Unfounded Disdain for Obama

Once again I come back to author Julia Schwartz of the blog How’s Obama Doing? who wrote an article on August 3^rd entitled “Obama? Really?” in which she criticizes Obama and how America is falling apart because of his administration. Schwartz’s disdain for Obama is palpable. In this article she claims several things: that Obama was only elected because he is black, that his health care bill is unsuccessful (which I have already commented on), and that Obama only cares “about winning the next election”. Schwartz has a lot of opinions with very little evidence.

Only Congress can pass legislation, as stated in our Constitution. To give all the credit for a failed piece of legislation to the President displays a lack of understanding of our government. As Schwartz writes about the withdrawal of troops and health care reform, she claims broken promises and failed legislation without providing how there was failure. She then compares Obama to Bush, losing credibility when she states, “he extended the amount of time they will be over there, showing Bush and his team knew exactly what they were doing and no one could do it better.” First, citing opinion as fact is inappropriate for political discourse. Second, there have been several articles on Obama’s promise of withdrawing troops and how he is following through. For example an article by Scott Wilson, “U.S. withdrawal from Iraq will be on time,” provides clear evidence that refutes Schwartz’s claim. Schwartz, once again, claims that when it comes to health care reform Obama has dropped the ball. Similar to her last article, this is completely unfounded.

Schwartz moves from talking about failed legislation to talking about Obama himself. She makes claims that he was elected solely because he is black and that “all he cares about is winning the next election” with no supporting facts. There are numerous polls that refute her claim showing many other reasons Obama supporters voted for him. To claim that “All he cares about is winning the next election” just shows the writer’s ignorance of what is happening in Washington. Obama just stated a week ago on “the View” that it is a shame that Congressmen are clouding their minds with the upcoming election and that he is just trying to do what is best for the country rather than what is best for his political career. Schwartz needs to answer this question: if all Obama cares about is winning the next election, then why is he trying to talk and act on controversial issues?

The last statement of the article begins with “Where did the days go of keeping your word, being truthful and honest?” which, if I recall correctly, was taken directly from a speech by Obama. Obama has argued that government needs to be more transparent and truthful. Those days are coming back because of Obama. All in all this article proves to be an unsupported rant about Obama. Some supporting articles and details would make Schwartz’s claims more credible.

Proposition L8er!

Civil rights in the 1960’s came as a movement that caused many minority groups to come to the table and present their situations with the intent on making conditions better for everyone. Some came with successes and some have seen some setbacks. This leads to how the rights of homosexuals have not seen too much light from the government. Homosexuality was never fully understood by Americans and today is still not fully understood. It used to be that homosexuality was a “mental disorder” but has now been understand as not. The problem is that it isn’t fully understood by most people especially whether or not it is genetic. This is relevant when it comes to the recent overturning or Prop 8 in California.

Last week Proposition 8 which banned gay marriage in the state of California was overturned in a Federal Court as unconstitutional on the basis that it violates the 14^th Amendment’s equal protection clause. If being a homosexual is something that cannot be changed then I agree that not allowing someone to marry the same sex is unconstitutional, and if homosexuality is a choice I agree that not allowing someone to marry the same sex is unconstitutional. Does it really matter to me whether or not someone one I know marries someone they love even if it is someone of their same sex? No, it is none of my business. I hope that the overturning of Prop 8 ends up being appealed and taken by the Supreme Court so that they can put an end to this prejudice against homosexuals and state that it is in fact unconstitutional to deny homosexuals the right to marry. The worst part about the whole thing is the over 1000 different rights granted to married couples that cannot be granted to homosexuals based on something they may not be able to control. If appealed, which it seems that it will be, the Supreme Court has a big dish in front of them. They could take it and say how they feel the Constitution protects gay marriage or they could not take the case proving that they do not want to speak about such a controversial just yet.

This recent case about the overturn of Prop 8 is a push forward for gay rights and could be the start of a civil rights movement like that of the 1960’s. Some would dispute the rights of homosexuals being similar to the rights of blacks, women, Mexican-Americans, etc. but it is the same situation. A ban on gay rights would only be an imposition of church on state and would be against the collective pursuit of American interest.

Healthcare Reform a Big Flop? Really?

In a recent commentary titled Health Care – A Big Flop, Julia Schwartz discusses healthcare reform and how overall the recent legislation is a big flop. While she has a lot of good points, I think her arguments could all benefit from adding information and evidence from outside sources. Yes this is supposed to be an original commentary, but, without any research, credibility seems lost. It might be beneficial to quote Congressmen that agree with her. This clearly shows throughout the commentary specifically in reasoning behind governors filing suit against requiring everyone obtain insurance or pay a penalty and expansion of Medicaid programs. By just stating these facts, there is no compelling reason to believe that there are problems with these parts of the law or that the Governors have valid reason to file suit.

As the commentary continues, she states that, “even though this health care reform has had some early successes, it does not mean that it will continue to be successful and that people will change their minds and decide all of a sudden that it holds good inside of it,” and then goes further to try and discuss why people won’t see good inside the law. The problem in this though is that each piece of evidence hasn’t happened and is just a projection of what might happen. Schwartz specifically notes the good in tax cut eligibility for small businesses provided by the law, but then refutes it by saying that this, “does not mean that any will actually receive it and if they do it will be a small amount,” without stating reason to believe nothing will happen. Also, as she states many times that there are early successes she refutes that by saying, “the early skeptics of this bill is holding true as the months pass on.”

Throughout the entirety of her commentary, Schwartz seems to flip flop between agreeing with "some successes" of the health care law and saying that it is a flop overall. How can a law that has only had successes so far be, in its entirety, a big flop? While I agree with her on some of her points, like the law’s continuous success in the first couple of months, I think it's important to note that health care reform is better than no reform at all because that way we can progress toward something better than existed before. If we make mistakes, we can learn from them and improve on the old. Showing how Obama might make mistakes dealing with a lot of issues, but the important thing is that we are progressing toward something different than the inefficient and sloppy system that existed.

The gentleman will observe regular order and sit down!

On Thursday night, House Democrat from New York, Rep. Anthony Weiner, was outraged over Republican opposition to a bill that would give medical compensation to 9/11 first responders. This was an outrage that was interrupted by a House Republican, Rep. Peter King, who is also from New York. Weiner yelled for King to be quiet and sit down because he was, apparently, wrong. Something else Weiner does is accuse republicans of wrapping their arms around republicans rather than caring for our heroes. The republicans do have a since of brotherhood and this can be seen in Congress. They do say no often, sometimes just to say no, and they are using pure strategy to wait it out until midterm elections. But, to say that they don't care about our heroes of 9/11 just because they don't support a bill to help them is definitely out-of-bounds.

When you sign up to be a policeman or a firefighter, you are making a commitment to keeping people safe and a pledge to doing whatever it takes to do so, even if that means putting your life on the line. The first responders to 9/11 were brave men and women who happen to now have some medical conditions due to the harshness of their job. Should they receive compensation for doing their job? I don't think so. If they were in a situation where they weren't intended to risk their lives, it would be different. You don’t join the military not knowing that you could get hurt, just like you don't become a policeman or a firefighter not knowing that you would be risking your life every day.

Weiner blew up and should not have. Yes, the Republicans do have problems with saying no to good legislation, but no Weiner, you are wrong.

I think what really burst him to enrage was the fact that House leadership did not allow amendments and republicans hinted that they would say yes to the bill if it could be changed. This would make me upset. If I were representing the heroes in New York and I was told that medical compensation would be passable if it were procedurally different. On the Republicans' side, this was unfair to tease Democrats, specifically Weiner.

Everything about this incident shows how ruthless, aggravated, and confusing our Congress is in their law-making. It is just unfortunate.

A Failing Climate and Bill

Over the past year the Senate has only talked about climate with very little action. Lee Wasserman, director of Rockefeller Family Fund, posted an article today, July 26th, on the Huffington Post entitled "Four Ways to Kill a Climate Bill." In this commentary, Wasserman speaks on behalf of the failing climate bill and discusses its demise as a result of the nation "weaving four coordinated threads into a shroud of inaction." These sewed in threads include tip-toeing around the real issues due to polling, working for historic polluters and not the American people, allowing the bill to become over-engineered performing very simple tasks in a very complex fashion, and the lack of a public outcry.

Based Wasserman’s cynically, artistic language, he intended to reach a more liberal, pro-active audience. However, he does criticize the entire congress, not just Republicans, as well as President Obama. He speaks to an audience that is aware of congressional happenings as well as the scientific effects of climate change. His references to our historical past, Rube Goldberg politics, and the climate bill being sewn on a loom, suggests his audience is educated. His credibility is awarded through his work with the Rockefeller Family Fund, a fund to help inspire public activism. Wasserman is not just an old man outraged over a failing bill about the environment; he has knowledge and experience to back up his arguments.

Wasserman referring to the climate bill, he states the president and congress have let it bypass due to lacking support from those who have caused the problem. Though not started during the Obama administration, instead of starting a new change of existing problems, “the president quickly took his place at the loom.” Because of polling, the president and Congress have backed off from specific wording weakening any legislation that might be passed and making vague any possible solution. Wasserman quotes Peter Orszag, budget director, about the climate bill proposed as, “the largest corporate welfare program that has ever been enacted in the history of the United States.” They are devising a bill for polluters not the American public. Most proposals were filled with “policy contraptions impossible to even explain,” so many interest groups just dived in this pool of misguided attempts at policy-making. Obama is criticized for not following through with his “simple market-based bill.” That would have had polluters paying for the bill. Lastly, a key in a failing climate bill is the lack of public support. Without it, interest groups and historic polluters are the only ones who have a say.

The commentary makes strong criticisms to the president, congress, and the public, tagging all three as major factors in destroying the climate bill. I believe his argument is valid and consider it the harsh reality. Just as hard to hear that fossil fuels are being used up and the ozone is decaying is hearing that we all are standing in the way of prevention.

How will midterm elections effect Obama?

With the continual decline in the economy, the BP catastrophe, and ever-long battle over healthcare reform, Democrats are nervous that Obama may become a one-term president. Democrats current control Congress and the executive branch, but after the upcoming midterm elections Democrats may have to pass the Congressional torch to the GOP. Though Democrats remain scared of this eminent change, Ruben Navarette Jr. argues that Obama could benefit from this change. Ruben wrote a commentary for CNN.com on July 15th entitled "Obama could benefit from GOP takeover." In his commentary, Ruben argues that a switch of political control in the White House could aid in Obama's effort toward change by removing the obstacles of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a nationally syndicated columnist, an NPR commentator, and a regular contributor to CNN.com. He produces regular commentary on the Obama administration since the beginning of Obama's term addressing issues important to the Latino community in America. Coming from a Latino background himself, he approaches the issues facing Americans today with fervor for justice and equality. In the commentary, Ruben explains that the public is "disappointed, angry and doubtful" the Obama has what it takes the lead our country. He justifies this claim with a Washington Post-ABC News Poll showing that "nearly six in 10 voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country." Though this is just around half, it is a much greater percent than when Obama first took office.

Ruben also points out that in the midterm election, if Congress does shift to Republican control, then "items that Obama intended to get to in 2011 might not materialize." At the same time, Republicans would have to learn, "it's more fun to be on the side throwing rocks than on the inside having to lead and be accountable to voters." Their accountability is therefore dependent upon them to pass bills and pursue policy with the interest of the country in mind. This could help Obama because the Republicans would have to be more cooperative than they are being now. Obama would have to move his agenda to the front of the table in order for a change to be able to help him stay in office.

His final claim is about Obama's possible post-midterm election ability to find solutions to controversial issues like immigration by working with pro-business Republicans. He argues that Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, who tries to protect "organized labor from having to compete with foreign workers" and House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, who tries to protect "Democratic members from having to take a vote on a controversial issue" are Obama's two biggest obstacles in pushing legislation and avoid being a one-termer.

No matter what happens this election, Obama certainly has a stressful two years ahead of him. With an increase in public criticism and the fighting GOP, he must decide whether to use his efforts to campaign to keep Democratic seats or to embrace the Republican takeover with a strategic stance. Ruben does an excellent job bringing forward big concerns for Obama this year.

The GOP says 'NO' because they can?

By now, many of you know that President Obama nominated Elena Kagan, appointed Solicitor General, to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy from the impending retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens. There have been numerous articles about the confirmation hearing, but this particular National Public Radio article wound me up:

GOP Pushes For More Votes Against Kagan.

It has been on the television, the internet, and in the newspaper, and critics are not being open-minded. There are enough Democratic votes to confirm her, but the GOP is rallying up "no" votes "not because of anything she said or didn't say at her confirmation hearings". The GOP is just trying to stick it to Obama. The article goes further to explain the NRA's push on citizens to phone their senators for no votes even after she states her support of the Second Amendment's legitimacy. The end of the article sums up the failed attempts by the GOP and the NRA. They are "searching for a silver bullet" because it's election year and "they are in the mood to take scalps". This article is worthy of your time because it shows the truth behind the scrutiny of Kagan and puts the GOP's actions into perspective.