Posted by r2streu on June 2, 2009 · 2 Comments
New York District 20 rep John McHugh, currently the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, is apparently being chosen by Barack Obama as his new Secretary of the Army. Fox News says Obama will officially name McHugh to replace current Secretary Pete Geren.
McHugh is another Republican pick for Obama’s defense staff. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates worried Obama supporters because they believed a Republican pick would bolster opinions of Democrats as weak on defense.
UPDATE: remarks from Obama…
“… My administration has increased funding for our military, including the army, and increasing the size of the military two years ahead of schedule.”
That’s gotta sting some Code Pinkers.
“Today I’m proud to announce the distinguished public servant who will help keep us safe, and who will help keep our sacred trust with our soldiers and their familes. The next Secretary of the Army, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, John McHugh.”
<snip>
“… but it is his service over the past 16 years in Congress, as a champion of our men and women in Uniform that uniquely qualifies him to help lead America’s Army.”
<snip>
“John is committed to keeping America’s Army the best-trained, the best-equipped, the best-led land force the world has ever seen.”
And… where the politics come into play…
“Finally, John shares my belief that a sustainable national security strategy must include a bipartisan consensus at home.”
Translation: John is a token Republican who I probably won’t listen to, but at least the media can point to when people claim I’m not being bipartisan.
This, of course, followed by the standard “It’s an honor to be nominated” stuff by McHugh.
(cross-posted at RedState)
Posted by r2streu on May 30, 2009 · 1 Comment
Yesterday, Obama called for a speedy confirmation of his SCOTUS nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. Any opposition, he claimed, was built along purely partisan lines, and not on drawing “old battle lines and playing the usual political games, pulling a few comments out of context to paint a distorted picture of Judge Sotomayor’s record.”
Obama seems to be missing the point, but fair enough; enough Republican pundits and pols have played the race card with Sotomayor’s comments that he can perhaps be forgiven for being confused on the issue. So, in the spirit of fairness, let’s look at Sotomayor’s comments, and then the Administration’s interpretation of those comments, so that we can look at them in Obama’s “proper context.”
Sotomayor, of course, made the now-infamous remark that “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
For those painting the comments as “racist,” the sticking point here would appear to be the “better conclusion” remark. And they have a point. But there is a context here which lends itself to the Administration’s interpretation. The argument can be made, and should be made, I think, that what she’s really saying is simply that her life experiences give her a perspective into the lives of the people involved in the individual cases, and better inform her judgements.
Okay? Fair enough? So let’s diffuse this racist thing and boil down what she’s “really” saying. She’s not saying “Latina women are smarter than white men.” No, what she’s saying is that because of her experiences, she has the ability to render judgements on individual cases, not according to the law and constitution, but based on subjective standards based on her subjective life experiences. As Obama said, hers will be decisions based on empathy and understanding.
One problem with that, of course: any subjective coloring of her decisions based on her life experiences is a clear violation of her oath of office.
“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
(from about.com)
Without respect to persons. Equal right to the poor and rich. Faithfully and impartially. This is the point Obama seems to be missing. This is the point hidden by the “race” controversy. A Justice should not be swayed by subjective experience. At all. The job of a Supreme Court Justice is to judge, not based on her idea of “fair,” not based on what she personally thinks would be best for one party or the other. But on the law of the land and on the Constitution.
No wonder Obama wants a quick confirmation. Perhaps he fears that, given enough time, the racial undertones of Sotomayor’s comments will give way to the reality of her views on the position of the courts as unelected activist legislators.
There is a reason for the courts being set up the way they are. Put simply, the Highest Court exists as a safeguard against (often well-intentioned) idealism or ambition turning into tyranny against the citizens of the United States. To be sure that the laws of the land apply equally to all, and not differently depending on your race, income or social status.
And even if you take Sotomayor’s comments in the context the Administration suggests, that’s really what it comes down to. She — and Obama — believe that her experiences give her the insight into how to apply the law in the way that best fits their subjective version of “fairness,” as applied to each individual. Which is precisely the opposite of what the Supreme Court oath demands.
Hopefully, Republican leaders can learn from the recent past and understand that when this administration calls for a quick decision, it’s often because there’s something to hide.
Posted by r2streu on April 16, 2009 · 3 Comments
Any day you can drive through Northern New York with the windows down is a good day. And, considering I was about to stand on a line holding a sign for two and a half hours, this bode very well indeed. The light breeze and clear, blue sky was all the encouragement I needed that this was a darn fine day for dissent.
As I pulled into Canton and started looking for a parking spot, I stopped at a red light that put me just across the road from the protesters facing Main Street. My window down, one attendee yelled, “Hey, honk if you support us.” I smiled and honked, and avoided the temptation to grab my own gigantic signs to wave back at them as the a protester yelled, “we’re here for you, too!”
Amen to that.
Once on the line, I handed one of my two signs off to another protester, and was immediately struck by the overall friendliness of the crowd. Here we were, serious as a heart attack and mad as hell over taxation, runaway spending, and the wholesale bankrupting of generations of our offspring — but it was more like talking politics with old friends over coffee.
As car after car drove by and honked (more than one of our signs invited them to “Honk if you love Capitalism” or “Honk if you hate runaway spending”), it was just not possible to be dejected by the one or two passers by who were clearly against us, or the nearly complete lack of media coverage (to my knowledge, two local radio stations actually covered the event, mine included). Indeed, though there were fewer of us than at many Tea Party events, we knew that for a place like Canton, NY to get 100-150 people in a crowd in the middle of a work day meant that something important was happening.
Among the protesters, retirees and veterans (each of whom was thanked for his service, and by more than one person), families, working men and women, and even college students. One group of students surprised me, actually — and provided a lesson I shouldn’t have to be taught: first impressions aren’t everything. As this group of four or five students began crossing the street, I noticed the flipflops and folded signs, their young ages — and the t-shirt with the permanent-marker legend, “Save the Trees,” — and I thought, well, here we go. It’s the counter protest. Then, as they continued walking by, I saw the back of that shirt: “Stop Printing Money.”
Knowing the next generation cares, too, is a good feeling.
Nancy Foster, the local GOP Chair who organized the event, took note of the distances traveled by some supporters in her correspondence with me:
Thank you for coming out today to support the Canton Tea Party. There were over 150 men, women, and children in attendance from the North County: Brasher, Canton, Chateaugay, Churubusco, Clifton, Cranberry Lake, DeKalb, Hammond, Herman, Lisbon, Louisville, Madrid, Malone, Massena, Norwood, Ogdensburg, Oswegatchie, Parishville, Pierrepont, Potsdam, and Winthrop (hope I did not skip any). The signs were amazing and the respect shown for the democratic process was a great lesson for the children in attendance. I must admit, every time I think about the support we got from passing traffic, I smile. …
Many of those in attendance, including my husband & I, had never before participated in a protest of any type. It is our hope that our state and federal representatives recognize that this national grassroots effort cannot be ignored.
It’s true, for many of us — in protests around the country — this was indeed our first time out. In truth, the “progressives” of Move On and other organizations seem to have cornered the market on such activities. It’s an unfortunate but understandable fact of life: Conservatives tend to have jobs, and don’t get government grants to carry signs.
But we came out anyway. We took our lunch hours, or took days off, and we came out to send this message. It is not okay to steal from our children, which is exactly what the government is doing with their absurd fiscal policy. This is government run amok, and it cannot continue.
Yesterday morning, as I was preparing a signs, my son, Trey noted that one of them had a giant letter “T.” Since he assumes anything with a “T” on it must belong to him, he asked, “Daddy, is that for me?”
And, you know what? It was.
Posted by r2streu on April 2, 2009 · Leave a Comment
(cross-posted at RedState)
The President may be a lot of things, few of them flattering, but one thing he is not is politically stupid. Becoming known for calling out Republican rivals, Obama is now, carefully, working to spread the word that His Excellency will brook no deviation from within the ranks. And, though he has the political acumen to hide his threats in laughter, even those on his own side aren’t missing the underlying message.
In a meeting of House Dems on Monday, Obama recalled Oregon Rep Peter DeFazio’s dissension regarding the disastrous “stimulus” bill:
“I know you think we need more for that because you voted against” the stimulus bill in February, Obama told DeFazio during a question-and-answer session with about 150 House Democrats at the Capitol.
“Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother,” Obama added, as other lawmakers howled with laughter. …
This is, indeed, new politics here in the US. Obama promised change, and now we begin to see the scope of it. Not only is Barack Obama not even trying to keep his campaign promises of openness and bipartisanship, but we see now that he will accept no alternatives or dissent from his liberal agenda — from anybody.
Message received, Mr. President. Your laughter isn’t fooling anyone.