shadows's posts about:
Political
See all posts with this tag
| Page 1 of 4 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
 |
Last |
Course Correction Needed?
Jan 7, 2009 | 5:36 PM PST
Category:
Political
There is a lot of debate these days regarding the use of the Constitution for governing our country. Some people suggest that the Constitution should only be used as a "guide" and that it should be regarded as an "evolving" or "living" document subject to elaborate interpretation.
Other people have suggested that the Constitution should be taken literally without deviations and/or variations. Only the electorate should have the power to amend or change the Constitution.
When variations or interpretation of the Constitution is allowed, political maneuvering is almost a given. Politicians love to be able to point the finger at someone else when things go wrong and are subsequently reluctant to "take a stand" on anything.
We saw a lot of this in the case of the current wars as well as in prior conflicts, even though the Constitution is quite clear regarding the responsibility of Congress to declare war against another country. The issue of courts "legislating" is another topic that is hotly debated.
If left unchecked, the powers and balance of the three branches of government will become increasingly unclear and federal accountability will be something of the past.
Should our elected leaders be forced to follow the Constitution literally without variations or exceptions?
Making Unions palatable
Dec 15, 2008 | 1:13 PM PST
Category:
Political
There seems to be a strong anti-union sentiment in the Republican party which has been explained in various ways, both favorable and unfavorable, but that is not the topic of this blog.
However, it has been suggested that reaching a "centrist" position on the matter might be in the best interest of all concerned.
On one side, there is the claim that unions such as the UAW result in high labor costs that make American companies unable to compete successful in the Global Market Place. On the other side is the need for labor unions such as the UAW to provide representation for a large number of employees.
Obviously, getting rid of labor unions is a bit extreme and flies in the face of the struggles chronicled in the labor movement history. So what would be a good "centrist" position that would allow unions to continue to exist?
One suggestion has been to make it unlawful for labor to "strike." Public employees such as school teachers are already prohibited from doing so in many states.
Another suggestion has been to make it unlawful for unions to attempt to negotiate issues or make demands that management views as possibly being detrimental to competing in the Global Market Place.
Unions could also be prohibited from negotiating wages and economic benefits, thereby limiting them to negotiating "working conditions."
What do you think would be the best solution to the problem?
I just saw an "alert" that is being disseminated by the "Public Citizen" organization that says:
"....the White House is working around the clock to write new federal regulations to weaken protections for consumers, undermine civil liberties and roll back environmental protections."
.................."More than 90 regulations are in the works..."
Considering that we are engaged in two wars, our economy is in shambles, unemployment is rising at record rates, and a new administration is preparing to take over in about a month, shouldn't the administration be focusing on other things such as the auto industry failure, financial industry abuses, etc?
Hillary"s other half
Dec 2, 2008 | 9:16 AM PST
Category:
Political
Now that Senator Hillary Clinton has been officially selected to be the next Secretary of State by President-elect Obama, there is a lot of speculation and opinions about what to do with her husband, former President Bill Clinton.
Some have suggested that he should take her place in the Senate. Others have suggested that he should be appointed to a diplomatic position or designated as a special adviser to the President.
Of course the former President has a number of possibilities in the private sector and there have even been suggestions that he become a TV evangelist. Undoubtedly he has the skills and personality to assume many different roles.
What do you think would be the most appropriate role or position for the former President?
Corruption is admirable
Nov 21, 2008 | 8:54 AM PST
Category:
Political
Senator Stevens of Alaska who has been found guilty in a court of law on all charges of corruption and was defeated in his recent bid for reelection, received a standing ovation/tribute and many kind words yesterday in the U.S. Senate.
Senator Jim Bunning even went so far as to say that "I have found Ted Stevens to be the most straightforward, honest senator I have ever worked with." Others expressed similar sentiment and affection towards Stevens.
Does a tribute to a Senator that has disgraced his office in such a manner further damage the public image and/or opinion of this political body?
Are the ethical standards in the Senate so low that even being convicted of corruption isn't considered dishonest or disgraceful?
When will it be over?
Oct 27, 2008 | 4:56 PM PST
Category:
Political
Will we know the outcome of the presidential election on Tuesday night or early Wednesday morning?
Or will the outcome be delayed for days or even weeks due to "glitches" in the election system or legal maneuvering regarding the outcomes?
What could help McCain?
Oct 27, 2008 | 1:44 PM PST
Category:
Political
There is no doubt that the McCain Campaign is in trouble. McCain is trailing Obama in most national polls and there have been various things cited as reasons for him trailing.
Some people have indicated that the endorsements of Obama by some prominent Republicans like General Colin Powell have cost him votes. Others have suggested that his selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has alienated some potential supporters. There are a multitude of other reasons that have been given. But whatever the cause, he seems to be behind in most polls.
With one week left before the election, is there anything that could help McCain regain his losses?
Do you think that there are any last minute "surprises" that may change the tide of the election sometime between now and November 4?
If so, where will they come from?
Republicans for Obama
Oct 22, 2008 | 8:28 PM PST
Category:
Political
Like many Democrats who crossed party lines during the 1980s and voted for Republican President Ronald Reagan, many prominent Republicans have either endorsed or demonstrated support for Democratic Presidential Candidate Barrack Obama. They include General Colin Powell, Peggy Noonan, Christopher Buckley, Susan Eisenhower, and many others.
There is even a web site http://www.republicansforobama.org/ devoted to Republicans for Obama, which provides information for anyone interested.
Some people have speculated that McCain's choice of Palin as his VP has been the reason for Republicans moving to support Obama.
Others suggest that it is his lack of substantive positions on the important issues that is causing Republicans to cross over.
What do think is the primary reason that so many Republicans are now supporting Obama over McCain?
Could we be witnessing a change in the "fabric" of the Republican party?
Powell endorses Obama
Oct 19, 2008 | 9:59 AM PST
Category:
Political
The Republican former Secretary of State and Army General Colin Powell has formally endorsed Obama.
Fox News immediately got busy trying to "spin" the endorsement as lacking any substance.
Many Republicans have previously stated that they would have voted for Colin Powell if he had ran for President. So his judgment is obviously respected.
Will his endorsement help the Obama campaign?
Has he suddenly fallen from "grace" among Republicans as a result of his failure to place party above country?
More blood, please.
Oct 8, 2008 | 10:01 AM PST
Category:
Political
Place the contestants in the ring and let them go at it! We seem to be a public with an insatiable appetite for conflict........the bloodier the better. Dog fighting, ultimate (human) fighting, professional "wrestling," boxing, violent movies, and it seems to even be spilling over into our politics.
Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates are seeming viewed in the same spirit as prize fights......"a jab here.....a jab there." They are filled with derogatory remarks and half-truths or distortions about the opposing candidate that are second only to professional wrestling in mean spirit.
Is this symptomatic of a society in decline? Certainly politicians running for an elected office would not engage in such behavior if the public indicated their disdain for it.
Have we decided to elect politicians on their ability to engage in verbal fisticuffs rather than on their knowledge of issues and their abilities to solve problems and lead our nation?
If so, why not go back to the coliseum setting and let them individually fight it out with a lion, using survivability to determine the outcome? It would certainly be more "entertaining" to the masses than these supposed "debates."
Drill baby drill?
Oct 7, 2008 | 2:58 PM PST
Category:
Political
The dollar is up and the price of oil is down.
What happened to "drill baby, drill?"
What happened to the world shortage of oil that was supposedly responsible for such huge increases in price in addition to having a depressed dollar?
If there is to be a push for developing alternative/green energy sources, wouldn't now be the time?
Will Palin and McCain begin pushing for the development of alternative energy sources with the same enthusiasm that they previously demonstrated towards drilling, now that the public is getting some relief at the gas pump?
The Republicans and Democrats met for sometime and finally arrived at a tentative agreement regarding the bail-out.
Leaders on both sides of the isle confirmed the agreement in front of the cameras on Thursday.
Barney Frank, as one of the people in the meeting said that a satisfactory package had been agreed to and he saw no need for the meeting at the White House later in the day.
In spite of the earlier agreement, the 4PM meeting/photo opportunity was held at the White House complete with the attendance of both Presidential candidates. The next thing that happened was a number of Republicans suggesting that they would no longer support the previous agreement.
What happened? McCain arrived in town and suddenly the bi-partisan agreement was scrapped by the Republicans.
The Democrats see this whole thing as political posturing by the Republicans for the sake of McCain's candidacy. And they have said that they won't bring the agreed upon legislation up for a vote unless it has bi-partisan support.
Is it simply a coincidence that the Republicans suddenly scrapped the package when McCain arrived in Washington?
Are they trying to distance themselves from the Republican administration that called for a bail-out plan?
Why is it so important for McCain to be involved in developing a plan, when he admittedly is a little weak on economic issues?
George F. Will on McCain
Sep 24, 2008 | 1:33 PM PST
Category:
Political
In his recent Washingtonpost.com article "McCain Loses His Head," George F Will, conservative columnist, compared Obama to McCain by stating:
"Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?"
The article continues with a scathing review of John McCain's "fact-free slander" and states tha McCain's economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin was "an impediment to conservatives" during his time with the Congressional Budget Office.
When one of the most notable conservatives of the past century suggests that Obama would be a better choice for President, is there any doubt that anyone voting for John McCain is voting for the party rather than for the best candidate?
Has Imperialism failed us?
Sep 20, 2008 | 9:09 AM PST
Category:
Political
People are concerned about their economic welfare and are feeling betrayed by our government and business leaders!
Many are suggesting that we are taking a big step toward socialism in our bail-out of huge corporations that are failing.
Others have suggested that similar to the Soviet Union, we have allowed spending to get out of control and the cost of two wars in the Middle East has brought us to the tipping point.
But is there more that has led us to this point of an economic disaster that rivals the great depression?
Although the possibility is rarely discussed, has our government been too involved in the business of Empire Building during the past eight years? Have such phrases as "moving toward a global economy" been used to cover empire building activities abroad?
Have our leaders been so intent on controlling governments abroad that they have neglected our own country to the point of disaster?
Who could do such a thing to their own country?
The sheep and the shepherd
Sep 7, 2008 | 8:56 AM PST
Category:
Political
Once upon a time there were people who took pride in thinking independently even though it often meant not going along with the crowd. Democrats took pride in their individual thinking even if it meant huge disagreements within their party that could eventually cost them elections. Republicans took pride in their independent values with differing views on morality, reliance on government, and the "protestant work ethic."
Much of that has changed. So much so that if a Democrat or Republican differs very much from the talking points of their respective party they find it increasingly necessary to announce themselves as "Independents."
However, the "coming out" is usually done with obvious reluctance and many of the newly stated philosophies and beliefs of these New "Independents" often bear a close resemblance to those of a particular TV personality or talking head.
It makes one wonder about both the sheep and the shepherds.
Some folks are concerned that the people are becoming sheep instead of independent thinkers.
Others seem more concerned about where the shepherds are leading the sheep.
Which is the most important?
| Page 1 of 4 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
|
Last |
