The Health Care Hypocrisy of a Tea Party Candidate

What word would you use to describe a candidate for the U.S. Senate, who just happens to be a Tea Party favorite, that publically advocates repealing health care reform, opposes the regulation of health care insurers while at the same time benefits from health care provided by a federal government agency? If the word hypocrite comes to mind, you just hit the jackpot. Not necessarily intended to be a tongue in cheek quip, but our winner of the hypocrite of the day award goes to Nevada’s Sharron Angle, who just happens to hail from the land of slot machines and crap tables.

Yeah, you read me correctly, this morning’s “Politico’s Morning Score” blew the cover off of Ms. Angle’s dirty little secret and possibly a hole in her campaign to be the next U.S. Senator from Nevada. Needless to say, this isn’t exactly the kind of publicity that the Tea Party Movement is looking for either. Its one thing for the Tea Party Movement to be lampooned by the political highbrows on MSNBC and the Daily Show who can be dismissed as elitist by the party faithful. It’s quite yet another for one of its premier candidates to so seriously stumble just weeks before an election that is supposed to be the movement’s coming out party in the big leagues of electoral politics. Politico’s Morning Score reports: “Angle’s campaign acknowledged to Nevada journalist Jon Ralston Monday that both the candidate and her husband receive health care from the federal government. Spokeswoman Ciara Matthews said in a statement: “Mr. Ted Angle receives his pension through the (federal) Civil Service Retirement System. While it is not supplemented by the federal government, current civil servants pay into the program to pay the schedule of those already retired – much like how the Social Security Program works today.” But there’s more to it than just the machinations of the Angle family, another prominent mouthpiece of the Tea Party Movement, Michelle Bachmann, a regular critic of government health care is also a beneficiary of the very programs she rails against. According to MediaMatters.com:” Angle isn’t the only right-wing Republican to bash government involvement in health care while benefiting from it. Back in May, the Minnesota Independent reported that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), a frequent critic of “socialized medicine,” was profiting from a government-run health program in Minnesota through her husband’s Christian mental health clinic.” A Christian clinic?, What became of the values of honesty and truthfulness, or are they to be convienently ignored when politics is what’s on the menu?

So there you have it, some of the leading lights of the movement that is supposed to “take back our country” and bring us back to “the values and wisdom of our Founding Fathers”, have found it in their best interest to talk you out of the need for health care reform and insurance company oversight while they and their families are more than happy to benefit from programs they publically oppose.  These Tea Party elites, who regularly blast the established Washington elites, have seen fit  to insulate themselves and their families from life’s vicissitudes while admonishing the rest of us to” work hard, be frugal and trust in the markets and what made America great in the past.” The hypocrisy in all of this is obvious and undeniable. What is not immediately obvious is to what extent these revelations just weeks before the mid-term elections will give the independent voter cause for concern as it regards supporting candidates like Sharron Angle or re-electing a Michelle Bachmann. I doubt it will do much to dissuade the rank and file Tea Party foot soldier, but it may. That said, what the rank and file intend to do really is of secondary import, it’s the independent voter who holds the key to both this election and the next.

Steven J. Gulitti

9/28/10

Sources:

Politico’s Morning Score: http://www.politico.com/morningscore/

Anti-Government Crusader Sharron Angle Receives Government Health Care; http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201009280002

 

Sharron angle and Her husband Receive Government Health Care: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?link=225844_Sharron_Angle_And_Her_Husband

 

Doubts About Christine O’Donnell Continue to Grow

There seems to be a growing sense of buyer’s remorse among both members of the Tea Party Movement and Republican Party regulars surrounding the primary win of Christine O’Donnell. Buyer’s remorse is a condition that arises after people have bought something or bought into something with a feeling of personal comfort that then disappears after the purchase. The buyer is then left with a sense of remorse over having made the purchase in the first place. Questions surrounding O’Donnell’s ability to get elected and her past personal history have caught the attention of prominent Republicans like the head of the Delaware GOP, Tom Ross, Karl Rove, or Congressman Mike Pence, (R-IN). Pence recently said that while a verdict on O’Donnell’s political future is up to the voters in Delaware, he also said that she has an obligation to explain past public statements. One should not be too surprised by the fact that more and more Republicans are uncomfortable with O’Donnell considering the controversy stirred up within the G.O.P. regarding how to accommodate the Tea Party Movement. Republicans officer holders and the G.O.P. leadership may pay lip service to the fact that is up to the Delaware voters to decide who will be their next Senator, but don’t fool yourself in thinking they would not have preferred Mike Castle and along with him a chance at retaking the Senate.

Likewise her election has given rise to anxiety within the organization of the Tea Party Movement. The discomfort within the movement is evident in the commentary of heavy weights like Dick Armey right down to the level of rank and file operatives. While it’s not surprising that established Republican office holders and operatives would be dismayed and at odds with the Tea Party movement, what is interesting to note is the degree of controversy that Ms. O’Donnell has created within the movement itself. Tea Party money man, Dick Armey, former House Minority Leader and head of FreedomWorks, the powerhouse advocacy group which has poured millions into the campaigns of Tea Party candidates declined to back O’Donnell and has yet to endorse her. Armey was reluctant to support O’Donnell in the primary, “largely because of concerns over her electability. Armey has been leery of social conservatives like O’Donnell, who is far more Christian Coalition than tea party. In fact, he has spent the past few years bashing social conservatives for trying to use government to impose their moral agenda on the rest of the country.” according to Stephanie Mencimer of Mother Jones.The remorse over O’Donnell’s election is more than evident among many of the movement’s foot soldiers as well as the following representative quote shows: “Andrew Ian Dodge is the Maine state coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots, one of the largest tea party umbrella groups. TPP doesn’t endorse candidates, but that hasn’t stopped Dodge from expressing his own opinion about O’Donnell. He thinks she’s a bit of a nutter. “Everything I’ve seen about her has made me laugh my ass off,” he says. “What the hell do you say? First you have Alvin Green, and now you have her.” His concern is that if she loses in the general election to Democrat Chris Coons, the defeat will be widely regarded as a reflection on the tea party movement-and he doesn’t want that….Dodge also takes issue with O’Donnell’s status as an “outsider.” He explains: “Alvin Green is an outsider. Carl Paladino, who has never run for anything, is an outsider.” O’Donnell has run four times for national office and lost. “She’s not an outsider,” he says. “She’s a loser.” Dodge notes that while it hasn’t made national headlines, there is a reasonable and healthy discussion inside the tea party movement about whether O’Donnell deserves national support…There’s video of her saying masturbation leads to AIDS. O’Donnell is on record attacking masturbation as sinful, decrying the costs of AIDS prevention and research, and criticizing the “lifestyle which brings about this disease.” Further examples of rank and file discontent with the O’Donnell election can be found in the sources below.

Much is made about the fact that the Tea Party Movement is so decentralized, that it is a truly grass roots “peoples movement”, this being the explanation given for the wide variations in the quality of the candidates that the movement produces. Whether or not the movement is truly “grass roots is debatable, but herein rests an essential question: If the Tea Party Movement is to morph into a viable component of, or a replacement for the GOP, can it do so given its current diffuse method of organization, operation and candidate selection? To what extent is the movement undermining its own credibility and emerging “brand name” by allowing candidates of dubious and questionable quality to represent it in high profile races such as the ones in Delaware and Nevada. If its candidates are seen as too extreme, to bizarre or just plain farcical, who will take the movement seriously outside of its own rank and file? And based on the polling from the conservative Rasmussen Reports; the number of voters who identify as Tea Party members is still relatively small. Rasmussen’s August poll showed: “national telephone survey finds that 13% of voters say they themselves are Tea Party members. Thirteen percent (13%) more say they have close friends or family members who are part of the Tea Party movement… Sixty percent (60%) say they have no ties to the movement, but that’s down nine points from late May.” Fourteen percent (14%) are not sure. Prior polling by Rasmussen had shown identification with the Tea Party to be higher at 24%. That said the real challenge for the Tea Party Movement is to convince the independent voters that their candidates are worth voting for. There is more than ample polling to show that independents view the Tea Party in a less than negative light, but I suspect that most of that polling represents the proverbial generic and generalized type of question, one in which the respondent does not have to voice an opinion about a particular candidate that holds specific positions that the respondent may or may not endorse. And therein lays the root of all of the consternation surrounding the primary win for Ms. O’Donnell. She is the product of a system that has no apparent quality control and that lack of control has produced a candidate that raises more questions than answers as to whether or not she is fit for the office of U.S. Senator. The byproduct of this controversy is a host of questions as to the inherent logic, or lack thereof, of the present form of organization of the Tea Party Movement and its overall staying power on the American political scene. Is it as Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently said: “a fad” or is it an emergent political force to be reckoned with? Only time will tell. In the interest of full disclosure I have twelve members of my own extended family who are active in the Tea Party Movement.

Steve Gulitti
9/24/10

Sources:

Christine O’Donnell’s Victory in Delaware Shifts Senate Expectations; http://politics.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/09/20/christine-odonnells-victory-in-delaware-shifts-senate-expectations.html

Mike Pence: Christine O’Donnell Has ‘An Obligation to Explain’ Witchcraft Comments; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/20/mike-pence-christine-odon_n_731285.html?ref=email_share

Christine O’Donnell’s Candidacy Leaving Some Tea Party Members With Buyer’s Remorse? <http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/09/tea-partier-against-odonnell> ;http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/20/a-tea-partier-against-odo_n_731743.html

A Tea Partier Against O’Donnell?; http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/09/tea-partier-against-odonnell

Rasmussen Reports August / 2010: 26% Say They’re Part of Tea Party Movement Or Know Someone Who Is
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2010/26_say_they_re_part_of_tea_party_movement_or_know_someone_who_is

Rasmussen Reports June / 2010 :46% Say Tea Party Good for America, 31% Disagree
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2010/46_say_tea_party_good_for_america_31_disagree

PewResearchCenter Publications
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1739/independent-voters-typology-2010-midtersm-favor-republicans-conservative

Today’s O’Donnell Farce du Jour

Christine O’Donnell, one of the Tea Party’s newly minted stars has revealed that she will forgo any further national media coverage so as to” focus on Delaware.” Her last-minute cancellation of two Sunday show appearances two days ago garnered her widespread criticism, see the sources below. O’Donnell said her decision was motivated by advice that she received from Sarah Palin, but we can only assume that in addition to that advice, Ms. O’Donnell hopes to get out from under the media scrutiny that has thus far revealed a history of financial missteps, dishonesty and tales from the world of witchcraft. The real question is does she have the conviction of her beliefs or not? Does she think that she can effectively serve in the office of U.S. Senator from Delaware? A further, compelling question is why forgo free national exposure in the big leagues of the political talk show circuit if you truly feel you are up for the task of being a United States Senator? Don’t the voters in Delaware watch television? Would not the news of her appearance on shows like Meet the Press cause the voting public to tune in to those debates so as to see what she has to say? As the days pass, the questions surrounding Christine O’Donnell and her fitness to be the a United States Senator only continue to mount and no amount of limiting her exposure to the media will help allay or deflect these very real concerns.

I can understand that Ms. O’Donnell might not relish the “meat grinder” of the political talk show circuit or that of the 24/7 cable network merry-go-round. However, if she can’t stand up to challenges related to her ideas and beliefs, all legitimate questions in an election season, then how will she stand up to a crisis of national or even worldwide scope that she might face as a Senator? If confronted with another 9/11, an invasion of South Korea by the North Koreans or an Iranian missile crisis what would she do? Would she step up to the challenge or would she take the path of her newly found political mentor, Ms. Palin, and conjure up some reason to resign put pledge to continue to work for the people of Delaware by traveling around the country on the lecture circuit or on the talk shows that she had previously avoided?

Steve Gulitti
9/23/10

Sources:

Christine O’Donnell: I’m not doing any more national TV interviews

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/christine-odonnell-im-not-doin.html

O’Donnell Tells Hannity She Won’t Do Anymore ‘National Media’ Interviews
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/odonnell-tells-hannity-she-wont-do-anymore-national-media-interviews/

CNN: No more national media interviews, O’Donnell says

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/22/no-more-national-media-interviews-odonnell-says/

From Palin to O’Donnell or From Farce to Absurdity

Well now that the last of the “Tea Party” primaries is over, one can only wonder what people on the right were thinking when they voted for Christine O’Donnell in Delaware. Didn’t William F. Buckley, the scion of the post World War II conservative movement lecture the faithful on the need to nominate the most electable conservatives? As a matter of fact I know he said that because Charles Krauthammer reiterated Mr. Buckley’s dictum just last week in a Washington Post article.  Even Karl Rove, a man desperately seeking political redemption, was nothing less than flabbergasted in O’Donnell’s election. He went so far as to deride the prospect of her being on the ballot as nothing short of a disaster. Is Rove suggesting that O’Donnell now constitutes, singlehandedly, the most formidable obstacle to the G.O.P’s turning over the Senate in November? Rove characterized O’Donnell as unelectable, untruthful and outright “nutty” in his own words.

So let me get this straight, the Tea Party that has been vociferous in advocating for the virtues of the free market, fiscal discipline and personal responsibility, wants us to vote for someone who according a N.Y. Times article: “has struggled for years with personal finance problems — she has reported earnings of only $5,800 between most of this year and last and she has defaulted on her mortgage — and fudged her educational background and past campaign achievement, much of which was dredged up and disseminated by her own party… Yet, she told a reporter for The News Journal of Wilmington last March that her campaign had paid half the rent on her town house there because it doubled as her headquarters, one of several financial oddities enumerated in an article in that paper. Also included was an Internal Revenue Service lien for $11,744 in back taxes and penalties from 2005 which Ms. O’Donnell attributed to an error made by the federal agency and a 2008 mortgage default judgment on her home…Further, while Ms. O’Donnell claimed for several years that she was a graduate of Fairleigh Dickinson University, in fact she attained her bachelor’s degree in English literature only this summer. She said that while she participated in the cap-and-gown ceremony nearly two decades ago, she was unable to formally graduate because of unpaid tuition.” If I’m not mistaken there’s a name for people who graduate after many years of scholarly study at an institution of higher learning, I think they go by the titles: Doctor, Lawyer or PhD.  

If these revelations are not enough to send you onto the floor in laughter, then how about the fact that O’Donnell, who tout’s herself as a religious person, has actually flirted with the opposite end of the religious spectrum, Witchcraft! But don’t take my word for it, there will be no spin here, listen to O’Donnell in her own words: “I dabbled into witchcraft. I hung around people who were doing these things. I’m not making this stuff up. I know what they told me they do. One of my first dates with a witch was on a satanic altar and I didn’t know it. I mean, there was a little blood there and stuff like that… We went to a movie and then had a little picnic on a satanic altar.” And all of this just a mere eleven years ago, in what one could reasonably consider a person’s politically formative years.

Sarah Palin has more than established her bona fides as a farcical figure with her regular political pratfalls, a lack of knowledge of the issues, bizarre claims about socialism and Marxism, and her outright anti-intellectual demeanor. But with the victory of Christine O’Donnell in the Delaware Primary the Tea party has crossed a new and exciting threshold, going from the farcical to the absolutely absurd. I can’t but help to believe that they must have been partying into the wee hours, upon news of O’Donnell’s election, in the White House and anywhere in Washington D.C. and beyond as the Democrats may have just dodged the bullet as it relates to losing the Senate. Hey, you can’t make this stuff up.

Steve Gulitti

9/21/10

Sources:

1)Rebel Republican Marching On, With Baggage;http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/us/politics/16odonnell.html?emc=eta

2) O’Donnell In 1999: ‘I Dabbled Into Witchcraft’: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/18/odonnell-witchcraft-politically-incorrect_n_722035.html

3) Wiccan Community Upset With O’Donnell, Calls Witchcraft Comments “Teaching Moment”;http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/20/wiccan-community-upset-wi_n_731694.html?ref=email_share

Tax Cuts and Their Efficacy: A Postscript

 In two previous articles, “Maintain Tax Cuts for the Rich? Americans Don’t Seem to Buy the Conservative Argument” and the “Efficacy of Tax Cuts Is now Questioned” I laid out two basic premises. One was that a majority of the American people did not buy into the conservative argument that tax cuts had to be maintained for the richest among us. The second was that the use of tax cuts in this type of economic downturn had been called into question by some very prominent economists and that those same economists just happen to be on the right side of the political spectrum. The notion that tax cuts are of little use in this particular economic environment received further support last week with the publishing of  the findings of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office from which the following conclusions were drawn:  “ The concept of lower taxes is so appealing to voters that many embrace them as an economic cure-all… But economic research suggests that tax cuts, though difficult for politicians to resist in election season, have limited ability to bolster the flagging economy because they are essentially a supply-side remedy for a problem caused by lack of demand.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office this year analyzed the short-term effects of 11 policy options and found that extending the tax cuts would be the least effective way to spur the economy and reduce unemployment. The report added that tax cuts for high earners would have the smallest “bang for the buck,” because wealthy Americans were more likely to save their money than spend it….Neither of those options, though, would do as much to stimulate the economy as offering direct payments to the unemployed and Social Security recipients or reducing the payroll taxes of workers, the study found…So while the decision on whether to extend the tax cuts will have a lasting impact on the deficit and on how the nation’s tax burden is distributed, economists and tax experts say it is unlikely to offer much immediate relief for high unemployment and sluggish growth… It may have some small impact along the margins, but firms don’t hire based on tax breaks; they hire based on demand,” said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. “So a lot of the tax breaks are likely to be rewarding people and companies for what they were going to do anyway.”

As a footnote to the above, it’s also of note that another prominent conservative has come to criticize the notion that tax cuts would be economically effective today. David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter and Fellow at the ultra conservative American Enterprise Institute, in an interview on NPR’s Marketplace said the following:” The recession began when all the Bush tax cuts were fully in effect. And yet, it’s suggested that re-enacting the tax cuts will somehow cure the crisis that those same tax cuts failed to prevent.” Don’t get me wrong, Frum is not endorsing the Obama Administration or its economic policies, not by a long shot. What he is saying, that is relevant to my premise is that those who are banking on tax cuts to pull us out of the current predicament are sadly mistaken as to their usefulness. Many would argue that tax cuts can only work if they are coupled with spending cuts, but to think that the government could reign in spending in the midst of this type of downturn requires a quantum leap of faith that would come with the notion that removing one of the only simulative elements remaining in the economy would somehow not cause the recession to worsen. This point was further underlined recently on Meet the Press. When pressed by moderator David Gregory, the Republican Minority leader, Mitch McConnell, declined to commit to spending cuts if the GOP took control of Capitol Hill. The bottom line is this:  those on the far right fringe who parrot 18^th and 19^th Century economic concepts seem to strangely factor out the social chaos that would result from an ideology that was better suited for the world of Charles Dickens than the globalized world of today. The Republicans who hope to capture Capitol Hill in a few short weeks know this as well that’s why they are reluctant to go on the record and say otherwise.

A corollary argument that is used to support the extension of tax cuts to those families earning over $250,000.00/year is that idea that if this tax break is eliminated, that job creation will suffer. Here again there seems to be little in the way of empirical evidence to support this claim. A recent article; “Tax Increases Would Hit Few Small Businesses”; summarized the findings of the IRS and it’s Joint Committee on Taxation as follows: “Despite that emotional appeal, Internal Revenue Service statistics indicate that only 3 percent of small businesses would be subject to the higher tax, and many studies of previous tax increases suggest that it would have minimal impact on hiring… According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 97 percent of all businesses owners do not earn enough to be subject to the higher rates, which would be levied on income of over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for families…But much of the research over the last two decades has found that increases in top tax rates can lead to an increase in the formation of small businesses, as wealthy individuals apparently begin start-ups to avail themselves of the more generous tax breaks offered to businesses… Higher taxes may lead individuals to seek self-employment because the opportunities for tax evasion and avoidance are greater,” according to a report released this month by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which surveyed more than 20 studies on the effects of taxes on hiring.”

Thus it seems that the hue and cry about the dangers to job creation at the level of small business may in fact be greatly exaggerated after all, yet one more political football flying about amidst all of the misconceptions that relate to the issues of tax policy and it’s applicability in the midst of the worst downturn since the 1930s. It’s important to note that I am not against tax cuts per se; it’s just that they are not and never have been a cure all too economic ills. That said; the monotonous reiteration of the sanctity of tax cuts in this particular environment seems to amount to nothing more than the political posturing of those who are at a loss for good ideas as to what we need to do to repair the damage done over the past thirty years of deregulation and bubble economics.

With regard to the fact that most Americans don’t support extending tax cuts to the wealthiest, the latest New York times/CBS poll supports what the last Gallup Poll showed: “The poll found that 53 percent of Americans say Mr. Obama’s proposal to increase taxes on households earning $250,000 or more is a good idea, and 38 percent say it is a bad idea.”  Thus once again as was previously pointed out, the disappointment and anxiety of rank and file Americans does not translate into empathy for the woes of the most fortunate among us.

Steven J. Gulitti

9/20/10

Sources:

1)      News Analysis:  Tax Cuts May Prove Better for Politicians Than for Economy ; http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/11/business/economy/11tax.html?emc=eta1

2)      New York Times/CBS News Poll September 15, 2010http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-timescbs-news-poll-new-york-timescbs-news-poll-mood-of-the-country-as-midterms-approach?ref=politics 3)

 

3)      Tax Increase Would Hit Few Small Businesses; http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/18/business/smallbusiness/18smallbiz.html?emc=eta14)

4)      Old assumptions equal a stagnant economy; http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/09/01/pm-old-assumptions-equals-a-stagnant-economy/ 

Meet the Press 8/22/10
 http://thepage.time.com/details-mcconnell-on-presidents-commission-on-cutting-deficit/

Aiding and Abetting Our Enemies by Burning the Koran, A Postscript

It is noteworthy that General David Petraeus appeared yet again on the evening news last night, repeating his very real concerns and continued dismay over the planned burning of a Koran by Preacher Terry Jones. General Petraeus was emphatic in his denouncing the act, firmly believing that it will lead directly to increased American casualties: “General David Petraeus told NBC television that images of the Koran burning would be used by Islamic extremists to fuel anti-Americanism and harm the US mission in Afghanistan and other areas in the world. “We’re concerned that the images from the burning of a Koran would be used in the same way that extremists used images from Abu Ghraib that they would in a sense be indelible”, Petraeus told NBC. “They would be used by those who wish us ill, to incite violence and to inflame public opinion against us and against our mission here in Afghanistan, as well as our missions undoubtedly around the world, he added.” Likewise similar concerns have now been voiced by General Ray Odierno, who recently stepped down as the ranking officer in charge of our military mission in Iraq. As of last night the F.B.I. has announced that a reaction to the burning of a Koran is imminent and the State Department has put American embassies and consulates on a full alert worldwide in expectation of their being targets of attack.

It is also noteworthy that in light of their current concerns, neither Petraeus or Odierno so much as uttered a passing reference to the controversy surrounding the planned construction of an Islamic Cultural Center in lower Manhattan. In light of this it’s interesting to note the following. General Petraeus has a Ph.D. in International Relations from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and General Odierno received a Masters in nuclear effects engineering and national security and strategy from the Naval War College. Thus a reasonable and well informed observer of political affairs would conclude, that in the midst of all the concern about the expected fallout from burning a Koran, both of these well educated and politically astute Generals would at least mention the planned construction project in lower Manhattan if it was even remotely related to issues of national security and safety. Yet, they didn’t. Why because both of them know what many of the rest of us know as well, that it’s not relevant or germane to what we can expect to be the follow on to the reckless folly that is scheduled to transpire this coming Saturday in Florida.

There are those among us who will continue to conflate the issues of burning a Koran and constructing an Islamic Cultural Center in their ill conceived and conceptually flawed argument as to how these issues relate one to the other or how both relate to the debate over national security and public safety. In trying to tie the two together they continue to reveal just how little they understand of the importance of the issue at hand, which is the burning a Koran on American soil by an American preacher for all the world to see. What we have here is a crass attempt to politicize one issue so as to distract the public from the other. In their silence on the issue of the Islamic Cultural Center, Generals Petraeus and Odierno, have effectively rendered this issue as something of little or no practical value in the current debate. It’s time for those who are trying to use the “Mosque Controversy” as a foil or counterargument to the public concern with Preacher Jones’ recklessness to realize the folly of their position and get on the right side of the issue once and for all.

Steven J. Gulitti

9/9/10

Sources:

Koran burning could amount to another Abu Ghraib: Petraeus
http://sify.com/news/koran-burning-could-amount-to-another-abu-ghraib-petraeus-news-international-kjjhkicfcda.html

Petraeus: Burning Qurans will undermine U.S. efforts in Afghanistan
http://www.stripes.com/news/petraeus-burning-qurans-will-undermine-u-s-efforts-in-afghanistan-1.117486

Aiding and Abetting Our Enemies by Burning the Koran

The controversy surrounding the proposed and ill conceived burning of a Koran by a preacher named Terry Jones has devolved, to some degree, into an intellectual parlor game as to the rights of this preacher to do, untrammeled, what he pleases and the rights related to building an Islamic Cultural Center in the vicinity of Ground Zero. Lost in all of this intellectual exercise is the welfare of those Americans now serving in the armed forces overseas. Some would suggest that if Muslims have the right to build a religious and cultural institute in lower Manhattan, then Preacher Jones is justified in carrying out his burning of the Koran, as if the two were somehow conceptually equivalent as it relates to the potential fallout. Lost in all of this is the reality that while people have rights of freedom of speech and expression, those rights are in fact neither absolute nor boundless. Such rights are conditioned by an operative test as to what extent these actions fall within a society’s accepted norms and fundamental mores. Both individual and group actions are viewed within the bounds of what  rational people would consider reasonable in a civilized society. That’s why we operate with common sense conditions on human action with the overall welfare of the population in mind, the prohibition of yelling fire in a crowded theater being an often cited example. The point is a very simple one, while as citizens we constitutionally have the freedom of speech and expression, those freedoms don’t extend to or accommodate license and reckless behavior. Thus viewed against the social, political and legal realities of American society, one could only classify the intended behavior of Preacher Jones as that which has now gone beyond the pale of protected behavior and into the realm of unmitigated recklessness. Behavior that can only increase the threat level for Americans both at home and abroad.
 
By itself, the preacher’s actions could be dismissed as the ranting and raving of just another maladjusted soul who seems prone to bizarre and anti-social behavior. But when that behavior puts the lives of Americans serving in the Middle East and Southwest Asia in jeopardy, then these actions are clearly at variance with the well being of both the nation’s military and it’s citizens. General David Petraeus has already raised the alarm that Preacher Jones’ actions will increase the risk of attacks on Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan and protests of the planned burning have already materialized in the region. The General has drawn parallels with Abu Gharib and how the mistreatment of Muslim prisoners aided Al Qaida’s recruitment efforts thereby directly adding to the number insurgents we had to face in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Like Abu Gharib, the burning of a Koran by a Christian preacher will provide images that directly help Islamic radicals in their recruitment efforts, the General said. Jones’ intended act will undo much of the progress made in winning the hearts and minds of Afghanis and Iraqis as well as creating further disincentives for moderates in the region to align themselves with the American effort. The net affect of Preacher Jones’ act of freedom of expression, if carried out, will most likely be Americans losing their lives so that this glorified storefront preacher can garner his fifteen minutes of fame. That’s what’s really at issue here and all of the rest of this intellectual gymnastics is both now misplaced, misconstrued and totally misses the point that when freedom of speech or expression crosses over to the reckless, then it need be proscribed for the good of the overall public. While people can certainly continue to discuss the pros and cons of Preacher Jones’ actions, those who chose to do so are blind to the larger issue entwined within all of this and that is the safety of their fellow Americans. The time for the intellectual games has passed and the time for an advocacy of the rational and reasonable as it relates to this issue is now upon us .
 
Steven J. Gulitti
9/7/10  
 
 
 
 
Sources:
 
Quran Burning Warning: General Petraeus Words Fall On Deaf Ears?
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/breakingnews/article_212321953.shtml
 
Top US Commander: Burning Quran Endangers Troops
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100907/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan
 
Burn a Koran Day Sparks Protests in Afghanistan 
http://www.breitbart.tv/burn-a-koran-day-sparks-protests-in-afghanistan/
 
Koran Burning: Terry Jones Burn A Quran Day Not Cancelled
http://www.newsopi.com/us/koran-burning-terry-jones-burn-a-quran-day-not-cancelled/4130/

Where Have all the Libertarian’s Gone?

The late Mary Travers once sang a song called “Where Have All the Flowers Gone? It was a lamentation about the human cost of war and it was a popular protest song during the Vietnam era. Well it seems to me that someone could write a song, or at least ask the same question, about Libertarians.  Specifically, where have all the Libertarians gone?

In the din and roar surrounding politics in America today much is made of the importance of Libertarian thinking. Some have pointed out its importance to the Tea Party Movement: “More recently, the Libertarian theme of the “tea party” began with Republican Congressman Ron Paul supporters as a fund raising event during the 2008 presidential primaries to emphasize Paul’s fiscal conservatism, which laid the groundwork for the modern-day Tea Party movement.”  That said it’s interesting to consider the following two questions: First, if Libertarian ideas are so compelling, how come Libertarians garner such a small portion of actual votes during major electoral campaigns? Secondly, if Libertarians command such low voting totals, how is it that there is such a disproportionate number of Libertarian organizations and who is putting up the money to support them?

During the 2008 election cycle, America’s Libertarian’s had a clear choice among those vying for the Republican nomination for president. Ron Paul was an outspoken Libertarian and had been so for many years. Paul’s Libertarian bona fides were well established, widely known and beyond question. But Paul wasn’t even remotely competitive within the G.O.P.’s contest for candidate in the 2008 presidential election cycle.  Yet even though Paul was eliminated from the race, Libertarians still had a choice in the person of Bob Barr, the former Republican Congressman of Georgia, and the Libertarian Party’s presidential pick for 2008. The irony of it all is that even though they still had a horse in the race, in an election that offered four different choices for president, the Libertarian candidate finished dead last with a paltry 523,686 votes or 0.4% of the total votes cast in 2008. With the aforementioned facts in hand, we can only conclude that Libertarians either do not vote, fail to vote for their own candidates or that there aren’t very many of them in existence after all.

Well, if it’s hard to discern the actual existence of Libertarians in any precise number, then how is it we have over sixty five Libertarian organizations afloat in the body politic according to Wikipedia? The Stason Organization lists 11 “Major Libertarian Organizations” and 33 “Think Tanks”. But this begs the question: Why so many organizations for just over a half of a million voters, or less than one half of one percent of the voting public? It seems a bit fishy to me that we have all of these “Libertarian” organizations in a country that seems to have so few Libertarians. If we have so few Libertarians, then where does the cash that fuels all of these “Libertarian” organizations come from? After all it would be pretty hard to fund this large number of organizations out of the pockets of just 0.4% of the voting public. Could it be that these “Libertarian” organizations are propped up by those with a specific agenda and deep pockets or do these 523,686 voters just all happen to be billionaires? So can someone tell me where have all the Libertarians gone, long time passing?

Steven J. Gulitti

9/6/10

Sources:

Tea Party Movement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

List of Libertarian Organizations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_libertarian_organizations

Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr_for_President

11 Major Libertarian Organizations: http://stason.org/TULARC/ideology/libertarian/11-Major-Libertarian-Organizations.html

 

33 Libertarian Organizations: Think Tanks: http://stason.org/TULARC/ideology/libertarian/33-Libertarian-Organizations-Think-Tanks.html

 

The Libertarian Learning Center: http://www.mondopolitico.com/ideologies/libertarianism/libertarianorganizations.htm

Who Is Barack Obama: Should We Believe Beck or Limbaugh?

Americans to some degree and particularly those on the Right are now beset by a true conundrum. Is Barack Obama a Christian or a Muslim? According to the latest Pew Research polling: “nearly one-in-five Americans (18%) now say Obama is a Muslim, up from 11% in March 2009. Only about one-third of adults (34%) say Obama is a Christian, down sharply from 48% in 2009. Fully 43% say they do not know what Obama’s religion is.” Well, it’s no wonder people are so confused, especially when two of the most prominent talking heads on the far right differ as to what is the actual religion of the President. If Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh aren’t on the same page on this, how can we expect the lowliest schlep to know what’s the truth?

In a recent anti-Obama rant, Mr. Limbaugh intoned: “Imam Hussein Obama is probably the best anti-American president we’ve ever had.” Limbaugh has been at center stage in railing against the proposed “Ground Zero Mosque’ while trying to somehow insinuate that Obama’s defense of the constitutional right to religious freedom somehow proves that the President is an Islamic. Meanwhile just this past Sunday, in a follow up to his Lincoln Memorial Rally, Mr. Beck appeared with Chris Wallace of Fox News to proclaim that Obama is in fact not a racist after all, but a practicing Christian who just happens to be enamored with Liberation Theology. This brand of Christian thought is defined: “as a movement in Christian theology which interprets the teachings of Jesus Christ in terms of liberation from unjust economic, political, or social conditions.” According to Beck himself: “he misunderstood Obama’s philosophy and his theology…which is liberation theology… he didn’t understand, really, his theology his viewpoints come from liberation theology. That’s what I think as in — at the gut level I was sensing. And I miscast it as racism. And really, what it is liberation theology.” Thus, its now official, according to Glenn Beck, Barak Obama is legitimately some sort of Christian. Well fancy that, one of the most prominent forces in the American right has reaffirmed that the President is in fact a Christian while the other is still working overtime to convince Americans otherwise.

So what is really going on here? Is there a genuine question as to Barack Obama’s faith or are we in fact looking at a garden variety witch hunt perpetrated from two different angles in a crass and unvarnished attempt to undermine a legitimately elected president through the propagation of falsehoods? Do Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh really believe what they are publicly saying or are they and their followers just unable to face up to the fact that their idea of what America should be just does not comport with what people voted for in 2008. Is that truth just too much to bear? And where is the leadership that we should be seeing from responsible and respectable Republicans in opposition to this political falderal and farce? Perhaps the leaders of the G.O.P. are just too cowed by the far right to stand up for political decency or perhaps they just don’t have the requisite courage. In a recent op-ed on this very topic, Paul Krugman opined: “What we learned from the Clinton years is that a significant number of Americans just don’t consider government by liberals – even very moderate liberals – legitimate. Obama’s election would have enraged those people even if he were white. Of course, the fact that he isn’t, and has an alien-sounding name, adds to the rage. And powerful forces are promoting and exploiting this rage…Meanwhile, the right-wing media are replaying their greatest hits. In the 1990s, Limbaugh used innuendo to feed anti-Clinton mythology, notably the insinuation that Hillary Clinton was complicit in the death of Vince Foster. Now, as we’ve just seen, he’s doing his best to insinuate Obama is a Muslim. And where, in all of this, are the responsible Republicans, leaders who will stand up and say that some partisans are going too far? Nowhere to be found.” That said, it’s more than evident that the time for the truly patriotic to stand up for political decency and honest debate is now and that’s especially true for the leadership of the G.O.P. How can they legitimately ask for our votes when they allow this type of anti-democratic demagoguery to take place right under their noses and in plain view? Perhaps this is what you get from a political party that may be on its way out of business in the long run. Then again, maybe it’s what you get when there is just a lack of courage in a party that has for so long prided itself as the repository of “real American values.” At any rate every American voter has to ask himself this question: If the leaders of the Republican Party lack the courage to take on Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, where will they find the courage and stamina required to get us out of the Great Recession or face down Al Qaida or any other threat that will surely emerge in the brave new world of this new century? Failing that courage, do they really deserve our votes?

Steven J. Gulitti
New Haven, Ct
8/31/10

Sources:

Growing Number of Americans Say Obama is a Muslim; http://pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Growing-Number-of-Americans-Say-Obama-is-a-Muslim.aspx

Liberation theology; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology

Beck: Obama’s not a racist, he just believes in an “evil” theology; http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008310014

Limbaugh Dubs NYC Islamic Center “The Hamasque”; http://mediamatters.org/research/201008180055

Rush Limbaugh Newswire: Comprehensive Real-Time News Feed for Rush Limbaugh.; http://www.topix.com/wire/radio/rush-limbaugh

It’s Witch-Hunt Season <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/opinion/30krugman.html?emc=eta1