Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Really Really Busy: Pardon The Scheduling Conflict

It's time to Break It Down!

Next week this time will be August 3rd.  What is significant about that date?  Well, the thing that likely comes to mind for millions of Americans is it will be “The Day After;” as in the day after it has been projected to be necessary to reach a deal to raise the Debt Ceiling.  In that light, regardless of whether there is a debt deal, there will be a story. 

With that in mind, even if the result is a short term deal that provides only another week or two to wrap up a larger deal, that in and of itself would represent both a shift in paradigms, and a story.  I am taking the unusual step of committing to make some angle or aspect of the Debt Ceiling discussion next week’s blog topic.

Meanwhile, on tap today is a brief look at what might be considered a snub of a major Latino Conference by key candidates for the GOP Presidential Nomination.  What do Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, and John Huntsman have in common?  Most notably, they are all candidates seeking the Republican Nomination for President.  However, this week, they are also known, individually and collectively, for opting not to attend the annual conference of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), despite having been extended invitations.

NCLR, or La Raza, is the nation’s largest Latino organization.  The group convened in Washington, DC, Saturday through yesterday for its 2011 Conference.  Janet Murguia, La Raza President, not surprisingly viewed the actions of the five Republicans as a snub to the Latino constituency, and an indication that these GOP hopefuls do not care about the Hispanic population, and more important as it relates to the 2012 Presidential contest, their vote.

Politico, an American political journalism organization followed up with spokespersons for all five candidates to inquire why they did not attend the conference.  Campaign spokespersons for Mrs. Bachmann, and Messrs. Gingrich and Huntsman did not respond.

A spokesperson for former Governor Romney at first indicated Mr. Romney never received an invitation.  When provided with an e-mail declining the invitation, the spokesperson clarified that Mitt Romney had indeed received the invitation, but had a scheduling conflict.

The Pawlenty Campaign acknowledged having received an invitation.  In a move more responsive than the Bachmann, Gingrich, and Huntsman camps, and also more savvy, if not more forthright, than that employed by Romney, the Campaign spokesperson went straight to the scheduling conflict default position.

To be quite fair, serious candidates for a major Party’s Presidential nomination are bound to have incredibly busy schedules.  But all things fit into a specific context.  The placement of this issue at this time cannot be viewed in fullness without considering the fact that Latinos have recently become the nation’s largest minority group.

If as a politician one believes we are a society comprised of diverse, multicultural interests, and that in order to thrive, we must regularly incorporate the full spectrum of our populace into political and policy debates, it follows logically that one would, and should make it a priority to create opportunities to interact with significant voting bloc segments.  Further, it therefore stands to reason then, a conference of the nation’s largest Latino group, complete with 25,000 participants, would be a place a prospective candidate for President of the United States might want to spend a least a few minutes.

Even Michael Steele, immediate former Chairman of the Republican National Committee, made the following statement about the lack of the GOP candidates’ presence at the La Raza conference:

  • “I find it curious that no one decided to go visit or have a conversation today with 25,000 Hispanic activists and leaders gathered from around the country. We can't afford to miss those opportunities. I get the whole thing with La Raza but people are people and we can find common ground."
Mr. Steele was referencing the perceived connection between La Raza in particular, and Latinos in general, with the Democratic Party.  Obviously, given Mr. Steele’s meteoric rise, and subsequent contentious fall, within the Republican Party Power Structure, his comments may serve to motivate Republicans to resist even residual impulses to work toward forging connections with Latino and Hispanic communities.   

It’s true that in 2008, President Obama captured a significant majority of the Latino vote.  However, his lack of forceful movement, on immigration reform during the first two and a half years of his term in office, has crated what some Republicans and Latinos view as an opening for the GOP.

In that regard, historians may one day look back and view, as a missed opportunity, GOP Presidential candidates' opting, en masse, to skip the 2011 La Raza Conference.  It is altogether possible that in the sharpness of 20-20 vision gained only as a result of hindsight, the prevailing conclusion will be that GOP aspirations of making inroads into any perceived Obama advantage were ill-served by the candidates' solidarity-in-absence.  Until then, remember, Republicans have been “Really, Really Busy: Pardon the Scheduling Conflict!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com.  A new post is published each Wednesday.  For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:

































Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Dueling Proposals: Solving the Looming Debt Ceiling Crisis

It's time to Break It Down!

August 2, 2011; by all accounts, this date is the contemporary D-Day for gaining control of the finances of the United States government.  PresidentObama has likened the potential failure to reach a compromise solution to the Debt Ceiling debate as Armageddon.  Intelligent minds may disagree with the end-of-the-world implications of not voting to raise the debt limit, but at the same time, most people agree, the ramifications of not raising the limit are ominous, significant, and frustrating.

As always, there are many polls that weigh in on the issue.  One of them, a recent USA Today/Gallup Poll (taken Friday-Sunday, July 15-17) found that two-thirds of Americans want their Congressional representatives to agree to a compromise plan on debt and budget deficit negotiations.  This, by the way, is in direct contrast to the argument the GOP-Tea Party conservatives consistently make when they insist that the American people do not want compromise (on this issue)!

The numerical breakdown of the USA Today/Gallup Poll looked like this:

·         66% of respondents said agree to a compromise plan, even if it is a plan you disagree with

·         27% of respondents said hold out for the basic plan you  want, even if debt ceiling is not raised by the deadline

·         6% expressed no opinion

·         Among Republicans, 57% said agree to a compromise plan

·         Among Republicans, 35% said hold out

·         Among Republicans, 8% expressed no opinion

·         Among Independents, 72% said agree to a compromise

·         Among Independents, 23% said hold out

·         Among Independents, 5% expressed no opinion

·         Among Democrats, 69% said agree to a compromise

·         Among Democrats, 26% said hold out

·         Among Democrats, 5% expressed no opinion

These results from this past weekend emerged as the President and Congressional leaders continue to debate the debt ceiling issue with the August 2nd deadline rapidly approaching.  With that in mind, several points are worth enumerating, including:

1.      Even a clear majority of Republicans favor a compromise

2.      Only slightly more than 1 in 3 Republicans expressed a desire to have their representatives to hold out

3.      Less than 1 in 3 participants, overall, wanted representatives to hold out

4.      Less than 1 in 4 Independents wanted representatives to hold out

5.      Nearly 7 in 10 Democrats favored compromise

6.      More than 7 in 10 Independents favored compromise

7.      A higher percentage of Independents, than even Democrats, favored compromise

In an effort to thwart President Obama’s efforts, a number of Conservatives are accusing the POTUS of deploying scare tactics, while they in turn contend the August 2nd deadline is not that big a deal.  One Congressman, Joe Walsh, 8th District in Illinois, made a Youtube video clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y-35BNuFgM) in which he both called President Obama a liar, and likened him to a drunken sailor.  What is it with GOP Congressmen named Joe?  In September, 2009, Joe Wilson, South Carolina, heckled the President, calling him a liar as he was addressing the Congress (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foOioaQf-c8).

According to the USA Today/Gallup Poll referenced above, Americans, at least among respondents to this poll, accept the President’s version of the story on this one.  On the question of whether they believed an economic crisis would result if an agreement is not reached by August 2nd, the breakout of responses fell accordingly:

·         56% said yes

·         40% said no

·         4% expressed no opinion

In a debate that has been on-going in earnest for weeks now, there have been, as you might imagine, a number of plans and proposals.  President Obama, recognizing that the level of heat and light that an Obama Plan would attract from the GOP-T Party element has resisted the urging of the Right to put “his” plan on the table. 

Instead, he introduced a proposal that outlined a framework for developing a plan.  His outline entailed a combination of budget cuts, new revenues, and a revision of the TaxCode that would eliminate a variety of loopholes and increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans.  Not surprisingly, the idea was met with pointed resistance by Republican opponents, who have declared repeatedly that they would not support or vote for any tax increases, which they add, includes the elimination of current loopholes for wealthy individuals and corporations.  Equally not surprising, the Left-leaning wing of the Democratic Party also panned the President for including Entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, & Medicaid) among the list of items up for discussion.

Meanwhile, John Boehner, Speaker of the House, and MitchMcConnell, Senate Minority Leader, respectively, took turns at pitching plans, neither of which has gained sufficient traction (to date) to move the discussion to agreement.  In fact, Eric Cantor, House Majority Leader, and GOP Budget Impresario, along with the conservative Republicans and the Tea Party were appalled by what they viewed as straight-up capitulation by Senator McConnell.  Cantor and Speaker Boehner moved quickly to neutralize the Senate Minority Leader’s pitch.

In a continuing effort to gain an upper hand in the debate, the GOP-led House of Representatives voted on an approved the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act yesterday.  This legislation was conceptualized based on another of those “Pledges” I discussed last week.  The Act has three principal components, as its name implies:

  1. Cut - Substantial cuts in spending that will reduce the deficit next year and thereafter.
  2. Cap - Enforceable spending caps that will put federal spending on a path to a balanced budget.
  3. Balance - Congressional passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution -- but only if it includes both a spending limitation and a super-majority for raising taxes, in addition to balancing revenues and expenses.
Presidential Spokesperson Jay Carney called the proposal Duck, Dodge, and Dismantle; President Obama said he would veto the bill, if it reached his desk.  The Democratically controlled Senate is expected to vote the bill down.

On another front, also yesterday, the 2011 version of the Gang of Six (the 2009 edition worked on Healthcare legislation), a bi-partisan group of Senators (Democrats Kent Conrad, North Dakota, Dick Durbin, Illinois, Mark Warner, Virginia, and RepublicansTom Coburn, Oklahoma, Mike Crapo, Idaho, Saxby Chambliss, Georgia) formulated and proposed a deficit reduction plan that President Obama endorsed (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43807163/ns/politics-capitol_hill/).  He called the plan “a very significant step” because Senators in his Party conceded the ”necessity of dealing with the entitlement issue,“ while Republican Senators acknowledged that “revenues will have to be part of a balanced package that makes sure no one is disproportionately hurt” from reducing budget deficits in the future.

House Majority Leader Cantor said of the proposal, “while there are still portions that are unclear and need more detail, this bipartisan plan does seem to include some constructive ideas to deal with our debt.  Not a ringing endorsement, by any means, but also not the outright rejection virtually every other thought on the subject garnering President Obama’s support has received.

Speaker Boehner was less receptive, but also did not flatly reject the idea in totality.  His office issued the following statement:  This plan shares many similarities with the framework the Speaker discussed with the president, but also appears to fall short in some important areas.

A number of factors may underlie these relatively less hostile reactions.  A few examples include:

·         As the deadline nears, the GOP may be getting serious about actually negotiating

·         Good old-fashioned partisan respect; half of the Gang of Six is Republican  

·         Their arguments notwithstanding, it is conceivable that GOP solons read polling data
      too; they are hearing the hue and cry saying “negotiate

Those are all pertinent bases; any one of them, or all of them collectively could serve as the rationale for changing tacks.  However, there is another matter that may have caught the attention of some GOP members.  Last week was the Campaign Finance Reporting Division of the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) released 1st Quarter fund raising results for the 2012 Presidential Campaign.  Despite the constant attack politics aimed at stunting his effectiveness, and crippling his Presidency, Mr. Obama raised a record $86 million (http://news.yahoo.com/obama-campaign-raises-86-mn-three-months-110851937.html).  The result itself is astounding, on its face.  But when drilled down just a little, a number of interesting, if not compelling points, surface, including:

  • The amount, $86 million, more than doubled the $35 million collected by all the Republican candidates; just over half ($18 million) of which was accounted for by Mitt Romney
  • Over half a million donations, 552,462, were made
  • 98% of the donations were for less than $250
  • The average donation was $69
To illustrate the President’s focus on reaching small donors, in an e-mail last month, he encouraged donations as small as $5, via a raffle.  What’s the prize?  Four supporters will join the President for dinner.

With almost two weeks left, about the only thing certain about this process is that there will surely be more drama.  There are 13 days left until Debt Ceiling D-Day.  By all appearances, we are in the stretch run, although, in America, next to God, the United States Congress is about as close to omnipotence as man can get.  With that in mind, keep an eye on how things are unfolding.  And don’t be surprised by some arcane rule being used to determine an as yet unannounced path to whatever becomes the ultimate answer to this word problem, “Dueling Proposals: Solving the Looming Debt Ceiling Crisis!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com.  A new post is published each Wednesday.  For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below:




























Wednesday, July 13, 2011

"Politics Today: The Unlikely Intersection of Marriage, The Family...and Slavery!"

It's time to Break It Down!

After a two-week crusade of personal sharing, this week the conversational pendulum swings back to a topic of national interest and, for some anyway, wider import.

For most of the next 16 months, America will be immersed in the spectacle of political theater we refer to, broadly, as the 2012 Presidential Election.  In its current state, much of the action is centered on identifying the central characters seeking the Republican Nomination. 

In the frantic and seemingly endless race to create a more perfect union, ostensibly by virtue of designing a more conservative America, a litany of splinter groups has emerged with their own Candidate Purity Pledges.  The Grand Old Party (GOP), led off with its Tea Party-inspired No-Tax Pledge, which has single-handedly all but shut down negotiations to raise the budget ceiling; the Susan B. Anthony (SBA) List followed last month, adding a Pro-Life Pledge; last Thursday, The Family Leader, a conservative group, based in Iowa, released its controversially worded Marriage Vow Pledge.

It is altogether possible that if you’ve been under a rock, or simply not yet tuned-in to the pre-Labor Day political machinations, you’ve missed this latest iteration of what passes for contemporary GOP probity.  What’s more likely is, unless you live in Iowa, or you are a political junkie, or better yet, you are involved in some facet of the Tea Party (Movement), you have never heard of The Family Leader.      

If the latter is the case, consider this post your introduction to the group, and its gaffe…yes, I am extending the benefit of the doubt and accepting that the the otherwise scurrilous slur to President Obama was unintentional...wink, wink.  Two prominent Republicans, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Santorum, signed the Pledge right away.  Afterward, both spent more than a few uncomfortable moments answering (or perhaps fielding, but not answering) questions about Slavery.  Fortunately, The Family Leader helped diffuse their misery by walking back the outrageously contentious assertion. 

Party front-runner, Mitt Romney refused to sign the Pledge, and called it undignified, and inappropriate.  Libertarian Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico, and a GOP Presidential Candidate called the Pledge offensive and un-Republican.  Newt Gingrich, a 3-time husband, former Speaker of the House, ever the Party intellect, and also a GOP Presidential Candidate, refused to sign, contingent on The Family Leader adapting the Pledge to incorporate language more to his liking.  Most interestingly, presumably, all this reluctance and outright disdain was voiced after the most offensive, abrasive, and for good measure, false/historically incorrect language was removed.

So what was the key proviso that caused such a dust up that The Family Leader removed it from the Pledge?

No surprisingly, it was yet another statement in a too-long long list of pointedly anti-Obama rhetorical flourish, fashioned predominately by Conservatives, of course.  The Pledge, officially entitled, THEMARRIAGE VOW: A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family is essentially a three-part document, consisting of a 14-Point Pledge, preceded by a 5-point Preamble, and followed by a Signature Section.

The first bullet point in the Preamble contains the irresponsibly offending section, which includes the assertion that reads:       

  • “Slavery had a disastrous impact on African American families, yet sadly, a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”
Just so we are clear, Africans arrived on the shores of Virginia in 1619, more than 150 years before the founding of the United States.  But the practice of slavery existed in the Spanish colonies as early as the 1560’s.  Moreover, there are two interdependent fine points, as it relates to The Family Leader’s original Pledge language:

1.      Slavery in the United States continued officially until the passage of the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1865

2.      During Slavery, it was illegal for blacks to marry

When points one and two are considered in tandem, it is imminently clear that the number of two-parent slave households in 1860, or in any year during slavery, for that matter, was zero!  Ergo, the initial postulation put forth by The Family Leader is, pure, unadulterated BS.  Excuse me; what I meant to say was, The Family Leader erred, and made an inaccurate assertion in predicating its Pledge.  It was really quite generous of them to walk it backafter having been called on it.  The official statement, termed a misconstuance, follows:
  • “After careful deliberation and wise insight and input from valued colleagues we deeply respect, we agree that the statement referencing children born into slavery can be misconstrued, and such misconstruction can detract from the core message of the Marriage Vow: that ALL of us must work to strengthen and support families and marriages between one woman and one man."  The Family Leader added, "We sincerely apologize for any negative feelings this has caused, and have removed the language from the vow.”
Lest you are left with the notion the Pledge is a single purpose document, while the 14 Points do focus, primarily, on marriage, the document also manages to incorporate numerous other areas, apparently, of fundamental interest to the Conservative base, including:

  • Conjugal intimacy
  • Human trafficking
  • Sexual slavery
  • Promiscuity
  • Prostitution
  • Pornography
  • Infanticide
  • Abortion
  • Sexual harassment
  • Adultery
  • Sharia law
  • The federal deficit
  • Downsizing government
  • The federal budget
  • Heterosexual monogamy
It is important to be mindful that we are still early in the process.  Given my anticipated proliferation of “Pledging,” I believe we are apt to see many more assertions made between now and November 2012; some even more preposterous than bullet point number one of The Marriage Vow Pledge.  To wit, keep your eyes open, and your brain engaged.  Vigilance may not be just your best defense; quite possibly, it is the only fortification between you and the black hole of misanthropic ignorance, deceit, and misinformation.

And that gentle readers, is the summation of “Politics Today: The Unlikely Intersection of Marriage, the Family…and Slavery!”  I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.blogspot.com.  A new post is published each Wednesday.  For more detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post, consult the links below: