Thoughts on the appearance of Super PAC/Candidate collusion and the Supreme Court decision not to revisit Citizens United…

What do you get when you put Karl Rove and Mitt Romney in the same place at the same time at a mega-fundraising event in Park City, Utah? If you answered the appearance of coordination and collusion between the Romney campaign and American Crossroads, then you likely understand the skepticism of many towards the Supreme Court’s 5-4 per curiam decision not to re-visit its controversial Citizen’s United decision. The Court’s American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock decision on Monday virtually ensures that there will be no stopping corporate money from flooding into Super PAC’s at record rates during the November election. The decision to maintain the status quo also turns a blind eye to the fact that the American public is watching billionaires and corporations single handedly drive messages in support or against certain issues and candidates in advertisements that sound and appear remarkably similar to that of the political parties and their candidates. These increasingly obvious coordinative actions raise red flags signaling that perhaps the line drawn between Super PAC activity and Political Campaign activity has become blurry to non-existent.

The appearance of coordination and collusion post-Citizens United, a decision called “uninformed, arrogant, and naïve” by Senator John McCain in a recent interview with Meet the Press, has been severely exasperated at the Presidential level. With only two candidates in the race, divisive opposing views on almost every major issue, and because of the national media’s focus on the every move of the candidates and their associated/unassociated groups, hiding any type of coordination between PACs and Candidates is now virtually impossible. As hard and soft ads from the campaigns hit the airwaves, there have likewise been streams of Super PAC ads running that could easily be labeled candidate specific because the issues addressed have been framed in a manner where the lay person can easily tell what candidate backs or opposes the viewpoint or stance promoted. For example, with Karl Rove and the American Crossroads Super PAC, any concern over the appearance of collusion seems to run a distant second to attempting to humiliate the President with one-sided content and Republican talking points. It’s no secret that American Crossroads is a GOP operation run by former members of team Bush, and although they may technically be unassociated with the Romney campaign, there can be no doubt that Rove’s ads are purposefully directed at hurting Obama in an unabashed attempt to benefit the presumptive GOP candidate.

Still, what really takes the efforts of Rove and some other conservative Super PACs to the level of possibly violating campaign finance rules is the visibility of the biggest donors to outside groups at Romney campaign events disguised as fundraisers. It became obvious that the new rules would be tested at their limit during the 2012 Republican Presidential Primary, as Newt Gingrich and a Super PAC led by Sheldon Adelson campaign made no attempt to curb public perception that they were coordinating by appearing on stage together at multiple Gingrich fundraising events. The response from the guilty parties then was that it was not coordination simply to be seen together. But, at an event like the “fundraising retreat” for Romney in Park City, it is simply naïve to think that there is not backroom coordination occurring between big money donors and campaign staff. The question now becomes what can be done in the wake of the American Tradition decision to ensure that American voters are not having their voices diluted beyond what is acceptable under Citizens United and the US Constitution.

At this point, the implication from American Tradition is that nothing will be done at the Supreme Court level to change the rules despite growing evidence of their abuse. Any substantive changes will not occur until after the 2012 election cycle and will likely require a heightened level of proof of collusion and coordination to move the Court to seriously re-address the campaign finance issue. The conservative justices have taken a wait and see approach, while the liberal justices continue to point out many of the same concerns raised by this and many other articles on the post-Citizens United landscape. Therefore, it will be up to good reporting and increased accountability on the part of the American electorate and media to move the Court to act on the fact that coordination is in fact occurring. The Court has long considered the appearance of corruption as a compelling governmental interest, and evidence of such should be at the heart of any discussion on election rules in the United States. Unfortunately, because of American Tradition, Karl Rove and other GOP-tied Super PACs will be allowed to continue abusing campaign finance rules.

Thoughts on the Latino vote and President Obama’s speech to NALEO…

Lake Buena Vista, Florida - Following sharp criticism of his commitment to the Latino community suggested during speeches by presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney and Senator Marco Rubio, President Barack Obama responded in kind by offering a clear contrast to his Republican adversaries during a key election year address to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (“NALEO”). Speaking only a few hours after Rubio, who had told the conference that the President “has not made Latino issues a priority” and offered as proof the fact that the President “hasn’t been to the NALEO conference in the three years since he took office”, Obama seemed unfazed by Rubio’s criticism and instead focused his energy on connecting with the audience and contrasting himself with Romney early and often.

The President began his speech by discussing the vital role of “Dreamers” in helping to fuel the economic engine of America and discussed how immigrants have always been “risk takers, not looking for handouts and some of the hardest working people around.” He then asked the crowd about the kind of vision the Latino community was looking for in their President, specifically asking “what vision do we stand for, who do we fight for?” in reference to Romney’s policies which the President claims would favor the rich and result in a return to “trickle down” economics. He further contrasted his vision from Romney’s by discussing his focus on expanding education opportunities through expanded Pell grants, encouraging community colleges as a bridge to a higher education, and not teaching to a test and instead focusing on expanding curriculums instead of slashing funding like the GOP in Congress and Romney have favored doing by gutting the Department of Education.

The crowd of officials seemed receptive to the President’s message on education, and that didn’t change when the President shifted to discussing his record in what appeared to be a direct response to Romney’s claim the day before that “President Obama doesn’t respect the Latino vote.” He began by mentioning that his administration has already cut taxes 18 times for Latino small business owners and for Latino middle class taxpayers, he discussed the impact of health care reform on the Latino community, the fact that under the Affordable Care , Act Americans will no longer go broke because they are sick. He highlighted the fact that Latino’s have the highest uninsured rate and that it was the “right thing to do passing health care reform.” Finally, he qualified the progress made thus far with the fact that there is more to do, that we need to put more good teachers in our class rooms, need to put people back to work restoring our infrastructure.

Next, the President addressed the need for Congress to take on comprehensive Immigration “in order to continue attracting talented hard working people who believe in this country.” He mentioned that the delay in action on immigration has not been a lack of technical knowhow on how to fix the system, and he used the work put in to the issue by McCain, Bush, and Ted Kennedy, showing there was bi-partisan support at a point in time not long ago. He then blamed the stale mate on obstruction caused by Tea Party faction of the Republican Party in Congress. In stark contrast to Romney who said he would veto the DREAM Act, The President also argued that Congress should have passed the Dream ACT because it was a bill written by both parties. He drove home the point by pointing out that the Republicans who helped write the bill blocked it in the end, and that “the need didn’t change, the bill didn’t change, the only thing that had changed was politics.” He then went on to justify his administrations action stating that “lifting the shadow of deportation and giving these children an opportunity” was the right thing to do. He called it a temporary measure, and reiterated that Congress needs to act and send a bill to his desk ASAP.

Finally, the President closed his speech to NALEO by discussing larger election year themes with a 2008 feel, discussing with passion the need for unity as a country to fully recover from the financial collapse, and mentioning that “an enduring promise of America” is what drives immigrants to America. He mentioned how his story would not have been possible in any other country, and he drew an us versus them type distinction between his vision and the Romney vision when he wrapped up stating that the march toward freedom and equality has always been tough, and that people have tried to stop the progress of minorities over time, but that in the end persevered with the familiar theme from Obama’s historic run to the White House, ending with a resounding “yes we can, si se puede” and a huge applause from the conference crowd that was nearly twice as loud as that of Mitt Romney the day before.

Thoughts on changes to U.S. immigration policy and whether Romney would repeal President Obama’s Executive Order…

Five days removed from President Obama’s announcement of an Executive Order changing the immigration policy of the United States, GOP Nominee Mitt Romney has yet to directly answer yes or no to media questions pertaining to whether he would repeal the Order if he is elected. As things stand, if Congress doesn’t act in the next month to block the Order, then the children of illegal immigrants under the age of 30 and brought to the country before they were 16 will become eligible to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and will be allowed to apply for a two year work permit. To be eligible for relief, the individual must have lived in the U.S. for five continuous years, have no criminal record and have earned a high school diploma, a GED or have served in the military. Thus, because of the wide effect and the urgency to act created by this policy change, it’s of vital importance to millions of young immigrants living in the shadows to know whether a President Romney would be in favor of allowing those qualified under Obama’s order to remain in the U.S.

The biggest political problem created for Romney by Obama’s move is that answering either way will cost him critical votes with Latinos, independents, or with anti-immigrant Tea Party Republicans. Thus, the politics behind his current silence are clear; he is doing whatever he can to avoid taking a position in order to avoid alienating key constituencies. In fact, a recent poll on Obama’s move conducted by Bloomberg this week showed 86% support from Democrats, 66% from Independents, and only 44% support among Republicans. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the Romney Campaign is aware of the political consequences associated with advising their candidate on whether to speak or not speak on this Order. What is not clear is why Romney and his surrogates are accusing Obama of playing politics with immigration policy when Romney’s own refusal to answer direct questions is obviously a politically motivated campaign tactic.

To further complicate matters for undecided voters, it also appears from the text on Romney’s campaign website that he has already taken a position in favor of retaining immigrant talent. For example, under the heading of “Attract the Best and Brightest”, the Romney campaign’s website states that the “the U.S. needs to attract and retain job creators from wherever they come. Foreign-born residents with advanced degrees start companies, create jobs, and drive innovation at an especially high rate.” But this position, without the qualification that it only applies to legal immigrants, is much too liberal a stance for a majority of the Republican base including Tea Partiers. Thus, Romney’s own inconsistency on immigration issues are why he finds himself stuck between supporting the Order and risking losing his already shaky conservative base, or rejecting the Order, threatening to repeal, and risking losing vital support from undecided independent voters and Rubio Republicans.

Considering the above issues and the fact that Marco Rubio recently withdrew his Dream Act legislation from the Senate, an honest analysis of the cost/benefit to the GOP of Romney’s responding directly to Obama’s Order leads to the reasonable conclusion that Mitt Romney will continue to deflect direct questions pertaining to the Executive Order or the Dream Act. Romney, as most are aware by now, is a master political chameleon who typically plays it safe on controversial issues while taking whatever position is popular at the place, time and with the audience he is speaking to. Because Romney is scared to offend fair weather conservative voters by back treading on the rhetoric he spouted during the primary season, we should expect him and his campaign to continue to talk tough about deportations and the problems with illegal immigrants when in front of Tea Party crowds, and similarly, because he is scared to offend undecided conservative Latino voters, we can also expect Romney the chameleon to sound a lot like his possible running mate Marco Rubio when he visits Florida. Just don’t expect Mitt Romney to give the American people a direct yes or no answer any time soon.

Thoughts on the ongoing dispute over the true impact of photo ID voting laws...

America still has a problem. Despite our country’s oft-touted reputation as a shining beacon of democracy and freedom, severe voter apathy and low turnout, not voter fraud (only 9 possible instances of voter impersonation were reported from 2002-2007 according to protectingthevote.com), are once again looking like huge issues for the candidates for the Presidency and others running for office in November’s contests. For a moderate GOP candidate like Mitt Romney, lower than average anticipated voter turnout could mean that white Evangelicals, as well as Ron Paul libertarians have chosen to sit this election out. And for President Obama and other Democrats, a lower than expected turnout might provide evidence that, in addition to the historic narrative of 2008 being a thing of the past, red state efforts to make voting more difficult for the working poor, the young, the disabled, and minorities are working to theirs and our democracy’s detriment.

In states such as Georgia, which along with seven other US states (Texas and South Carolina have not yet precleared their laws with the Department of Justice) has a strict voter photo ID requirement for in-person voting, the elderly poor and other underrepresented groups will no doubt become further dissuaded from making the effort to vote if it means they need to make and additional trip (which requires transportation costs) to purchase a photo ID. The fact that the already dismal voter turnout figures in Georgia (49% average over the past three Presidential elections according to Census.gov) and across the country (54%) are being held down not only by the apathy that already plagues the voting-age populace, but also by the additional ID requirements, means that there is a self-inflicted negative impact on a fundamental tenant of our democracy, the right of the people to vote and to have a voice in the democratic process.

States with strict photo ID laws in place have consistently argued that no one is actually turned away at the polls for not having an ID, and that those without ID can by law cast provisional ballots which shall be counted if the individual produces proof of ID within a specified time period. However, despite wide public support for the ID concept, it is naïve to believe that the chance to cast a provisional ballot, that may not be counted, is going to persuade an individual without a photo ID to make the journey to the polling place to vote knowing their vote will not be counted unless they eventually take the extra step of obtaining an ID and proving they are who they say they are.

It’s also difficult to articulate how requiring additional steps beyond detailed voter registration, where proof of citizenship by social security number or driver’s license number is already a requirement in many states, amounts to anything less than a poll tax if it requires a particular type of photo ID that cannot be obtained without traveling to an office, getting the ID made, and paying whatever fee is required to do so. Taking it a step further, the law in states like Georgia permits only particular photo IDs listed on the Secretary of State’s website, which do not include student IDs from private colleges and universities, but do allow hunting permits to be presented without issue. Still, because it is impossible to measure with accuracy why an individual decides not to vote, the issue of measurability of any disparate impact as a result of this type of de facto tax remains at the heart and soul of the debate over the constitutionality of these laws.

As mentioned above, the argument is that there is no hard data to support the argument that the vote is being suppressed due to photo ID requirements. However, when we consider that most objective people would agree that adding an additional step that costs money to any process, no matter how nominal, at some point becomes a dissuasive factor in choosing to take part in the activity affected, here voting, then as a result it is fairly obvious that there is some sort of impact on voter turnout even if no hard data is obtainable. For example, a Brief Amicus Curiae of Rock the Vote noted that 1/5 of 18-29 year olds don’t have a driver’s license, and according to protectingthevote.com 19% of Latinos, 25% of African Americans, and 20% Asian Americans lack a government-issued photo ID compared to 8% of Whites. Bottom line, our lawmakers should know that one of the underlying purposes of the Voting Rights Acts of 1965 was to protect the right to vote as fundamental to all Americans, regardless of income level, race, color, or any other stereotypical classification. Photo ID requirements are simply a proxy for a broader effort to discourage the above classifications of groups from casting a legal ballot.

It is already a crime to impersonate another American using false identification; such deterrence takes care of any concern of fraud for 99.99% of the voting age populace. Sure, there may be a handful of cases every decade, but there is no justification for additional legal hurdles if there is no large scale problem to be solved. To the contrary, we should be doing everything we can as a society to make it easier to vote. We should be looking at ways to administer secure online elections, improve online registration services, consider moving the Election Day to the weekend to raise turnout, and begin modernizing our electoral process to make it more convenient for our social media driven society. We should not use the simple fear of losing an election veiled in non-factual voter fraud concerns as a reason to create proxies for voter suppression.

Unfortunately, many courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have largely bought into the myth that there is widespread voter fraud which justifies stricter voting laws, but the numbers volunteered by advocates of photo ID laws just do not add up to widespread fraud, and what is truly left is a disparate impact on the most vulnerable and least well off in our society. If we are to use grandiose rhetoric in describing our democracy, we should begin to set an example by doing whatever possible to lift our country from the basement of voter turnout amongst free nations. Despite the majority opinion, these new laws are simply a step back in the wrong direction, and the resulting apathy and low turnout is a black eye on our democracy.

Thoughts on whether Karl Rove will be Romney’s Sarah Palin…

He will not appear on the Republican ticket or speak at the GOP Convention, yet his impact on the 2012 race for President of the United States has already been felt. He has skillfully navigated the post Citizens United landscape, helping to push the Tea Party into Congress. He is currently helping to pour millions of dollars into negative ads attacking President Barack Obama in swing states. He has attempted to depict Obama as an outsider, a celebrity, and distorted and twisted the President’s record/persona in order to get his messages across to key voting blocks. His and all other Super PACs are legally bound not to have any coordination with a candidate’s campaign, but it would be naïve not to see the many ways in which the new rules can be skirted (See Newt Gingrich on stage at campaign event with his sugar daddy). He is Karl Rove, George W. Bush’s former Deputy Chief of Staff, and his American Crossroads Super PAC cohorts are in the business of throwing political hand grenades.

Although Mitt Romney has not yet selected a running mate, he can rest assured that regardless of his pick the same kinds of inciting statements made to Republican crowds by the likes of Sarah Palin during the 2008 election (at the dismay of the McCain campaign) will be made by groups such as American Crossroads via the air and radio waves and the Crossroads GPS field campaign. Unfortunately for Romney, no matter how much he spends on ads, he will have never truly have control over the conservative message during this election season.

Much like Senator John McCain never had control over Palin’s crowds during the heavy campaign season,, Romney will also have little to no control over Super PACs like American Crossroads. No matter how hard Romney tries to keep things positive or on an economic message, he will constantly be walking back ads that Rove’s group has put out. There is no way he can stop it, so he will either have to embrace it or suffer the same fate as McCain.

It's also notable that McCain was never truly in with the starkest conservatives, and neither is Mitt Romney. Romney, like McCain, is not a big draw, he is not exciting, and he doesn’t give a great speech. Like McCain, Romney was the settled-upon candidate. He is not Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, or even Marco Rubio. Yet, because of the ill-fated Palin experience, and because FOX News is a defacto GOP network with Karl Rove as an active talking head, Romney will have to walk a fine line by either picking a name that draws ratings or by trying to play it safe with a lesser-known that he can consistently overshadow and keep on message.

He can go with a big name and risk being Palin’d, or he can go with a low profile pick and risk being overshadowed by Super PAC messaging because the ticket is just too boring. Either way, Romney will eventually run into messaging issues. His VP choice will no doubt be difficult, but the end result may be the same regardless of whether the pick is Marco Rubio or Rob Portman. The more outrageous Super PAC messages will always draw bigger ratings on FOX and Rush Limbaugh than will play-it-safe Romney campaign ads, and the Super PAC nonsense makes for bigger headlines with opposition groups. There is simply nothing Romney can do to stop this phenomenon under the current rules.

The conservatives running American Crossroads are not, and never have been or will be true Romney Republicans. Sure, they want to beat Obama, but this group is for the most part composed of ex-Bush aides and veterans of the neo conservative movement who are trying to stay relevant by pursuing the same divisive political messaging that drove the Bush/Cheney to two terms in the White House. They play on religion, they entice the birthers, they are the brains behind the new Tea Party movement, but they are certainly not Massachusetts moderates. They are the same people who trashed McCain in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and both Obama and Romney in 2008.

Karl Rove and company have Romney cornered, because unlike the Democratic Party, the Republican establishment does not have a recognizable uniting voice or platform (not liking the President is not a platform!). There is no Barack Obama or Bill Clinton, and Bush is currently a bad word on the Romney campaign. There simply exists a fractured GOP composed of factions representing different eras of conservatism leaning on an aging Reagan-era base in danger of disappearing if it does not begin to appeal to the changing face of modern America.

This lack of unification, coupled with the Citizens United decision, has opened the door for candidates to be at the mercy of the Super PAC if they are not themselves an intriguing presence. As far as Karl Rove and American Crossroads go, they have harnessed the potential of having the same negative impact or greater on the Romney campaign as did the unchecked rhetoric of Sarah Palin that haunted the McCain camp with independent voters in 2008.

The bottom line is that Mitt Romney cannot control Karl Rove even if Rove is trying to help him win. Because Romney will be outspent by Super PACs in an inter-party battle to define the key issues of this election, the Rove message will inevitably become part of the Romney message. Sure it’s still early, but it’s definitely not a stretch to say that Rove will end up having a Palin-like effect on Romney’s bid this November. Maybe Rove can help Romney fire up a segment of the conservative base that Romney cannot reach, but in the end, Rove’s push to fire up the Republican on dated social issues, along with his desperate attempts to create a straw man version of Barack Obama, could seriously backfire for Romney with undecided voters seeking to further distance this country from Bush-era practices and policies. Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, the money is in the bank and continues to flow to Karl Rove’s and other similar groups, their ads are already hitting the tubes, and the end results will be telling of the true effect of Citizens United on those who fiercely advocated for the Super PAC system.

Thoughts on RNC Chairman Michael Steele and the damaged Republican brand…

Since his 2009 election to the position of RNC Chairman, there has been no lack of drama or satire provided from the curious persona that is Maryland’s own Michael Steele. Though he still maintains loyal supporters within the RNC and the GOP leadership, many Republican insiders would no doubt put Chairman Steele on their main list of potential and present political liabilities to the conservative movement in America. His controversial takes on issues such as race, global warming, and especially the policy decisions of the Obama Administration, have made him a polarizing figure within a majority of the prominent GOP circles of power, with harsh criticism of his actions coming from the likes of Senator John McCain, Karl Rove, and even notorious neocon William Kristol. His recently recorded comments on the Afghanistan War have helped to strengthen the worst fears of the most seasoned Republican politicos. His calling the nine year old war begun under the Bush Administration in retaliation to 9/11 “a war of Obama’s choosing” could go down as one of the most ignorant statements by any party leader in US history. Still, remarkably, and despite the Voyeur Club incident and his other missteps, he remains at the helm of the RNC for the foreseeable future, even as he has become a huge liability for the GOP.

Though the majority of non-cynical minded Americans will brush off Steele’s comments as playing to a crowd that is ignorant to common fact, the bigger problem for Republicans (benefit to Dems) is that this kind of rhetoric makes their brand look bad. Most people are asking themselves, “This is supposed to be the man who leads the Republican cause into the next decade?” When you layer his recent comments on Afghanistan with his “Greenland” remark on the science of global warming, and his constant fictional depiction of what he refers to as the “radical Obama agenda,” it makes sense that many within the GOP are continually calling for Steele’s resignation. Even those standing firm behind Steele, such as Ron Paul of Texas, come off as disingenuous when defending the factually deficient statements of their party chairman. His blog, strangely titled “What Up?” is both misguided in its title and feels out of place when coupled with the realistic look and texture of the current Republican Party. He has also alienated many potential Republican voters with his perceived arrogance and disregard for those who question his spoken words in the media and elsewhere.

Most Democrats are well aware of the Chairman’s negative effect on the larger conservative political movement, and because of this they would be smart to stay silent and let Steele self-implode until the election season heats up. Then, his ridiculous comments can be used to argue against the stability of the Republican Party and its leadership. Though Steele’s backers will always play off his comments as misconstrued satire, his outlandish commentaries, and the disbelief shared by the masses in response to his statements, are impossible to ignore. The Democratic Party basically has an unlikely ally in Mr. Steele, in that he exemplifies the exact persona that political liberals seek to portray when placing a status quo definition on what it means to be a real Republican in 2010. Therefore, it will be interesting to see how much tape of Michael Steele is used by Democratic campaigns to counter Republican claims during the upcoming midterm elections. Thus far, as the elected leader of the RNC, it’s been a tight rope act for the troubled Chairman. Though he has backtracked on his comments on the Afghanistan War, and apologized for his mistakes in the past, it seems that he greatly underestimates the intelligence of the greater American populace. Whether he realizes this or not, it will take a major power play on the part of reasonable Republicans to reverse the damage done over the last year and a half by their own party chairman. When this will happen is anyone’s guess.

Thoughts on the key highlights of President Obama’s first Oval Office Address on the BP Oil Disaster…

Going into his first Oval Office address to the American people and the concerned world, President Obama has received a big dose of warranted and unwarranted criticism from increasingly frustrated gulf coast residents who depend on the fishing and oil industries as their lifelines. Stack on the predicted refusal of Republican leaders to work with the President and the Democrats on an energy bill to begin the transition away from deep sea drilling to alternative energy, the complex politics and catastrophic nature of the BP oil disaster becomes apparent. With no guarantees on plugging the leak other than the drilling by BP of a relief well due best case in August, the President is in the precarious position of having to reassure the American people that things are under control while also being realistic in diverging the true scope of the disaster at hand. That being said, here are KTI’s key observations and highlights from the President’s 18 minute speech.

Appearance
Tired, but purposeful
Very clear and concise
Determined to clear the air of rumor
Hopeful, invoking faith at close

Federal Response
Assembled team led by Stephen Chu
Experts for Academia and other Oil Companies to brainstorm solutions
Appointed Thad Allen to head cleanup, largest effort of all time
17,000 National Guardsmen need to be activated by Governors
5 ½ million of boom, barrier islands are being deployed presently
Complex response can never be perfect, will do best to fix all operational problems
More oil is coming, must accept reality of spill and go to battle against oil
Independent 3rd party will distribute claims
National commission to determine cause of disaster
6 month moratorium on offshore drilling until cause of breach is found

BP
Caused and liable for the worst environmental disaster in US history
Spill is an epidemic, fighting and recovering will take months to years
BP will pay for all restoration and cleanup efforts
BP will finish relief well by end of summer, weather permitting

Promises
BP will pay
Feds will do whatever is necessary to help stop, cleanup, and recover
Recovery will be key role of government, troops
Long term gulf restoration plan will be paid for by BP
Taking steps to assure disaster does not occur again
American people deserve to know what happened
Cleaning house at MMS, changing corporate culture
Pace of reform will be heightened, new oil industry watchdog appointed
Drilling today entails greater risk, 2% reserves, 20% of consumption
Oils days are inevitably numbered, must accelerate our innovation in energy
We must seize control of our own destiny and transition from fossil fuels
Can’t afford not to change how we consume energy
R&D in alternative energy must be increased
Inaction on the ground and administratively will not be accepted

Overall Impression
Tonight’s speech, while necessary and purposeful, will be dismissed by opponents of the President as playing politics with energy by using the oil spill as an excuse to pass an energy bill this year. But, this is a shallow argument based on the same kind of “just say no” games we saw during the health care debates. Despite their own acknowledgement of the importance of curbing our addiction to oil and other fossil fuels, these same Republicans are opposing the very premise of putting our resources into the widespread implementation of a new energy policy that promotes common sense theories that they support in principal. They are so scared to give Obama a political victory that they are willing to appear cynical and hypocritical in the name of petty partisan politics. Therefore, despite the Presidents best efforts to clear up the air and push America forward with the disaster as a source of momentum in the imminent transition to alternative energy sources, many on the right will try to politicize and capitalize on the anti-establishment sentiment rather than to work with their peers to move America forward. Overall, the speech was well delivered, but in today’s hyper partisan environment it is likely that his words will fall short of the impact of any positively viewed step towards progress on the ground, the sea or in capping the leak.

Thoughts on the plausibility of a Rand Paul/Sarah Palin Tea Party Presidential Ticket in 2012…

Though we are nearly two and a half years from the 2012 Presidential Election, it’s never too early to speculate upon which prospective candidates will represent the respective political parties on the national stage in two years. Despite their best efforts to reign in and unite with the Tea Party, the establishment of the Republican Party may have to deal with a difficult scenario in 2012. One that is eerily similar to 1992, where Ross Perot ate up the moderate conservative vote which helped the election to swing Bill Clinton’s way. The rightward shift of the conservative political spectrum has helped to legitimize the Tea Party, and with the primary victory of Rand Paul in Kentucky this past Tuesday, the Republican Party now has in its midst the first true Tea Party backed Senatorial candidate for office.

Now, the Republican Party leadership must choose either to embrace Paul and his followers, who beat their establishment candidate handedly, or they must stay Luke warm towards the more controversial elements of the Tea Party, and the radical rhetoric that could drive away moderate voters this fall and going forward. The quagmire for Republicans is that over the next two years there are likely to be more and more social conservative candidates emerging under the Tea Party label. The Tea Party will likely continue to eat away at the Republican Party’s socially conservative base. Therefore, as national trends continue to show increased interest in alternatives to the status quo, the Tea Party could be set to run third party candidates at the national level.

Should this game changing, third party presidential run occur, the two politicians who have been the most vocal advocates of the Tea Party message, and by far the most popular figures associated with the larger anti-big government movement, are the before mentioned Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky, and the keynote speaker of the first national Tea Party Convention, former Alaska Governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin. This potential star pairing would most likely garner the support of a significant portion of the socially conservative electorate, dealing a critical blow to the chances of the Republican Party ticket.

The electoral impact on the other side of the aisle would be negligible, as few moderate to die hard liberals would be inclined to support the social policies of a Tea Party ticket that is to the right of the Republicans in almost every way. Therefore, if a scenario such as Obama/Biden v Paul/Palin v Romney/Brown were to arise, it’s conceivable that the Republican ticket could lose as much as 20% of its voting base in the process. Much like in 1992, this division amongst conservatives would deliver an easy general election victory to Barack Obama and the Democrats, and thus leave the Republican Party no choice but to crawl home and start over again. Only this time, the challenge for Republicans is coming from the right, and not the center of the political spectrum.

Thoughts on the updated status of KTI’s most vulnerable Senate incumbents of 2010…

Recent primary results have stamped home the message that KTI’s most vulnerable Senate incumbents are in imminent trouble politically. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, our #1 Senator to watch, lost badly to Representative Joe Sestak by a margin of 8 percentage points. Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas barely held a plurality in her 2 point victory and now faces a hotly contested runoff with Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter. And finally, just over a week ago, now former Senator Bob Bennett of Utah failed to make the top two at the Utah GOP Nomination Convention, falling to Tim Bridgewater Mike Lee, and stamping a fail sign on 3 out of the top 5 most vulnerable incumbents in 2010. Nonetheless, May has been a challenge for all politicians facing challenges from their left and right respectively.

The other two incumbents on our list, Richard Burr of North Carolina and Michael Bennet of Colorado, must focus intently on the looming November election. Despite Burr’s big primary win, and Bennet’s likely nomination in August, as freshman Senator’s they will face the growing challenge of a strong anti-incumbent sentiment amongst the American electorate. The bottom line is that change message of 2008 lives on in varying forms, and those who have positioned themselves to deliver that message in the face of establishment candidates are primed to win big come November. Both the Tea Party on the right, and MoveOn.org on the left, have already impacted the primary season, and the pressure has quickly shifted towards the few remaining moderates in Congress, a disappearing breed, to remain attractive to voters in an election season clearly defined by historic pressure from the fringes of both ends of the left-right political spectrum.

America’s social political dynamic has skewed so far to the right over the past thirty years that the liberal left is now positioned in the old center, and the socially conservative right is nearly radical in nature when compared to the conservatives of the 1980’s and prior. Therefore, this election cycle, where many moderate incumbents are vulnerable to defeat by their more liberal or conservative counterparts, should prove to be one that sees all five of KTI’s listed incumbents lose their respective seats in the Senate. These formerly popular individuals have seen the political tide shift to the fringes at their expense. Though the trends always seem to be corrected over time, the fact is that 2010 will go down as yet another change election. Americans are clearly done with the stalemate that has come to define the US Senate, and as victims of poor timing and a hostile political climate, those who are considered insiders, such as Specter and Bennet, are likely to find themselves sitting on the sidelines come 2011.

Sources:
http://www.politico.com/2010/maps/

Thoughts on the misguided use of phrases like “Take our country back” by politicians…

It’s been hailed as the official rallying cry for the Republican Party in 2010, most recently used by Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, Chairman of the Republican Governors Association, at this week’s Annual NRA convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, when he stated "We can't wait 'til 2012 to start taking our country back," as he addressed the crowd of gun owners and advocates for Second Amendment rights who have gathered for their yearly homage to gun rights. At the same event, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, a common user of this kind of incendiary verbiage, pushed a similarly misguided message that would make it seem as if government agents were holding random gun search and seizure operations aimed at disarming common citizens. Claiming "all they do is take them away from law-abiding citizens and we use them responsibly," a statement which is simply overstated and false. These blatant, irresponsible attempts to rouse an audience that is both armed and angry at the government, are shameful actions taken by desperate politicians who only stand to gain from divisive, deceiving, and obvious fear tactics.

Both Palin and Barbour know that they can easily anger the mainly conservative NRA crowd by implying that the current administration is out to take away their Constitutional freedoms. They can play to the biggest fear of Second Amendment advocates, feeding their ears with falsehoods about the intentions of the parties in charge that most advocates will not verify for soundness. In addition, as they speak to mainly single race audiences, many conservative politicians are searching for ways to bring down the increasing minority population around them, including the President of The United States. Much of the anti-immigrant sentiment in states such as Arizona has been brewed by politicians who seek to gain from further dividing Americans who live amongst immigrants. In ignoring their own immigrant backgrounds, and putting the troubles of our time on the backs of the most vulnerable populations, these kinds of politicians are part of the problem, not the solution to a better, more united America.

Unfortunately, even those conservatives who sense the wrong in the anti-minority rhetoric are unwilling to speak up because of fears of being alienated by their party or social group. The phrase “take our country back,” in particular, is one of the most divisive statements a politician can make. It implies that those who are in power are un-American, inferior, or unworthy of the respect of the office they have been democratically elected to. This phrase, and others like it, can also be used to imply that someone who doesn’t belong is infringing on our rights or space. In reaction, those who are inclined to promote such thought are most inclined to do so at the expense of the masses that they alienate by doing so. The indisputable facts are that no one has taken this country, constitutional freedoms, or opportunity away from anybody living in America. It’s an illusion funded by the RNC and others to win big in November.

President Obama, Congressional Democrats and Republican, and Supreme Court Justices are not going to take guns away from law abiding citizens any time soon. Immigrants are not trying to take over the state of Arizona, or any other part of the United States. Still, even in 2010, listening to the speeches at the NRA Convention would make it seem like an invasion of our rights is under way. Politicians nationwide should take note of these mistaken tactics. We are a nation that needs momentum in the direction of unification, and our better days can be ahead of us if we put this divisive behavior on hold. This idealistic view can only become a reality when we as citizens stop supporting such intolerant nonsense. We are a nation of immigrants and laws, and NRA members, Tea Party Members, and others must understand that the two can surely coexist without having to take back something that was never taken away; our granted freedoms and our great country.

Thoughts on KTI’s top five most vulnerable Senate incumbents of the 2010 election cycle…

Last week, we took a look at the most intriguing House races of this election year. Today’s look at most vulnerable Senate incumbents highlights candidates who face unique challenges in retaining their seat, or their party’s nomination. So without delay, KTI presents the reasoning behind the worries of the most vulnerable incumbents up for reelection in 2010.

#5 - Bob Bennett of Utah (Rep)
In a move that angered Utah conservatives, and especially the boisterous Tea Party, three term Senator Bennett's vote for the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 has placed this incumbent in a defensive position relative to his supporters. Despite the broadcasted support of Bennett by Mitt Romney, many Republicans, and conservative independents, are weary of Bennett’s true colors. Democrats have used the anti-incumbent sentiment, and the infighting amongst Republicans to launch a fight for this traditionally red seat. Since Utah’s party nominations are done by conventions, which often hinge on important single issues like the Recovery Act, our number five most vulnerable, Senator Bob Bennett, has set himself up for a difficult fight in 2010.

#4 - Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas (Dem)
At number four, Lincolns views on environmental and healthcare reforms have her head deep in hot water with liberal voters in Arkansas. In addition, she has a laundry list of competitors for her seat, highlighted by her Democratic Primary opponent, Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter, who has the all-important monetary backing of the labor unions and the liberal activist group MoveOn.org. In defending her seat, Lincoln faces a fierce battle as her vulnerabilities continue to be exploited by her primary opponent. Should she make it out of the first round, she is sure to face a difficult November election challenge.

#3 - Michael Bennet of Colorado (Dem)
As a freshman Senator appointed to the position by Colorado’s Democratic Governor Bill Ritter, Senator Bennet faces the difficult task of holding his seat in an anti-incumbent election cycle. He faces a tough primary opponent in former Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives, Andrew Romanoff, and is defending his vulnerable post, which formerly belonged to now Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar. Though Barack Obama won Colorado with 54% of the vote in 2008, the current political climate will make the November election a difficult one for our number three, Bennet, should he survive the May Democratic primary.

#2 - Richard Burr of North Carolina (Rep)
Freshman Senator Richard Burr defends his seat, which has been unkind to incumbents since 1968, in a state where Barack Obama narrowly won with 50% of the vote. As a largely unknown and somewhat unpopular figure, he faces the name identity dilemma, and the bleak history of his seat in an uphill climb to return to the Senate. His Republican primary opponent is Asheboro businessman and City Council Member Eddie Burks. Look for an upset in North Carolina in 2010, as Burr’s precarious position puts him second on our list.

#1 - Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania (Dem)
Our number one, former Republican turned Democrat Arlen Spector, is one of the biggest GOP targets of the 2010 election cycle. After a change to his party identification, Spector immediately stamped his name into Republican ire by voting in favor of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. His primary opponent, U.S. Representative Joe Sestak, is planting a formidable campaign to steal the Democratic nomination from Spector. Should the Senator survive to face the heat in November, he is likely to encounter former U.S. Representative Pat Toomey, who came within 1.7% of defeating Specter in the 2004 GOP primary. Therefore, despite his tenure, Spector appears to be the most vulnerable incumbent senator in 2010.

Thoughts on four hypothetical questions facing Charlie Crist, the GOP, and conservatives…

The recent defection of former Florida Governor Charlie Crist from the GOP caught some around the country by surprise. But, many have also suspected that a disheartened Crist may have been feeling alienated by a party who once regarded him as a potential party leader, and even a possible presidential nominee. Enter Marco Rubio, and suddenly Crist was no longer welcome. Once Republicans saw Crist hug President Obama, there was no way they could stand to put their support behind him. Unfortunately for Charlie, public bipartisanship is now an easy way to get nudged out of the GOP. Given this developing situation, it’s worth taking a look at four key hypotheticals questions facing conservatives this fall and beyond.

1.) Would an Independent or RINO (Republican in Name Only) version of Senator Christ caucus with Republicans on party line votes if he is fortunate enough to win his upcoming election bid?

2.) Is Crist making a purposeful move to the left (or the Center in 2010)? And by doing so, will he emerge (along with Scott Brown) as one of the few moderate conservatives left standing in the US Congress after the 2010 midterm elections?

3.) If Crist or the Democratic nominee wins in a three way race over Marco Rubio, does that prove, to an extent, that the rise of Tea Party style, fringe-right politics will ultimately hurt the GOP in races beyond this November?

4.) Finally, if Crist is not considered “Republican enough” for the GOP in Florida or elsewhere, is there now enough room in the political spectrum for a new, moderate-Republican third party that would potentially overlap with blue dog Democrats, and also potentially court conservative independents who are more centrist than the rightist candidates currently leading the Republican Party?

KTI welcomes your answers and comments…

Thoughts on KTI’s top five most intriguing House races of the 2010 Election…

Though it’s still relatively early in the election year, there are some close mid-term races about to unfold for critical seats in the House of Representatives that are worthy of advanced billing. The GOP is eagerly looking to repeat the success of the post healthcare defeat midterm election of 1994, but this time around they face more hurdles than they at first anticipated. First and foremost, despite what label Republicans seek to put on it, healthcare reform became the law of the land this year, a huge boost to Democratic morale, and a major hurdle for President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Add to that the bipartisan Job’s bill, the Recovery Act, and the upcoming passage of financial reform aimed at cleaning up Wall Street, and it is slowly looking like Republicans will be running against a 21st Century version of the New Deal.

Given this setup, let’s take a closer look, one by one, at the five races deemed the most intriguing by KTI.

#5 – Republican Rep. Joseph Cao of Louisiana vs tbd
Rep. Cao, mentioned in an earlier KTI article, despite initially supporting the House bill, cast a controversial, largely unfounded vote against the final version of health care reform due to a personal, moral decision on abortion, and is surely in for a fight to keep his seat. Despite his best efforts to explain himself, it may be hard for the electorate in his district to forgive him for voting no on an issue they so heavily favored. His district, with a +25 Democratic lean (Cook Partisan Voting Index), should narrowly go back into the Democratic column, and is an interesting race to watch. After all, Cao was able to win his seat in this heavily African American community largely because of the well-publicized transgressions of William Jefferson in 2008, and not a broader conservative movement.

#4 – Michigan’s 1st District (Bart Stupak’s Vacant Seat)
Following the receipt of death threats in the wake of the health care reform vote earlier this year, Rep. Bart Stupak announced that he would not seek reelection to his seat in the House. As you may recall, he was part of a block of Democratic Congressmen hell bent on the inclusion of specific anti-abortion text in the health care bill. It took an Executive Order by President Obama banning the use of taxpayer dollars to fund abortions to finally get him, and the so called “Stupak Block,” to join with their Democratic colleagues in support of the landmark legislation. Stupak was a favorite target of the Tea Party, as well as abortion activists, and will seek to join another profession. He leaves an increasingly vulnerable seat behind, in a district with only a +3 Republican lean (Cook Partisan Voting Index) and no political stars.


#3 - New York's 29th District (Massa’s Vacant Seat)
Without getting into too much detail, and as KTI mentioned in an earlier article, freshman Rep. Eric Massa stepped down from his House seat following embarrassing revelations of misconduct which surfaced in the press earlier this year. Despite his best initial efforts to defend himself, Massa managed nothing but to make the job for the next Democrat in line more difficult, if not impossible. Conservative Mayor Tom Reed of Corning will run as the Republican candidate versus a yet to be named opponent. Therefore, given the inherently bad PR situation facing the potential Democratic candidate, and the +5 Republican (Cook Partisan Voting Index) lean of the district, there is a very good chance that this seat could turn back over to the Republicans in a close 2010 mid-term election.

#2 – Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida vs tbd
Few in Congress (our #1 excluded) are as outspoken and candid as freshman Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida. His recent theatre on the House floor has put him into the wingnut news cycle, while his depictions of conservatives are smiled upon by many on the left and equally despised by his political opponents on the right. If Alan Grayson were in a more liberal district, his rhetoric might play much better than it does within his divided jurisdiction in Florida. He has both the liberal to moderate city of Orlando and the more conservative suburbs surrounding the city to navigate this fall. The tilt here is slightly Republican at +2 (Cook Partisan Voting Index), giving Grayson very little room for error in what should be a hotly contested, and newsworthy race in central Florida.

#1 - Republican Rep. Michelle Bachmann vs Maureen Reed or Tarryl Clark
Perhaps the most polarizing and confused figure in the US Congress, Rep. Michelle Bachmann, has seemingly gone off the wagon with her borderline hate speech comments which have highlighted her brief tenure in the House. A favorite of the Tea Party, along with former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, Bachmann has become more and more divisive with every stump speech she gives. Her outdated, anti-minority and anti-establishment rhetoric, along with her constant call to arms in front of her supporters, has given her a sour reputation throughout mainstream America and with more moderate, commonsensical Republican’s. Her district, while leaning +7 in the Republican direction (Cook Partisan Voting Index), is vulnerable to Democratic capture due to these very evident moral flaws which Bachmann routinely projects in her depictions of America as she sees it. For this reason, Democrats are putting a ton of electoral energy into defeating Bachmann this November. Her opponent will either be a competent former Lieutenant Governor and Board of Regents named Maureen Reed or State Senator Tarryl Clark, and both will have the full support of the DNC, President Obama, and Democrats in Congress. Bachmann’s dangerous rhetoric, the DNC’s drive to defeat her, and her uncanny ability to insult reasonable Americans with her outlandish comments, makes the upcoming race for Minnesota's 6th congressional district KTI’s most intriguing House race to watch in 2010.

Thoughts on how the GOP's three day financial reform filibuster has achieved absolutely nothing…

Three pointless days of filibustering (stalling) by Senate Republicans have now passed by; highlighted at first by erroneous claims that the reform bill in question was a “bailout”, then by convenient claims that these reforms were written and endorsed by public enemy number one, Goldman Sachs; finally, after realizing that the public was not buying their theatre, Republican leadership gave in and has agreed to debate their Democratic counterparts on the matter. Why the delay? No reason other than pure petty partisan politics. These four preposterous P’s that drive so many voters crazy were used to postpone what should be a bipartisan plan from taking shape. It is in the best interest of Republicans, Independents, and Democrats, and the American public to effectively reform Wall Street. Even the biggest players in the industry will agree that unregulated gambling by fat cats helped contribute to the collapse of the American economy in 2008 and 2009. That being said, there was no stopping the typical 4 p’s approach from being taken by Republican leadership and conservative pundits alike.

Despite obvious bipartisan support for this bill, Senator Mitch McConnell could not help himself from projecting the exact opposite image. His false rhetoric contradicted the hard work being done behind the scenes by members of his own party to finalize a bill that would satisfy the demands of all sides. Despite his misguided efforts, most people agree that the need to take the debate to the Senate floor is both obvious and adherent to the Republican Party’s calls for greater transparency from both the Democrats and the President. Ironically, in a stark change from their claims during the healthcare debate, Republicans decided that they would prefer to work behind closed doors as opposed to appearing to work in a bipartisan manner in full view of their supporters. This change of heart is a curious political strategy. Debate on this matter could be beneficial to all parties, as there is a collective discontent towards Wall Street from the American public. Still, these very same Republicans who called for transparency are the very same people now scared to debate on the floor of the Senate.

The claim is that they needed confirmation that there would be no “bailouts” or “too big to fail” allowed in the bill. But they know very well that these matters were addressed in the bill as originally drafted by both Democrats and Republicans in 2009. They simply wanted to make sure that their individual campaign coffers were protected before braving up and debating the matter. The three days of filibustering produced no new reforms, nor did they change anything that could not have been changed through open debate. These are signs of deliberate stalling and unwillingness to compromise in public. Now that the debate has been cleared for the floor, let’s see if the Republican Party can swallow its pride, debate with their counterparts, and recognize that a bipartisan bill is in everybody’s best interest.

Thoughts on President Obama's tight rope approach to Wall Street reform…

Following the contentious health care debate, there was no doubting that President Obama and the Democratic leadership would seek a different approach to the passing of the proposed Wall Street reform package. Due to the initial framing of the proposed bill as a “bailout” by misinformed/cynical Republicans and pundits, it became necessary for The President to take direct control of the message before those looking to derail reform got any further traction. He immediately made the facts of the bill the story, not the opposition, and by doing so forced Senate Republicans, who in many ways had helped write the bill, to return to negotiations and admit their rhetoric was misguided. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee said it best when he stated on the floor of the Senate: "The fact is, the bill has taken a partisan turn. There are some bipartisan solutions in this bill, I grant that. But there's still work to be done," Corker said. "Let's finish that work before it gets to the floor. Let's just finish what we started."

However, as a beneficiary of campaign funding from embattled Wall Street firms, such as Goldman Sachs ($994,795 in 2008), President Obama must walk a tight rope when criticizing those who are responsible for some of the worst practices against consumers of investment products. He knows that during his 2008 campaign he received money that was indirectly tied to the very derivatives market which he now intends to regulate. So, in framing the reasoning for the passing of this bill, he has chosen to make the argument that the proposed regulations will encourage firms to take a look at their worst practices, fix them, and work within an ethical, responsible, and increasingly consumer friendly framework. Therefore, the details of the bill, and The President’s ability to sell its contents, are of the utmost importance to his ability to knock down false attacks on both the reforms he seeks and his true intentions in pursuing them.

The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009, as written in H.R. 4173, outlines new commissions and regulations for the following areas: 1) Creates the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), a new, independent federal agency solely devoted to protecting Americans from unfair and abusive financial products and services, 2) Creates the Financial Stability Council to identify and regulate financial firms that are so large, interconnected, or risky that their collapse would put the entire financial system at risk, 3) Ends “too big to fail” by establishing an orderly process for dismantling large, failing financial institutions like AIG or Lehman Brothers, 4) Establishes “Say on Pay” by giving shareholders a an advisory vote on pay practices including executive compensation and golden parachutes, 5) Strengthens the SEC’s powers so that it can better protect investors and regulate the nation’s securities markets (response to Madoff and Stanford frauds), 6) Regulation of Derivatives: the bill regulates, for the first time ever, the over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives marketplace.7) Establishes a simple standard for all home loans institutions: They must ensure that borrowers can repay the loans they are sold, 8) Reforms Credit Rating Agencies by addressing the role of credit rating agencies in the economic crisis, 9) Requires almost all hedge fund advisers to register with the SEC, and subjects them to systemic risk regulation by the Financial Stability regulator, and 10) Creates a Federal Insurance Office that will monitor all aspects of the insurance industry.


By touting these bipartisan reforms, President Obama should have no problem selling this bill to a public which is fed up with Wall Street betting on their futures. The regulation of the derivatives and hedge fund markets are long overdue. Advisors should be registered with the SEC, and the SEC must have the power to stop the worst practices of financial criminals such as Bernie Madoff and others. With the wind behind his back on the issue, and Republicans in a position which should ultimately force them onboard, there is no reason to expect less than 65 votes for this version of the bill. Senate Republicans, who wrote the 50 billion dollar bank funded side account for responsible deconstruction of failing institutions into the bill, must only look to their leadership for the answers as to why they are against these common sense reforms. The Senate will now debate the intricacies of the bill, and there will be numerous attempts by Republicans, as I mentioned in a previous article, to change the topic or distort the details of the bill in order to prevent a legislative victory for The President. Unfortunately, these deceitful and cynical stall tactics are fresh in all of our minds, and this time Republicans and others who choose the path of “No” do so against the clear will of the American public they so adamantly wish to serve.

In the end, despite his deep ties to the firms he wishes to regulate, President Obama can only be commended for pushing the ball back into the people’s court, and going forward with regulations against the most powerful lobbying forces on Wall Street and in the banking industry. His tight rope walk between his political future and the future of our economic systems are becoming historic in nature. And as for the Republicans, will they eventually support a bill they largely wrote themselves? We’ll have to wait and see. In the meantime, the debate in the Senate should once again be contentious.

Thoughts on the GOP’s unfortunate response to Chris Dodd’s Wall Street Reform bill…

Today, Senate Republicans, led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, put their cards on the table with regards to Wall Street/financial reform. While all parties on both sides can agree that new consumer protections are necessary going forward, it already seems as if Republicans are destined to rerun the partisan dynamic of the health care debate by saying no upfront to the proposed bill. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd of Connecticut is the sponsor of the new bill, which aims to protect consumers of mortgages and credit cards by setting up a regulatory committee within the Federal Reserve that will make sure Americans are getting a fair deal, and also sets up a system to wind down failing companies to prevent bailouts from being necessary. To do the later, the wealthiest banks will pay a tax which will create a $50 billion dollar fund to be used to bring large failing banks and financial institutions down easy.

Instead of going forward on the sources of common ground that exist in the bill, McConnell did the exact opposite. He pointed out that he believes that the bill does not go far enough to prevent future bailouts, a description which does not seem to hold water given the second provisions implicit purpose. This move immediately puts the process in a familiar place. Rank and file Republicans will replicate the sentiments of the Minority Leader, while Democrats are likely to be forced to fend off myth after myth about a common sense bill that should be passed in a bi-partisan form as written. It seems way too convenient for the Republican leadership to all of a sudden become the anti-bailout party after ignoring the need for real regulation for decade after decade. Once again though, it seems that reasonable ideas of the few bi-partisan actors left in Congress are being framed into partisan talking points, which will only lead Republicans down the road to yet another defeat on a bill they should be for in principle.

If the passed and proposed reforms in both health care and finance prove to be effective, it will be a hard sell for Republicans to explain to voters why they were against reforming these two broken systems, amongst the many other reforms they have rejected. The minority party cannot accept its current status in second place, thus there is no honest desire shown by Republicans to compromise with the majority party on anything non-unanimous. This is unhealthy for a proud democracy like ours; where it is expected that we disagree on many things, but where it is also expected that we do what is right for our citizenry despite our politics. We should act to reform our weaknesses in the name of making America a better place for generations to come.

In an election year such as this, it is fairly predictable that the Republican establishment will do whatever possible to prevent President Obama from advancing his ambitious agenda. They will likely once again threaten the use of the filibuster, and even threaten to shut down the government over the funding of healthcare reform. It is then up to the voters to determine whether this is how they want their nation governed. Will we allow petty politics to impede progress? Or is it time to encourage the leadership of both parties to acknowledge the damage their partisan behavior has had on the already fragile reputation of the legislative process? As we watch the debate over financial reform and Wall Street regulation play out, it will be interesting to see who acts predictably, and who sides with common sense bi-partisan solutions to the costly banking and financial sector problems we face.

Thoughts on Congress moving forward post health care reform

The United States Senate has notoriously been called the institution where great ideas go to die. Currently, there are hundreds of good bills passed by the House of Representatives which have yet to be debated by, or even considered by the Senate. Many of these bills are bi-partisan, and many of the critical issues, such as financial reform and fixes to No Child Left Behind, are being shunned by the minority party in the name of politics. This is unacceptable in our current economic condition.

By refusing to let committees meet, and pulling out every possible parliamentary inquiry known to man, Republicans in the Senate have decided not to be part of the practical solutions to the problems facing the nation. Senator John McCain, a man formerly known for reaching across the aisle despite politics, declared today that any proposed legislation was “dead” because of his party’s bitter feelings over the process of the health care reform debate. This kind of behavior is childish, especially when we are recovering from a nationwide recession.

If this cynical activity is allowed to continue, bills that both sides agree are beneficial will sit and grow dust. Good bills, shunned by a stubborn minority, only to be reintroduced and fall prey to the same viscous cycle. There is serious business before The Senate that must be handled by serious people. We assume that our Senators are those people, that they are reasonable professionals who are elected to work, and not to stall progress.

There is nothing to stop any one Senator from debating their point for or against a bill. Most Americans can respect eloquent argument in the face of tough problems. But, when stall tactics and petty partisan games are used to impede the progress of the nation, it makes an already frustrated American public tune out the political process. In order for the United States to emerge stronger from the past decade, it will be necessary for our leaders to take on the business of the people, not duck from it. Not because of politics, but because the future of our country depends on it.

Thoughts on political incivility in 2010

It’s time for us all to take a deep breath. Our history has shown us that the current path of incivility some have chosen to take will only lead us to repeat our darkest days as a nation. Whether you supported health care reform or not, we can all agree that we collectively want to be defined by the best we have to offer, not the worst. Right, left, or middle politically, no reasonable person can excuse the recent threats of violence made against multiple members of Congress and The President of the United States. This should not be the case in 2010, a time where the perception abroad of the strength of our democracy must not be in question. With two wars still in progress, we must remain strong and united in our purpose to represent what makes America great: our civility and our common ideals.

No matter how deeply rooted your opposition to any one particular policy; there is nothing in our character as a nation that allows for such hateful actions. No elected official who voted for the Health care Reform Bill deserves to have their families targeted, nor should people take to arms and fire at a Republican representative’s campaign office. Have we not learned these lessons from tragic events such as the Oklahoma City Bombings in 1993, the Civil War, and the assassinations of JFK and Abraham Lincoln? Now is the time for us to unite despite our differences, take a moment to realize we are all Americans despite our political opinions, and put an end to this violent nonsense.

When we allow our own selfish reasoning to outweigh common sense civility, we endanger the very core of our values as Americans. Violence against our neighbors, agree with them or not, is not something we can afford to tolerate. It’s our duty to let those who are distraught know that they need only vote to express their disdain for public policy. Our leaders need to come together on a bi-partisan basis and show Americans that they are united under one flag, one constitution, and a lasting creed to remain civil in the midst of tough argument and debate.

As we deploy our troops to foreign nations, it is imperative that we set a good example for those whom we are trying to help achieve a free democracy. We need to respect one another’s opinions, and if we should disagree, act like we’ve been there before, and put hatred to the side. Our country cannot afford to become more divided. Unless we can return to an era of respect towards our political leaders, and most importantly, one another, the ideal of America as a civil democracy will quickly fall into jeopardy. Today is the best time to end the hate, the animosity, the incitement, the cynicism, and to allow the best of us to come forward. I hope we can all agree that coming together in condoning the past weeks actions of a radical few is in the best interest of all Americans.

Thoughts on the future of the Tea Party Movement

The Boston Tea Party of 1773 was a landmark occurrence in the sequence of events leading to the American Revolution. That day, fed up colonists revolted violently against the imposing taxes placed on tea by King George. Their cause, defending the rights of the colonies to engage in commerce without such a huge tax burden imposed by the British, ultimately led to the tar and feathering of British soldiers in front of an angry mob. The actions taken that day eventually helped to allow revolutionary aspirations to reach a fever pitch.

Flash forward to 2008, following the selection of Sarah Palin as the Vice-Presidential nominee of the Republican Party, it seemed there was a dramatic split between the social conservatives in the party and John McCain’s moderate Republican base. McCain, considered barely a Republican by many conservatives (dating back to his battles with George W. Bush during the 2000 Republican Primary process), never had control of his own party’s message. Social conservatives felt alienated by the mainstream Republican’s lack of enthusiasm for their core issues, including abortion, gun control, and a united disdain for Barack Obama and the Democrats. Their discontent would seal his fate.

Though McCain would attempt to entice the far right with gimmicks such as “Joe the Plumber”, most social conservatives felt a lack of enthusiasm by the mainstream Republican Party towards their social agenda, and they stayed home on election night in 2008. The next morning, it was obvious that there was a considerable gap in the conservative movement. Born out of discontent towards Washington, a perception of taxation without representation, and a general dislike for the agenda of President Obama, The Tea Party Movement, as they called themselves, took on increased traction by filling the gap amongst social conservatives looking for a platform to organize upon.

The Tea Party quickly grew into a group of loosely affiliated sub-groups, rallying behind politicians who fulfilled their agenda of a more socially conservative union. Though on the face, the movement had legitimate grass-roots ideals, such as opposition to the bank bailouts and the Recovery Act, the lack of leadership amongst the group allowed a radical element to hijack their cause. During the heated debates over health care last summer, The Tea Party jumped upon every rumor, true or false, and marketed health care as a government takeover. Followers took to the streets and town halls, and the opportunists in the crowd began to use the publicity of the moment to promote anti-minority, anti-government, and generally divisive sentiments among the movement.

Though it is true that many Tea Party members are good people, the above-stated hijacking took center stage this past weekend with the actions of health care protesters in Washington DC. Representing the Tea Party “Patriots”, some in the crowd channeled their inner 1960’s by raining down verbal abuse on minority members of Congress as they made their way to debate and vote on the bill before them. 50 years after the civil rights era, a radical few have tainted the image of the social conservative movement in this country. Tea Party members, lacking a leader, have no unified message with which to combat the hijacking of their cause by the fringes of the right. Some seem to condone the actions, and some seem to hold these people in contempt. What is sure, is the demise of the Tea Party Movement should they continue to allow uncivil behavior to define them going forward.

Republicans who have embraced the Tea Party, such as House Minority Leader John Boehner and Sarah Palin, stand guilty of inciting these crowds by playing to their most cynical and egregious claims for short term political gain. The result of this kind of irresponsible guidance has been mob like action by radical Tea Party members who have taken the support of these politicians to heart. The reality is that the Republican Part cannot allow the Tea Party to grow too large without incorporating them, or they run the risk of having the conservative vote split in November.

In the upcoming weeks, we will see attempts by many previously moderate Republicans to embrace the Tea Party. Even though they fly to the right of their true political identity. Already, in an attempt to reign in the Tea Partiers, former Bush Chief of Staff Karl Rove has begun talking down to them, blaming their lack of civility on the politically unsophisticated nature of the movement. Leading to the bigger questions going forward: First, will a cause, which has taken on its own identity, begin to run its own candidates in opposition to Democrats and Republicans? Second, will the Tea Party fold to pressure from the GOP and join the Republican cause going forward? And finally, can the Republican Party survive without gaining their support? The answers will arise in the months ahead, but the impact on the political landscape, much like the Tea Party of 1773, will be felt for years to come.

Thoughts on whether the GOP should exhaust their resources fighting the new health care law

In the coming days, weeks, months, and years, the conversation about what direction to take the health care reform debate in our country will undoubtedly continue. There is no question that because the bill which passed today is imperfect, there will be hundreds of amendments passed and proposed by both sides in order to improve upon its long term effectiveness. This has ultimately been the case with every major piece of legislation passed into law since the inception of our country. And when the dust settles, most progressives would argue that it’s better to have a starting point on which to build on than to remain committed to the unsustainable status quo.

Knowing this, Republican Attorney Generals still insist on fighting the new law in the courts, deeming the bill unconstitutional due to the upcoming federal mandate requiring everyone purchase health care insurance by 2014. Similar fights have been launched in the past, but as you will see, the Federal Commerce Clause gives the United States Congress the power to enact laws which transcend state lines. Ultimately, the leaders of these uphill fights have ended up on the wrong side of history.

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Though at first glance the text may leave one to believe that the states can basically do anything they please at the expense of Federal Law, the Supreme Court has consistently maintained a different viewpoint on what the text should be interpreted to mean.

According to the Supreme Court in US v Darby, “The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.” This text will surely be quoted from in upcoming debates over the constitutionality of the new law.

When combined with the Commerce Clause, which states “The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes,” the influence of the Tenth Amendment on the issue of repeal of a law passed by the Congress and the President becomes minute. States already adhere to many federal mandates, such as wearing seat belts, car insurance, speed limits, and the age limits for alcohol and cigarette use. Thus, it seems unlikely that a move to repeal by the minority party, in the courts or in the Congress, will be a successful endeavor.

Given these facts, and the common knowledge that as the minority party the GOP must carefully pick its battles, does it seem wise for the RNC to dedicate so much of its political capital to a cause which is destined to fail in the courts? Would Republicans not be wiser to concentrate on coming together on the basis of constructing a new agenda of ideas as opposed to trying to repeal new laws? And finally, having themselves used the Federal Commerce Clause in the past to enact interstate legislation; does the GOP ultimately run the risk of looking hypocritical by challenging this bill?