The Obama campaign with the full support of the main stream media seem to feel they have found a chink in the armor of McCain over the Republican's stumble in his response to a reporter's query as to how many houses he and his wife own. Not only did the Obama campaign generate a tv ad that has received generous free play on network and cable shows in the guise of reporting news, but has found its way into almost every interview with a democrat spokesperson. It's not clear if the aim is to paint McCain as out of touch with average Americans or as suffering from the forgetfulness associated with old age.
Thanks to YouTube, it is possible to review the original exchange between the reporter from Politico.com. After seeing and hearing the question-answer it is reasonable to come away with a different impression than that presented by McCain's detractors.
The viewer will note that McCain begins his answer by seemingly correcting the reporter's use of the word "houses" saying "well, there's the condo...". He then stops, thinks for a moment and tells the reporter he will have his staff find out the answer and get back to him.
For a politician regardless of party, this is a standard and generally safe response utilized regularly with no adverse fallout. It is not surprising that McCain would use this default if unartful answer. He would have clearly been better served if he explained why he couldn't give a more precise answer spontaneously. For anyone who has dealt with legal and financial matters however it is not surprising that he was reluctant to give an exact number.
As it turns out, Mrs McCain, through several of her corporations has purchased seven or in some reports eight properties mostly condominiums for her children to live in and others as investments. As a legal matter, there is the question of ownership. Are these owned jointly by Senator and Mrs McCain or are they owned, that is, titled by the corporate entities? Had McCain answered with a number there is little doubt that the media would have been quick to point out any discrepancies.
The McCains have 2 homes, one of which is not technically a "house" but a condo in Virginia and his ranch in Sedona, Arizona. What would have happened if he had simply anwered "two" to the question? Even though in his mind, this could well have been the correct answer as he didn't live in the other properties.
In this post-Clinton era of parsing every word, politicians of both parties have to think, often too carefully, when answering questions. It is not in the interest of the country however to play the gotcha form of journalism.
The Edge
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
McCain/Obama and the Supremes
Senators McCain and Obama both point out that the next President will most likely send 2 or possibly 3 Supreme Court candidates to the Senate for confirmation. Additionally, there may well be over 100 open seats in the federal judiciary that includes the 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals and the 94 U.S. District Courts that will need to be filled. There is little doubt that the choices made in this area will have a profound and lasting effect on individual rights and freedom.
SUPREME COURT AND THE JUDICIARY
Under article lll of the Constitution the only qualifications established for federal judges is that they are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They hold office during "good behavior", typically for life. The judiciary exercises its check on both the legislative and executive branches in that it can declare laws and presidential orders unconstitutional.
Until the 1940's, Senate confirmation hearings were fairly perfunctory respecting the President's perogative and were limited to examining the nominee's standing in the legal community, intellect, legal knowledge and judicial temperament. The current process has become much more adversarial with both right and left leaning senators trying to discern a nominee's position on specific issues such as abortion or the second amendment. The nominee is then forced to resist telegraphing his position or feelings on the issues as he would then be faced with having to recuse himself should he be asked to hear a case involving those issues.
The Supreme Court is currently divided along two philosophical schools of thought. While understanding these different approaches to interpreting the constitutionality of laws is no guarantee of how a Judge will ultimately decide a specific case, it is possible to infer the tendencies of the prospective jurist.
In spite of his teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, Obama has surprisingly published and spoken little on the subject. The issue is not addressed on his web site or in his stump speech and there is little in the public record that would illuminate his philosophy. One of the only times he has gone on the record was in September of 2005, when Senator Obama explained his vote against the confirmation of Judge Roberts.
Obama stated that "There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified ..." He went on to praise Roberts for his decency, respect for opposing views, impartiality and legal expertise. He went on to say "The problem I face ... is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of constitutional contruction will dispose of 95% of the cases -- what matters is the 5% ..." Obama said that these most difficult cases would be determined on " the basis of one's deepest values, one's core beliefs, one's broader perspective and the depth and breadth of one's empathy".
Ignoring the text of the constitution or some other law and substituting instead his own preference for what it ought to say, or to deciding a legal issue on the basis of personal empathy and core personal beliefs rather that the law or the constitution is the definition of judicial activism.
Senator McCain has stated that he is an Originalist. The most well known proponent of originalism as it applies to interpreting the Constitution is Justice Antonin Scalia who explains that those who believe that the Constitution is a living document that changes with societal changes overlooks the obvious. " The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says some things and doesn't say other things."
One of the dangers that originalists point to is that judicial activism often involves putting something into the text that isn't there or taking out something that is there in order to arrive at an idealogically based outcome.
Once again, the candidates have drawn a distinct difference in how they will administer the duties of highest office.
The Edge
SUPREME COURT AND THE JUDICIARY
Under article lll of the Constitution the only qualifications established for federal judges is that they are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They hold office during "good behavior", typically for life. The judiciary exercises its check on both the legislative and executive branches in that it can declare laws and presidential orders unconstitutional.
Until the 1940's, Senate confirmation hearings were fairly perfunctory respecting the President's perogative and were limited to examining the nominee's standing in the legal community, intellect, legal knowledge and judicial temperament. The current process has become much more adversarial with both right and left leaning senators trying to discern a nominee's position on specific issues such as abortion or the second amendment. The nominee is then forced to resist telegraphing his position or feelings on the issues as he would then be faced with having to recuse himself should he be asked to hear a case involving those issues.
The Supreme Court is currently divided along two philosophical schools of thought. While understanding these different approaches to interpreting the constitutionality of laws is no guarantee of how a Judge will ultimately decide a specific case, it is possible to infer the tendencies of the prospective jurist.
In spite of his teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, Obama has surprisingly published and spoken little on the subject. The issue is not addressed on his web site or in his stump speech and there is little in the public record that would illuminate his philosophy. One of the only times he has gone on the record was in September of 2005, when Senator Obama explained his vote against the confirmation of Judge Roberts.
Obama stated that "There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified ..." He went on to praise Roberts for his decency, respect for opposing views, impartiality and legal expertise. He went on to say "The problem I face ... is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of constitutional contruction will dispose of 95% of the cases -- what matters is the 5% ..." Obama said that these most difficult cases would be determined on " the basis of one's deepest values, one's core beliefs, one's broader perspective and the depth and breadth of one's empathy".
Ignoring the text of the constitution or some other law and substituting instead his own preference for what it ought to say, or to deciding a legal issue on the basis of personal empathy and core personal beliefs rather that the law or the constitution is the definition of judicial activism.
Senator McCain has stated that he is an Originalist. The most well known proponent of originalism as it applies to interpreting the Constitution is Justice Antonin Scalia who explains that those who believe that the Constitution is a living document that changes with societal changes overlooks the obvious. " The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says some things and doesn't say other things."
One of the dangers that originalists point to is that judicial activism often involves putting something into the text that isn't there or taking out something that is there in order to arrive at an idealogically based outcome.
Once again, the candidates have drawn a distinct difference in how they will administer the duties of highest office.
The Edge
Friday, August 8, 2008
HEALTHCARE - IT COMES DOWN TO PHILOSOPHY
This will be the first in a series in which each issue will be explored using the candidates own words. It is hoped that a careful review and analysis of how Senators McCain and Obama view these national issues and how they plan to address them, will serve to assist in deciding who should be successful on November 4, 2008.
HEALTH CARE
It may come as a surprise to some that there is little or no disagreement between the presidential candidates as to the scope of the problems in the current healthcare system. Both McCain and Obama agree on the following:
HEALTH CARE
It may come as a surprise to some that there is little or no disagreement between the presidential candidates as to the scope of the problems in the current healthcare system. Both McCain and Obama agree on the following:
- There are 47 million individuals who either have no insurance or inadequate coverage with approximately 9 million of them children.
- Healthcare should be affordable and available to all without regard to their employment status or income level.
- The current system needs to be made more transparent with published prices for regulary performed proceedures and tests.
- The need to lower prescription costs through re-importation and fast tracking generics.
This is the point at which the two diverge along fundamental philosophical lines. John McCain relies on the free market arguing that a nationalized program run by a new federal beauracracy would result in a less efficient, more irrational and costly system.
The McCain plan would feature health savings accounts and tax credits of up to $5000 per family which he says will allow for marketplace competition to assert itself resulting in lowering costs. As for those without employer provided group coverage and the unemployed, he would rely on individual states to establish "risk pools" to limit premiums. He promises to work with governors to create "Guaranteed Access Plans"(GAP) with federal assistance. The cost for the McCain plan, according to the campaign, would not require any additional taxes.
In contrast, Barack Obama's plan would establish a new government department called the National Health Insurance Exchange (NHIE) which would act as a watchdog over private insurers by creating rules and standards while monitoring them to assure that their plans meet basic requirements and would have control over premiums and rates. Further, the plan would require that all employers including those with few employees to contribute a percentage of their payroll towards health insurance coverage. The Obama plan would mandate coverage for all children. Other than the new payroll tax, funding for the plan is not clearly spelled out. Experts seem to agree that if implemented in full, the Obama plan would require 90 Billion dollars per year. Since he has not mentioned cutting any other program, it would appear that the money would have to come from increasing taxes. For the small employer with 2 employees, they could expect to pay an additional $7500 annually.
Americans have accepted for generations that primary and secondary education is a right and but has resisted its nationalization, insisting that control should be local and reflective of the community. The healthcare debate has traditionally been over the similar assertion that healthcare is a basic right and therefore should be guaranteed by the government. The question is the role of the federal government. The choice that the two candidates have put before the voters addresses this fundamental quandary.
The Edge
Monday, August 4, 2008
IS AMERICA A RACIST NATION?
"You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it." - Malcolm X
Nothing so sums up the purpose of this blog than the above quotation. As someone who has waged a personal war against racisim for the past 45 years while simultaneously maintaining a deep and abiding love of country and especially for the ideals of the founders, I want take a dispassionate look at the state of race and color in America.
Supported by several DNA studies, an argument can be made that race itself is a social construct rather than a reality based on genetic differences. However attractive this is as a concept, it does nothing to advance the discussion of the realities we all face. Recognizing this, I will use the commonly accepted definition of race focusing on the black/white relationship.
The nature of racism is the belief that one group of people of a certain racial make-up is superior to other groups of differing racial make-ups. By virtue of their "superiority" they are deemed to be allowed to gain economic, social and political power. We have all been subject to or heard of individual acts of racism; the black man being unable to hail a cab, or the famous police action of pulling over a driver who feels his stop was based on DWB (driving while black). To make a judgement of whether a country is racist however, the nation must be viewed not from individual or anectodotal actions but as a societal or governmentally based phenomena.
In order to make a fair determination of whether America is racist a look at the extent of representation of blacks in the institutions that make up the country is called for. Blacks make up approximately 13% of the population in the U.S. True equality of opportunity would therefore be attained if blacks were represented in the nation's institutions at that level.
America has attempted many changes in law and society to battle discrimination. Affirmative action has been an attempt to ensure equal opportunity in employment, education and housing. Television and movies have changed both format and story lines as well as casting decisions resulting in the general public's recognition and acceptance of blacks and other minorities in positions of power and authority.
Is there an institutionalized opression of groups based on their race? A CNN poll taken in December 2006 revealed that 84% of blacks thought racism in America is a serious problem while 66% of white Americans agreed. A more recent Rasmussen poll of July 31, 2008 indicated that 85% of Americans would vote for a black for president. Do the above results reflect the reality or do they simply highlight the respondents perceptions?
In the areas of politics, it is clear that blacks have successfully run from both parties and at all levels from city, county, state and federal levels across all demographics. Likewise, in the entertainment, news and sports fields, blacks are represented in highly visible and executive levels. Researching these institutions did not result in any disparity or unequal access.
A review of U.S. Census Bureau statistics reveal that in some areas America has honored its commitment to equal opportunity but has fallen short in others. The most current U.S. census report issued in 2002 reveal that blacks have made significant advancement from the previous report of a decade ago in the areas of employment and education with 26% of all managerial positions in non-farm businesses being held by blacks. 80% of blacks over the age of 25 were high school graduates with 17% holding a bachelors degree. In a society that praises the entrepreneurial spirit, the results are less impressive. Only 7% of small businesses nationwide are owned by blacks. Median income for blacks in the workforce is $18,000 below that of whites. Projections tend to show that this gap is closing and may be halved by 2010, when the next census is taken.
If there is any area that highlights the disparity between black and whites it is in the criminal justice system. Bureau of Justice reports that the likelihood of a black male going to prison is nearly 8 times more than for whites. One of the reasons pointed to is the difference in charging policies practiced by district attorneys, or their equivalent. Blacks are more likely to be charged more severely than whites arrested for the same offense. One of the results of this is that blacks are sentenced to longer prison terms and on release have a more difficult time finding gainful employment.
It would seem that the question of racism in America cannot be answered in simplistic terms? Statistics would seem to show that the country has made dramatic improvements since the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in altering many of the institutions but there remains a way to go in others. The fact Americans of all races are having the discussion and are working towards true equality could be an effective argument that America cannot be called racist at its core.
The above article addressed only certain features of racism and could not, based on space, cover the subject in a comprehensive way. Racism has become a national obsession and is not limited to black and white issues but influences how America deals with all aspects of diversity.
Racial reconciliation is a shared responsibility amongst us all.
The Edge
Nothing so sums up the purpose of this blog than the above quotation. As someone who has waged a personal war against racisim for the past 45 years while simultaneously maintaining a deep and abiding love of country and especially for the ideals of the founders, I want take a dispassionate look at the state of race and color in America.
Supported by several DNA studies, an argument can be made that race itself is a social construct rather than a reality based on genetic differences. However attractive this is as a concept, it does nothing to advance the discussion of the realities we all face. Recognizing this, I will use the commonly accepted definition of race focusing on the black/white relationship.
The nature of racism is the belief that one group of people of a certain racial make-up is superior to other groups of differing racial make-ups. By virtue of their "superiority" they are deemed to be allowed to gain economic, social and political power. We have all been subject to or heard of individual acts of racism; the black man being unable to hail a cab, or the famous police action of pulling over a driver who feels his stop was based on DWB (driving while black). To make a judgement of whether a country is racist however, the nation must be viewed not from individual or anectodotal actions but as a societal or governmentally based phenomena.
In order to make a fair determination of whether America is racist a look at the extent of representation of blacks in the institutions that make up the country is called for. Blacks make up approximately 13% of the population in the U.S. True equality of opportunity would therefore be attained if blacks were represented in the nation's institutions at that level.
America has attempted many changes in law and society to battle discrimination. Affirmative action has been an attempt to ensure equal opportunity in employment, education and housing. Television and movies have changed both format and story lines as well as casting decisions resulting in the general public's recognition and acceptance of blacks and other minorities in positions of power and authority.
Is there an institutionalized opression of groups based on their race? A CNN poll taken in December 2006 revealed that 84% of blacks thought racism in America is a serious problem while 66% of white Americans agreed. A more recent Rasmussen poll of July 31, 2008 indicated that 85% of Americans would vote for a black for president. Do the above results reflect the reality or do they simply highlight the respondents perceptions?
In the areas of politics, it is clear that blacks have successfully run from both parties and at all levels from city, county, state and federal levels across all demographics. Likewise, in the entertainment, news and sports fields, blacks are represented in highly visible and executive levels. Researching these institutions did not result in any disparity or unequal access.
A review of U.S. Census Bureau statistics reveal that in some areas America has honored its commitment to equal opportunity but has fallen short in others. The most current U.S. census report issued in 2002 reveal that blacks have made significant advancement from the previous report of a decade ago in the areas of employment and education with 26% of all managerial positions in non-farm businesses being held by blacks. 80% of blacks over the age of 25 were high school graduates with 17% holding a bachelors degree. In a society that praises the entrepreneurial spirit, the results are less impressive. Only 7% of small businesses nationwide are owned by blacks. Median income for blacks in the workforce is $18,000 below that of whites. Projections tend to show that this gap is closing and may be halved by 2010, when the next census is taken.
If there is any area that highlights the disparity between black and whites it is in the criminal justice system. Bureau of Justice reports that the likelihood of a black male going to prison is nearly 8 times more than for whites. One of the reasons pointed to is the difference in charging policies practiced by district attorneys, or their equivalent. Blacks are more likely to be charged more severely than whites arrested for the same offense. One of the results of this is that blacks are sentenced to longer prison terms and on release have a more difficult time finding gainful employment.
It would seem that the question of racism in America cannot be answered in simplistic terms? Statistics would seem to show that the country has made dramatic improvements since the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in altering many of the institutions but there remains a way to go in others. The fact Americans of all races are having the discussion and are working towards true equality could be an effective argument that America cannot be called racist at its core.
The above article addressed only certain features of racism and could not, based on space, cover the subject in a comprehensive way. Racism has become a national obsession and is not limited to black and white issues but influences how America deals with all aspects of diversity.
Racial reconciliation is a shared responsibility amongst us all.
The Edge
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)