 Nov 2, 2009
New York’s 23rd
Posted by: Joel Rosenthal - 11/02/2009 6:21 PM (Politics) Republicans in tomorrow’s off year elections are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Off year elections are read like tea leaves to determine which way the national political winds are blowing. Real or not the results are a reading of the political temperature of the country. The GOP is poised to make strong showing in the two marquis elections tomorrow for the Governorships of Virginia and New Jersey. Both are states with Democrat incumbents and both states that Barack Obama carried in 2008. Current polling shows that Virginia should land in the Republican win column and New Jersey is a toss up. The news of two GOP wins or a GOP win and a close race in The Garden State would be a big step in changing the political fortunes of the Republican Party. Unfortunately events that are taking place in far upstate New York is going to take any shine off the GOP’s major election gains. New York’s 23rd Congressional District that borders Canada has become the epicenter of a fight among Republicans that is taking the story of the rejection of Obama leadership and resurgence of the GOP away from above the fold. Electronic media will not be leading with Virginia and New Jersey but talking about Plattsburg, NY. Essentially what has happened is that President Obama has appointed the District’s Congressman John McHugh to be Secretary of the Army, creating the vacancy. The 23d District is reliably Republican having consecutively elected Republicans for the past 120 years. Congressman McHugh served the 23rd for the last 16 years. Upon the vacancy under New York law and party rules a group of legally designated Republican officials from the 11 counties within the District selected State Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava as the Republican nominee for the Special Election that will be held tomorrow. BTW the 23rd District has an approximate 50,000 Republican voter registration advantage. The other candidates in the Special Election are Doug Hoffman the Conservative Party candidate and Bill Owens the Democrat Party candidate. Early polling showed Ms. Scozzafava with the lead. She was endorsed by the Party establishment both NY State Party Chairman Ed Cox (factoid – Cox is the husband of Tricia Nixon and consequently Richard Nixon’s son in law and it was speculated in 2006 that Cox might be the GOP candidate against Hillary Rodham) and Michael Steele, Republican National Committee Chairman. I empathize with both Chairmen. It is the duty of party officials at all levels to support the party’s candidates. You don’t have to like them; you don’t have to agree with – It Just Comes with the Territory! It seems that Ms. Scozzafava has some positions that didn’t sit well with all in particular the Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and Pat Buchanan types. After raising the decibel level of many of the GOP candidate’s unorthodox opinions, the political ground in upstate New York began to change. Several office holders and several wanna be office holders weighed in. Not to be helpful but to get in on the act and to benefit their own cause. Some pretty high profile persons (both supporting her and abandoning the GOP endorsement and supporting the Conservative candidate) that included Dick Armey, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and of course the pundits. I certainly do not share all of the GOP candidate’s views but it is not in the party’s best interest to wander off the reservation. Keep in the mind that New York Republicans are not the same as Texas, Wyoming, or South Dakota Republicans. There are differences. Also understand that a Republican presence has all but disappeared in the Northeast. New York is the only state in the Northeast to have Republican representation in the U S House and in NY there are only 3 Republicans out of 29 including the vacant 23rd. Thus it might not be surprising that the people in the District might tend to the moderate side. I could go on about party loyalty and all that but the plot thickens. Because of the national attention, Mr. Hoffman the Conservative candidate was blessed with about $3 million dollars in donations from out of the District. The money combined with highlighting of Ms. Scozzafava’s liberal positions has put the lady in the cellar. If things couldn’t get any stranger on Saturday Dede dropped out and on Sunday endorsed Mr. Owens the Democrat. Why she backed out I don’t know, with 3 days to go she should have stuck it out. Her endorsement of the Democrat is disgusting. She was the GOP candidate and like Republican officials needing to stay loyal to the party she should have not endorsed. If you are upset at Republican Party officials selecting her, you should be. But as I often point out you must play by the rules, not change them in the middle of the game. After the election deep six the GOP officials and change the selection rules not grouse about your candidate - once selected it’s too late for that. Had she been elected she would have caucused with the GOP (House Republican Leader John Boehner rightfully endorsed her). Now no matter who wins, Hoffman or Owens the sails of the GOP ship will have been trimmed. The culprit is Republican Party squabbling. Virginia and New Jersey results Wednesday could have heralded a bright new day for the GOP, but New York 23 changed that. To comment on this post go to South Dakota Straight Talk. Sep 24, 2009
Another Handout?
Posted by: Joel Rosenthal - 09/24/2009 8:32 PM (Media, Politics) 
Straight Talk Commentary – Those running OUR federal government (the President and the majority party) just can’t get enough of the government deepening itself in the ownership and operation of many facets of our economy and our lives. President Obama last weekend suggested to the nation’s newspaper editors that he would be “HAPPY (emphasis added) to look” at proposals for a federal bailout of their industry. The very simple fact is that newspapers are a dead business model. The government has no business trying to save the dead tree day late news media than it does going into the buggy whip industry. Despite all the moolah we might throw at the papers they can’t be saved! Gathering and reporting local news is still vital and can be economically rewarding but a meaningful timing and delivery model needs to be figured out. Locally KELOland.com is light years (and I would guess financially) ahead of our Daily Planet who has a few good days but is always slow and flatfooted. Nothing personal it’s their Gutenberg model. Sidebar – Not to say I don’t appreciate the “Argus Leader”, they have been doing a nice job online occasionally with their live streamed afternoon interviews with our local and federal officials and occasionally with sports interviews. There are several other interesting arguments made in the following article from “The Week” magazine worth considering. The necessity of a free press to our Democracy The fact that news organizations should be independent of those they cover The nonsense that somehow all media will end up in conservative ownership The nonsense that without newspapers there will be no one to check facts and provide a check and balance to the government
A Newspaper Bailout The Week September 22, 2009 Maybe President Obama was just being nice, said Craig Crawford in CQ Politics, when he told newspaper editors over the weekend that he would be "happy to look" at proposals for a federal bailout of their industry. "The idea seems dicey, at best"—not just because of "the cost in these times of rising federal debt and the public's growing fatigue with bailouts." The bottom line is that "newspapers that owe their lives to the government are probably not worth having." It's nice to hear people at least talking about a future for print journalism, said Phil Bronstein in the San Francisco Chronicle. A future without profit is better than no future at all. "I'm for supporting journalism, even if it takes a vote in Congress to get there." To comment on this post go to South Dakota Straight Talk. Aug 22, 2009
Too Important to Ignore
Posted by: Joel Rosenthal - 08/22/2009 2:54 PM (Politics, Economy, Politics) Straight Talk Commentary – Mega Capitalist, Warren Buffett, and Obama economic advisor (too bad the President isn’t listening to him) weighed in this week on fiscal sanity and what deficit spending is doing to our economy and to the future of our Country. These are my words and not Buffets but at the rate we are going our country will be a third world country in one or two generations if we continue to pursue policies of equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Politically non partisan elections analyst Charlie Cook reported yesterday deficit spending and the President’s handling of the economy are lowering both Congress and the President’s approval ratings. Read Buffett’s Opinion piece! The Greenback Effect By: Warren E. Buffett The New York Times August 18, 2008 In nature, every action has consequences, a phenomenon called the butterfly effect. These consequences, moreover, are not necessarily proportional. For example, doubling the carbon dioxide we belch into the atmosphere may far more than double the subsequent problems for society. Realizing this, the world properly worries about greenhouse emissions. The butterfly effect reaches into the financial world as well. Here, the United States is spewing a potentially damaging substance into our economy — greenback emissions. To be sure, we’ve been doing this for a reason I resoundingly applaud. Last fall, our financial system stood on the brink of a collapse that threatened a depression. The crisis required our government to display wisdom, courage and decisiveness. Fortunately, the Federal Reserve and key economic officials in both the Bush and Obama administrations responded more than ably to the need. They made mistakes, of course. How could it have been otherwise when supposedly indestructible pillars of our economic structure were tumbling all around them? A meltdown, though, was avoided, with a gusher of federal money playing an essential role in the rescue. The United States economy is now out of the emergency room and appears to be on a slow path to recovery. But enormous dosages of monetary medicine continue to be administered and, before long, we will need to deal with their side effects. For now, most of those effects are invisible and could indeed remain latent for a long time. Still, their threat may be as ominous as that posed by the financial crisis itself. To understand this threat, we need to look at where we stand historically. If we leave aside the war-impacted years of 1942 to 1946, the largest annual deficit the United States has incurred since 1920 was 6 percent of gross domestic product. This fiscal year, though, the deficit will rise to about 13 percent of G.D.P., more than twice the non-wartime record. In dollars, that equates to a staggering $1.8 trillion. Fiscally, we are in uncharted territory. Because of this gigantic deficit, our country’s “net debt” (that is, the amount held publicly) is mushrooming. During this fiscal year, it will increase more than one percentage point per month, climbing to about 56 percent of G.D.P. from 41 percent. Admittedly, other countries, like Japan and Italy, have far higher ratios and no one can know the precise level of net debt to G.D.P. at which the United States will lose its reputation for financial integrity. But a few more years like this one and we will find out. An increase in federal debt can be financed in three ways: borrowing from foreigners, borrowing from our own citizens or, through a roundabout process, printing money. Let’s look at the prospects for each individually — and in combination. The current account deficit — dollars that we force-feed to the rest of the world and that must then be invested — will be $400 billion or so this year. Assume, in a relatively benign scenario, that all of this is directed by the recipients — China leads the list — to purchases of United States debt. Never mind that this all-Treasuries allocation is no sure thing: some countries may decide that purchasing American stocks, real estate or entire companies makes more sense than soaking up dollar-denominated bonds. Rumblings to that effect have recently increased. Then take the second element of the scenario — borrowing from our own citizens. Assume that Americans save $500 billion, far above what they’ve saved recently but perhaps consistent with the changing national mood. Finally, assume that these citizens opt to put all their savings into United States Treasuries (partly through intermediaries like banks). Even with these heroic assumptions, the Treasury will be obliged to find another $900 billion to finance the remainder of the $1.8 trillion of debt it is issuing. Washington’s printing presses will need to work overtime. Slowing them down will require extraordinary political will. With government expenditures now running 185 percent of receipts, truly major changes in both taxes and outlays will be required. A revived economy can’t come close to bridging that sort of gap. Legislators will correctly perceive that either raising taxes or cutting expenditures will threaten their re-election. To avoid this fate, they can opt for high rates of inflation, which never require a recorded vote and cannot be attributed to a specific action that any elected official takes. In fact, John Maynard Keynes long ago laid out a road map for political survival amid an economic disaster of just this sort: “By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.... The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.” I want to emphasize that there is nothing evil or destructive in an increase in debt that is proportional to an increase in income or assets. As the resources of individuals, corporations and countries grow, each can handle more debt. The United States remains by far the most prosperous country on earth, and its debt-carrying capacity will grow in the future just as it has in the past. But it was a wise man who said, “All I want to know is where I’m going to die so I’ll never go there.” We don’t want our country to evolve into the banana-republic economy described by Keynes. Our immediate problem is to get our country back on its feet and flourishing — “whatever it takes” still makes sense. Once recovery is gained, however, Congress must end the rise in the debt-to-G.D.P. ratio and keep our growth in obligations in line with our growth in resources. Unchecked carbon emissions will likely cause icebergs to melt. Unchecked greenback emissions will certainly cause the purchasing power of currency to melt. The dollar’s destiny lies with Congress. To comment on this post go to South Dakota Straight Talk. Aug 20, 2009
Listening
Posted by: Joel Rosenthal - 08/20/2009 6:34 PM (Politics) Being a good listener is the essential quality of being an effective elected official and is critical to being a successful politician. Not wanting to listen to citizens is the real wonderment of the current brouhaha over holding public “listening” meetings during the so called “Summer Work Period”, Congressional recess or vacation depending on your viewpoint. The heart of what has become in some places shouting matches and unruly crowds are genuine intense concern and personal feelings people have about their own healthcare. There is nothing manufactured about that. As we repeatedly hear, healthcare represents about one sixth of our national economy. Thus the stakes are high and everyone wants to get any changes right. There should not be a rush to just get something done. Good public policy must require some study of what we believe the costs are and the results. With the White House’s ever changing position it seems the President just wants to pass “something” (which I believe he eventually will (no matter how hollow)) and hold it up as an achievement. This post was not supposed to be about the healthcare debate (that is way too complicated) but before moving back to Listening, I’ll simply add the essential debate is between making healthcare affordable or creating another national entitlement. The stage for the outrage at public meetings was set because of public sentiment and outrage over the unfunded stimulus package passed last February and the President’s and Democrats adopted budget that includes adding 1.8 Trillion to the deficit. Remember the Tax Day Tea Parties? They were a precursor of public opinion on healthcare. Without question attendance and participation at many of the events we have seen on television and the internet were organized by those who oppose the Democrat version of healthcare reform. Of course this is core of political freedom and has much to do with what America is about. For some to suggest that this is anti American or Nazi tactics is completely wrong headed. If you don’t like the message shoot the messenger. Political analyst Juan Williams hit the nail on the head when he said it depends who is protesting. If it was against the War in Viet Nam or the Reverend Dr. King then it’s ok. If it’s against healthcare reform then it’s Nazi tactics. Williams added that President Obama was a community organizer and whose job it was to get people to attend public meetings to protest government policy (in this case the City of Chicago). I have organized several political events and it requires determination and focus. It is hard work. But success only comes when people are interested and motivated. You just don’t say lets go see the Congresswoman and talk about healthcare. While unfortunately rowdy, I saw people at these events who were not acting. They are concerned, scared and very real. It is too bad that some of our Senators and Representatives have chosen to avoid these meetings. Come election time next year there may be a very real price to pay. Before cramming a solution down our throat they must take some time to listen. Endbar – It is ironic. Usually during the summer timeout, the Solons hold meetings no one really shows up, and the opposing political party complains that they are Campaigning on the Public Dime. This year the party (in this case the GOP) is not complaining that they are holding meetings but complaining they are not. In politics, arguments can take some interesting turns. To comment on this post go to South Dakota Straight Talk. Jul 26, 2009
Following the Rules
Posted by: Joel Rosenthal - 07/26/2009 5:56 PM (Politics) Our orderly society depends on our obeying laws and following rules. In a free society people obey voluntarily because there is the expectation of enforcement. The United States is the freest of nations because the People grant power to the government and we freely elect those who make and administer our laws. We expect that laws and rules will be administered and enforced blindly and equality without regard as to the Who. Lady Justice wears a blindfold. This week there were two news stories that highlight the importance of following the rules. First was the announcement by South Dakota Secretary of State Chris Nelson that the petitions to overturn the recently enacted smoking ban lacked the required number of signatures to refer the law banning smoking in public places to a public vote. Second was President Obama interjecting himself into the police response to a break in at the home of a noted Harvard lecturer, Henry Louis Gates, Jr. The Petitions – Chris Nelson followed the letter of the law that is his job. It is not his job to take it upon himself to decide that some signatures are valid because of what the smoking ban opponents are characterizing as an inadvertent mistake. That is the job of a Judge and apparently that is where this dispute is going. I too have been involved (though not always as a direct participant – just as an interested party (no pun intended) with the Chris Nelson over petition dispute. You can always expect him to consistently follow the rules. Several declarations of candidacy petitions Chris disallowed because of misdating of by notaries. Chris and I did battle in Court several times though but not over dating. While I was unhappy about dating, rules are rules, everyone knew them in advance and they should have to play by them not cry when they were on the losing end. The Lindell Howard petition comes to mind where the wrong form was used. “My” candidate used an outdated petition form, all be it one he was given by the errant Davison County Auditor. The Circuit Judge agreed with us that use of the incorrect form was the fault of the State and should not prevent ballot access by the candidate. One of the most memorable petition failures and Secretary of State rejection was Senator Tom Dempster’s failed petition to get on the ballot as a Republican in the 2008 election. Circulators and petitioners on several of his petitions failed to insert the word Republican. Dempster subsequently refilled as an Independent. There was a lot of hullabaloo about that. Dempster subsequently refiled and was elected as an Independent. He was elected, caucuses with the GOP and serves as the Assistant Senate Majority Leader. Smoking proponents are planning to appeal Nelsons rejection of their petitions saying that the dating issue is inadvertent. Certainly Nelson followed the rules and the law. What a Judge does we will see. While in this case it may seem “inadvertent”, in what other instances is the “date” important? Should the law be applied blindly and consistently? The Pro Smokers I don’t think are as concerned about the sanctity of the law. As I pointed out previously the Pro Smokers are buying time by delaying implementation of the ban. The Gates Affair – This story too is about unbiased execution of the law. The facts as we know them and even with all the coverage and editorializing about this does not seem to be much disagreement are. A break in to Professor Gates home was reported and the Cambridge Police responded. They found that the door was indeed broken into. When they entered the house, they found a man who claimed to be the homes resident. Following Police procedure they ordered the man outside. The man protested and refused. When he was removed out of the home he was asked to provide identification and he at first refused. There are differing reports about this but apparently the man to some degree was belligerent in his refusal to reply. Lawful and well established police procedure is that during break ins all persons are to be removed from the premises. The law prescribes that lawful orders from law enforcement are followed. When a cop tells you to get out of the car, stop or in this case come outside, you must obey. You can argue or even litigate later but this is how order is maintained. It makes no difference who the subjects are, everyone must be treated equally. Like the smoking petition the law must be applied blindly and consistently. People must obey the law not just when they agree with them. In our Democracy if you don’t like the law we have the ability to change them. Obama / Gates sidebar – The President “acted stupidly” politically stupidly when in his Presser Wednesday night, said he did not know the facts but maintained that the Cambridge Police “acted stupidly” in their handling of the Gates incident. Then the President acting more like a community organizer than the President went into a colloquy on racial profiling. President Obama has hurt himself politically by remarking on the incident besides indicating he was unaware of the facts. First he instantly put racism and racial politics back on the national stage. His election has done to erase race as a timely political issue. The President otherwise created a firestorm that removed attention from his legislative blitzkrieg to overhaul and nationalize healthcare. The President also handed the law and order issue back to the GOP. The venue and the player’s make this drama unique. Gates is a prominent Black American. Cambridge Police Sergeant James Crowley is an exemplary officer who in fact teaches other officers sensitivity training and the don’ts of racial profiling. The residence in question is in Cambridge, Massachusetts, within spitting distance of Harvard Yard not Jenna, Louisiana. The drama will continue to play out. To comment on this post go to South Dakota Straight Talk.
Jul 11, 2009
The Big Shootout
Posted by: Joel Rosenthal - 07/11/2009 4:51 PM (Politics, Popular Culture)
Finding a fair protocol to determine which College football team is the National Champion seems to be looking for a government solution like just about every other problem. Talk about socialism – whew! President Obama has mentioned on several occasions both as a candidate and as President that we need a playoff system. And two weeks ago Utah U S Senator Orrin Hatchheld a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee where he lambasted the BCS system calling it a violation of the Sherman Anti Trust act and then calling for change. Considering totally nationalizing health care, revolutionizing national environmental and energy policy (climate change / cap & trade), and a Supreme Court nomination confirmation are all on the Congressional plate, do you think our Congress might have something better to do than investigate college football championships? Given this background and a short piece in this week’s “Sports Illustrated” I began thinking about The Big Shootout in 1969 where President Nixon took it on himself to go to the University of Texas Longhorns vs. Arkansas Razorbacks football game and award the National Championship in the winner’s locker room on live on national television after the game. Fifty Million viewers watched ABC on that Saturday afternoon. The Longhorns of course won. Final score was 15-14. By way of background of the game following is an excerpt from the book jacket of “Horn’s, Hogs, & Nixon Coming” a social history of the game (I will be reading this soon): ”On December 6, 1969, the Texas Longhorns and Arkansas Razorbacks met in what many consider the Game of the Century. In the centennial season of college football, both teams were undefeated; both featured devastating and innovative offenses; both boasted cerebral, stingy defenses; and both were coached by superior tacticians and stirring motivators, Texas's Darrell Royal and Arkansas's Frank Broyles. On that day in Fayetteville, the poll-leading Horns and second-ranked Hogs battled for the Southwest Conference title -- and President Nixon was coming to present his own national championship plaque to the winners. If memory serves me right, going into the final week of the season the four top teams all undefeated were the Horns, Razorbacks, Penn State, and Ohio State. Penn State had already declined the opportunity to play the winner of the Texas / Arkansas game preferring to wait on a Rose Bowl bid to meet (they thought at the time) undefeated current National Champion Ohio State. It turned out that Michigan defeated Ohio State and went to the Rose Bowl. Penn State then went to the Orange Bowl. Texas then defeated Notre Dame in the Cotton Bowl. This was the first appearance ever by Notre Dame in a post season bowl game who had never chosen to participate. It should be remembered than in the pre TV big money days there were only four major bowl games (Rose, Cotton, Sugar, and Orange – all played in warmer climates.) One other factoid too good not to mention was that the game winning extra point was kicked by Texas field goal kicker (I love this name) Happy Feller. A personal reflection – A former colleague at the Republican National committee was John Paul Hammerschmidt. Hammerschmidt was a former U S Representative from Arkansas. Besides serving 13 terms in the Congress, he also served a couple of stints as State Republican Chairman and National Committeeman from Arkansas. The Congressman is a great story teller and a man of vast experience. He was a great man to share a story with. Congressman Hammerschmidt is best noted for defeating post Watergate in a huge Democrat year, 1974, a challenge from then 28 year old Bill Clinton who was fresh off leading George McGovern’s campaign for President in Texas. One of the great stories that Congressman Hammerschmidt shared with me was his trip with President Nixon to The Big Shootout. The President took as many members of Congress from Texas and Arkansas that wanted to go to the game with him on Air Force One. The college town of Fayetteville did not have an airport that could service a plane as large as Air Force One. Consequently the President’s plane put down at a nearby Air Force Base and the President and guests were helicoptered over to the practice field adjoining Razorback Stadium in Fayetteville. The pecking order in the helicopters was strictly partisan. The Republicans rode with the President and the Democrats rode in the other helicopter. Riding with the President were Texas Senator John Tower and Congressmen George H. W. Bush and Hammerschmidt. Both Bush and Hammerschmidt were the only Republicans in the U S House from their respective States and I am guessing at the time, Texas had as many as 20 members. Even Senator Fullbright of Arkansas rode with the Dems. Hammerschmidt was a close friend of Bush’s as both started their terms in the U S House in 1967.
May 9, 2009
The Specter Spectacle
Posted by: Joel Rosenthal - 05/09/2009 4:29 PM (Politics) Pennsylvania U S Senator Arlen Specter’s switch from Republican Party is all about saving his political hide. Senator Specter concluded that he was 20 points down in polling against former Representative and until just recently President of the Club For Growth Chairman Pat Toomey. Specter wants to stay in the Senate and he simply did not see that happening as a Republican. All his comment is nothing more than window dressing. Office holders who switch parties while holding office just make me want to barf. Republicans who now are throwing a hissy fit over Specter a moderate don’t have their shorts in a bunch when then Democrats switch to the GOP. Think Senator Richard Shelby or Ben Nighthorse Campbell switched from Democrat to Republican. Likewise Democrats should not be gloating now. When candidates run for office with a party designation they are using that party’s brand. They are telling voters they are a party member and will caucus with that party. Jumping ship is disingenuous. Former U S Senator Phil Gramm set the gold standard for party switching. When he was a member of the U S House and decided to switch from Democrat to Republican, he resigned his seat and caused an election to be held. He said that the voters needed to affirm his decision to switch. Though laws do not require resignation it is the honest course of action. Obviously there are seniority and cost considerations that come from having a special election, but it is the right thing to do. Arlen Specter has been in the public arena and controversial before and really raised the ire of both sides of the aisle. Today it is the GOP that is mad as we were when he borked President Reagan’s nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. Republican’s cheered though when Specter grilled Anita Hill and even claimed she had committed perjury during the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court confirmation hearings. His prosecution like questioning of Hill some claimed single handedly saved the nomination for Justice Thomas. Specter as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee spearheaded Samuel Alito’s Supreme Court nomination through Committee and the full Senate. Nor was the GOP booing Specter when he killed Hillary Care in 1993. It was Specter’s famous organizational chart of the bureaus, agencies and boards that would oversee national health care that turned the politicians away from the Clinton plan. Sidebar – Speaking of not being a stranger to controversy, Specter before serving as Prosecutor of Philadelphia, was assistant counsel to the Warren Commission that investigated the assassination of President Kennedy. Specter is the author of the miracle bullet theory. This is not the first time that Specter has switched parties. In 1965 he ran for Philadelphia District Attorney in the Republican primary although he was a registered Democrat. He subsequently switched parties and became a Republican. He won the primary and the general election. No one seems to be happy with Senator Specter. He along with the two GOP moderated Maine Senators, Snowe and Collins voted for President Obama’s Stimulus Package in February. The Dems felt that they needed a few Republicans to buttress their claim of bi partisan support. Specter had earmarked in the “stimulus” bill $4 Billion for medical research at the University of Pennsylvania. Dear reader you make your own conclusion about that buy off of bi partisanship. Since the switch on April 28th there has been some interesting kabuki as only practiced in Washington. Upon the announcement of the switch it has been assumed that Specter would be the critical 60th Democrat Senator (assuming Al (now we have a real comedian in the Senate) Franken’s legal victory election.) Specter had spoken to Senate Leader Harry Reid and was assured that if he changed parties he would retain his seniority though he would not assume during this Congress any Chairmanships of full committees. Interestingly several days later the Democrat Caucus would not affirm Reid’s deal with Specter. It seems that no Democrats wanted to give up their fiefdoms as Sub Committee Chairman. Snubbing their filibuster buster was a dumb move on the part of the Democrats. Killing the deal now cast the maverick minded Specter into the catbird seat over that important 60th vote. Democrats now would have to buy off Specter each time they wanted to kill a GOP led filibuster. Subsequently to get the maverick back into the Democrat caucus corral, Senate Democratic Whip, Dick Durbin, on apparently his own initiative has worked a deal to give Specter a sub committee chairmanship on the Crime and Drugs sub committee of the Judiciary Committee. There have been some suggestion that Democrats will not support the Specter re election. Since President Obama has welcomed Specter to the Party, met with him at the White House and promised to campaign for him, I would not put any stock into Specter having a credible primary opponent. The suggestion is reminiscent of President Bush’s campaigning for Specter in the 2004 Pennsylvania primary when Specter was opposed by Pat Toomey. Specter won the primary 50.82% to 49.18%. Whether Specter will retain his seat is an open question but I wouldn’t sell him short just yet. Endbar – another factoid about Specter is that his hometown growing up was Russell, Kansas also the home of Bob Dole. It was sometimes said that Russell Kansas had two U S Senators. To comment on this post go to South Dakota Straight Talk. Mar 19, 2009
Not a Laughing Matter
Posted by: Joel Rosenthal - 03/19/2009 4:42 PM (Politics, Presidency, The Economy, U S Congress) The White House and the Democrats in Congress are in a frenzy and out of control in dealing with the Economy. They are so busy reacting to everything instead of actually having a real economic plan. Their lack of purpose this week has become a fiasco. The White House and Congress are in overdrive and high anxiety concerning the bonus payments and subsequent public outrage over the bonus payments paid by big time bailout recipient AIG to their employees. Their actions are Abbott & Costello like. Everyone is talking and no one listening. It’s really been quite a week and it looks like the Democrats have lost it. The plot line – The Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner was informed last week (sometime midweek) that AIG was going to pay some select employees what has been characterized as retention bonuses. These bonuses were in the amount of $165 to $170 million. Geithner who was concerned notified the White House. It is unclear (at least to me) as to whether the President was told directly by Geithner. The point here is the White House was told last week. On Sunday, the news media reported that Big Time Bailout Recipient AIG was paying the bonuses. The Treasury Secretary appeared on one of the Sunday talk shows and expressed his displeasure and said there was in effect nothing that could be done about it. By Monday morning the country and the average citizen who has not received a bailout, is paying for the bailout, has lost tremendous value in their retirement plan and many who have even lost their jobs fermented and you might say went into Pitchfork Rebellion mode. Well the politicians woke up on Monday and felt their constituents’ pain. President Obama said he would have the Treasury Department work on it and find a way to stop the bonuses. It is interesting if not comical and sad that the Administration’s position changed from nothing we can do about it to stop the bonuses. Congress also got into the act and said something must be done about it. All of Washington was in OUTRAGE. Only the Democrats are in power. Everyone said something must be done. Hearings were scheduled for Wednesday to scalp, tar and feather the Edward Liddy, CEO of AIG. Liddy escaped though not without some Congressional torture promising that some Execs would/might return some of their bonus payment. On Tuesday it was reported that prohibitions against such bonus payments were incorporated into the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 otherwise known as the stimulus bill. The catch though is that bonuses earned before the date of enactment of the law were sanctioned. That means the AIG payments are legal and were approved by Congress. With all the outrage, understand that Congress had already dealt with the issue and obviously did not get it right. It would be far too repetitive and rhetorical to ask didn’t anyone read the bill? Or was the process rushed? It seems that Senator Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, inserted an amendment into the bill prohibiting such payments. But (and this is a big but) when the bill went to the Conference Committee to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate versions, Dodd’s prohibition was changed to allow bonuses promised before the date of enactment. Dodd on Tuesday said he did not know how this change happened. Yesterday (Wednesday) Dodd changed his story and said that yes he was aware of the change but that the change was made at the behest and pleading of Treasury Secretary Geithner and Lawrence Summers, Director of the White House National Economic Council. Dodd claims the changes were made to avoid what would be legal challenges. Dodd had lied and then when correcting his memory blamed the White House. The White House is a little vague at this point but“said they noted legal issues that could likely lead to challenges, but was the end of their involvement. The official said Mr. Dodd and Congress made the final changes on their own.” Today, Thursday, the House has passed a confiscatory tax on bonus paid within firms that have received federal bailout help. The Senate is up next. This is interesting of course because Congress already got one big bite at the apple and screwed it up. Today House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking at a presser blamed Federal Reserve Board Chairman Bernanke. Specifically to the point about the Dodd Amendment, she incredulously said, House Democrats were never involved in the negotiations and had nothing to do with it. (emphasis added) If our Government cannot get this right (and here I am referring to the Democrats – remember the GOP is not included negotiations) how can we expect them to seriously deal with serious issues. While they are acting like clowns – this is no laughing matter. Endbar – I am not in sympathy with giving bonus with taxpayer money (and I have previously expressed this on several occasions. But it is a big problem for me to see laws made that are in effect ex post facto and in this case specific to certain persons. We must not overturn established legal precedence. As bad as matters are and public confidence is, we should not allow our government to change the rules in the middle of the game. It is a slippery slope. $175 million is a small price to pay to avoid what seems to becoming government in chaos. To comment on this post go to South Dakota Straight Talk. Jan 25, 2009
Republicans to Elect New Leader This Week
Posted by: Joel Rosenthal - 01/25/2009 2:39 PM (Politics) The Republican National Committee is meeting in Washington this week and on Friday will elect its new leadership team, including the Chairman, Co Chairman, Secretary, and Treasurer. Because the Republicans did not retain the White House, there is no President to pick a Chairman for them. There are several reoccurring campaign themes when the President does not pick the Chairman. After losing the White House, the principal refrain is we have to rebuild from the ground up, go back to basics, and give more assistance to the State Parties. Undoubtedly this is true but includes some element of just excuse making. An Open seat also means many candidates. In 1996 we had seven. Among the 168 members of the National Committee is always the question should the new leader come from the RNC’s ranks or from the “outside”? The philosophical debate also rages as to whether we should pick a leader from among the ulta conservative wing of the party or the moderate conservative wing. Always of importance is whether the Chairman can raise money? In recent year’s the issue of the Chairman’s communication skills has been a campaign issue and this year questions are being raised about the Chairman’s ability to adopt technology (the Dems and Obama campaign really kicked the GOP’s butt on this one) and the Chairman’s ability to reach out to minority groups. There are six announced candidates seeking the top spot. All are men. Party rules require the Co Chairman to be of the opposite sex. The candidates and the race are detailed in a recent article in the “Washington Post.” In summary they are current RNC Chairman Mike Duncan**, former Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell an African American who lost his bid to be Governor of Ohio, Michael Steele an African American and former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, Saul Anunzis** current Chairman of the Michigan GOP, Katon Dawson** current Chairman of the South Carolina GOP, and Chip Saltsman* former Tennessee GOP Chairman and most recently National campaign manager for Mike Huckabee for President. ** denotes current RNC member, * denotes former RNC member. Duncan, Steele, and Saltsman are former colleagues. Mike Duncan from Kentucky is a fine man, has been a party stalwart, knows the drill (he has served as RNC Treasurer, General Counsel, and as Chairman done a reasonable job of managing a bad situation with an unpopular President this past election. Given the results and while the environment was not Chairman Duncan’s making, Republicans did lose big and it probably is time for a change. Michael Steele is a great story and is an eloquent spokesman. He is affable and often appears on the FOX network. He currently serves as Chairman of GOPAC. In 2006 Steele was the GOP U S Senate candidate in Maryland (a very Dem State) and lost. I often sat next to Saltsman at RNC meetings (seating was alphabetic – a South Dakota next to Tennessee deal) though I never established any relationship. The unknowns to me are Blackwell, Dawson and Anunzis. Blackwell has teamed up with Tina Benkisser (as the Co Chairman candidate), the Texas GOP Chairman and they are along with Saltsman and Dawson the ultra conservative candidates. Dawson pledges to return the party to its roots. Anunzis is seen best at adapting technology and as a good communicator though under his leadership, the Michigan Party lost both Congressional and Legislative seats. I could easily support Duncan, a common sense Conservative, though as stated previously, it is time for the Committee to change leadership and I think Steele would be acceptable as well, though I am unsure about his organizational abilities. I could not support Saltsman who is a stalking horse for Mike Huckabee for the 2012 nomination and would thus narrow the party rather than broaden it. Saltsman also recently used extremely poor judgment when distributing the “Barack The Magic Negro” parody in a campaign kit when soliciting votes to RNC members. The candidate that most intrigues me is Saul Anunzis, the Michigan chairman. In checking out his website, he does adopt technology well, and watching his You Tube posts, does a good job at communicating his message. Michigan Republicans dating back to the Ford Presidency have had a large party infrastructure and I suspect that Anunzis, a successful businessman, has organizational skills. Perhaps it is his new arrival on the scene that makes me want to take a second or third look. Finally he is a Boy Scout leader and an American of Lithuanian heritage. South Dakota Republicans have three members of the RNC who will vote for Chairman on the perhaps 4 or many more ballots next Friday. They are State Chairman Karl Adam, National Committeeman Dana Randall, and National Committee Woman Mary Jean Jenson. They will use there best judgment and reasoning to vote and select our National Chairman. I am certain they would appreciate any thoughts from South Dakotans on their vote, and we hope they make a good choice. Whether we agree is another matter. National party rules provide for secret ballot. However it seems reasonable to me that some accountability is called for. While our members are free to vote for whomever they choose, they should at a minimum tell us who they are supporting and why. Next Friday and over the weekend will be a good time to checkout the RNC elections in the press and on CSPAN. To comment on this post go to South Dakota Straight Talk.
Jan 5, 2009
The Burris Affair
Posted by: Joel Rosenthal - 01/05/2009 7:14 PM (Politics)
Roland Burris’ appointment to the Illinois US Senate seat vacated by the President elect has become along with the Illinois Governor’s arrest for attempting to sell the appointment to the highest bidder the current national political soap opera. Burris will appear at the Senate tomorrow to take his seat. By most accounts in some shape or form he will be denied the seat. As this drama has played out so far, both Senate Democrats and Republicans have indicated they will refuse to seat the former Illinois Attorney General. The Democrats because they claim he was appointed under a cloud of suspicion and the Republicans because they believe under the circumstances a Special Election is warranted. Sidebar – Rolland Burris sought a Senate seat previously when he ran for the Democrat nomination for U S Senate in 1982 and was defeated by Paul Simon who then defeated the incumbent Chuck Percy in the general election. Both Parties are now backtracking slightly because of the perception that somehow they might seem insensitive and be discriminating against Burris because he is an African American. If seated he would be the only 1 of 100 Senate members of his race and worth noting he would be replacing Senator Obama who is also African American. It is worth noting that the Reverends Jackson (Jesse) and Sharpton (Al) America’s premier racial ambulance chasers have not weighed in on this issue. Perhaps because Sharpton has been busy having lunch with and carrying on about Caroline Kennedy and Jackson is hoping that his son U S Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. might receive the coveted appointment. Or perhaps their partisanship is trumping (as if the GOP held the Senate majority) what otherwise they would be demagoging. News reports indicate that the Senate may work out some accommodation to allow Burris to act as a Senator with perhaps pay and certain privileges but without a vote. I am not sure how that would work but it is a concept that only Washington politicians can understand. Despite all the kabuki theatre, what the Senate Democrats are saying is that they want an appointment because that is the law while Republicans want a special election because they do not. Democrats of course control the levers of power in Springfield and would thus control the appointment. Republicans believe as a result of the Blagojevich scandal, with a damaged and disgraced Democrat party in Illinois, they might actually win the Special. A special election is also the only chance the GOP has of taking the seat. Republicans also take heart that in several U S House elections since last November’s general election the GOP has been unexpectedly victorious. While it is impossible to know what is ultimately going to happen, I expect that the Senate will hold Burris at bay, the Illinois Legislature with impeach and convict their Governor in the next two or three weeks and the Lieutenant Governor who will become Governor will then appoint Burris. Burris has said he will not seek reelection and will just serve for two years, I would not bet the farm on it. Power is intoxicating. To comment on this post go to South Dakota Straight Talk. |
|
Online Opinion Poll
Online Opinion is your chance to tell Keloland what you think.
Remember - our on-air polls are scientific. Online Opinion is not. It's simply an easy way to speak your mind. As of today, 574 questions have been posted and 1,066,602 votes have been cast. Click Here to view the Online Opinion archives. |
|
© 2010 KELO-TV -- KELOLAND.COM -- ALL RIGHTS RESERVED