's more important than just the Jewish vote. As people find out more about Sen. Obama, the less they trust him. That's because he's a blank slate. You couldn't do that with Hillary because everyone knows what she's about. People's opinions of her are practically etched in stone.
That isn't the case with Sen. Obama. People are asking questions now that TUCC's new pastor sounds like Jeremiah Wright's hand-picked successor. That's why some people have gone from being willing to consider voting for Sen. Obama to where they're just not sure he is who he says he is. Others now think he's a fraud.
I predicted here that that problem will continue to grow now that Stanley Kurtz's article has been published. I also said that Republicans won't have to talk about Jeremiah Wright because it's already on everyone's mind. Jeremiah Wright will be the 600 pound gorilla in the room that Democrats will pretend isn't there.
Whichever way you slice it, the truth is that Sen. Obama's troubles just keep increasing, whether it's Jeremiah Wright or the Jewish vote.
Posted Monday, May 12, 2008 1:37 PM
No comments.
Making the Most of a Teachable Moment
It isn't often that I pay attention to Eva Young. I'll make an exception this time because (a) she linked to one of my posts and (b)it's a perfect teaching opportunity. Her post is one of the most paranoid posts I've ever read. Here's what I originally posted :
Tuesday afternoon, John McCain took Barack Obama to task on the subject of judges. Libby Quaid's AP article showed how biased they are. Here's where her bias really showed:the title of the post was "AP's Bias Showing". Eva twisted the post badly that she came up with this headline:McCain, the eventual GOP nominee, promised to appoint judges in the mold of Roberts and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, saying they would interpret the law strictly to curb the scope of their rulings. While McCain didn't mention abortion, the far right understands that such nominees would be likely to limit or perhaps overturn the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.It's interesting that Ms. Quaid immediately assumed that conservatives, aka "the far right", only want strict constructionist justices like Alito and Roberts so we can finally get rid of Roe v. Wade. I'd love hearing Ms. Quaid explain why someone with a pro choice record like Rudy Giuliani wants strict constructionist judges, too.
Gary Gross Upset that AP Exposed the "Strict Constructionist" Code WordsWhy Ms. Young thinks that I'm "upset that the AP exposed" some "strict constructionist code words" is beyond me. My believe in strict constructionist judges is based on my belief that the Constitution means what it says, that there's a reason why the Founding Fathers outlined the specific duties of each branch of government.
Strict constructionism simply means that elected officials are responsible for enacting and signing legislation that becomes law. The Founding Fathers' wisdom in establishing that is that they wanted elections to hold people accountable for their actions in the House, Senate or White House.
The last thing they wanted was unelected people making laws, which is what activist judges do. Let's remember that they just separated themselves from the British because they didn't believe in accountability.
Here's how Ms. Young twisted my post into her own diatribe:
Giulianni was pandering to the theocrats when he said that. The so-called "strict constructionists" such as Scalia really are interested in having a theocracy. Scalia has said that Government derives its legitimacy from God. That's not what the constitution says and it's interesting how these characters have claimed to be "strict constructionists."Christians are now considered theocrats? That's a helluva leap.
While it's true that the Constitution doesn't say that government "derives its legitimacy from God", the Declaration of Independance does:
W hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.The Declaration is clear that the Founding Fathers believed that the government only had the powers that the governed consented to.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed , That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I'd further argue that Ms. Young's statement that "strict constructionists like Scalia" are mostly "interested in having a theocracy", especially in light of Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas. This portion of his dissenting opinion is particularly enlightening:
Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one's fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one's views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts; or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them; than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new "constitutional right" by a Court that is impatient of democratic change.Scalia's intent couldn't be clearer. His intent is to have democracies debate the various issues of the day. He doesn't want special interests to 'achieve' through the courts whhat it isn't able to achieve through legislation.
Here's the paranoid finish to Ms. Young's post:
Why is Gary so concerned about having a national debate over overturning Roe V Wade? The effect of this would mean there would be a hodge-podge of state abortion laws. Why is it "media bias" to expose code words used by theocrats? In my opinion, the media doesn't do enough of this.Let's first establish the fact that Ms. Young is using several false premises in her 'argument'.
Is this because Gary wants to be able to use this issue to mobilize the anti-abortion activists (those who want abortion to be criminal), but not to let the mainstream onto this?
She's assumed that I don't want a "national debate over overturning Roe V Wade", which I'm not. Unlike timid non-thinkers, I'm more than willing to make my case to the people. That's because I prefer using the legislative process to enact laws. It's obvious that Ms. Young prefers using the judicial system over the legislative system to enact laws.
That's the quintessential difference between strict constructionism and activism.
Eva asks this question:
Why is it "media bias" to expose code words used by theocrats?That's assuming that strict constructionists are theocrats and that they use code words, whiich isn't true. It's media bias because the writer characterized pro life voters as "far right". Such thinking isn't supportable because there are lots of pro life Democrats. Does Libby Quaid think that pro life Democrats who want Roe v. Wade overturned are part of the "far right"?
When partial birth abortion was debated and voted on in Congress, people like Dick Gebhardt, Patrick Kennedy and Daniel Patrick Moynihan voted to ban the procedure. Ted Kennedy took to the Senate floor to rail against the "Far Right" for pandering to their base. It's been awhile back so I'm not 100 percent certain but I think it was Orrin Hatch that rose to challenge Teddy's diatribe. Hatch asked Teddy if Dick Gebhardt, David Boniors, Patrick Kennedy were members of the "Far Right." Ted's swift response was "Of course not" to which Hatch replied "They voted for the House bill."
When the AP uses a negative and provocative phrase like "Far Right", I'll jump all over it like Craig Monroe jumps all over do-nothing knuckleballs. My criticizing the AP or other Agenda Media outlets has nothing to do with being a strict constructionist or a theocrat. It has everything to do with demanding reporters report things.
I know that's a radical concept for some. That's why I took the time to use this teachable moment.
Posted Monday, May 12, 2008 3:07 PM
Comment 1 by Walter hanson at 13-May-08 06:43 AM
Hey Garry there's a way you can expand on this nice teaching moment. Obama in an interview (I believe this week) was asked who he will think is a good justice. Mind you the guy who voted against Roberts thinks a good justice is somebody like Souter, Beyer, and Ginsburg. Furthermore he specifically said something about feelings and caring about people.
Aren't those code words?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Phidippides at 13-May-08 11:17 AM
Some clarifications - I took a law school class with Scalia once and he stressed how he was not a "strict constructionist", but rather an "originalist". The difference, in a nutshell, is that a strict constructionist would take words such as "abridging the freedom of speech" and apply it *only* to speech (e.g. talking). The originalist takes those words and applies it in the way it was originally understood - so both oral speech and, say, letter writing is included in those words.
The reasoning behind this is because the Constitution is a "dead document" whose meaning should not change. Some people erroneously claim the opposite - that it's a "living document". But a document that "evolves" over time really doesn't offer much protection as a legal text since rights are then subject to the tides of change, to politics, to erosion. It's only if the Constitution is "dead" - whose precepts that were described 200+ years ago are the same today - that it will have continuing force and be the law of the land for our great nation.
When Rights Collide
It's time we started asking some important questions following the decision made by ISD 742 and St. Cloud Technical High School regarding Tyler Hurd, a 23-year-old student at St. Cloud State. The reason why the school district made a decision about Mr. Hurd is because (a) he was doing his student teaching requirement at St. Cloud Technical HS and (b) he has a service dog to protect him if he has a seizure. Here's what St. Cloud Times reporter Dave Aikens is reporting about the disagreement:
A St. Cloud State University student in a teacher-training program at Technical High School left the school in late April because he says he feared for the safety of his service dog.Several questions leap to mind after reading that brief snippet. The most important question is why didn't ISD 742 stand up for Tyler Hurd? The next most important question is whether the student who made the threat was disciplined. If it wasn't, why wasn't it? Was the school aware of the rights Tyler Hurd had under the Reasonable Accommodation section of the Americans With Disabilities Act? If it wasn't, why wasn't it?
The school district calls it a misunderstanding, and officials there say they hoped Tyler Hurd, a 23-year-old junior from Mahtomedi who aspires to teach special education, would continue his training in the district.
Hurd said a student threatened to kill his service dog named Emmitt. The black lab is trained to protect Hurd when he has seizures. The seizures, which can occur weekly, are from a childhood injury. The dog has a pouch on his side that assists those who stop to help Hurd.
I think some information as to the worthiness of 'Seizure dogs' is important if we want to put the threat into its proper context. Thanks to the good people at the Epilepsy Foundation, we have that type of information available. Here's what they have to say about Seizure dogs:
They're companions. They're an alarm system. They're helpers, protectors, and service providers. They may even be able to sense in advance when someone they're close to is going to have an epileptic seizure. So-called seizure dogs can be all these things - and more.Does this Tech High School student understand how much Tyler Hurd relies on this dog? Shouldn't the school district have taken this into account before making a decision?
America's interest in seizure dogs began in the mid-1980's, when a woman with epilepsy who was taking part in a Washington state prison project involving dogs discovered that one of the dogs seemed to know when she was going to have a seizure. The news media picked up the story, and the phrase "seizure dogs" was born. The Lifetime television drama, "Within These Walls," is based in part on this experience.
King frames this exactly right here :
So let's take a look at this as a case of competing rights. On one side we have a student with a medical disability. One would think that the Americans with Disabilities Act would allow this student to participate to the fullest extent possible in pursuing his goals, which is to teach in special education. To do so, he is supposed to train in both elementary and secondary school settings. (The article notes that Hurd had no such problems with Somali students at his elementary school assignment.)I certainly think that the student should be disciplined but that isn't all that I'm concerned with. It's apparent that Tech needs to be asked about the way it handled the situation. Likewise, I think it's important that we ask how well the school district handled the situation. I think it's important that we emphatically state that Muslims' religious rights trump everyone else's rights, especially when a person's safety is at stake. Finally, I think we need to find out why Somali students took to Mr. Hurd's dog when he was at Talahi Community School but a Somali high school student issued a threat against the dog.
On the other side, we have a student at Tech HS whose faith considers dogs unclean and is asserting his right to education in an institution without dogs. This not only affects student teachers; any student with a sight or hearing disability may use a dog for assistance and might want to also attend Tech HS. Whose rights dominate?
Frankly, there's alot of answers that we still need to know before we sweep this under the rug.
Posted Tuesday, May 13, 2008 4:40 AM
Comment 1 by Tracy at 13-May-08 02:42 PM
I think it's important that we emphatically state that Muslims' religious rights trump everyone else's rights
I hope I mis-understood that. The rights of Mr. Hurd trump some backward superstition about dogs.
Comment 2 by Lady Logician at 13-May-08 09:58 PM
One should also note that the "Holy" Koran actually does have use for dogs. IT does not deem them to be unclean...the Hadith (which were written over 200 years AFTER Mohammed's death) is where that comes from. There are actually passages in the Koran that talk about how dogs are needed to protect the believers.
LL
Justin's Bill Set to Become Law
Congratulations are in order to Steve Gottwalt for proposing Justin's Law, then getting it passed. The legislation will change the way internet drug companies do business in Minnesota. Here's what Larry Schumacher said about Justin's Law:
Justin's Bill is on its way to Gov. Tim Pawlenty for his signature.It's long past time to correct this disgusting business practice. Thanks, Steve, for writing this common sense legislation. Keep up the good work.
The bill, from Rep. Steve Gottwalt , R-St. Cloud, in the House and Sen. John Marty , DFL-Roseville, in the Senate, won final Senate approval 61-1 on Monday.
The bill would make it more difficult for people to purchase addictive prescription drugs over the Internet, by requiring a face-to-face visit with a doctor to establish a new prescription. It also provides tools to penalize pharmacies that knowingly dispense prescriptions without a valid doctor-patient relationship. The Senate had to pass the bill after a technical amendment was added to it when it passed the House of Representatives last week.
The bill is named after Justin Pearson, a St. Cloud-area resident who died in 2006 from an overdose of prescription medications he obtained over the Internet without a doctor's prescription.
Pawlenty is expected to sign the bill.
Posted Tuesday, May 13, 2008 8:34 AM
No comments.
Popularity is Fleeting, Principles are Forever
Tuesday, President Bush sat down for an interview with Politico.com and Yahoo , the first presidential interview with online new services. One of the things he commented on was Jimmy Carter's destructive (my word, not his) role in the Middle East. Here's what President Bush said:
He criticized former President Jimmy Carter for suggesting an approach to Middle East involvement that Bush described as "if you want to be popular in the Middle East, just go blame Israel for every problem." "That will make you popular," he said. "Popularity is fleeting. , Principles are forever."This is more than a characterization of Carter's mindset. It's the Democrats' approach to foreign policy. Their's is a let's do what's popular while it's popular approach.
Bill Clinton stayed with Somalia until it became unpopular. Then he made the mistake of listening to John Murtha who said military victory wasn't possible. We've heard that before, haven't we? Here's something else President Bush said during the interview :
President Bush warned in an interview Tuesday that the Democratic presidential candidates' plans to withdraw abruptly from Iraq could "eventually lead to another attack on the United States" and would "embolden" terrorists.I'm certain that Democrats will scream about that but there's precedent for that.
In a White House interview with Politico and Yahoo News, a president's first for an online audience, Bush said his doomsday scenario for a premature withdrawal "of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States."
"The United States pulling out of Iraq or pulling out of the Middle East or not maintaining a forward presence would send all kinds of signals throughout the Middle East," he said in the Roosevelt Room. "And it would shake everybody's nerves, and it would embolden the very same people that we're trying to defeat.
It was John Murtha's advice to Bill Clinton that convinced Osama bin Laden that America was a paper tiger. I wrote about that here and here :
The public record shows that bin Laden took our pulling out of Somalia as proof that America was a paper tiger. Here's what bin Laden told ABC's John Miller:Other than Joe Lieberman, Democrats don't have the steadfastness, persistence and tenacity to deliver a knockout punch to the jihadists."Our people realize[d] more than before that the American soldier is a paper tiger that run[s] in defeat after a few blows," the terror chief recalled. "America forgot all about the hoopla and media propaganda and left dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat."
That's why people don't question John McCain when he says that he's Hamas' worst nightmare. They know that he has the steadfastness, persistence and tenacity to deal with them.
People do question Barack Obama's steadfastness, persistence and tenacity towards terrorism when Hamas' spokesman says that they want him elected this November. It's possible they view him as another Jimmy Carter. It's possible they view him as another pacifist who's more interested in being popular than in being right.
I don't want the US president to be popular with the tyrants throughout the Middle East. I want Ahmadinejad and Assad fearing him. I want them laying awake at night worrying what he'll do to undercut their regimes. I don't want him to be a warmonger.
Until Democrats get serious about that, they shouldn't be given the keys to the White House.
Posted Wednesday, May 14, 2008 11:43 AM
No comments.
