Capitol Punishment

The Democrats' Boldest Leader

June 27, 2011 , ι Robert A. George

Maybe it's a bit early to start the Cuomo-for-President bandwagon . After all, he's only been governor for six months. Indeed, part of the hosannas being thrown his way are due to how far New York's... Read on

Maybe it's a bit early to start the
	 Cuomo-for-President bandwagon.  After all, he's only been governor for six months. Indeed, part of the hosannas being thrown his way are due to how far New York's political culture has fallen over the last ten years -- hitting rock bottom in the four years of the Spitzer-Paterson "error." While almost anyone would have looked sterling by comparison, one must tip the hat for the breadth of Cuomo's victories -- from fiscal (on-time budget with no taxes) to social policy (same-sex marriage)/  
	 
 
	 
But, there is one thing that people across the political spectrum should give Andrew Cuomo full respect. And it has little to do with the specifics of his agenda: He's a leader who articulates a vision and then does everything necessary to make his priorities law.  (And, yes we hasten to add, everything legal and ethical.) 
	 
 
	 
In a sense, his style is more like George W. Bush ("the decider") and less like that of the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, one Barack H. Obama.  The same-sex marriage battle was an interesting case in point. On Thursday evening, the behind-the-scenes battle in Albany couldn't have been tighter. The pro-marriage forces were trying to nail down the two GOP votes to guarantee victory.  Meanwhile, in New York City, President Obama was attending a gay community fundraiser for the DNC. His speech there extolled his belief that gay men and women need to have "full rights."  He tossed out an
	 obligatory Lady Gaga reference: 
	 
 
	 
Ever since I entered into public life, ever since I have a memory about what my mother taught me, and my grandparents taught me, I believed that discriminating against people was wrong. I had no choice. I was born that way. 
	 
 
	 
Heh. Heh. Get it? He was "born this way." Ha! Ha! Or, more appropriately (as several folks tweeted), "*GROAN*"!
	 
 
	 
But, the one thing this supposedly "full rights" president couldn't do (even as several hecklers tried to get him to) was say, "I support gay marriage," or "I hope that the state senators wrestling with this issue tonight vote in support of Gov. Cuomo's bill."  He couldn't do that -- even as his administration has chosen not to defend parts of the Defense of Marriage Act because DOJ lawyers don't believe it is constitutional.  He may have been "born this way," but on this issue he wants to have it both ways! 
	 
 
	 
On the other hand, credit Andrew Cuomo:  He campaigned on making same sex marriage the law in New York. Even though it was overwhelmingly defeated in a Democratic-majority Senate just two years ago; even though a presumably more conservative GOP-majority would be a tougher slog to push through. However, he was unequivocal on what he believed and did the hard work out front and behind the scenes to get the bill through. One doesn't have to agree with the law (The Post editorialized against it) to admit that the governor worked hard on a priority of his. And, given the earlier defeat, it wasn't a sure-fire win, despite New York's history of socially liberal values. Thus, the kudos he's getting for his success are well deserved. That's the reward for bold, hard-fought, leadership.  
	 
 
	 
Meanwhile, the presidenet continues to duck and weave and talk about his "evolution" on the issue. No wonder some of his frustrated supporters have resorted
	 to selling"Evolve already!" T-shirts as a way of venting. 
	 
 
	 
Leadership is about making the tough decisions. The president basked in his "gutsy call" to give the go-ahead to take out bin Laden. But that, in a sense, was an easy call -- once he was sure where the terrorist and mass murderer was.  The gutsy call is saying, if you believe in, "full rights" for gays, well then, come out and say (as Bill Clinton has now done) that you are supportive of same-sex marriage. It's far guttier to say that before the 2012 election -- than two or three hours afterwards.

PRINT
EMAIL
SHARE
- Yahoo! Buzz
- Digg
- Reddit
- Fark It
- Newsvine
- StumbleUpon
- Twitter
- Facebook
RSS

Post Your Comments ⁄

(0) Comments

Look Who's "Breaking Unions" Now

June 27, 2011 , ι Robert A. George

Remember how Wisconsin governor Scott Walker was out to "destroy" public sector unions with legislation reforming collective bargaining? Remember the grievous attack on the middle-class this... Read on

Remember how Wisconsin governor Scott Walker was out to "destroy" public sector unions with legislation reforming collective bargaining? Remember the grievous attack on the middle-class this represented? Remember how outraged Democratic Wisconsin state senators fled to adjoining states like Illinois to prevent the GOP-run body from voting on Walker's legislation? Remember how the unions tried to get the courts to invalidate the laws on a technicality (only to be rebuffed by the state supreme court)? 
	 
 
	 
Remember how Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn started pushing legislation of his own to restrict public sector union collective bargaining? Wait, what?  Seriously?  Yes, it's true. Maybe Quinn got the idea from having to house so many "fleebagging" Wisconsin Democrats in his state. In any event, last week Quinn was indeed urging passage of a bill to rein in certain collective bargaining rights. 
	 
Alas, even though the bill passed the Assembly, the Senate refused
	 to bring it up for a votewith the Senate President (a Democrat) pulling the old line about there "not being enough support for the plan."  As New York residents are only too well, one sure way to make sure there isn't "enough support" for a bill: Don't let it get to the floor where legislators and the voting public can
	 themselvesassess how popular the bill is.  Instead, it looks like Illinois unions still have something of a veto power to block a vote. But, the key point here is that Quinn analyzed his budget -- and despite having already increased takes and hike spending in his first few months in office, he saw that the upcoming pension obstacles were insurmountable. And, went where he believed the money was.
	 
 
	 
And, guess waht? Even
	 MassachusettsDemocrats are also seeing the writing on the wall. Democratic Gov. DeVal Patrick,
	 submitted and receiveda $30.5 billion budget that ultimately
	 saves nearly $100 million for Bay State cities and towns. And then, last week, New Jersey's governor managed to get sweeping rollbacks in government employee health benefits and pensions through a Democratic state Assembly and Senate. Mother Jones notes the  horrible actions of "
	 Christie Democrats":
	 
 
	 
The state Senate passed the bill 24 to 15, with 8 Democrats bolting from their party to support Christie. In the Assembly, the vote was 46 to 32 in favor of the measure, and 14 Democrats sided with Republicans.
	 
 
	 
So, all this must mean a growing number of elected Demcrats have decided that they "hate" organized labor as much as Republicans do, too, right?  Or maybe, those Democrats are understanding that, when it comes to pensions and benefits, THEY HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE. It's either reform now or let the state budgets sink into insolvency.
	 
 
	 
Of course, this raises an important fact: The number of states where Wisconsin Democrats might be welcomed in order to avoid voting on such measures is decreasing by the day.

PRINT
EMAIL
SHARE
- Yahoo! Buzz
- Digg
- Reddit
- Fark It
- Newsvine
- StumbleUpon
- Twitter
- Facebook
RSS

Post Your Comments ⁄

(0) Comments

A Flying Dress Code, Perhaps?

June 23, 2011 , ι Robert A. George

Hey, US Airways, how about just a wee bit of consistency? Hmm? Pretty please? The airline got some attention a week or so ago for kicking off a flight a member of the University of Nevada's... Read on

Hey, US Airways, how about just a wee bit of consistency? Hmm? Pretty please?  The airline
	 got some attention a week or soago for kicking off a flight a member of the University of Nevada's football team. 20-year old Deshon Marman was wearing his "pajama pants" in the saggy, underwear/tuchus-showing manner now-fashionable with much of the nation's urban youth. Marman was kicked off after being told to pull up his pants. After refusing to either pull up the pants or leave the plane, he was arrested. Yes, for the purpose of this story, it is important to note that Marman is African-American. He (and his lawyer) are suggesting racism.
	 
 
	 
US Airways is arguing decorum, safety, etc. However, the airline would be in better position in arguing against selective standards/prosecution if they hadn't allowed
	 this
 to happen(just barely SFW) less than a week before the Deshon Marman incident. 
	 
 
	 
Yes, that would be a middle-aged white man was allowed to fly wearing a woman's bikini, thigh high black boots, sports bra and, uh, well, see for yourself. Ooooookay. Now, in this case, US Airways says, "We don't have a dress code policy." Maybe they should get one? Or get a lot less arbitrary in their decisions on who flies and who doesn't? Now, technically, Marman was kicked off and arrested for not complying with "the captain's requests." Yes, but the request was to pull up his pants. Meanwhile, there's one passenger who's not wearing any pants! 
	 
 
	 
Just to be clear: If either of these "gentlemen" were coming into Capitol Punishment's home, they would be told to either pull up their pants -- or put some on -- as the situation warranted.
	 
 
	 
We all clear?

PRINT
EMAIL
SHARE
- Yahoo! Buzz
- Digg
- Reddit
- Fark It
- Newsvine
- StumbleUpon
- Twitter
- Facebook
RSS

Post Your Comments ⁄

(0) Comments

With Friends Like "US"

June 23, 2011 , ι Robert A. George

Ah well, see ya, Afghanistan ! Let's change our Facebook status to, uh "It's complicted." Like just about all of the United States' long-term relationships of late. Okay, so maybe it's not the worst... Read on

Ah well,
	 see ya, Afghanistan! Let's change our Facebook status to, uh "It's complicted." Like just about all of the United States' long-term relationships of late.
	 
 
	 
Okay, so maybe it's not the
	 worstthing in the world that the United States and, say, Saudi Arabia aren't literally walking hand in hand (as George W. Bush and Crown Prince Abdullah did in this, ahem,
	 awkward momentin 2005). But, as the Los Angeles Times points out, the alliance is at
	 a more strained pointthan it has been in many years.  The Saudis are, for example, counseling Jordan to maintain its traditional autocratic monarchical hold on power -- even as Washington has been trying to nudge its smaller ally to head in a pro-democratic direction:
	 
 
	 
Riyadh, which believes the U.S. is turning its back on loyal allies, is trying to step out of America's shadow. It is embracing a foreign policy that often diverges from Washington's — and sometimes seeks to undermine it. 
	 

	 
On the key political issues "the Obama administration doesn't really listen to the Saudi views," said Abdullah Askar, who is vice chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the king's Consultative Council, or Majlis Shura, in Riyadh. 
	 

	 
This shift doesn't mean the end of the 70-year-old U.S.-Saudi alliance, which is built on a simple foundation: Saudi oil for U.S. military protection. But it means a further loss of influence for Washington in the Middle East at a time when other crucial relations — with Egypt and Turkey, for example — are facing new strains.
	 
 
	 
Ah, further "loss of influence for Washington"! Where have we heard that one before? Arguably, trying to expand democracy in the Middle East
	 isa good thing, but then we're faced with an Obama administration that doesn't seem to know which way to go (call for Mubarak's ouster; don't call for Assad's in Syria; look the other way when Saudi Arabia sends in troops to crush protestors in Bahrain).  The only consistency is lack of consistency.
	 
 
	 
And then, add that to how the U.S. has treated other traditional allies -- from the
	 sublime
	 snubsto the
	 'border'-line tragic. 
	 
 
	 
No wonder so many of America's closest partners might be thinking to themselves -- with friends like "US," who needs enemies?

PRINT
EMAIL
SHARE
- Yahoo! Buzz
- Digg
- Reddit
- Fark It
- Newsvine
- StumbleUpon
- Twitter
- Facebook
RSS

Post Your Comments ⁄

(0) Comments

The Return of Clinton-Gore

June 22, 2011 , ι Robert A. George

Look who's talking now! George W. Bush has pretty much kept quiet on the stumbles of his successor. While Dick Cheney had early heavy criticism on Obama's handling of the war on terror in the... Read on

Look who's talking now!
	 
 
	 
George W. Bush has pretty much kept quiet on the stumbles of his successor. While Dick Cheney had early heavy criticism on Obama's handling of the war on terror in the administration's first year, even he's been rather quiet over the last several months. So, what is rather interesting in recent days is the implicit and explicit slams coming from members of the last
	 Democraticadministration. And not just any members, but the two top dogs: Former VP Al Gore -- who, liberals never stop reminding folks, won the popular vote in 2000 -- penned a 7,000 word
	 Rolling Stoneessay on (what else?) global warming. In the essay, Gore
	 hits Obamafor failing "to use the bully pulpit to make the case for bold action on climate change."
	 
 
	 
Meanwhile, earlier in the week, former President Clinton wrote a
	 Newsweek
 cover story, listing 14 ideas to "put America back to work." Considering that Clinton's wife is the secretary of state, one might think that, if he so chose, the former president could speed-dial the current White House occupant and give him some advice (perhaps he has). Instead, he takes to a weekly magazine to remind America that "It's still the economy, stupid." While not as explictly critical of Obama's lack of "bold action," Clinton's high-profile article certainly sends a message.
	 
 
	 
Indeed, both pieces carry something of a "tsk..tsk" tone, i.e. "how come this guy is missing the boat on our signature issues?"  These articles could just be mere coincidental blips in the middle of summer. Or, they could suggest something else.  Clinton and Gore (especially the former) remain very popular individuals within the Democratic Party. Their comfort in crticicizing (subtly or otherwise) the performance of a president of their own party could signal to other Demcrats that Obama isn't off-limits. 
	 
 
	 
So far, Obama has managed to keep his popularity in the high-40s primarily from rock-solid support from Democrats. If that doesn't continue, he could have a very bumpy rest of the year -- and start of 2012.

PRINT
EMAIL
SHARE
- Yahoo! Buzz
- Digg
- Reddit
- Fark It
- Newsvine
- StumbleUpon
- Twitter
- Facebook
RSS

Post Your Comments ⁄

(0) Comments

Ban butts or shut up

June 21, 2011 , ι Abby W. Schachter

The new campaign against smoking by the Food and Drug Administration is pathetic . The graphic images that are now required to appear on every pack of smokes is the government's latest effort to... Read on

PRINT
EMAIL
SHARE
- Yahoo! Buzz
- Digg
- Reddit
- Fark It
- Newsvine
- StumbleUpon
- Twitter
- Facebook
RSS

Post Your Comments ⁄

(0) Comments

'Regulators gone wild'

June 21, 2011 , ι Abby W. Schachter

Sen. Mitch McConnell says that one way to help create jobs is to get rid of all the "bureaucrats on steroids" -- the regulators . McConnell claims that the Obama administration has hired 250,000... Read on

Sen. Mitch McConnell says that one way to help create jobs is to get rid of all the "bureaucrats on steroids" -- the regulators. McConnell claims that the Obama administration has hired 250,000 government workers many of whom are focused on making and implementing invasive rules in all areas of the private economy, from healthcare to financial markets to the environment.
	 
As Rich Trzupek describes in his new book "Regulators Gone Wild" (AEI) environmental acitivsts work hand in hand with government regulators "to stifle American productivity and hamstring American innovation, not by design, but as the inevitable consequence of pursuing a utopian vision of environmental purity."
	 
As it happens, the Surpeme Court just knocked back an effort by environmentalists working with local governments to have judges decide even more stringent environmental policies.
	 The Court ruled that judges are not equipped to rule on limits to say carbon emissions for the sake of global warming protections.The justices argue that it is government regulators, like the so-called experts at the Environmental Protection Agency who should be making rules to implement scientifically based policies.
	 
Only trouble is that EPA regulators are making politically-motivated rules as much as they are scientifically based regulations.
	 
Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA was on Capitol Hill this week defending her agency's record on the Clean Air Act because
	 many see her efforts as trying to stifle productivity in the name of a utopian vision of the environment.
	 
The activists who got shot down by the Supreme Court may be disappointed but they are working so hand in glove with the regulators -- like the EPA -- that they needn't worry about a lack of oversight.
	 
UPDATE:
	 Ramesh Ponnuru laments too much FDA regulations have resulted in major and multiple drug shortages.

PRINT
EMAIL
SHARE
- Yahoo! Buzz
- Digg
- Reddit
- Fark It
- Newsvine
- StumbleUpon
- Twitter
- Facebook
RSS

Post Your Comments ⁄

(0) Comments

Yale hearts antisemitism again

June 21, 2011 , ι Abby W. Schachter

We broke the story of Yale's decision to close the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism. Now, we can report that Yale has reversed course and is opening a new antisemitism... Read on

We broke the story of Yale's decision to close the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism.Now, we can report that
	 Yale has reversed course and is opening a new antisemitism center.
	 
The university received a heaping dose of criticism and complaints by various Jewish organizations, students and scholars decrying the decision to close YIISA. The university claimed it closed the center because of a lack of faculty and student involvement or because YIISA didn't produce enough scholarly work. Now Provost Peter Salovey says that the new Yale Program for the Study of Anti-Semitism will be sponsored by the university's Whitney Humanities Center. "YPSA will encourage serious scholarly discourse and collaborative research focused on anti-Semitism, one of the world’s oldest and most enduring prejudices, in all its forms," Salovey explained.

The new center will be headed by French and French Jewish scholar Maurice Samuels.
	 
Here's the question: Studying the "old" version of antisemitism was never the problem. No one at Yale had any problem with YIISA studying Jew-hatred by communists, fascists, Catholics or Protestants. The issue is the study of "new" antisemitism, Muslim antisemitism. If the new center is going to study antisemitism "in all its forms" as Solvey claims, and that includes Muslim antisemitism, why did they have to close YIISA in the first place?

PRINT
EMAIL
SHARE
- Yahoo! Buzz
- Digg
- Reddit
- Fark It
- Newsvine
- StumbleUpon
- Twitter
- Facebook
RSS

Post Your Comments ⁄

(0) Comments

Obama ally hates his Syria policy

June 20, 2011 , ι Abby W. Schachter

Former Obama State Department official PJ Crowley has an earful for the president on Syria . Basically his point is you have to speak up about ousting Assad, Syria's dictator who has spent the Sprint... Read on

Former Obama State Department official PJ Crowley has an earful for the president on Syria. Basically his point is you have to speak up about ousting Assad, Syria's dictator who has spent the Sprint slaughtering more than 1,000 of his citizens.
	 
"Having declared on March 3 that “Moammar Qaddafi has lost the legitimacy to lead,” it is time [for OBama] to say the same about Assad. With Libya, the president took the lead and the international community followed. The response to Syria will not be the same — there is no military option at this point — but such a statement, long overdue, will send a strong signal to Syrian elites who continue to support the Assad regime, further isolate the regime politically and create a catalyst for additional international sanctions," Crowley writes. 
	 
It might be nice to think that a former Obama administration official might get heard at the White House, not least because he's got a story to tell about the power of social media and the Arab Spring. But this administration has proven itself deaf and dumb when it comes to reasonable foreign policy so Crowley is most likely to be out of luck.

PRINT
EMAIL
SHARE
- Yahoo! Buzz
- Digg
- Reddit
- Fark It
- Newsvine
- StumbleUpon
- Twitter
- Facebook
RSS

Post Your Comments ⁄

(0) Comments

Angelina Jolie brings cameras but little light to Syrian refugees

June 20, 2011 , ι Abby W. Schachter

Hollywood actress and UN refugees ambassador Angelina Jolie visited a refugee camp in Turkey to meet with the victims of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad's brutal crackdown . Problem is that the camp... Read on

Hollywood actress and UN refugees ambassador Angelina Jolie visited a refugee camp in Turkey to meet with the victims of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad's brutal crackdown. Problem is that the camp being in Turkey results in refugees who are barred from talking to the media. This is because Turkey is a strong ally and only recent critic of the Syrian regime.

"Peter Bouckaert of Human Rights Watch, the international monitoring group, said the unrest in the Turkish camps highlighted [Turkish Prime Minister Recep] Erdogan's tricky position.

On one hand, Bouckaert said, Turkey has fulfilled its humanitarian obligation by providing a haven for Syrians who want to cross the border. On the other hand, Turkey is restricting the movement of refugees and preventing them from sharing their horrific ordeals with the news media, which goes against international norms for dealing with asylum seekers, he said.

"Turkey is afraid that stories of Syrian atrocities will leak out from Turkish soil," said Bouckaert, who had spent the past two days recording testimonies from traumatized refugees camped out in a valley between the countries."

Angelina Jolie is supposed to help the UN support and assist refugees. Syria has managed to keep journalists out of the main story, Turkey is able to clamp down on refugees who might otherwise tell the world what is going on and Jolie blows through to get her picture taken. There were a lot of lights and cameras but don't expect much action.