Were you as surprised as the American public last night when President Obama left the White Press Room in the hands of Bill Clinton? You should have been because it's a first in US history - to have someone other than the sitting president in the Press Room.
Why did it happen? Because Obama is in a world of trouble and he knows it.
Who can save him? He thinks Clinton may be the one, even though they had a cool relationship up until now.
Is Obama right? I don't think so.
First, nobody can save Obama but himself, and he's making a pretty poor job of it so far.
Second, if Bill wants to save anything, it's the country and the Democratic Party. Not that it's a terribly honorable "save" but somebody has to. And, if you think about it, if the Democratic Party is so divided that even the sitting President is being jostled and rejected by his own, how can it be useful in electing Hillary in 2012?
Let's not be naive, that is Bill's goal and it is Hillary's goal, too. If Bill Clinton is riding in on his white horse, it is not to save Barak's hide, but to improve the chances for his wife in 2012. He attacked Obama viciously before everybody kissed and made up in 2008. He'll do it again as soon as Hillary is "drafted" to be a candidate in 2012.
And, why does Hillary have a good chance of getting the Democratic nomination and winning? Because everyone knows that Bill will be waiting in the wings if anything goes wrong.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Friday, December 10, 2010
Mr Blatter's Comments about England and the World Cup
I both saw and read the comments of Sepp Blatter, president of FIFA, concerning England's reactions after the 2018 football World Cup was awarded to Russia.
Mr. Blatter said that the English were known for fair play, but in this case, England was a poor loser.
To put matters into perspective :
1. Mr. Blatter has had to discipline two members of the FIFA Executive Committee for taking payments in return for their votes regarding the 2018 and 2022 Cups.
2. More allegations have been made, but Mr. Blatter has not yet responded except to say that everything is in perfect order at FIFA.
3. Every sports newspaper or TV show that I follow has questioned how Russia or Qatar could have won and have speculated about some sort of "arrangement" to promote countries not yet in the World Cup "family" or some other unspoken advantage for Russia and Qatar.
As for England being a sore loser, they were the favorite of the FIFA committees that visited them because of the infrastructure already in place and the financial soundness of their bid.
England has not said it will withdraw from FIFA, but I would almost be pressed to recommend to any developed country that it stop participating in the World Cup bid process. It seems a waste of money to spend 75 Million Dollars or so in a bid process that is skewed against them from the beginning.
All England has asked for is that FIFA articulate its policy, and all of its policy, so that every country that wants to make a bid for a World Cup will at least understand its chance of winning.
For the moment, I would say that it is Mr. Blatter and FIFA that are the losers - losers because of how they have conducted themselves and losers because they do not seem to understand the first thing about fair play.
Mr. Blatter said that the English were known for fair play, but in this case, England was a poor loser.
To put matters into perspective :
1. Mr. Blatter has had to discipline two members of the FIFA Executive Committee for taking payments in return for their votes regarding the 2018 and 2022 Cups.
2. More allegations have been made, but Mr. Blatter has not yet responded except to say that everything is in perfect order at FIFA.
3. Every sports newspaper or TV show that I follow has questioned how Russia or Qatar could have won and have speculated about some sort of "arrangement" to promote countries not yet in the World Cup "family" or some other unspoken advantage for Russia and Qatar.
As for England being a sore loser, they were the favorite of the FIFA committees that visited them because of the infrastructure already in place and the financial soundness of their bid.
England has not said it will withdraw from FIFA, but I would almost be pressed to recommend to any developed country that it stop participating in the World Cup bid process. It seems a waste of money to spend 75 Million Dollars or so in a bid process that is skewed against them from the beginning.
All England has asked for is that FIFA articulate its policy, and all of its policy, so that every country that wants to make a bid for a World Cup will at least understand its chance of winning.
For the moment, I would say that it is Mr. Blatter and FIFA that are the losers - losers because of how they have conducted themselves and losers because they do not seem to understand the first thing about fair play.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
President Obama's Dilemma
President Obama has a problem.
The problem is called the Democratic Party, which is his own party.
The Democrats are angry with him for making a deal with the Republicans to break the logjam over taxes and unemployment benefits. They are probably also more than a little angry with themselves for not using the congressional majority they possessed for two years to push through their own version of a tax program. They didn't do that, despite the President's lukewarm requests, and now both the Democratic Party and the President have seen their leftist positions bent toward the center by the newly powerful GOP.
How did it happen?
In the November congressional elections, called the mid-term elections, the President was called to task by voters all over the United States for adopting a health care program that few Americans want in the form in which it was passed by Congress. The Democratic Congress and President Obama used a lot of goodwill and arm-twisting to get Obamacare passed. It left little time or courage for attacking the always difficult question of taxes. The result of the mid-term elections was that many Democrats lost because they had supported Obamacare, as well as the President and House Speaker Pelosi's "Spend-America-into-Economic-Recovery" deficit spending spree.
The US Constitution does not allow those elected in mid-term elections to take their seats immediately. Instead, they are sworn in in the first week of January. That means that there is now in Washington what is called a lame-duck Congress, made up of the 2008-2010 Congress, including the then-majority Democrats who were defeated in November. It is they who are trying to deal with the new strength of the Republicans who won in November but who are not yet seated in Congress.
Given this scenario, it is little wonder that the GOP is calling the shots. They negotiated a deal with the President to provide for the extension of current tax rates so that already-suffering American taxpayers will not feel the pinch of having higher taxes deducted from their paychecks starting in January.
The difficulty is that this deal means that high-income taypayers are also given the advantage of the current lower tax rates, even though the President made a point of saying during his campaign for President that he would stop these wealthier Americans from having the advantage of "low" tax rates. The GOP argument, which they took to the voters in November, was that many of these "wealthy" taxpayers are really small businesses who need these lower tax rates in order to grow and hire more employees, the universal American goal right now. The electorate seemingly agrees with the GOP who won a majority in the House of Representatives where taxes must originate.
What Obama knows is that if he waits until the GOP controls the House, he will have less bargaining power and will have to give up even more of his leftist agenda. Therefore, he concluded, deal now.
The Democrats are angry because they wanted to fight it out. The President has repeated several times that he will not put economically struggling American taxpayers at risk by using them as pawns in this purely political fight that the Democrats will lose in January anyway.
The Democratic congressional leadership is threatening not to provide the majority vote needed to make the "deal" law. The President has said this is not how the American electorate expects its elected lawmakers to behave.
The Republicans are sitting back, enjoying the show.
What will happen? It is anybody's guess, but the sheer upside-down nature of the political struggle is hugely interesting.
The problem is called the Democratic Party, which is his own party.
The Democrats are angry with him for making a deal with the Republicans to break the logjam over taxes and unemployment benefits. They are probably also more than a little angry with themselves for not using the congressional majority they possessed for two years to push through their own version of a tax program. They didn't do that, despite the President's lukewarm requests, and now both the Democratic Party and the President have seen their leftist positions bent toward the center by the newly powerful GOP.
How did it happen?
In the November congressional elections, called the mid-term elections, the President was called to task by voters all over the United States for adopting a health care program that few Americans want in the form in which it was passed by Congress. The Democratic Congress and President Obama used a lot of goodwill and arm-twisting to get Obamacare passed. It left little time or courage for attacking the always difficult question of taxes. The result of the mid-term elections was that many Democrats lost because they had supported Obamacare, as well as the President and House Speaker Pelosi's "Spend-America-into-Economic-Recovery" deficit spending spree.
The US Constitution does not allow those elected in mid-term elections to take their seats immediately. Instead, they are sworn in in the first week of January. That means that there is now in Washington what is called a lame-duck Congress, made up of the 2008-2010 Congress, including the then-majority Democrats who were defeated in November. It is they who are trying to deal with the new strength of the Republicans who won in November but who are not yet seated in Congress.
Given this scenario, it is little wonder that the GOP is calling the shots. They negotiated a deal with the President to provide for the extension of current tax rates so that already-suffering American taxpayers will not feel the pinch of having higher taxes deducted from their paychecks starting in January.
The difficulty is that this deal means that high-income taypayers are also given the advantage of the current lower tax rates, even though the President made a point of saying during his campaign for President that he would stop these wealthier Americans from having the advantage of "low" tax rates. The GOP argument, which they took to the voters in November, was that many of these "wealthy" taxpayers are really small businesses who need these lower tax rates in order to grow and hire more employees, the universal American goal right now. The electorate seemingly agrees with the GOP who won a majority in the House of Representatives where taxes must originate.
What Obama knows is that if he waits until the GOP controls the House, he will have less bargaining power and will have to give up even more of his leftist agenda. Therefore, he concluded, deal now.
The Democrats are angry because they wanted to fight it out. The President has repeated several times that he will not put economically struggling American taxpayers at risk by using them as pawns in this purely political fight that the Democrats will lose in January anyway.
The Democratic congressional leadership is threatening not to provide the majority vote needed to make the "deal" law. The President has said this is not how the American electorate expects its elected lawmakers to behave.
The Republicans are sitting back, enjoying the show.
What will happen? It is anybody's guess, but the sheer upside-down nature of the political struggle is hugely interesting.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Freedom of Speech
I was watching a Sky News broadcast from England last night when I saw a spectacle that amazed me. There, live on camera, were a famous British film director and the daughter of a very wealthy English family, telling the world that the sexual misconduct allegations about Julian Assange were irrevalent, that what mattered was his freedom of speech.
It's not that I'm opposed to freedom of speech. It is one of the great freedoms fought for and won over the past 200 years. Freedom of speech even protects, as it should, flag burners, protesters unless they damage property, those who like to insult famous people, and a host of other acts that most of us would never consider indulging in ourselves.
But, these two celebrities casting aside moral issues in the name of freedom of speech baffled me, much in the same way I was baffled by French celebrities trying to cast aside moral issues and due process of law when Roman Polanski was detained in Switzerland last year until the United States could make its case for extradition. The arguments of the celebrities were, broadly, that Polanski was a creative genius who should be allowed to continue his work instead of answering for his past behavior. The charges there were more than suspicions because Polanski had been tried and convicted of sexual misconduct in the US. Finally, after due process of law, Polanski was released by the Swiss authorities because the United States failed to make it case.
But, here we have someone who was hiding from the Swedish authorities for several weeks after they announced that they would proceed with an investigation into allegations that Assange had either raped or sexually assaulted two young women.
I make no judgments. But, I do find it strange that twice in 18 months, celebrities have felt it necessary to say that freedom of speech is more important than the law and the alleged or proven sexual abuse of young women.
Something vitally important has been misunderstood by those making these arguments. Freedom of speech is one among many freedoms modern citizens of democratic states possess. It is not supreme, although it often takes precedence over other freedoms or laws. But it has limits. If you are a lawyer, you remember the law school question : "Does anyone have the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre?" The answer is "No" unless there actually is a fire. Does freedom of speech protect anyone from facing a legal procedure because he or she is engaged in other activities that might be protected by freedom of speech? The answer is almost always "No."
Is Assange's activity of revealing diplomatic secrets one that should override his need to answer to the Swedish legal system concerning the possible criminal violation of other people's right not to be physically assaulted? You decide for yourself. For me, the answer is simple.
It's not that I'm opposed to freedom of speech. It is one of the great freedoms fought for and won over the past 200 years. Freedom of speech even protects, as it should, flag burners, protesters unless they damage property, those who like to insult famous people, and a host of other acts that most of us would never consider indulging in ourselves.
But, these two celebrities casting aside moral issues in the name of freedom of speech baffled me, much in the same way I was baffled by French celebrities trying to cast aside moral issues and due process of law when Roman Polanski was detained in Switzerland last year until the United States could make its case for extradition. The arguments of the celebrities were, broadly, that Polanski was a creative genius who should be allowed to continue his work instead of answering for his past behavior. The charges there were more than suspicions because Polanski had been tried and convicted of sexual misconduct in the US. Finally, after due process of law, Polanski was released by the Swiss authorities because the United States failed to make it case.
But, here we have someone who was hiding from the Swedish authorities for several weeks after they announced that they would proceed with an investigation into allegations that Assange had either raped or sexually assaulted two young women.
I make no judgments. But, I do find it strange that twice in 18 months, celebrities have felt it necessary to say that freedom of speech is more important than the law and the alleged or proven sexual abuse of young women.
Something vitally important has been misunderstood by those making these arguments. Freedom of speech is one among many freedoms modern citizens of democratic states possess. It is not supreme, although it often takes precedence over other freedoms or laws. But it has limits. If you are a lawyer, you remember the law school question : "Does anyone have the right to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre?" The answer is "No" unless there actually is a fire. Does freedom of speech protect anyone from facing a legal procedure because he or she is engaged in other activities that might be protected by freedom of speech? The answer is almost always "No."
Is Assange's activity of revealing diplomatic secrets one that should override his need to answer to the Swedish legal system concerning the possible criminal violation of other people's right not to be physically assaulted? You decide for yourself. For me, the answer is simple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)