How many times must we hear some candidate say, "When I am president, on day one, I will … ” — you fill in the blanks. Close the Department of Something; reform the tax code; nuke Iran; balance the budget, repeal ObamaCare ... As if any of them could do that, given the limited (thank God, and the Founding Fathers) powers of the president. Why do their opponents or the moderators (there ought to be a better word for these weak links) let them get away with these patently phony boasts? They couldn't do these things they promise if they wanted to, so constrained is the political process.
We will see if his aspirations are more successful in the next 10 months. But the contrast between the president's State of the Union speech last night and the endless round of Republican debates was remarkable. It was Obama at his best — earnest, high-minded and hopeful (despite three years of evidence suggesting the contrary) for a union of interests.
The president also was political, outlining the themes of what will be his campaign later this year, drawing lines of ideological and programmatic interests, suggesting some specific areas of reform — pointed, not transformational, as circumstances required. He'll need a better Cabinet to carry out his proposals, especially Messrs. Geithner and Holder, if his reforms are to materialize.
In the debate in South Carolina, Newt Gingrich called it “despicable” to report that he proposed that his second wife allow him to continue his affair with his now-third! Then he used his two daughters by marriage #1 to defend his behavior to wife #2, and to condone his relationship with wife #3.
The crowd loved his angry retort, and cheered. I thought it was despicable to tell wife #1 in the hospital that he was leaving her and wife #2 over the phone, when she was convalescing, that he wanted an open marriage. I also think it was despicable for Gingrich to blame John King, the messenger-in-the-media, who could not, as the debate manager, respond to his tirade and engage in an argument with Gingrich.
Listening to Texas Rep. Ron Paul talk to his supporters last night in New Hampshire brought back powerful memories of an earlier New Hampshire primary. In 1968, Lyndon Baines Johnson, running as a sitting president, won that primary, but Eugene McCarthy, a political outsider and intellectual provocateur, came in second. He was viewed widely as a winner, as have subsequent candidates who came in second in New Hampshire primaries. His doing so pushed LBJ to decide NOT to run and Robert F. Kennedy TO run, and the world changed. The Vietnam War was the overriding issue.
Last week I wrote about the ironic comments of Chief Justice John Roberts that Supreme Court justices be left to decide whether they have a conflict of interest to disqualify their sitting in judgment in a particular case.
The New York Times joined the current debate over Supreme Court recusal practices, editorializing that the court should subject itself to the same ethical rules already applicable to all other federal judges and for the justices to increase the transparency of their recusal decisions. The justices’ personal vigilance and judgment may well be correct; but if it is so, why not let the public see it?
A journalist I know questioned a two-bit Maryland legislator who voted for a law affecting property he had a financial interest in. “How about your conflict of interest?” he asked. “I got no conflict with that!” the lawmaker responded.
Alas, the American public has come to expect that kind of ethical blind spot in its legislators. But when the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court tells Congress he doesn’t get why folks question why the standard recusal laws that apply to all federal judges don’t apply to Supreme Court justices, I say bring in the stand-up comics.
In the chief justice’s annual report on the State of the Judiciary, John Roberts reported he had “complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted.” They are, he reminded, “jurists of exceptional integrity.” One of these jurists, Justice Clarence Thomas, failed to recuse himself from cases before the Supreme Court even though his wife worked for organizations interested in the matters at hand. When it was pointed out to him, Thomas changed his answer to his financial disclosure forms and disclosed that fact retroactively. He blamed the inadvertent error on his not understanding the nature of questions on that form, though he’d filled it out for years in the past.
In this pre-Christmas season, when many Jews in the U.S. feel left out of all the goings-on, how exciting it must have been to attend the Republican Jewish Coalition conference held last week in Washington, D.C. Candidates for the 2012 election against President Obama appeared and promised Israel their enduring love and affection. One after the other (except Ron Paul, who did not attend), they groveled and out-promised each other just how much they adored Israel, way more than their competitors.
Before 360 assembled self-styled poobahs and big check writers, wearing “Obama, Oy Vey” buttons, the candidates all but promised to give Israel Egypt, let alone more of Palestine. Jon Huntsman told the crowd that his best friend in China was Israel's ambassador there. Mitt Romney said his first trip abroad as president would be to, guess where, Israel. How those Mormons love to travel and to proselytize.
What happens with the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests and their counterparts in cities all over the U.S. now that the protesters have been cleared out, their message communicated loud and clear? Observers have declared that the so-called "movement" is actually free-flowing and structureless, and not a movement at all. They are not organized to become a movement.
But it would cheapen what those protesters did at significant personal costs to allow their points to dissipate. How to deal with the validity of their points and the inherent nature of the protesters not to organize? More protests are planned.
Metaphorically, it is huge; from the Tea Party to the Vote Party suggests a major political shift. The Occupy Wall Street Movement has traveled across American cities, attracted national attention, and is ready to move from gaining attention to influencing social action.
If the movement — I’d call it the embryonic V Party — uses its social media network to advance a national agenda focused on curing our excessive economic disparity, it could generate important social reforms, like the Tea Party did for its agenda. Recent press reports noted that the Occupy Wall Street movement has morphed into YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, wiki and Web presences with millions of followers and thousands of activists.
1. Is it time for the people in the parks around the country to go home?
YES. Their First Amendment point has been made crystal clear and nationally; and an important one it was. Now municipal officials are right to clean things up, get traffic moving, and get us back to business. Avoid overreaction by police; but get folks home, for now.
NOT back to business as usual, however, or their important point will have been missed. Observers, even their admirers, are right to ask:
2. What now? What will be the result of their efforts? Is there a goal? Fair question; and I have a suggestion.
Most Viewed RSS Feed »
