Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the only holdover in the Obama cabinet from the Bush Administration, believes that homosexuals no longer need to lie to serve in our military. He shares his opinion with Adm. Mike Mullen, the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who also happens to be a Bush appointee. And the Commander in Chief himself, Barack Obama, sides with his two highest ranking military and civilian Defense Department leaders on this subject. The president supports the repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell."
Well, so do I. Of course, I'm not an expert like Gates, Mullen or Obama, but I am a newspaper columnist. Over the past few weeks, three regular columnists for this paper and dozens of columnists for other papers across the country have weighed in on this controversial issue. More than a few of us think we know what we're writing about.
Again, I'm not an expert, but unlike most of said columnists, I did spend the better part of the past decade as an active duty member of the U.S. Armed Forces and I've even met Adm. Mullen a few times (I was in the same Naval Academy class as his daughter).
My personal experiences at the U.S. Naval Academy and as a Naval Officer on a ship deployed to combat zones taught me that "Don't ask, don't tell" currently exists as little more than a muffled joke. Attitudes may be different in other units, but the supposed threat of homosexuality was never much of a concern in my berthing spaces, divisions or departments.
Every man and woman I served alongside shared a devout belief in our country and our cause. Our biggest personnel concerns centered on Marines and Sailors who failed to meet job and training requirements. We did not lose sleep thinking about what our peers in arms might be doing in their bedrooms while on leave.
I served alongside a number of fellow junior officers who were fairly openly homosexual. Some of them remain on active duty and continue to be friends with my wife and me. I led a division with known homosexuals in its ranks. None of these men or women spoke to our commanding officer about their sexual preferences, but even if they had, I doubt it would have mattered.
A popular story -- or perhaps a base myth -- circulated throughout the waterfront during my time at Pearl Harbor. A skilled Boatswain's mate was unhappy with his chief and wanted out of the Navy a few years before his most recent enlistment was complete. The Boatswain asked for and was granted a meeting with the captain of his ship. Once inside the captain's stateroom, he revealed the lurid details of his ongoing romance with another man. As the story goes, the captain listened patiently before finally responding, "If you were a dirtbag like seaman so-and-so, I would believe you, but you're too well-trained and too good at your job. I'll dismiss this little lie without punishment. Now, get back to work."
Regardless of what happens to "Don't ask, don't tell," homosexuals will continue to serve in our military. While outsiders insist that homosexuals currently serve only in secret, I know from experience that some don't. I also know from experience that sexual orientation is not a problem in many units.
Racial intolerance is a rare problem, and it is handled with a strict zero-tolerance policy. So is sexual harassment. Gates, Mullen and Obama recognize that their military effectively protects our freedoms, even if the "n-word" or "c-word" leads to the occasional court martial of a bigot.
They realize that adding a gay slur to that court martial list will only make our military stronger.
Surveys show that the majority of us who have served in the War on Terror are ready to go to bat for all of our brothers and sisters in arms, no matter who happens to welcome them home from deployment with a kiss.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Best alternative to airport security? Try the Vegas and France models
Just weeks after the end of a sometimes bitter and nasty political season, we're finally starting to see a little bipartisanship... Well, at least on one issue: a uniform disdain for the newly "enhanced" airport screening process.
I found it foolish and a little humiliating when I was first asked to take off my shoes in the airport security line. In the era of full-body scanners and intensive pat-downs, placing one's shoes on a conveyor belt no longer seems so bad.
The pat-down videos popping up on the Internet are as cringe-worthy as fingernails on a chalkboard. Passing through the new TSA airport screening process now falls somewhere between being frisked by the police and having the doctor check for a hernia on my list of experiences I want to avoid if at all possible.
The hassle and humiliation of the screening process is paradoxically intended to ease our minds. Enhanced screening procedures make air travel "safer," the TSA claims.
But air travel has always come with an element of danger. Although it's exceedingly rare, passenger airplanes do crash from time to time. And even the new full-body scanners and borderline groping pat-downs cannot find explosives hidden within a body cavity.
If a deranged radical terrorist wants to wreck havoc on a flight, he will find a way to get through security. These new procedures might make it a little bit more difficult, but I can't imagine there being too many radical nutjobs now saying to themselves, "Well, I was going to try to blow up a jetliner in a suicide mission, but these new security measures are too much to do deal with... I think I'll just go to the beach instead."
Even "enhanced" security is fallible. We know this and we fly, anyway. We subject ourselves to the humiliating screening process because flying is convenient. It works with our schedules. Instead of taking three days to drive from the west coast back home to Peachtree City to enjoy Thanksgiving with our families, we work a half day Wednesday and then fly out that afternoon.
Just hours later, we're home for the holidays. To many, the convenience of air travel is indispensable.
By contrast, if a restaurant were to employ the same screening process airports use, it would probably need to serve the best food in the world, or it would go out of business in a week.
I can think of two much more palatable alternatives to the hysteria of modern American airport security.
One is the Las Vegas model. Big casinos employ some of the tightest security standards on the planet, yet almost all of it remains hidden behind the scenes.
Security personnel constantly monitor hundreds of cameras. The officers are highly trained to recognize suspicious activity and their plain-clothesmen colleagues on the casino floor can appear instantly out of seemingly nowhere to nip a potential incident or crime in the bud.
The same style could be effective at airports. Run the passengers through a metal detector (shoes on), send their bags through image screeners and let the casino-style pros take it from there. Then put a couple of highly trained and armed air marshals on each flight.
Maybe this type of comprehensive security already takes place inside our airports, but if so, the new invasive passenger screenings are all the more ridiculous and humiliating.
My other solution is the European model. Well, it's technically not a solution to invasive airport screening procedures. It's a way for us to avoid airports. In Europe, employees earn about 40 days of paid vacation and holidays each year. Work weeks are capped at 48 hours by law. If we Americans weren't so tied to our jobs, we might be more inclined to spend an off day in transit. Cars, trains, buses and even boats have their charms and none require TSA checkpoints to use.
I found it foolish and a little humiliating when I was first asked to take off my shoes in the airport security line. In the era of full-body scanners and intensive pat-downs, placing one's shoes on a conveyor belt no longer seems so bad.
The pat-down videos popping up on the Internet are as cringe-worthy as fingernails on a chalkboard. Passing through the new TSA airport screening process now falls somewhere between being frisked by the police and having the doctor check for a hernia on my list of experiences I want to avoid if at all possible.
The hassle and humiliation of the screening process is paradoxically intended to ease our minds. Enhanced screening procedures make air travel "safer," the TSA claims.
But air travel has always come with an element of danger. Although it's exceedingly rare, passenger airplanes do crash from time to time. And even the new full-body scanners and borderline groping pat-downs cannot find explosives hidden within a body cavity.
If a deranged radical terrorist wants to wreck havoc on a flight, he will find a way to get through security. These new procedures might make it a little bit more difficult, but I can't imagine there being too many radical nutjobs now saying to themselves, "Well, I was going to try to blow up a jetliner in a suicide mission, but these new security measures are too much to do deal with... I think I'll just go to the beach instead."
Even "enhanced" security is fallible. We know this and we fly, anyway. We subject ourselves to the humiliating screening process because flying is convenient. It works with our schedules. Instead of taking three days to drive from the west coast back home to Peachtree City to enjoy Thanksgiving with our families, we work a half day Wednesday and then fly out that afternoon.
Just hours later, we're home for the holidays. To many, the convenience of air travel is indispensable.
By contrast, if a restaurant were to employ the same screening process airports use, it would probably need to serve the best food in the world, or it would go out of business in a week.
I can think of two much more palatable alternatives to the hysteria of modern American airport security.
One is the Las Vegas model. Big casinos employ some of the tightest security standards on the planet, yet almost all of it remains hidden behind the scenes.
Security personnel constantly monitor hundreds of cameras. The officers are highly trained to recognize suspicious activity and their plain-clothesmen colleagues on the casino floor can appear instantly out of seemingly nowhere to nip a potential incident or crime in the bud.
The same style could be effective at airports. Run the passengers through a metal detector (shoes on), send their bags through image screeners and let the casino-style pros take it from there. Then put a couple of highly trained and armed air marshals on each flight.
Maybe this type of comprehensive security already takes place inside our airports, but if so, the new invasive passenger screenings are all the more ridiculous and humiliating.
My other solution is the European model. Well, it's technically not a solution to invasive airport screening procedures. It's a way for us to avoid airports. In Europe, employees earn about 40 days of paid vacation and holidays each year. Work weeks are capped at 48 hours by law. If we Americans weren't so tied to our jobs, we might be more inclined to spend an off day in transit. Cars, trains, buses and even boats have their charms and none require TSA checkpoints to use.
Be thankful the new third party is on the right
During an era of great economic and social strife, a loud, angry and rapidly growing segment of the U.S. electorate split from its traditional political leaders and rallied behind a young, charismatic and populist governor from a relatively obscure U.S. state. This new leader made headlines across the country for sharply criticizing career politicians, endorsing outsider candidates and championing the common man.
Those who agreed with this rising political star viewed the governor as a presidential candidate who would do nothing short of save our great nation. Those who detested the populist leader's ideas were equally as loud and went out of their way to discredit and brush aside the new movement's adherents.
The scenario I describe above is not a unique one in American history. It accurately characterizes both Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement of today and former Louisiana governor Huey Long's rise in an off-shoot of the Democratic Party in the 1930's. Substitute the word 'congressman' for 'governor' and it applies to William Jennings Bryan in the late 1800's as well.
While the political climate leading to the rise of ‘The Kingfish’ and ‘Mama Grizzly’ seem to share common roots, the political ideas driving the two movements -- both billed as the means by which everyday working folks could “take back” their country -- could not be more different.
To Long, “taking back” America meant attacking New Deal policies from the left, redistributing wealth, reigning in corporations and consolidating power in the public sector.
To Palin and the Tea Party, “taking back” America means attacking Bush-era policies from the right, slashing government spending, cutting taxes and consolidating power in the private sector.
The fact that two such vastly different political waves could emerge under supposedly similar circumstances tells me that below the surface, the circumstances aren’t really all that similar.
The recession continues to cause suffering in countless households across the country, but it bears little resemblance to the Great Depression of the 1930’s.
When Long rose to prominence in Louisiana, his state contained just 300 miles of paved roads. About 60-percent of the state’s residents lived in dire poverty with no government assistance. One in four of his state’s adults could not read and a poll tax kept 170,000 of Louisiana’s 2 million residents from registering to vote. Similar conditions plagued many states throughout the country. Long became a folk hero and presidential candidate by bullying his way toward solutions to many of those grave and widespread socio-economic ills (you could call him the pitbull sans lipstick).
Palin’s rise has occurred amid the so-called ‘Great Recession,’ during which the vast majority of Americans continue to live in relative wealth and comfort. Government assistance provides safety nets for the elderly, unemployed and hungry. Unlike the 1930’s, very few, if any, Americans face real threats of starvation. In 1932, just 11-percent of rural homes were wired with electricity. Today, one would be hard pressed to find a home anywhere in the U.S. lacking a television and other modern appliances -- no matter how underwater its mortgage might be.
Unlike Long, Palin owes her national status more to celebrity, not actual policy nor power. The Tea Party movement does not promise to fix any grave social and economic ills, mostly because few still exist -- at least not nearly to the degree that they once did.
The populist masses of the Tea Party are mostly firmly entrenched in the middle class, unlike Long’s poor adherents from eight decades ago. The Tea Partiers are angry because they fear the waning of American exceptionalism. Seventy years after the Great Depression eased and the era of American prosperity dawned, they see other countries catching up. They sense the shining American dream stuttering in idle.
While Long’s scapegoats were corporate greed, corrupt officials and the wealthy establishment media, Palin’s are the government, illegal immigrants and the liberal media.
The rise of the Tea Party and its Alaskan leader is not a new phenomenom.
That such a movement has now emerged from the political right shows how far we’ve come socially and economically over the past century.
While I don’t agree with much I hear coming from the Tea Party crowd, I’m certainly thankful to be living in an era when the popular outcry demands less -- not more -- from our government.
Things could always be better, but we’ve come a long, long way since ‘The Kingfish’s’ day.
Those who agreed with this rising political star viewed the governor as a presidential candidate who would do nothing short of save our great nation. Those who detested the populist leader's ideas were equally as loud and went out of their way to discredit and brush aside the new movement's adherents.
The scenario I describe above is not a unique one in American history. It accurately characterizes both Sarah Palin and the Tea Party movement of today and former Louisiana governor Huey Long's rise in an off-shoot of the Democratic Party in the 1930's. Substitute the word 'congressman' for 'governor' and it applies to William Jennings Bryan in the late 1800's as well.
While the political climate leading to the rise of ‘The Kingfish’ and ‘Mama Grizzly’ seem to share common roots, the political ideas driving the two movements -- both billed as the means by which everyday working folks could “take back” their country -- could not be more different.
To Long, “taking back” America meant attacking New Deal policies from the left, redistributing wealth, reigning in corporations and consolidating power in the public sector.
To Palin and the Tea Party, “taking back” America means attacking Bush-era policies from the right, slashing government spending, cutting taxes and consolidating power in the private sector.
The fact that two such vastly different political waves could emerge under supposedly similar circumstances tells me that below the surface, the circumstances aren’t really all that similar.
The recession continues to cause suffering in countless households across the country, but it bears little resemblance to the Great Depression of the 1930’s.
When Long rose to prominence in Louisiana, his state contained just 300 miles of paved roads. About 60-percent of the state’s residents lived in dire poverty with no government assistance. One in four of his state’s adults could not read and a poll tax kept 170,000 of Louisiana’s 2 million residents from registering to vote. Similar conditions plagued many states throughout the country. Long became a folk hero and presidential candidate by bullying his way toward solutions to many of those grave and widespread socio-economic ills (you could call him the pitbull sans lipstick).
Palin’s rise has occurred amid the so-called ‘Great Recession,’ during which the vast majority of Americans continue to live in relative wealth and comfort. Government assistance provides safety nets for the elderly, unemployed and hungry. Unlike the 1930’s, very few, if any, Americans face real threats of starvation. In 1932, just 11-percent of rural homes were wired with electricity. Today, one would be hard pressed to find a home anywhere in the U.S. lacking a television and other modern appliances -- no matter how underwater its mortgage might be.
Unlike Long, Palin owes her national status more to celebrity, not actual policy nor power. The Tea Party movement does not promise to fix any grave social and economic ills, mostly because few still exist -- at least not nearly to the degree that they once did.
The populist masses of the Tea Party are mostly firmly entrenched in the middle class, unlike Long’s poor adherents from eight decades ago. The Tea Partiers are angry because they fear the waning of American exceptionalism. Seventy years after the Great Depression eased and the era of American prosperity dawned, they see other countries catching up. They sense the shining American dream stuttering in idle.
While Long’s scapegoats were corporate greed, corrupt officials and the wealthy establishment media, Palin’s are the government, illegal immigrants and the liberal media.
The rise of the Tea Party and its Alaskan leader is not a new phenomenom.
That such a movement has now emerged from the political right shows how far we’ve come socially and economically over the past century.
While I don’t agree with much I hear coming from the Tea Party crowd, I’m certainly thankful to be living in an era when the popular outcry demands less -- not more -- from our government.
Things could always be better, but we’ve come a long, long way since ‘The Kingfish’s’ day.
GOP sweep makes Georgia a one party state once again
Stick a fork in them. The Georgia Democratic Party is as dead as a Thanksgiving turkey. Republicans swept all statewide offices in Tuesday’s election, winning each race easily and avoiding runoffs.
After a brief stretch of two party rule that spanned the past 16 years, Georgia has once again become a one-party state. Only now it’s Republicans in charge, not Tom Murphy’s Democrats.
Voters in Fayette and across most of the state didn’t pause long at the machines to study candidates’ names. They simply looked for the (R) and tapped away.
The top-performing statewide Republican in Fayette was secretary of state Brian Kemp, with just a hair under 67-percent of the local vote. No statewide Republican did worse than 64-percent in Fayette.
Even Fayetteville’s own Darryl Hicks polled at a measly 30-percent in his home county, cursed by the scarlet ‘D’ after his name.
While Fayette balked at its chance to put a hometown power broker in office, Gainesville did not. The folks in Hall County are rejoicing this week. In Governor-elect Nathan Deal, Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle and House Speaker Tom Ralston, they are now represented by the three most powerful elected officials in the state. It’s as good a time as ever to own property near Lake Lanier.
With Fayette’s help, Georgia Republicans have won control of the state house, senate and every statewide constitutional office. We voters trust them to deal with the state’s widespread problems: a huge projected budget shortfall, shrinking water sources, transportation gridlock, high unemployment and a lagging educational system.
The Republicans will also need to address the state’s poor trauma care infrastructure, after voters declined to impose an extra car tag tax on themselves by scuttling Ammendment 2.
The old saying is “all politics are local,” however it’s undeniable that the national trend and anger with the Democratic Congress played a role in Georgia’s Republican sweep -- just as Obama’s former popularity and the general disgust at Republicans in Congress pushed Saxby Chambliss into a runoff two years ago.
We’ve got some promising and bright Republican leaders in the General Assembly. I look forward to seeing what local Republicans Matt Ramsey and Ronnie Chance will do this upcoming session.
I am less comfortable with the former U.S. Congressmen we just put in the Governor’s mansion, but I’m willing to give him a chance.
If Nathan Deal manages to balance Georgia’s budget, improve our schools, win the water war and provide longterm transportation solutions, we’ll all be better off.
If he fails, the Georgia Democratic party just might manage to one day come back from the dead.
The election is over. Now the real challenges must be addressed.
After a brief stretch of two party rule that spanned the past 16 years, Georgia has once again become a one-party state. Only now it’s Republicans in charge, not Tom Murphy’s Democrats.
Voters in Fayette and across most of the state didn’t pause long at the machines to study candidates’ names. They simply looked for the (R) and tapped away.
The top-performing statewide Republican in Fayette was secretary of state Brian Kemp, with just a hair under 67-percent of the local vote. No statewide Republican did worse than 64-percent in Fayette.
Even Fayetteville’s own Darryl Hicks polled at a measly 30-percent in his home county, cursed by the scarlet ‘D’ after his name.
While Fayette balked at its chance to put a hometown power broker in office, Gainesville did not. The folks in Hall County are rejoicing this week. In Governor-elect Nathan Deal, Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle and House Speaker Tom Ralston, they are now represented by the three most powerful elected officials in the state. It’s as good a time as ever to own property near Lake Lanier.
With Fayette’s help, Georgia Republicans have won control of the state house, senate and every statewide constitutional office. We voters trust them to deal with the state’s widespread problems: a huge projected budget shortfall, shrinking water sources, transportation gridlock, high unemployment and a lagging educational system.
The Republicans will also need to address the state’s poor trauma care infrastructure, after voters declined to impose an extra car tag tax on themselves by scuttling Ammendment 2.
The old saying is “all politics are local,” however it’s undeniable that the national trend and anger with the Democratic Congress played a role in Georgia’s Republican sweep -- just as Obama’s former popularity and the general disgust at Republicans in Congress pushed Saxby Chambliss into a runoff two years ago.
We’ve got some promising and bright Republican leaders in the General Assembly. I look forward to seeing what local Republicans Matt Ramsey and Ronnie Chance will do this upcoming session.
I am less comfortable with the former U.S. Congressmen we just put in the Governor’s mansion, but I’m willing to give him a chance.
If Nathan Deal manages to balance Georgia’s budget, improve our schools, win the water war and provide longterm transportation solutions, we’ll all be better off.
If he fails, the Georgia Democratic party just might manage to one day come back from the dead.
The election is over. Now the real challenges must be addressed.
The choice for governor is an easy one
It's the parties that win the popularity contests, not the candidates. When the economy slips or the national mood shifts, the once popular party and its formerly sterling cast of saviors tarnish into pariahs. Then, the national political cycle resets and the other party wins another try through the ballot box.
Our best leaders shift with the trends -- clinging to the parties wherein they feel they can make a difference and truly affect policy. After all, it's policy, not party, that matters most once the ballots have been counted.
In 1948, the Democratic and Republican parties heavily recruited WWII war hero Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower to lead their presidential tickets. Both parties recognized him as a once-in-a-lifetime transcendent leader, under whose direction much-desired policy changes might come to fruition.
Ike sat out the 1948 election. Eisenhower held firm beliefs about how America would best prosper, but returning from war, he needed time to analyze which party provided him with the best opportunity to enact his vision. In 1952, Eisenhower turned to the Republican party, recognizing that the easiest path to the presidency -- the then dominant Democratic party -- was too rife with corruption and obstructionists to realize his goals.
Eisenhower won the presidency and his newly chosen party picked up a senate seat and 22 Congressional posts in his wake. As president, he championed the fight against political corruption, ebbed the flow of communism and fought for dynamic conservatism at home. With a Republican Congress, he created the interstate highway system, founded the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and upheld social security -- the one New Deal institution he believed integral to our nation's future prosperity.
During the Jim Crow era, Ike declared institutionalized racial discrimination "a national security issue," recognizing that America's single greatest flaw doubled as the communists’ most potent propaganda tool of the Cold War. Today, historians consistently rank Eisenhower among the 10 greatest American presidents.
Unfortunately, poor leaders and corrupt politicians also ride the tide of the American party popularity shifts. For those of us with short memories, Barack Obama is example No. 1.
Nathan Deal, the once pro-choice Democratic Congressman who ran against Newt Gingrich’s Contract for America in 1994, is example No. 2.
Deal, a conservative of convenience, switched parties in the mid 1990’s and is now the Republican nominee for governor.
Deal's opponent, Roy Barnes, is no Ike. He never will be. However, Barnes has proven that he believes in directing policy that benefits all Georgians -- not just himself and his friends.
In 2002, Barnes lost his bid for re-election for governor of this state mostly because he stood up for what he believed was right. His terrible crime in the minds of many voters was his decision to change the state flag. Barnes knew that with the square Confederate flag dominating our state banner, Georgia stood to lose millions in investment and development. Barnes also knew that what was then popular with the voters conflicted with what he recognized as right. Unlike many politicians, Barnes chose the latter. He changed the flag.
Barnes' opponent this cycle has proven through reluctant disclosures, repeated excuses and scandal after scandal that his own financial interest ranks far ahead of the future of Georgia on his personal priority list.
I know we live in a Republican state and this is a Republican year, but I encourage voters to step away from the national fad for a moment and elect the best leader at the top of this November’s ballot.
Deal, the corrupt party-switching insider, is not the answer to any of the problems we currently face. Deal's laundry list of ethical lapses makes him unfit to run for office, let alone govern.
Those who worry about a conservative Democrat taking control of the governor's office can sleep easy knowing that conservative Republicans will still control the Georgia General Assembly no matter who is elected to move into the mansion on West Paces Ferry.
Despite what Deal wants you to believe, Barnes has very little in common with Obama or Pelosi. In 2002, the conservative CATO Institute ranked Barnes third among all 50 governors in overall fiscal policy. Barnes finished one place behind Jeb Bush and 17 spots ahead of Mike Huckabee.
As far as congressional elections go, let’s ride the national tide. By all means, let's send the national Democrats a clear message and express our dissatisfaction a the polls.
But do remember, it's policy, ethics and integrity that matters most once the polls have closed.
And that is why I am voting for Roy Barnes for Governor of Georgia in 2010.
Our best leaders shift with the trends -- clinging to the parties wherein they feel they can make a difference and truly affect policy. After all, it's policy, not party, that matters most once the ballots have been counted.
In 1948, the Democratic and Republican parties heavily recruited WWII war hero Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower to lead their presidential tickets. Both parties recognized him as a once-in-a-lifetime transcendent leader, under whose direction much-desired policy changes might come to fruition.
Ike sat out the 1948 election. Eisenhower held firm beliefs about how America would best prosper, but returning from war, he needed time to analyze which party provided him with the best opportunity to enact his vision. In 1952, Eisenhower turned to the Republican party, recognizing that the easiest path to the presidency -- the then dominant Democratic party -- was too rife with corruption and obstructionists to realize his goals.
Eisenhower won the presidency and his newly chosen party picked up a senate seat and 22 Congressional posts in his wake. As president, he championed the fight against political corruption, ebbed the flow of communism and fought for dynamic conservatism at home. With a Republican Congress, he created the interstate highway system, founded the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and upheld social security -- the one New Deal institution he believed integral to our nation's future prosperity.
During the Jim Crow era, Ike declared institutionalized racial discrimination "a national security issue," recognizing that America's single greatest flaw doubled as the communists’ most potent propaganda tool of the Cold War. Today, historians consistently rank Eisenhower among the 10 greatest American presidents.
Unfortunately, poor leaders and corrupt politicians also ride the tide of the American party popularity shifts. For those of us with short memories, Barack Obama is example No. 1.
Nathan Deal, the once pro-choice Democratic Congressman who ran against Newt Gingrich’s Contract for America in 1994, is example No. 2.
Deal, a conservative of convenience, switched parties in the mid 1990’s and is now the Republican nominee for governor.
Deal's opponent, Roy Barnes, is no Ike. He never will be. However, Barnes has proven that he believes in directing policy that benefits all Georgians -- not just himself and his friends.
In 2002, Barnes lost his bid for re-election for governor of this state mostly because he stood up for what he believed was right. His terrible crime in the minds of many voters was his decision to change the state flag. Barnes knew that with the square Confederate flag dominating our state banner, Georgia stood to lose millions in investment and development. Barnes also knew that what was then popular with the voters conflicted with what he recognized as right. Unlike many politicians, Barnes chose the latter. He changed the flag.
Barnes' opponent this cycle has proven through reluctant disclosures, repeated excuses and scandal after scandal that his own financial interest ranks far ahead of the future of Georgia on his personal priority list.
I know we live in a Republican state and this is a Republican year, but I encourage voters to step away from the national fad for a moment and elect the best leader at the top of this November’s ballot.
Deal, the corrupt party-switching insider, is not the answer to any of the problems we currently face. Deal's laundry list of ethical lapses makes him unfit to run for office, let alone govern.
Those who worry about a conservative Democrat taking control of the governor's office can sleep easy knowing that conservative Republicans will still control the Georgia General Assembly no matter who is elected to move into the mansion on West Paces Ferry.
Despite what Deal wants you to believe, Barnes has very little in common with Obama or Pelosi. In 2002, the conservative CATO Institute ranked Barnes third among all 50 governors in overall fiscal policy. Barnes finished one place behind Jeb Bush and 17 spots ahead of Mike Huckabee.
As far as congressional elections go, let’s ride the national tide. By all means, let's send the national Democrats a clear message and express our dissatisfaction a the polls.
But do remember, it's policy, ethics and integrity that matters most once the polls have closed.
And that is why I am voting for Roy Barnes for Governor of Georgia in 2010.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Thank you Bobby Cox (and thank you, Dad)
Over the past couple of weeks, I've used this column to lament about the seemingly crooked career politician who looks poised to defeat a seemingly honest career politician (both of whom started their political lives as Democrats) to become the next governor of our state. As much as I try to focus on the candidates and not the party affiliations, any connection to the Elephant brand looks like gold in the Peach State this year. So this week, I'm not going to dwell on Nathan Deal or Roy Barnes. I'm writing about a welcome distraction from the serious issues at hand.
I have my father to thank. Dad's a Republican. I'm an independent. But we didn't talk politics Sunday or Monday when the two of us joined my liberal-leaning brother at Turner Field to witness the final two games of the Bobby Cox era.
The three of us were there from the start of Cox's incredible run. Dad treated us to Braves games at Atlanta Fulton County Stadium and later, Turner Field, from the time my brother Blake and I were old enough to play tee-ball at Fayette's Kiwanis Fields.
During the early years of our ballpark experiences, the Braves stunk. But Blake and I didn't mind -- neither did Dad. We relished every trip to the stadium. We boys had Dale Murphy to idolize, plus, last place teams tend to feature rare promos like "Meet the Players Day," which helped our parents fill childhood picture albums with photos of two young brothers wearing royal blue Braves caps posing with "The Murph", a 21-year-old John Smoltz and Lonnie Smith.
Before the 1991 season, my dad purchased family tickets to about a dozen home games. One of the dates he selected was the second to last game of the season -- the night the Braves improbably won the pennant with Smoltz catching a jubilant Greg Olsen in his arms after completing a masterful performance on the hill. We stayed in our seats post-game and well past my bed-time, watching the Dodgers lose on the jumbotron, which clinched the Braves' first postseason appearance since the year before I was born.
Back then, Dad didn't have the money to buy playoff tickets, but as a family we watched every League Championship and World Series game on our living room t.v.
In 1992, my father's brother died tragically young, just as the Braves held a three games to one lead in the National League Championship Series against the Pittsburgh Pirates. The Braves lost games five and six of that series, as members of my family struggled to deal with the terrible, heartbreaking loss. Then Francisco Cabrera singled, Sid Bream beat the tag and the Braves gave a couple of kids from Fayetteville a reason to dry their tears, at least for a moment.
Dad continued to take us to games. A couple of years later, my dad planned a family vacation around the Braves' road schedule, loading up the minivan to watch our team play on the road in St. Louis. Because of earlier rains, our two contests at Busch Stadium turned into back to back double-headers -- an absolute treasure for Dad, Blake and me (and torture for my mom and baby sister).
By the time Dad could reasonably afford playoff tickets, the 1995 World Series title had come and gone, but as a teenager, I experienced the thrill of the postseason when my father took Blake and I to see the Braves beat the Cardinals in a pair of home games during the 1996 National League Championship Series.
I remained a loyal Braves fan after high school and watched as many games as I could while attending college in Maryland and serving in the Navy. Every time Cox's team took the field on my t.v., I felt a connection to home.
Since moving back to Fayette a few years ago, Dad, Blake and I have visited Turner Field a number of times -- bringing my grandfather along, too. Our family's baseball tradition began years ago. My great-grandfather spent nearly his entire life in Georgia, but rooted for the Yankees because Atlanta didn't have a pro team during many of his years. My grandfather took his dad to the 1960 World Series in New York and we have the family snapshots to prove it.
When Dad sprung for playoff tickets this year, Blake and I were thrilled.
On Sunday and Monday, Dad and I rode up from Fayetteville. Blake, who lives in Atlanta, met us at the stadium. We went home disappointed with the scores, but the three of us relished being there. Bobby Cox's injury-riddled Braves gave us one more improbable run, for old times' sake.
We should have won both games and the series, but standing and Tomahawk-chopping in the upper deck was pleasure enough for the three of us. Thanks Dad. I look forward to the day when my wife Brittnay and I have a little one of our own and you can join us for an evening at Turner Field. Hopefully, Cox's successor and protege Freddi Gonzalez will give us many more reasons to cheer.
Bobby Cox gave us a great run, but my dad is the one who deserves all of the credit in my book. Dad didn't do anything to make the Braves win, but he did make Blake and me fans and gave us the chance to enjoy it all.
I have my father to thank. Dad's a Republican. I'm an independent. But we didn't talk politics Sunday or Monday when the two of us joined my liberal-leaning brother at Turner Field to witness the final two games of the Bobby Cox era.
The three of us were there from the start of Cox's incredible run. Dad treated us to Braves games at Atlanta Fulton County Stadium and later, Turner Field, from the time my brother Blake and I were old enough to play tee-ball at Fayette's Kiwanis Fields.
During the early years of our ballpark experiences, the Braves stunk. But Blake and I didn't mind -- neither did Dad. We relished every trip to the stadium. We boys had Dale Murphy to idolize, plus, last place teams tend to feature rare promos like "Meet the Players Day," which helped our parents fill childhood picture albums with photos of two young brothers wearing royal blue Braves caps posing with "The Murph", a 21-year-old John Smoltz and Lonnie Smith.
Before the 1991 season, my dad purchased family tickets to about a dozen home games. One of the dates he selected was the second to last game of the season -- the night the Braves improbably won the pennant with Smoltz catching a jubilant Greg Olsen in his arms after completing a masterful performance on the hill. We stayed in our seats post-game and well past my bed-time, watching the Dodgers lose on the jumbotron, which clinched the Braves' first postseason appearance since the year before I was born.
Back then, Dad didn't have the money to buy playoff tickets, but as a family we watched every League Championship and World Series game on our living room t.v.
In 1992, my father's brother died tragically young, just as the Braves held a three games to one lead in the National League Championship Series against the Pittsburgh Pirates. The Braves lost games five and six of that series, as members of my family struggled to deal with the terrible, heartbreaking loss. Then Francisco Cabrera singled, Sid Bream beat the tag and the Braves gave a couple of kids from Fayetteville a reason to dry their tears, at least for a moment.
Dad continued to take us to games. A couple of years later, my dad planned a family vacation around the Braves' road schedule, loading up the minivan to watch our team play on the road in St. Louis. Because of earlier rains, our two contests at Busch Stadium turned into back to back double-headers -- an absolute treasure for Dad, Blake and me (and torture for my mom and baby sister).
By the time Dad could reasonably afford playoff tickets, the 1995 World Series title had come and gone, but as a teenager, I experienced the thrill of the postseason when my father took Blake and I to see the Braves beat the Cardinals in a pair of home games during the 1996 National League Championship Series.
I remained a loyal Braves fan after high school and watched as many games as I could while attending college in Maryland and serving in the Navy. Every time Cox's team took the field on my t.v., I felt a connection to home.
Since moving back to Fayette a few years ago, Dad, Blake and I have visited Turner Field a number of times -- bringing my grandfather along, too. Our family's baseball tradition began years ago. My great-grandfather spent nearly his entire life in Georgia, but rooted for the Yankees because Atlanta didn't have a pro team during many of his years. My grandfather took his dad to the 1960 World Series in New York and we have the family snapshots to prove it.
When Dad sprung for playoff tickets this year, Blake and I were thrilled.
On Sunday and Monday, Dad and I rode up from Fayetteville. Blake, who lives in Atlanta, met us at the stadium. We went home disappointed with the scores, but the three of us relished being there. Bobby Cox's injury-riddled Braves gave us one more improbable run, for old times' sake.
We should have won both games and the series, but standing and Tomahawk-chopping in the upper deck was pleasure enough for the three of us. Thanks Dad. I look forward to the day when my wife Brittnay and I have a little one of our own and you can join us for an evening at Turner Field. Hopefully, Cox's successor and protege Freddi Gonzalez will give us many more reasons to cheer.
Bobby Cox gave us a great run, but my dad is the one who deserves all of the credit in my book. Dad didn't do anything to make the Braves win, but he did make Blake and me fans and gave us the chance to enjoy it all.
Every day brings a new Deal scandal
I can't get over the governor's race. A few weeks ago, I used this space to lament over our choices as Georgia voters. For the next leader of our state, we're stuck with either a former governor who we previously tossed out of office, a fringe third party candidate or a career politician with so much ethical baggage that his campaign has been hemorrhaging scandals for weeks. It seems like every day, a new embarrassing detail spills from Nathan Deal's camp.
First, there was Deal's Auto Salvage business scandal, which notoriously landed him on the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington's list of the "15 Most Corrupt Members of Congress" alongside folks like Charlie Rangel and Jessie Jackson, Jr. According to the CREW report, which heavily relied on investigative journalism by Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporters, Deal and a member of his staff intervened in the state budgeting process to preserve a lucrative, $300,000 per year no-bid state contract for the salvage business Deal co-owned in Gainesville. Deal's intervention was successful and it came after the state department of revenue commissioner sought to save taxpayers' money by reforming the state's vehicle inspection program and opening up the competitive bidding process.
The CREW report stated, "By using his position as a member of Congress to interfere in a matter of Georgia policy to protect his personal financial interests -- against the interest of the state of Georgia as expressed by the state’s Commissioner of the Department of Revenue -- and by attempting to conceal those efforts, Rep. Deal undisputably has acted in a manner that brings discredit to the
House."
Deal's explanation (from the AJC): he claims to have been acting on behalf of his constituents: his business partner and the “fellows who work in [his salvage business] office.” The Office of Congressional Ethics recommended that the House Ethics Committee investigate Deal's actions, but the Congressman resigned before an investigation could take place, to "focus on the gubernatorial race."
Despite the scandal, Deal managed to win the Republican nomination for governor, thanks in large part to the support he received from a large portion of the state Republican power structure, including our Congressman Lynn Westmorland and a significant number of the members of his party currently serving in the General Assembly, including Ronnie Chance (but not Matt Ramsey).
Since Deal beat Karen Handel in the August runoff (by just 2,500 votes), things have gotten considerably worse. First, his opponent Roy Barnes ran a series of television ads asking "Why isn't Nathan Deal releasing his tax records?" Earlier this month, we found out why.
On Sep. 15, Alan Judd at the AJC reported that Deal faces such dire financial troubles that he must sell his home to avert foreclosure or bankruptcy.
"Even if Deal liquidates all his assets, however, he still might be unable to repay a nearly $2.3 million business loan... [which] comes due in full Feb. 1 — less than one month after Deal hopes to take office," Judd reported. The source of the bad debt: Deal poured the money into the failed high-end sporting goods store his daughter and son-in-law started in Habersham County. Deal's name was left off of his son-in-law's 2009 bankruptcy filing, although experts say Deal should have been listed as a creditor. A few days later, it was revealed that Deal's son in law previously declared bankruptcy in 2001.
Almost immediately after Deal's personal financial distress hit the front pages, the Associated Press reported that Deal and a business partner are on the hook for another $2.85 million in loans for his auto salvage business. Deal failed to report that loan on the required state financial disclosure form.
Deal refiled his financial disclosures several times this month, with each new disclosure opening up new questions.
There's the off-the-books land purchase agreement with Deal's former Chief of Staff. Next came the airplane scandal, which the AJC broke over the weekend. Deal has spent over $130,000 for aviation services during the course of the campaign by contracting through a company partially owned by himself, a business partner and his campaign manager. State ethics laws bar candidates from using campaign money for personal benefit. His opponent, Barnes, has spent less than $20,000 on aviation.
Deal's troubles with ethics, money and honesty make him completely unfit to run this state. Unlike Barnes, he has balked at pledging to keep his assets in a blind trust while serving as governor. Yet, Deal still has a very good shot at being elected. Even though (like Barnes) he started his career as a moderate Democrat, Deal is currently a Republican. He has been since he switched during his second congressional term back in 1995. And unfortunately for us, being a Republican might be all Deal needs to win the most important job in the state. What a shame.
First, there was Deal's Auto Salvage business scandal, which notoriously landed him on the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington's list of the "15 Most Corrupt Members of Congress" alongside folks like Charlie Rangel and Jessie Jackson, Jr. According to the CREW report, which heavily relied on investigative journalism by Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporters, Deal and a member of his staff intervened in the state budgeting process to preserve a lucrative, $300,000 per year no-bid state contract for the salvage business Deal co-owned in Gainesville. Deal's intervention was successful and it came after the state department of revenue commissioner sought to save taxpayers' money by reforming the state's vehicle inspection program and opening up the competitive bidding process.
The CREW report stated, "By using his position as a member of Congress to interfere in a matter of Georgia policy to protect his personal financial interests -- against the interest of the state of Georgia as expressed by the state’s Commissioner of the Department of Revenue -- and by attempting to conceal those efforts, Rep. Deal undisputably has acted in a manner that brings discredit to the
House."
Deal's explanation (from the AJC): he claims to have been acting on behalf of his constituents: his business partner and the “fellows who work in [his salvage business] office.” The Office of Congressional Ethics recommended that the House Ethics Committee investigate Deal's actions, but the Congressman resigned before an investigation could take place, to "focus on the gubernatorial race."
Despite the scandal, Deal managed to win the Republican nomination for governor, thanks in large part to the support he received from a large portion of the state Republican power structure, including our Congressman Lynn Westmorland and a significant number of the members of his party currently serving in the General Assembly, including Ronnie Chance (but not Matt Ramsey).
Since Deal beat Karen Handel in the August runoff (by just 2,500 votes), things have gotten considerably worse. First, his opponent Roy Barnes ran a series of television ads asking "Why isn't Nathan Deal releasing his tax records?" Earlier this month, we found out why.
On Sep. 15, Alan Judd at the AJC reported that Deal faces such dire financial troubles that he must sell his home to avert foreclosure or bankruptcy.
"Even if Deal liquidates all his assets, however, he still might be unable to repay a nearly $2.3 million business loan... [which] comes due in full Feb. 1 — less than one month after Deal hopes to take office," Judd reported. The source of the bad debt: Deal poured the money into the failed high-end sporting goods store his daughter and son-in-law started in Habersham County. Deal's name was left off of his son-in-law's 2009 bankruptcy filing, although experts say Deal should have been listed as a creditor. A few days later, it was revealed that Deal's son in law previously declared bankruptcy in 2001.
Almost immediately after Deal's personal financial distress hit the front pages, the Associated Press reported that Deal and a business partner are on the hook for another $2.85 million in loans for his auto salvage business. Deal failed to report that loan on the required state financial disclosure form.
Deal refiled his financial disclosures several times this month, with each new disclosure opening up new questions.
There's the off-the-books land purchase agreement with Deal's former Chief of Staff. Next came the airplane scandal, which the AJC broke over the weekend. Deal has spent over $130,000 for aviation services during the course of the campaign by contracting through a company partially owned by himself, a business partner and his campaign manager. State ethics laws bar candidates from using campaign money for personal benefit. His opponent, Barnes, has spent less than $20,000 on aviation.
Deal's troubles with ethics, money and honesty make him completely unfit to run this state. Unlike Barnes, he has balked at pledging to keep his assets in a blind trust while serving as governor. Yet, Deal still has a very good shot at being elected. Even though (like Barnes) he started his career as a moderate Democrat, Deal is currently a Republican. He has been since he switched during his second congressional term back in 1995. And unfortunately for us, being a Republican might be all Deal needs to win the most important job in the state. What a shame.
It's already time to vote again
Early voting for the general election begins Monday.
I know, it feels like we just finished taking down the campaign signs from this summer's primary, but starting Monday, Fayette's registered voters can walk up the stairs to Suite 208 of the Stonewall Complex in Fayetteville and cast their ballots for the next governor of Georgia, a U.S. Senate seat, the Georgia District 3 post in the U.S. House of Representatives and a host of important state offices.
Thanks to legislation passed by the Georgia General Assembly, we can now vote up to 45 days ahead of the actual election day. Sure, school is in session and football season has started, but the real sign that summer is over comes Monday, when we realize that the first Tuesday in November is only 45 days away.
I'm not ready to vote. I know a little bit about the major candidates for governor, U.S. Senate, Attorney General, Lt. Governor and the Fayette County School Board, but there are about a dozen down ballot races featuring candidates about whom I know nearly nothing. According to Fayette County Elections Supervisor Tom Sawyer, I'm not the only one in this predicament.
"Since we went to a 45 day early voting format in 2009, turnout has been very slow during the first few weeks," Sawyer said Tuesday. "We'll have the polls open at the elections office, but we're going to go with a limited staff until we see the numbers rise."
I'm not one of those people who vote based on the 'R' or 'D' in parentheses next to a candidate's name. I try to learn as much as I can about every candidate in each race. I then do my best to dig beneath the party rhetoric to find the best person for each job on the ballot.
Sometimes that is not such an easy task.
A case in point is the big ticket race atop this cycle's ballot. For the next governor of Georgia, we get to choose between a 62-year old career politician and lawyer and a 68-year old career politician and lawyer. Both started their political careers as Democrats. Both are white males. Both have consistently changed their stances on issues to please their constituents back home.
Both started off as moderates. The one who lives in increasingly Republican-leaning Hall County switched parties and became a Republican in the mid-90's. The one who lives in increasingly Democrat-leaning South Cobb stayed true to the Democratic party. With the economy in the tank and the Democrats in Congress staring down dismal approval ratings, both governor candidates have now painted themselves as the "pro-jobs conservative" on the ballot. Both have tried to leap onto the anti-incumbent bandwagon.
One candidate became ridiculously wealthy as a private attorney after his first term as governor concluded. The other candidate padded his bank account with a no-bid state contract for his auto salvage business while he was serving in Congress. He then resigned from Congress before the Office of Congressional Ethics fully pursued charges that he improperly used his office staff to pressure Georgia officials to continue the no-bid contract, which generated hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for his family’s auto salvage business. Because of a separate failed business venture with his daughter, the latter of the two candidates now faces financial insolvency, at least according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.
That is the top of the ticket. Nathan Deal or Roy Barnes.
We the voters are to blame for this "lesser of two" conundrum. We had six other candidates running within each party during the primary, but Deal and Barnes are who we chose. There's always John Monds, the Libertarian candidate, but his chances for November victory are slim to say the least.
I will pay attention to the upcoming governor's debates, but if I were to vote Monday when the early polls open, I would probably just skip past the governor's slot on the ballot.
That being said, we do have a few decent candidates on the ballot this year. I will have no qualms about voting for Sam Olens (a Republican running for State Attorney General) and Carol Porter (a Democrat running for Lt. Governor), but I have a lot to learn before I visit Mr. Sawyer at the Elections Office. I have a feeling I'll be waiting until Nov. 2.
I know, it feels like we just finished taking down the campaign signs from this summer's primary, but starting Monday, Fayette's registered voters can walk up the stairs to Suite 208 of the Stonewall Complex in Fayetteville and cast their ballots for the next governor of Georgia, a U.S. Senate seat, the Georgia District 3 post in the U.S. House of Representatives and a host of important state offices.
Thanks to legislation passed by the Georgia General Assembly, we can now vote up to 45 days ahead of the actual election day. Sure, school is in session and football season has started, but the real sign that summer is over comes Monday, when we realize that the first Tuesday in November is only 45 days away.
I'm not ready to vote. I know a little bit about the major candidates for governor, U.S. Senate, Attorney General, Lt. Governor and the Fayette County School Board, but there are about a dozen down ballot races featuring candidates about whom I know nearly nothing. According to Fayette County Elections Supervisor Tom Sawyer, I'm not the only one in this predicament.
"Since we went to a 45 day early voting format in 2009, turnout has been very slow during the first few weeks," Sawyer said Tuesday. "We'll have the polls open at the elections office, but we're going to go with a limited staff until we see the numbers rise."
I'm not one of those people who vote based on the 'R' or 'D' in parentheses next to a candidate's name. I try to learn as much as I can about every candidate in each race. I then do my best to dig beneath the party rhetoric to find the best person for each job on the ballot.
Sometimes that is not such an easy task.
A case in point is the big ticket race atop this cycle's ballot. For the next governor of Georgia, we get to choose between a 62-year old career politician and lawyer and a 68-year old career politician and lawyer. Both started their political careers as Democrats. Both are white males. Both have consistently changed their stances on issues to please their constituents back home.
Both started off as moderates. The one who lives in increasingly Republican-leaning Hall County switched parties and became a Republican in the mid-90's. The one who lives in increasingly Democrat-leaning South Cobb stayed true to the Democratic party. With the economy in the tank and the Democrats in Congress staring down dismal approval ratings, both governor candidates have now painted themselves as the "pro-jobs conservative" on the ballot. Both have tried to leap onto the anti-incumbent bandwagon.
One candidate became ridiculously wealthy as a private attorney after his first term as governor concluded. The other candidate padded his bank account with a no-bid state contract for his auto salvage business while he was serving in Congress. He then resigned from Congress before the Office of Congressional Ethics fully pursued charges that he improperly used his office staff to pressure Georgia officials to continue the no-bid contract, which generated hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for his family’s auto salvage business. Because of a separate failed business venture with his daughter, the latter of the two candidates now faces financial insolvency, at least according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution.
That is the top of the ticket. Nathan Deal or Roy Barnes.
We the voters are to blame for this "lesser of two" conundrum. We had six other candidates running within each party during the primary, but Deal and Barnes are who we chose. There's always John Monds, the Libertarian candidate, but his chances for November victory are slim to say the least.
I will pay attention to the upcoming governor's debates, but if I were to vote Monday when the early polls open, I would probably just skip past the governor's slot on the ballot.
That being said, we do have a few decent candidates on the ballot this year. I will have no qualms about voting for Sam Olens (a Republican running for State Attorney General) and Carol Porter (a Democrat running for Lt. Governor), but I have a lot to learn before I visit Mr. Sawyer at the Elections Office. I have a feeling I'll be waiting until Nov. 2.
The Battle of Niihau
As we close in on the anniversary of the 9/11 attack, I find myself thinking about the only event in our history that compares to the tragedy of nine years ago. It occurred on Dec., 7, 1941 on the Hawaiian Island of Oahu. Like the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a defining moment -- a terrible tragedy that killed thousands of Americans and forever altered the course of world events.
The effects of the Pearl Harbor attack still resonate, especially at the site. Resting several hundred yards across the idyllic turquoise waters from where the Navy’s active fleet moors today, the U.S.S. Arizona remains visible just below the surface. It is the final resting place of the 1,177 crew members who perished in the attack.
Ford Island, which rises in the middle of the harbor, is home to Naval support facilities and base housing. Its warehouses and towers are still pockmarked by the Japanese bullets fired 69 years ago. It remains impossible to ignore the history of the place.
And as with 9/11, the complete history of the Pearl Harbor attack will never be written. Too many lives were affected to construct a definitive story. Many of the individual struggles survive only in memories, or in stories passed down over kitchen tables.
I recently discovered a “forgotten” history of the Pearl Harbor attack in the form of Caroline Paul’s excellent 2006 historical novel, East Wind, Rain. Her fascinating book tells the story of the “Battle of Niihau.” Paul said she set out to write a non-fiction account, but found archival material both elusive and contradictory.
“This story seems to be a lost episode in history,” she explained. “That said, I stayed as close to the documented chain of events as I could. In many ways, you’re reading a true story.”
Niihau is the smallest and oldest of the major Hawaiian Islands. It is privately owned by the Robinson Family and has been since the mid-19th century. Since then, the population has fluctuated from 150 to 200 residents, most of whom are native Hawaiian. The Robinson family has kept the island isolated, prohibiting visitors and strictly controlling residents’ access to the modern world. To this day, the island has no cars, telephones or radios.
Niihauns today speak Hawaiian and work as ranchers, subsistence farmers and fishermen, just as they did seven decades ago.
On Dec., 7, 1941, a Japanese Zero crash-landed on Niihau after attacking Pearl Harbor. The pilot survived the wreck and was taken into custody, but only because visitors were strictly forbidden by the Robinsons, who lived on the neighboring island of Kauai.
Niihau had no contact with the outside world, other than through the Robinson family, but three residents in 1941 were of Japanese descent. The pilot told the Japanese Niihauns that Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor and more troops were coming. He promised Niihau would soon be overrun.
Terrified, the Japanese American family declined to translate this news to their neighbors. Instead, they decided to help the pilot destroy his plane and recapture his documents, which a town leader had taken from him. The pilot assured them that their cooperation would spare the entire island from the wrath of the Japanese Imperial Navy.
Because of the Pearl Harbor attack, Robinson’s representative did not come to Niihau for his scheduled visit.
For four days, the pilot plotted with the Japanese family, who were his de-facto guards. On the fifth day, the pilot and his Japanese American host took a shotgun from the empty Robinson house -- the only firearm on the island -- and set out to find the papers and destroy the plane.
The pilot burned homes when he could not find his papers. The Niihauns fled their village and several elders crossed the 18-mile Kaulakahi Channel in a rowboat, seeking help from Kauai.
By the time the elders returned with a Japanese-American Naval commander in tow, the Niihauns had overpowered the pilot, killing him with wreckage from his own plane. His Japanese descended helper had committed suicide and the other two Japanese Niihauns were soon arrested.
That one incident, the Battle of Niihau, is barely a footnote in history, but the events there greatly influenced President Roosevelt, who signed Executive Order 9066 in Feb. of 1942, sending 120,000 Japanese Americans to internment camps.
I’m glad I picked up Paul’s book. The “forgotten” stories like the one she weaves put names and faces on the tragic attack. We need to remember both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 as more than defining moments in history. They were terrible man-made tragedies that killed thousands and affected thousands more in ways we will never know.
The effects of the Pearl Harbor attack still resonate, especially at the site. Resting several hundred yards across the idyllic turquoise waters from where the Navy’s active fleet moors today, the U.S.S. Arizona remains visible just below the surface. It is the final resting place of the 1,177 crew members who perished in the attack.
Ford Island, which rises in the middle of the harbor, is home to Naval support facilities and base housing. Its warehouses and towers are still pockmarked by the Japanese bullets fired 69 years ago. It remains impossible to ignore the history of the place.
And as with 9/11, the complete history of the Pearl Harbor attack will never be written. Too many lives were affected to construct a definitive story. Many of the individual struggles survive only in memories, or in stories passed down over kitchen tables.
I recently discovered a “forgotten” history of the Pearl Harbor attack in the form of Caroline Paul’s excellent 2006 historical novel, East Wind, Rain. Her fascinating book tells the story of the “Battle of Niihau.” Paul said she set out to write a non-fiction account, but found archival material both elusive and contradictory.
“This story seems to be a lost episode in history,” she explained. “That said, I stayed as close to the documented chain of events as I could. In many ways, you’re reading a true story.”
Niihau is the smallest and oldest of the major Hawaiian Islands. It is privately owned by the Robinson Family and has been since the mid-19th century. Since then, the population has fluctuated from 150 to 200 residents, most of whom are native Hawaiian. The Robinson family has kept the island isolated, prohibiting visitors and strictly controlling residents’ access to the modern world. To this day, the island has no cars, telephones or radios.
Niihauns today speak Hawaiian and work as ranchers, subsistence farmers and fishermen, just as they did seven decades ago.
On Dec., 7, 1941, a Japanese Zero crash-landed on Niihau after attacking Pearl Harbor. The pilot survived the wreck and was taken into custody, but only because visitors were strictly forbidden by the Robinsons, who lived on the neighboring island of Kauai.
Niihau had no contact with the outside world, other than through the Robinson family, but three residents in 1941 were of Japanese descent. The pilot told the Japanese Niihauns that Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor and more troops were coming. He promised Niihau would soon be overrun.
Terrified, the Japanese American family declined to translate this news to their neighbors. Instead, they decided to help the pilot destroy his plane and recapture his documents, which a town leader had taken from him. The pilot assured them that their cooperation would spare the entire island from the wrath of the Japanese Imperial Navy.
Because of the Pearl Harbor attack, Robinson’s representative did not come to Niihau for his scheduled visit.
For four days, the pilot plotted with the Japanese family, who were his de-facto guards. On the fifth day, the pilot and his Japanese American host took a shotgun from the empty Robinson house -- the only firearm on the island -- and set out to find the papers and destroy the plane.
The pilot burned homes when he could not find his papers. The Niihauns fled their village and several elders crossed the 18-mile Kaulakahi Channel in a rowboat, seeking help from Kauai.
By the time the elders returned with a Japanese-American Naval commander in tow, the Niihauns had overpowered the pilot, killing him with wreckage from his own plane. His Japanese descended helper had committed suicide and the other two Japanese Niihauns were soon arrested.
That one incident, the Battle of Niihau, is barely a footnote in history, but the events there greatly influenced President Roosevelt, who signed Executive Order 9066 in Feb. of 1942, sending 120,000 Japanese Americans to internment camps.
I’m glad I picked up Paul’s book. The “forgotten” stories like the one she weaves put names and faces on the tragic attack. We need to remember both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 as more than defining moments in history. They were terrible man-made tragedies that killed thousands and affected thousands more in ways we will never know.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Rough day at the office
High school football is about to begin. I'm as excited as anyone in the county and I can't wait until Sandy Creek travels to Goza Road Friday night to take on the Whitewater Wildcats -- or, actually, I couldn't wait until a few events transpired today.
In an effort to play up the rivalry and get fans excited, I published a picture of a banner hung this week at Sandy Creek, supposedly by Whitewater students in the Thursday Fayette County News. It read, "On Friday night, We bury you." The 'W' in 'we' looked like a Whitewater logo. The banner referenced the infamous 'Wildcat Casket' that Creek fans snuck into last year's game. I published the image with good intentions. It included a cutline to explain the context and I wrote a story about the rivalry.
Well, I got a couple of angry phone calls today. A coach and administrator have accused me of being a fan of the other team, completely biased and have even suggested that my sports page is going to start a riot. Take a look at the paper and let me know if you find it offensive. I'd also be curious to see if you can guess what team's coach and administrator were infuriated by the thing. I didn't see it as one-sided at all. Needless to say, I won't be publicizing any more student pranks in the Fayette County News. Even if you and I think it's all in good fun, others aren't going to see it that way.
And it sure would be nice to get a call from a coach or administrator when we do something they like or appreciate -- like, say, get photos and write-ups about their actual children in the newspaper. Just saying.
I'm pretty flabbergasted by the outrage. Even more now that I've had the chance to sit on it for a while.
In an effort to play up the rivalry and get fans excited, I published a picture of a banner hung this week at Sandy Creek, supposedly by Whitewater students in the Thursday Fayette County News. It read, "On Friday night, We bury you." The 'W' in 'we' looked like a Whitewater logo. The banner referenced the infamous 'Wildcat Casket' that Creek fans snuck into last year's game. I published the image with good intentions. It included a cutline to explain the context and I wrote a story about the rivalry.
Well, I got a couple of angry phone calls today. A coach and administrator have accused me of being a fan of the other team, completely biased and have even suggested that my sports page is going to start a riot. Take a look at the paper and let me know if you find it offensive. I'd also be curious to see if you can guess what team's coach and administrator were infuriated by the thing. I didn't see it as one-sided at all. Needless to say, I won't be publicizing any more student pranks in the Fayette County News. Even if you and I think it's all in good fun, others aren't going to see it that way.
And it sure would be nice to get a call from a coach or administrator when we do something they like or appreciate -- like, say, get photos and write-ups about their actual children in the newspaper. Just saying.
I'm pretty flabbergasted by the outrage. Even more now that I've had the chance to sit on it for a while.
Searching for sanity in the great mosque debate
Have you seen Time Magazine this week? The cover of the issue shows an Islamic crescent moon and star depicted with America flag colors on a white background. The words “Is America Islamophobic?” jump off of the cover, representing Time’s seat at the national media’s great Lower Manhattan Mosque feast.
You can’t turn on a radio or a television without hearing something or other about the mosque planned near ground zero. And you’re most likely going to get some bad information, heavy handed opinions and ridiculous analogies from opponents and supporters of the project.
The entire mosque debate is in need of a heavy dose of reality. We’ll start with Time’s cover. The term “Islamophobic” is defined as an “irrational fear and/or hatred of Muslims and their culture.” Do a few polls and some protests about a planned mosque near ground zero mean that all of America has an irrational fear and/or hatred of Muslims? That appears to be what Time’s editors are asking.
The author of the accompanying story, Bobby Ghosh, essentially answers the question with “Maybe, but we’re still less Islamophobic than Western Europe.”
Regardless of what Time says, America, as a whole, is not Islamophobic. How many protestors have you seen parading outside of Fayetteville’s downtown Muslim Community Center over the past decade? I haven’t noticed any. The doctor’s office where I happened to see this week’s copy of Time is run by a group of M.D.’s, several of whom are Muslim. I doubt that the patients in the crowded waiting area were secretly bringing hatred and/or fear of their doctor’s religion with them to the examination room.
My next point of contention has to do with the name and location of the proposed mosque. It is to be called Park 51, a 13-story Muslim community center designed much like a big city YMCA. It is a full two city blocks from ground zero. Park 51 is no more the “Ground Zero Mosque” than the building it is set to replace is currently the “Ground Zero Burlington Coat Factory.” Park 51, a Muslim community center, is to be located in a fairly typical lower Manhattan neighborhood. Nearby tenants include other storefront mosques, stores and fast food restaurants.
Calling Park 51 “The Ground Zero Mosque” is simply not a true statement.
Building a mosque near ground zero has nothing at all to do with "Muslims rubbing in their 'victory,'” as some talking heads like Newt Gingrich so childishly suggest. Conservatives like Newt are supposed to go back to the Constitution when making arguments against or for anything. The Constitution is pretty clear on this one. Newt can make an argument that building a mosque near ground zero is in 'poor taste' until the cows come home. But it doesn’t change the fact that the Constitution specifically prevents the government from stepping in and prohibiting the mosque from being built. If the former Speaker wants to do the legal gymnastics needed to force Park 51 to move to another site, then he’s using big government to get the outcome he desires.
Tossing the ideals and founding principles of our Democracy aside to promote the tyranny of the majority is far, far worse than 'poor taste' -- at least in my opinion.
And then there’s the ‘poor taste’ argument itself. It, too, is based on faulty logic.
I think Oregon Senator Jeff Merckley has explained it best. In a Sunday letter in the Oregonian, Merckley wrote, “Many mosque opponents argue, just because it can be built does not mean it should be. They say it would be disrespectful to the memories of those who died on 9/11 to build a Muslim facility near the World Trade Center site.
“I appreciate the depth of emotions at play, but respectfully suggest that the presence of a mosque is only inappropriate near ground zero if we unfairly associate Muslim Americans with the atrocities of the foreign al-Qaida terrorists who attacked our nation. Such an association is a profound error. Muslim Americans are our fellow citizens, not our enemies.”
Merckley closed his piece quoting the 43rd president of the United States, who always went out of his way to distinguish between Al-Qaida and American Muslims.
“President Bush understood the importance of separating the terrorists from over a billion peaceful Muslims around the world whose faith has been used as an excuse by those bent on killing,” Merckely wrote. “Speaking at a mosque just six days after the World Trade Center attack, President Bush said, ‘These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith, and it’s important for my fellow Americans to understand that.’”
Now, if only Bush would break his post-presidential silence. I have a feeling I know where he would stand on this issue. It might not make Newt or Sarah Palin or happy, but an opinion by Bush might insert some sanity into this debate.
You can’t turn on a radio or a television without hearing something or other about the mosque planned near ground zero. And you’re most likely going to get some bad information, heavy handed opinions and ridiculous analogies from opponents and supporters of the project.
The entire mosque debate is in need of a heavy dose of reality. We’ll start with Time’s cover. The term “Islamophobic” is defined as an “irrational fear and/or hatred of Muslims and their culture.” Do a few polls and some protests about a planned mosque near ground zero mean that all of America has an irrational fear and/or hatred of Muslims? That appears to be what Time’s editors are asking.
The author of the accompanying story, Bobby Ghosh, essentially answers the question with “Maybe, but we’re still less Islamophobic than Western Europe.”
Regardless of what Time says, America, as a whole, is not Islamophobic. How many protestors have you seen parading outside of Fayetteville’s downtown Muslim Community Center over the past decade? I haven’t noticed any. The doctor’s office where I happened to see this week’s copy of Time is run by a group of M.D.’s, several of whom are Muslim. I doubt that the patients in the crowded waiting area were secretly bringing hatred and/or fear of their doctor’s religion with them to the examination room.
My next point of contention has to do with the name and location of the proposed mosque. It is to be called Park 51, a 13-story Muslim community center designed much like a big city YMCA. It is a full two city blocks from ground zero. Park 51 is no more the “Ground Zero Mosque” than the building it is set to replace is currently the “Ground Zero Burlington Coat Factory.” Park 51, a Muslim community center, is to be located in a fairly typical lower Manhattan neighborhood. Nearby tenants include other storefront mosques, stores and fast food restaurants.
Calling Park 51 “The Ground Zero Mosque” is simply not a true statement.
Building a mosque near ground zero has nothing at all to do with "Muslims rubbing in their 'victory,'” as some talking heads like Newt Gingrich so childishly suggest. Conservatives like Newt are supposed to go back to the Constitution when making arguments against or for anything. The Constitution is pretty clear on this one. Newt can make an argument that building a mosque near ground zero is in 'poor taste' until the cows come home. But it doesn’t change the fact that the Constitution specifically prevents the government from stepping in and prohibiting the mosque from being built. If the former Speaker wants to do the legal gymnastics needed to force Park 51 to move to another site, then he’s using big government to get the outcome he desires.
Tossing the ideals and founding principles of our Democracy aside to promote the tyranny of the majority is far, far worse than 'poor taste' -- at least in my opinion.
And then there’s the ‘poor taste’ argument itself. It, too, is based on faulty logic.
I think Oregon Senator Jeff Merckley has explained it best. In a Sunday letter in the Oregonian, Merckley wrote, “Many mosque opponents argue, just because it can be built does not mean it should be. They say it would be disrespectful to the memories of those who died on 9/11 to build a Muslim facility near the World Trade Center site.
“I appreciate the depth of emotions at play, but respectfully suggest that the presence of a mosque is only inappropriate near ground zero if we unfairly associate Muslim Americans with the atrocities of the foreign al-Qaida terrorists who attacked our nation. Such an association is a profound error. Muslim Americans are our fellow citizens, not our enemies.”
Merckley closed his piece quoting the 43rd president of the United States, who always went out of his way to distinguish between Al-Qaida and American Muslims.
“President Bush understood the importance of separating the terrorists from over a billion peaceful Muslims around the world whose faith has been used as an excuse by those bent on killing,” Merckely wrote. “Speaking at a mosque just six days after the World Trade Center attack, President Bush said, ‘These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith, and it’s important for my fellow Americans to understand that.’”
Now, if only Bush would break his post-presidential silence. I have a feeling I know where he would stand on this issue. It might not make Newt or Sarah Palin or happy, but an opinion by Bush might insert some sanity into this debate.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Steve Brown: Fayette's comeback kid
The election results are in. Everybody at the office is talking about the man who picked himself up from past political defeat and won a convincing victory Tuesday.
And no, we're not discussing Roy Barnes.
Steve Brown is Fayette's version of the comeback kid. Just a few years after voters swept him out of the office of mayor of Peachtree City and then blocked his attempt to represent the county in the Georgia General Assembly, Brown has managed to unseat once popular Commission Chairman Jack Smith on Fayette's most powerful local governing authority.
Turnout was fairly low, as expected, but Brown bested the incumbent by nearly 1,000 votes.
So how did Brown do it? I don't claim to have all of the answers, but I will offer a few theories. First off, it's been several years since Brown held office. In this race, Smith was the clear incumbent / establishment candidate. Usually incumbency is a great asset, but in the era of the Tea Party, it has grown into a burden -- just ask Cyndi Plunkett and Steve Boone over in Peachtree City.
Secondly, Brown successfully attached Smith to the most unpopular local public works project in recent memory. The West Fayetteville Bypass was not Smith's brainchild. He did not divert funds from elsewhere to build it. But he did not stop its construction and that probably hurt him with some voters.
The overwhelming rejection of the SPLOST renewal in 2009 was as close to a referendum on the bypass as we're going to see. Tuesday's vote was in some ways round two of the bypass referendum.
Another factor that may have helped Brown was his decision to go negative early and often. As a regular columnist on the 'anything goes' editorial pages and blogs of Fayette's other newspaper, Brown attacked the bypass project for months before he jumped into the race. He railed against public transportation coming to Fayette -- managing to link that concept with Smith's work on the Atlanta Regional Commission. And he attacked Smith for being a board member of a local bank.
The repetition may have worked, but the key was Brown's choice of angles of attack. He went after an extremely unpopular road project, banks (think Wall Street) and MARTA.
Can you think of three things the average Fayette voter dislikes more than the West Fayetteville Bypass, Wall Street bailouts and the idea of having a MARTA bus terminal in Peachtree City?
By choosing the right buttons to push, Brown had people agreeing with him. It then became easier for folks to forget about the reasons why they voted against him in the past.
And it also helped that Smith is not comfortable as a campaigner. He hesitated to respond to Brown's attacks. He kept his advertisements positive. When he finally did come out swinging to defend himself, it may have been too late.
Smith failed to fully embrace the bypass. I can't say if that was a good move or not.
I, for one, see a need for the road. Fayette must establish a conduit for new growth. Without some steady, controlled residential growth, we're going to turn into a high-tax retirement community. But, Smith never described the bypass as a 'Central Parkway for future growth' as Fayetteville Mayor Ken Steele has called it. (Brown also uses the term 'Central Parkway'. He has said he sees no problem with the road being built, but he does not want taxpayer money funding it. He believes it should be modeled after Peachtree Parkway, wherein subdivision developers pay for the road once the economy picks up).
Smith was very popular two years ago. In 2008, voters gave his team a stamp of approval by electing three commissioners with similar ideas and platforms.
Just two years ago, the Harold Bost / Greg Dunn / Peter Pfieffer branch of the local Republican Party looked like it had been supplanted for good.
But then the Tea Parties and their anti-incumbent fervor took hold in Fayette. Construction began on the bypass. A County Commissioner was arrested for possession of marijuana and remained on the board.
Suddenly, it became much harder to get credit for navigating the county through a painful recession without raising taxes or drastically cutting services.
Brown took advantage of the right situation and played his cards superbly. Voters have awarded him with another chance -- something that seemed very unlikely just a few years ago.
I look forward to working with Steve Brown, and I hope he excels in his new role.
At the same time, I have really enjoyed working with Jack Smith and I'm thankful for his years of service. Like both Brown and Smith, I just want what's best for Fayette County. Let's see where things go from here...
And no, we're not discussing Roy Barnes.
Steve Brown is Fayette's version of the comeback kid. Just a few years after voters swept him out of the office of mayor of Peachtree City and then blocked his attempt to represent the county in the Georgia General Assembly, Brown has managed to unseat once popular Commission Chairman Jack Smith on Fayette's most powerful local governing authority.
Turnout was fairly low, as expected, but Brown bested the incumbent by nearly 1,000 votes.
So how did Brown do it? I don't claim to have all of the answers, but I will offer a few theories. First off, it's been several years since Brown held office. In this race, Smith was the clear incumbent / establishment candidate. Usually incumbency is a great asset, but in the era of the Tea Party, it has grown into a burden -- just ask Cyndi Plunkett and Steve Boone over in Peachtree City.
Secondly, Brown successfully attached Smith to the most unpopular local public works project in recent memory. The West Fayetteville Bypass was not Smith's brainchild. He did not divert funds from elsewhere to build it. But he did not stop its construction and that probably hurt him with some voters.
The overwhelming rejection of the SPLOST renewal in 2009 was as close to a referendum on the bypass as we're going to see. Tuesday's vote was in some ways round two of the bypass referendum.
Another factor that may have helped Brown was his decision to go negative early and often. As a regular columnist on the 'anything goes' editorial pages and blogs of Fayette's other newspaper, Brown attacked the bypass project for months before he jumped into the race. He railed against public transportation coming to Fayette -- managing to link that concept with Smith's work on the Atlanta Regional Commission. And he attacked Smith for being a board member of a local bank.
The repetition may have worked, but the key was Brown's choice of angles of attack. He went after an extremely unpopular road project, banks (think Wall Street) and MARTA.
Can you think of three things the average Fayette voter dislikes more than the West Fayetteville Bypass, Wall Street bailouts and the idea of having a MARTA bus terminal in Peachtree City?
By choosing the right buttons to push, Brown had people agreeing with him. It then became easier for folks to forget about the reasons why they voted against him in the past.
And it also helped that Smith is not comfortable as a campaigner. He hesitated to respond to Brown's attacks. He kept his advertisements positive. When he finally did come out swinging to defend himself, it may have been too late.
Smith failed to fully embrace the bypass. I can't say if that was a good move or not.
I, for one, see a need for the road. Fayette must establish a conduit for new growth. Without some steady, controlled residential growth, we're going to turn into a high-tax retirement community. But, Smith never described the bypass as a 'Central Parkway for future growth' as Fayetteville Mayor Ken Steele has called it. (Brown also uses the term 'Central Parkway'. He has said he sees no problem with the road being built, but he does not want taxpayer money funding it. He believes it should be modeled after Peachtree Parkway, wherein subdivision developers pay for the road once the economy picks up).
Smith was very popular two years ago. In 2008, voters gave his team a stamp of approval by electing three commissioners with similar ideas and platforms.
Just two years ago, the Harold Bost / Greg Dunn / Peter Pfieffer branch of the local Republican Party looked like it had been supplanted for good.
But then the Tea Parties and their anti-incumbent fervor took hold in Fayette. Construction began on the bypass. A County Commissioner was arrested for possession of marijuana and remained on the board.
Suddenly, it became much harder to get credit for navigating the county through a painful recession without raising taxes or drastically cutting services.
Brown took advantage of the right situation and played his cards superbly. Voters have awarded him with another chance -- something that seemed very unlikely just a few years ago.
I look forward to working with Steve Brown, and I hope he excels in his new role.
At the same time, I have really enjoyed working with Jack Smith and I'm thankful for his years of service. Like both Brown and Smith, I just want what's best for Fayette County. Let's see where things go from here...
Thursday, July 15, 2010
We can’t put it off any longer... time to vote
Where oh where have all the voters gone? According to the county elections office, only 1,125 Fayette residents cast ballots during the first five weeks of early voting for the July 20 primaries.
As elections superintendent Tom Sawyer put it, “That’s the number we usually see in a day in some of our busy election years.”
Fayette typically boasts a turnout rate far above the state average. So what is keeping us from the polls this cycle?
There are several theories floating around the office here at Fayette Newspapers. One is that folks just aren’t used to voting in the summer. People are on vacation and so are their minds. Congress and the Supreme Court are both in recess. The Tea Parties have simmered down a bit and many typical voters just aren’t that interested.
Another theory has to do with the length of the ballot itself. With a huge slate of statewide offices up for grabs and not a lot of familiar incumbents running for re-election, voters are feeling overwhelmed. For instance, those of us taking Republican ballots this time around have to choose one of nine candidates for Insurance Commissioner, and that’s just one of many crowded down-ballot races.
And finally, the television presence has been subdued -- at least until this week. With fundraising down across the board, many campaigns have been saving their precious few TV. ad dollars for the home stretch. Maybe now that we’re being bombarded with ads, we’ll actually get out and vote.
I think there’s some truth to all three of those explanations.
However, it also does not help that at the top of the tickets, neither side boasts a particularly energizing figure. While Roy Barnes has name recognition as a former governor, he has excited Democrats not because he’s bringing great new ideas to the table. Folks are reluctantly getting back onboard the old Roy train because he looks like he has a decent shot at winning -- especially when compared to the seven Republican challengers who are currently pummelling each other to face him.
The governor candidates on the GOP side leave a whole lot to be desired.
A year and a half ago, it looked like the Republican primary for governor would be the heavyweight title bout for the keys to the Mansion on West Paces Ferry.
But then our popular Congressman Lynn Westmoreland decided not to run. Shortly after, Georgia’s powerful Lt. Governor Casey Cagle dropped out of the race.
None of the remaining frontrunners -- Former Sec. of State Karen Handel, Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine, Former State Senator Eric Johnson and Former U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal -- have managed to pull away from the pack.
All four have battled ethics problems on the campaign trail and three of the four have gone decidedly negative with their campaign ads.
I’ll give Eric Johnson credit for doing his best to remain above the childish mud-slinging, but it’s awfully hard for me to get excited about a candidate who once staked his political future on the terribly short-sighted education “solution” of school vouchers. Johnson also gave disgraced former House Speaker Glen Richardson a free pass as head of the Joint House and Senate Ethics Committee.
The polls close Tuesday at 7 p.m. It’s time to hold my nose and choose one of the four frontrunners, or go with one of the dark horses.
Of the three also-rans, State Rep. Jeff Chapman has the best shot at pulling off an upset. I don’t necessarily agree with everything the earnest Brunswick native has said on the campaign trail, but he is the one true competent, ethics-championing outsider in this race.
I’m leaning toward Chapman today, but I haven’t completely made up my mind.
And for those completely disgusted with the field of candidates the Republicans have lined up for the state’s top office, there’s always Otis Putnam. Also a native of Brunswick, Mr. Putnam listed his job as “Walmart” on his qualifying papers. An everyman outsider with little support outside of his own extended family, Putnam is improbably still in this race. Even if he pulls in just a couple thousand votes, the party leaders in this state should get the message. Putnam is this cycle’s protest vote.
Still, the key is to get out and actually vote. Who we choose next week will directly impact our lives -- especially when it comes to the local offices.
I don’t think it is all that widely known that three important local positions will be decided in this Republican Primary. July 20 will be our only chance to vote for two county commission seats and one school board post. None of those three races have Democratic challengers in the fall. Even if you leave all of the other fields blank, ask for a Republican primary ballot Tueday and help decide who will lead our county for the next four years.
As elections superintendent Tom Sawyer put it, “That’s the number we usually see in a day in some of our busy election years.”
Fayette typically boasts a turnout rate far above the state average. So what is keeping us from the polls this cycle?
There are several theories floating around the office here at Fayette Newspapers. One is that folks just aren’t used to voting in the summer. People are on vacation and so are their minds. Congress and the Supreme Court are both in recess. The Tea Parties have simmered down a bit and many typical voters just aren’t that interested.
Another theory has to do with the length of the ballot itself. With a huge slate of statewide offices up for grabs and not a lot of familiar incumbents running for re-election, voters are feeling overwhelmed. For instance, those of us taking Republican ballots this time around have to choose one of nine candidates for Insurance Commissioner, and that’s just one of many crowded down-ballot races.
And finally, the television presence has been subdued -- at least until this week. With fundraising down across the board, many campaigns have been saving their precious few TV. ad dollars for the home stretch. Maybe now that we’re being bombarded with ads, we’ll actually get out and vote.
I think there’s some truth to all three of those explanations.
However, it also does not help that at the top of the tickets, neither side boasts a particularly energizing figure. While Roy Barnes has name recognition as a former governor, he has excited Democrats not because he’s bringing great new ideas to the table. Folks are reluctantly getting back onboard the old Roy train because he looks like he has a decent shot at winning -- especially when compared to the seven Republican challengers who are currently pummelling each other to face him.
The governor candidates on the GOP side leave a whole lot to be desired.
A year and a half ago, it looked like the Republican primary for governor would be the heavyweight title bout for the keys to the Mansion on West Paces Ferry.
But then our popular Congressman Lynn Westmoreland decided not to run. Shortly after, Georgia’s powerful Lt. Governor Casey Cagle dropped out of the race.
None of the remaining frontrunners -- Former Sec. of State Karen Handel, Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine, Former State Senator Eric Johnson and Former U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal -- have managed to pull away from the pack.
All four have battled ethics problems on the campaign trail and three of the four have gone decidedly negative with their campaign ads.
I’ll give Eric Johnson credit for doing his best to remain above the childish mud-slinging, but it’s awfully hard for me to get excited about a candidate who once staked his political future on the terribly short-sighted education “solution” of school vouchers. Johnson also gave disgraced former House Speaker Glen Richardson a free pass as head of the Joint House and Senate Ethics Committee.
The polls close Tuesday at 7 p.m. It’s time to hold my nose and choose one of the four frontrunners, or go with one of the dark horses.
Of the three also-rans, State Rep. Jeff Chapman has the best shot at pulling off an upset. I don’t necessarily agree with everything the earnest Brunswick native has said on the campaign trail, but he is the one true competent, ethics-championing outsider in this race.
I’m leaning toward Chapman today, but I haven’t completely made up my mind.
And for those completely disgusted with the field of candidates the Republicans have lined up for the state’s top office, there’s always Otis Putnam. Also a native of Brunswick, Mr. Putnam listed his job as “Walmart” on his qualifying papers. An everyman outsider with little support outside of his own extended family, Putnam is improbably still in this race. Even if he pulls in just a couple thousand votes, the party leaders in this state should get the message. Putnam is this cycle’s protest vote.
Still, the key is to get out and actually vote. Who we choose next week will directly impact our lives -- especially when it comes to the local offices.
I don’t think it is all that widely known that three important local positions will be decided in this Republican Primary. July 20 will be our only chance to vote for two county commission seats and one school board post. None of those three races have Democratic challengers in the fall. Even if you leave all of the other fields blank, ask for a Republican primary ballot Tueday and help decide who will lead our county for the next four years.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
This election should be about planning for Fayette’s future
The polls are open from now until July 20 and Fayette has some important decisions to make. Two county commission posts and one school board position are up for grabs.
The county is staring down a host of major challenges, many of which have barely been mentioned in all of the campaign rhetoric about ‘roads to nowhere’ and ‘who voted for TDK when’ and ‘so-and-so just loves MARTA and/or kudzu-munching goats.’
The big, very gray elephant in the room is the demographics of the county itself. According to the 2009 Census estimate, Fayette’s once steady growth has ground to a halt. And the people here are getting older at a rapid rate.
Our quality of life, schools and public safety remain superb, but the demand for Fayette exceptionalism seems to be dwindling. The out-of-control prices of the pre-recession real estate bubble pushed young families out to more affordable growing communities like Coweta -- the same types of young families who had been settling in Fayette during the early to mid-‘90s.
The school board planned for continued growth, but the nearly empty Rivers Elementary School and the dozens of empty classrooms throughout the district stand out as very physical reminders of what the future potentially holds.
In metro Atlanta, only Clayton County’s growth rate is now slower than Fayette’s. That may seem like a blessing for those of us who enjoy the county’s rural feel, but it presents a host of unique challenges.
Without demand for housing, property values will continue to slide -- even after the recession’s affects fade. With a booming senior population, Fayette will see more and more households graduate to fixed retirement incomes. This will obviously change the nature of Fayette’s business community. If current trends continue, sales taxes will keep shrinking in over-retailed Fayetteville. Coweta’s growth in the Senoia and Thomas Crossroads areas will suck taxes and investment out of the county on the other end (i.e: the new Sam’s Club going in a stone’s throw from the county line).
As sales go down, stores will close. As tax receipts slide, services will either be cut or property taxes will need to be raised. We’re seeing that this year in Peachtree City, where city staff has made it clear that the dire five year budget outlook has more to do with the city approaching build-out than it does with the economic downturn.
Restoring a healthy level of growth is not a cure-all for Fayette’s challenges, but growth does provide a margin of error.
With a constantly increasing tax base, it is relatively easy to provide the infrastructure and services to accommodate new residents. Once the growth goes away, the taxpayers are still paying for that infrastructure, but resources are suddenly very limited.
The school board and county commission candidates who will be receiving my vote this summer are the ones who have solid plans to both restore modest levels of growth and simultaneously confront the challenge of transitioning Fayette to a mature, sustainable community capable of thriving with a large senior population.
The six locals in the contested primary races have until July 20 to convince me and others that they are the right leaders for this difficult time.
The county is staring down a host of major challenges, many of which have barely been mentioned in all of the campaign rhetoric about ‘roads to nowhere’ and ‘who voted for TDK when’ and ‘so-and-so just loves MARTA and/or kudzu-munching goats.’
The big, very gray elephant in the room is the demographics of the county itself. According to the 2009 Census estimate, Fayette’s once steady growth has ground to a halt. And the people here are getting older at a rapid rate.
Our quality of life, schools and public safety remain superb, but the demand for Fayette exceptionalism seems to be dwindling. The out-of-control prices of the pre-recession real estate bubble pushed young families out to more affordable growing communities like Coweta -- the same types of young families who had been settling in Fayette during the early to mid-‘90s.
The school board planned for continued growth, but the nearly empty Rivers Elementary School and the dozens of empty classrooms throughout the district stand out as very physical reminders of what the future potentially holds.
In metro Atlanta, only Clayton County’s growth rate is now slower than Fayette’s. That may seem like a blessing for those of us who enjoy the county’s rural feel, but it presents a host of unique challenges.
Without demand for housing, property values will continue to slide -- even after the recession’s affects fade. With a booming senior population, Fayette will see more and more households graduate to fixed retirement incomes. This will obviously change the nature of Fayette’s business community. If current trends continue, sales taxes will keep shrinking in over-retailed Fayetteville. Coweta’s growth in the Senoia and Thomas Crossroads areas will suck taxes and investment out of the county on the other end (i.e: the new Sam’s Club going in a stone’s throw from the county line).
As sales go down, stores will close. As tax receipts slide, services will either be cut or property taxes will need to be raised. We’re seeing that this year in Peachtree City, where city staff has made it clear that the dire five year budget outlook has more to do with the city approaching build-out than it does with the economic downturn.
Restoring a healthy level of growth is not a cure-all for Fayette’s challenges, but growth does provide a margin of error.
With a constantly increasing tax base, it is relatively easy to provide the infrastructure and services to accommodate new residents. Once the growth goes away, the taxpayers are still paying for that infrastructure, but resources are suddenly very limited.
The school board and county commission candidates who will be receiving my vote this summer are the ones who have solid plans to both restore modest levels of growth and simultaneously confront the challenge of transitioning Fayette to a mature, sustainable community capable of thriving with a large senior population.
The six locals in the contested primary races have until July 20 to convince me and others that they are the right leaders for this difficult time.
The age of the bedroom scandal
Here's a quick trivia question: Aside from being famous American politicians, what do Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton have in common?
They were all well known for having relationships with women other than their wives. The fact that only the last name on the list faced real public scrutiny for his indiscretions says a lot about how our society and media have changed over the past few decades.
Once upon a time, corruption and criminality were the harbingers of shame and political ruin. People cared little about the sin of adultery, which has no chance of leading to a grand jury indictment.
Hamilton, the guy on the $10 bill, once published a lengthy pamphlet to clear his name from political scandal. In it, he conceded "an irregular and indelicate amour" in order to refute the "more heinous charge" of being extorted by his mistress' husband. His bedroom sin was a secondary concern.
Of course, if Hamilton were alive today, he would face the same media scrutiny that Mark Sanford, Glen Richardson, Eliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton and others know so well.
These days, a bedroom scandal is more damaging to a recognized political figure than nearly any other form of misconduct.
Lewis Lapham tackles this topic in depth with his excellent essay titled "Doing the Laundry" (Harper's Magazine, May 2010).
Lapham argues that the focus on the personal lives of politicians is keeping some of the most qualified among us from running for office.
"Given the constant croaking of the blogs that live in hope of catching flies, any politician old enough to know that he hasn't led a blameless life must also know that sooner or later the National Enquirer will empty a chamber pot on his head," Lapham wrote.
"Which means that the only people likely to stand for public office will be those as self-deluded as John Edwards and Sarah Palin."
National coverage of the 2012 election cycle clearly demonstrates the type of flies the mainstream media is trying to catch.
Here in Georgia, we have two men running for governor who have been accused of serious ethics violations, which could lead to indictments.
Front-runner John Oxendine has been accused of accepting $120,000 in illegal campaign donations from 10 loosely connected political action committees tied to a Georgia insurance baron.
Nathan Deal, who resigned from Congress to run for governor, stepped down just as House Ethics Committee investigators were digging into whether the Republican illegally used his influence to steer state contracts to a salvage company he owns.
Neither of these stories have gained traction outside of Georgia and both candidates appear to be unfazed. Their poll numbers remain strong.
What has garnered the national spotlight is the allegation that South Carolina Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley took part in a pair of extramarital affairs.
Despite the scandal, Haley defeated the other three Republican candidates by a wide margin Tuesday and nearly avoided a runoff.
Perhaps the voters in Mark Sanford's home state are more concerned with voting records, platforms and proposals than the alleged details of a candidate's sex life.
Records, platforms and actual criminal scandals are what the media should focus on as well.
They were all well known for having relationships with women other than their wives. The fact that only the last name on the list faced real public scrutiny for his indiscretions says a lot about how our society and media have changed over the past few decades.
Once upon a time, corruption and criminality were the harbingers of shame and political ruin. People cared little about the sin of adultery, which has no chance of leading to a grand jury indictment.
Hamilton, the guy on the $10 bill, once published a lengthy pamphlet to clear his name from political scandal. In it, he conceded "an irregular and indelicate amour" in order to refute the "more heinous charge" of being extorted by his mistress' husband. His bedroom sin was a secondary concern.
Of course, if Hamilton were alive today, he would face the same media scrutiny that Mark Sanford, Glen Richardson, Eliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton and others know so well.
These days, a bedroom scandal is more damaging to a recognized political figure than nearly any other form of misconduct.
Lewis Lapham tackles this topic in depth with his excellent essay titled "Doing the Laundry" (Harper's Magazine, May 2010).
Lapham argues that the focus on the personal lives of politicians is keeping some of the most qualified among us from running for office.
"Given the constant croaking of the blogs that live in hope of catching flies, any politician old enough to know that he hasn't led a blameless life must also know that sooner or later the National Enquirer will empty a chamber pot on his head," Lapham wrote.
"Which means that the only people likely to stand for public office will be those as self-deluded as John Edwards and Sarah Palin."
National coverage of the 2012 election cycle clearly demonstrates the type of flies the mainstream media is trying to catch.
Here in Georgia, we have two men running for governor who have been accused of serious ethics violations, which could lead to indictments.
Front-runner John Oxendine has been accused of accepting $120,000 in illegal campaign donations from 10 loosely connected political action committees tied to a Georgia insurance baron.
Nathan Deal, who resigned from Congress to run for governor, stepped down just as House Ethics Committee investigators were digging into whether the Republican illegally used his influence to steer state contracts to a salvage company he owns.
Neither of these stories have gained traction outside of Georgia and both candidates appear to be unfazed. Their poll numbers remain strong.
What has garnered the national spotlight is the allegation that South Carolina Republican gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley took part in a pair of extramarital affairs.
Despite the scandal, Haley defeated the other three Republican candidates by a wide margin Tuesday and nearly avoided a runoff.
Perhaps the voters in Mark Sanford's home state are more concerned with voting records, platforms and proposals than the alleged details of a candidate's sex life.
Records, platforms and actual criminal scandals are what the media should focus on as well.
SB 1070 is working, though not necessarily as intended
I have to give the Arizona state government some credit... Senate Bill 1070 is working.
For those of you who have been hiding under rocks for the past month or two, SB 1070 is Arizona's extremely controversial new illegal immigration crackdown, known as the 'Papers Please' law.
Some folks, especially some staunch conservatives, see nothing wrong with the actual language of the bill.
I tend to agree with the others, like Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and Republican former Governor Jeb Bush, who believe SB 1070 is a Constitutionally-flawed boondoggle of a law that could lead to widespread racial profiling, intensely divided communities and extremely over-burdened local police forces.
However, I also believe the law is doing some good -- namely forcing the Federal Government and the nation to address the problem of illegal immigration, especially as it affects border states like Arizona.
President Obama ordered 1,200 National Guard Troops to the border just this week -- something Arizona has requested for years.
After all, it was the murder of an Arizona border rancher that helped push SB 1070 through that state's general assembly.
On Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder held a conference with law enforcement officials from several major cities, including Phoenix, to discuss immigration issues and solutions. Since SB 1070 was signed, the topic of illegal immigration has shot up the Federal Justice Department's list of priorities.
During a Texas convention Tuesday, former president George W. Bush said it was a tactical error on his part to not tackle immigration reform after he won re-election in 2004.
The former Commander in Chief pushed for comprehensive immigration reform during his first term, but failed to win the support of Congress. Bush, who is famous for asking observers to 'let history judge' his presidency, lists his immigration reform failure as one of his few regrets.
Recent reports out of Congress seem to indicate that both sides of the aisle are warming to the idea of taking up comprehensive immigration reform sooner rather than later.
According to the Christian Science Monitor, a group of Republicans were intent on forcing a vote on sending more guard troops to the border prior to Obama's executive order.
All this and SB 1070 is still just a stack of papers... Remember, the actual provisions of SB 1070 have not yet become law. Even without legal challenges, that wouldn't occur until late this summer. But, the lawsuits are already mounting and it will take time for SB 1070 to work through the courts. 'Papers Please' won't be in practice in Arizona any time soon, if ever.
Yet, the controversial law has effectively kick-started real reform debate on illegal immigration, something our country has needed for years.
And one final thought: SB 1070 is doing a fine job stirring things up on its own. We don't need a copycat law in Georgia. Copycat SB 1070s will only lead to massive legal fees, protests and boycotts burdened by us, Georgia's taxpayers.
To Governor hopefuls Nathan Deal, Eric Johnson, Karen Handel and John Oxendine: I am not impressed.
During a forum last week, all four candidates said that if elected, they will push for a law similar to SB 1070 in the Peach State. I'll remember those foolhardy promises when I step up to the voting machine this summer and fall.
For those of you who have been hiding under rocks for the past month or two, SB 1070 is Arizona's extremely controversial new illegal immigration crackdown, known as the 'Papers Please' law.
Some folks, especially some staunch conservatives, see nothing wrong with the actual language of the bill.
I tend to agree with the others, like Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and Republican former Governor Jeb Bush, who believe SB 1070 is a Constitutionally-flawed boondoggle of a law that could lead to widespread racial profiling, intensely divided communities and extremely over-burdened local police forces.
However, I also believe the law is doing some good -- namely forcing the Federal Government and the nation to address the problem of illegal immigration, especially as it affects border states like Arizona.
President Obama ordered 1,200 National Guard Troops to the border just this week -- something Arizona has requested for years.
After all, it was the murder of an Arizona border rancher that helped push SB 1070 through that state's general assembly.
On Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder held a conference with law enforcement officials from several major cities, including Phoenix, to discuss immigration issues and solutions. Since SB 1070 was signed, the topic of illegal immigration has shot up the Federal Justice Department's list of priorities.
During a Texas convention Tuesday, former president George W. Bush said it was a tactical error on his part to not tackle immigration reform after he won re-election in 2004.
The former Commander in Chief pushed for comprehensive immigration reform during his first term, but failed to win the support of Congress. Bush, who is famous for asking observers to 'let history judge' his presidency, lists his immigration reform failure as one of his few regrets.
Recent reports out of Congress seem to indicate that both sides of the aisle are warming to the idea of taking up comprehensive immigration reform sooner rather than later.
According to the Christian Science Monitor, a group of Republicans were intent on forcing a vote on sending more guard troops to the border prior to Obama's executive order.
All this and SB 1070 is still just a stack of papers... Remember, the actual provisions of SB 1070 have not yet become law. Even without legal challenges, that wouldn't occur until late this summer. But, the lawsuits are already mounting and it will take time for SB 1070 to work through the courts. 'Papers Please' won't be in practice in Arizona any time soon, if ever.
Yet, the controversial law has effectively kick-started real reform debate on illegal immigration, something our country has needed for years.
And one final thought: SB 1070 is doing a fine job stirring things up on its own. We don't need a copycat law in Georgia. Copycat SB 1070s will only lead to massive legal fees, protests and boycotts burdened by us, Georgia's taxpayers.
To Governor hopefuls Nathan Deal, Eric Johnson, Karen Handel and John Oxendine: I am not impressed.
During a forum last week, all four candidates said that if elected, they will push for a law similar to SB 1070 in the Peach State. I'll remember those foolhardy promises when I step up to the voting machine this summer and fall.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Extreme partisan politics is nothing new
I hear it all the time: "The country is more divided now than it's ever been."
The good people on the left insist that the voices of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the vicious bloggers of the 'Tea Party fringe' are plunging our national political discourse to new lows of nastiness with their personal attacks and backward thinking.
The good folks on the right try to convince me that it is the popular opinions aired by MSNBC, the snobs in Hollywood and the vicious bloggers of the 'Left Wing fringe' that are dragging us down with their personal attacks as they lead us toward socialism and ruin.
The truth is, the political gamesmanship and battles of today always sting more than the attacks of the past. Political outrage has a very short shelf life. We so easily forget about the viciousness of last week's sound-bites.
As noisy and annoying as the bloggers and pundits are today, we're not approaching some record low. Extreme partisanship is as old as our democracy itself.
I recently came across some historical documents attributed to a once-prominent and respected Georgia politician.
He was a University of Georgia graduate, an intellectual, a longtime state representative and a two-term U.S. Congressman.
This noteworthy Georgian was a master of the political battlefield. He slung mud with a nefarious ill- will that would make folks like Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann blush and run for cover.
When this Georgia Congressman confronted a particular presidential candidate he did not like, he didn't attack him with a 30 second t.v. spot or a half hour radio program. Our former statesman took things much further, writing a complete unauthorized biography of the candidate, filled with unbiased character assassinations.
"Now the people ought to rise in the strengths of their minds and exert some thinking power of their own," he wrote.
"Do not let [the presidential candidate] play upon your ignorance and then laugh at your weakness...
"May God in his infinite mercy save our country from this man."
Our one-time Georgia Congressman filled 200 pages of this widely circulated 'biography' with political vitriol, calling the subject of his work "an evil genius" who "cherishes his slyness and cold calculation as virtues."
While the Georgia author was popular in his home state, he was less known nationally. When it came time to go to the presses, he decided to publish the work under the assumed name of one of his much more well known political friends: A gentleman who had recently quit the cut-throat realm of Washington politics to retire out west.
Like thousands of pundits after him, our former Congressman liberally quoted Patrick Henry in his tirades. He used Henry's sayings to introduce a series of newspaper columns signed 'Atticus' -- wherein he embraced the blogger-cherished cloak of anonymity long before the internet was invented.
In these 'Atticus' columns, our statesman railed against the over-reaching federal government. He was especially hostile toward Georgia's federally protected non-citizen communities, calling them, "sanctuaries for villainy and harbors for outlaws in the heart of this very state."
It was his contention that these non-citizens be driven from the borders and resettled elsewhere. Using violence to do so was most certainly an option.
Who was this once famed politician? His name was Augustin Smith Clayton. The book he penned during the lead up to the 1836 presidential election was titled, "The Life of Martin Van Buren."
The popular friend who Clayton used as his pseudonym / front-man for the project? One David "Davy" Crockett.
And those non-citizens Clayton had such harsh words for weren't of Latino descent. They were Native Americans.
For all his partisan gamesmanship, Clayton enjoyed popularity, but he failed to achieve the real political gains he sought. His nemesis, Van Buren, was indeed elected president.
However, Clayton did leave enough of a mark on history to get some places named after him, including the county that rests along Fayette's eastern border.
Clayton was right about at least one thing, "Statesmen and their demagogues are gamesters," he wrote. "And the people are the cards they play with."
Next time Rush Limbaugh or Bill Maher stirs you up, just remember that they're playing one of the oldest tricks in the book.
The good people on the left insist that the voices of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the vicious bloggers of the 'Tea Party fringe' are plunging our national political discourse to new lows of nastiness with their personal attacks and backward thinking.
The good folks on the right try to convince me that it is the popular opinions aired by MSNBC, the snobs in Hollywood and the vicious bloggers of the 'Left Wing fringe' that are dragging us down with their personal attacks as they lead us toward socialism and ruin.
The truth is, the political gamesmanship and battles of today always sting more than the attacks of the past. Political outrage has a very short shelf life. We so easily forget about the viciousness of last week's sound-bites.
As noisy and annoying as the bloggers and pundits are today, we're not approaching some record low. Extreme partisanship is as old as our democracy itself.
I recently came across some historical documents attributed to a once-prominent and respected Georgia politician.
He was a University of Georgia graduate, an intellectual, a longtime state representative and a two-term U.S. Congressman.
This noteworthy Georgian was a master of the political battlefield. He slung mud with a nefarious ill- will that would make folks like Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann blush and run for cover.
When this Georgia Congressman confronted a particular presidential candidate he did not like, he didn't attack him with a 30 second t.v. spot or a half hour radio program. Our former statesman took things much further, writing a complete unauthorized biography of the candidate, filled with unbiased character assassinations.
"Now the people ought to rise in the strengths of their minds and exert some thinking power of their own," he wrote.
"Do not let [the presidential candidate] play upon your ignorance and then laugh at your weakness...
"May God in his infinite mercy save our country from this man."
Our one-time Georgia Congressman filled 200 pages of this widely circulated 'biography' with political vitriol, calling the subject of his work "an evil genius" who "cherishes his slyness and cold calculation as virtues."
While the Georgia author was popular in his home state, he was less known nationally. When it came time to go to the presses, he decided to publish the work under the assumed name of one of his much more well known political friends: A gentleman who had recently quit the cut-throat realm of Washington politics to retire out west.
Like thousands of pundits after him, our former Congressman liberally quoted Patrick Henry in his tirades. He used Henry's sayings to introduce a series of newspaper columns signed 'Atticus' -- wherein he embraced the blogger-cherished cloak of anonymity long before the internet was invented.
In these 'Atticus' columns, our statesman railed against the over-reaching federal government. He was especially hostile toward Georgia's federally protected non-citizen communities, calling them, "sanctuaries for villainy and harbors for outlaws in the heart of this very state."
It was his contention that these non-citizens be driven from the borders and resettled elsewhere. Using violence to do so was most certainly an option.
Who was this once famed politician? His name was Augustin Smith Clayton. The book he penned during the lead up to the 1836 presidential election was titled, "The Life of Martin Van Buren."
The popular friend who Clayton used as his pseudonym / front-man for the project? One David "Davy" Crockett.
And those non-citizens Clayton had such harsh words for weren't of Latino descent. They were Native Americans.
For all his partisan gamesmanship, Clayton enjoyed popularity, but he failed to achieve the real political gains he sought. His nemesis, Van Buren, was indeed elected president.
However, Clayton did leave enough of a mark on history to get some places named after him, including the county that rests along Fayette's eastern border.
Clayton was right about at least one thing, "Statesmen and their demagogues are gamesters," he wrote. "And the people are the cards they play with."
Next time Rush Limbaugh or Bill Maher stirs you up, just remember that they're playing one of the oldest tricks in the book.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Now who am I supposed to vote for?
The Georgia political landscape is now in focus. Qualifying has ended and we Georgia voters know the name of our next governor. He (or she) is one of the 13 men and one woman who officially tossed their hats into the ring last week.
The candidate I once championed, reform-minded Republican Austin Scott of Tifton, is not one of them. Scott spent the past year talking about putting Georgia first and bringing true ethics reform to the Gold Dome. Unfortunately, after the lengthy legislative session closed an exhausted Scott capitulated to party bosses. He agreed to drop out of the gubernatorial race and run for Jim Marshall's middle-Georgia U.S. Congressional seat instead. As a voter planning to cast a ballot in this summer's Republican primary, I am deeply disappointed with Scott's last minute switcheroo.
Here's what he's left us with on the Republican primary ballot for the state's most important job...
The worst of the lot: Former Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine and Former U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal.
These two candidates have a lot in common. They're generally considered two of the 'front-runners' because they are the standard-bearers of the status quo. Unfortunately for Republicans in the Peach State, the status quo means party-switching former-Democrat career politicians who reliably place self-interest and personal gain ahead of what's best for Georgians.
Oxendine and Deal both have large campaign war chests, lots of handlers, comical nicknames advertised on their campaign literature ("The Ox" and "Deal. Real.") and serious ethics problems.
The Ox is under investigation for taking over a $120,000 in illegal campaign gifts from Dee Yancey, an insurance mogul. Again, Oxendine was Georgia Insurance Commissioner for most of the past two decades. I'm fairly confident that Yancey isn't bankrolling The Ox because of the candidate's 'allegiance to protecting the consumer.'
Deal, infamously named one of the 15 most corrupt members of Congress by the Citizens for Responsibility in Ethics in Government, resigned from the U.S. House this year. Deal stepped down just after the Office of Congressional Ethics released a report stating that he improperly used his staff to pressure Georgia officials to continue a state vehicle inspection program that generated hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for his family's auto salvage business.
'The tOXic' and 'Sweetheart.Deal.' are due for retirement. If either one of them get the nomination, I will be voting for a Democrat in the general election come November.
The maybes: Former State Senate President Pro Tem Eric Johnson and Former Secretary of State Karen Handel. If anyone is going to beat 'The Ox' or Deal, the odds-makers give these two the best chances.
Handel is seen by many as Gov. Perdue's hand-picked successor. Her critics point to the lack of higher education on her resume, but a diploma is not a requirement to hold major political office in Georgia -- just ask our past two U.S. Congressmen.
Some of my politically active friends in and around Fayette support Handel. I'll definitely give her a look.
Johnson is an architect from Savannah who staked his political career on the shortsighted concept of school vouchers. He also chaired Joint Legislative Committee on Ethics that let disgraced former House speaker Glenn Richardson off of the hook. But, Johnson is not Deal or Oxendine, which is why his name appears here.
The fringe: Ray McBerry, Jeff Chapman and Otis Putnam.
McBerry is the most far right of the group and he's spent the past few weeks dodging some pretty outlandish allegations from his past. McBerry counters that the attacks are a smear campaign, but he's still too far behind in the polls to make a difference.
Chapman is an earnest conservative from Brunswick with a reform-minded message, but his campaign has struggled to gain traction. And Putnam is a political unknown from south Georgia who listed "Wal-Mart" as his current job on the qualification application.
I criticize Austin Scott for switching races, but I sure do miss him.
Alverson, a graduate of Fayette County High School and the U.S. Naval Academy, is the editor of the Fayette County News. This column appeared in print on May 6, 2010.
The candidate I once championed, reform-minded Republican Austin Scott of Tifton, is not one of them. Scott spent the past year talking about putting Georgia first and bringing true ethics reform to the Gold Dome. Unfortunately, after the lengthy legislative session closed an exhausted Scott capitulated to party bosses. He agreed to drop out of the gubernatorial race and run for Jim Marshall's middle-Georgia U.S. Congressional seat instead. As a voter planning to cast a ballot in this summer's Republican primary, I am deeply disappointed with Scott's last minute switcheroo.
Here's what he's left us with on the Republican primary ballot for the state's most important job...
The worst of the lot: Former Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine and Former U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal.
These two candidates have a lot in common. They're generally considered two of the 'front-runners' because they are the standard-bearers of the status quo. Unfortunately for Republicans in the Peach State, the status quo means party-switching former-Democrat career politicians who reliably place self-interest and personal gain ahead of what's best for Georgians.
Oxendine and Deal both have large campaign war chests, lots of handlers, comical nicknames advertised on their campaign literature ("The Ox" and "Deal. Real.") and serious ethics problems.
The Ox is under investigation for taking over a $120,000 in illegal campaign gifts from Dee Yancey, an insurance mogul. Again, Oxendine was Georgia Insurance Commissioner for most of the past two decades. I'm fairly confident that Yancey isn't bankrolling The Ox because of the candidate's 'allegiance to protecting the consumer.'
Deal, infamously named one of the 15 most corrupt members of Congress by the Citizens for Responsibility in Ethics in Government, resigned from the U.S. House this year. Deal stepped down just after the Office of Congressional Ethics released a report stating that he improperly used his staff to pressure Georgia officials to continue a state vehicle inspection program that generated hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for his family's auto salvage business.
'The tOXic' and 'Sweetheart.Deal.' are due for retirement. If either one of them get the nomination, I will be voting for a Democrat in the general election come November.
The maybes: Former State Senate President Pro Tem Eric Johnson and Former Secretary of State Karen Handel. If anyone is going to beat 'The Ox' or Deal, the odds-makers give these two the best chances.
Handel is seen by many as Gov. Perdue's hand-picked successor. Her critics point to the lack of higher education on her resume, but a diploma is not a requirement to hold major political office in Georgia -- just ask our past two U.S. Congressmen.
Some of my politically active friends in and around Fayette support Handel. I'll definitely give her a look.
Johnson is an architect from Savannah who staked his political career on the shortsighted concept of school vouchers. He also chaired Joint Legislative Committee on Ethics that let disgraced former House speaker Glenn Richardson off of the hook. But, Johnson is not Deal or Oxendine, which is why his name appears here.
The fringe: Ray McBerry, Jeff Chapman and Otis Putnam.
McBerry is the most far right of the group and he's spent the past few weeks dodging some pretty outlandish allegations from his past. McBerry counters that the attacks are a smear campaign, but he's still too far behind in the polls to make a difference.
Chapman is an earnest conservative from Brunswick with a reform-minded message, but his campaign has struggled to gain traction. And Putnam is a political unknown from south Georgia who listed "Wal-Mart" as his current job on the qualification application.
I criticize Austin Scott for switching races, but I sure do miss him.
Alverson, a graduate of Fayette County High School and the U.S. Naval Academy, is the editor of the Fayette County News. This column appeared in print on May 6, 2010.
It's our duty to remember...
The Fayette community has lost another hero. 1st. Lt. Robert Collins, 24, of Tyrone died last month in Iraq after his vehicle was struck by an improvised explosive device.
Known for his sense of humor and high character, Collins graduated from Sandy Creek High School in 2004 and that summer was sworn in as a cadet at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y.
He selflessly joined "The Long Gray Line" at a time when a commission in the U.S. Army almost certainly meant risking one's life in Iraq, Afghanistan or both.
To learn more about Lt. Collins' life and the local community's efforts to honor him and his family, see Martha Barksdale's story at www.fayette-news.com
I had the privilege of meeting Robert through our mutual friend 1st. Lt. Andrew Collins (no relation), another Coweta/Fayette native who went on to gradutate from West Point.
Robert, you will be missed.
Here's the roll call of our friends and neighbors who have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Marine Lance Cpl. Jeffery Blanton, 23, Fayetteville. Killed Dec. 12, 2004 by enemy action in Iraq's Anbar Province.
Army National Guard Spec. Michael Stokely, 23, Sharpsburg. Killed Aug. 16, 2005 by a makeshift bomb blast while on foot patrol in Baghdad.
Army National Guard Staff Sgt. Robert Hollar Jr., 35, Griffin. Killed Sept. 1, 2005 when a makeshift bomb detonated near his Humvee in Baghdad.
Marine Lance Cpl. James Chamroeun, 20, Union City. Killed Sep. 28, 2006 while battling enemy forces in Iraq's Anbar Province.
Army Spec. Justin R. Jarrett, 21, Jonesboro. Killed Oct. 2, 2006 when a makeshift bomb exploded near his vehicle in Taji, Iraq.
Army Staff Sgt. Blake M. Harris, 27, Hampton. Killed March 15, 2007 when a makeshift bomb exploded near his unit during combat operations in Baghdad.
Army Master Sgt. Mitchell Young, 39, Jonesboro. Killed July, 13, 2008 when his vehicle struck a makeshift bomb in Kajaki Sofia, Afghanistan.
Army Pvt. Colman J. Meadows III, 19, Senoia. Died Dec. 16, 2008 from injuries sustained during a non-combat incident at Forward Operating Base Ramrod in Afghanistan.
Army National Guard Staff Sgt. John Beale, 39, Riverdale. Killed June 4, 2009 when his squadron was attacked by a makeshift bomb and small arms fire in Kapisa, Afghanistan.
Army Spec. Anthony Lightfoot, 20, Riverdale. Killed July 20, 2009 when a makeshift bomb exploded near his vehicle, followed by small arms fire and rocket propelled grenades in Wardak Province, Afghanistan.
Army Sgt. 1st Class Shawn McCloskey, 33, Peachtree City. Killed Sep. 16, 2009 when his vehicle was attacked by a makeshift bomb in Afghanistan's Helmund Province.
Army 1st. Lt. Robert Collins, 24, Tyrone. Killed April 7, 2010 when his vehicle was attacked by a makeshift bomb in Mosul, Iraq.
These men and their families have suffered for our sake. All we're asked to do in return is remember.
Known for his sense of humor and high character, Collins graduated from Sandy Creek High School in 2004 and that summer was sworn in as a cadet at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y.
He selflessly joined "The Long Gray Line" at a time when a commission in the U.S. Army almost certainly meant risking one's life in Iraq, Afghanistan or both.
To learn more about Lt. Collins' life and the local community's efforts to honor him and his family, see Martha Barksdale's story at www.fayette-news.com
I had the privilege of meeting Robert through our mutual friend 1st. Lt. Andrew Collins (no relation), another Coweta/Fayette native who went on to gradutate from West Point.
Robert, you will be missed.
Here's the roll call of our friends and neighbors who have made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Marine Lance Cpl. Jeffery Blanton, 23, Fayetteville. Killed Dec. 12, 2004 by enemy action in Iraq's Anbar Province.
Army National Guard Spec. Michael Stokely, 23, Sharpsburg. Killed Aug. 16, 2005 by a makeshift bomb blast while on foot patrol in Baghdad.
Army National Guard Staff Sgt. Robert Hollar Jr., 35, Griffin. Killed Sept. 1, 2005 when a makeshift bomb detonated near his Humvee in Baghdad.
Marine Lance Cpl. James Chamroeun, 20, Union City. Killed Sep. 28, 2006 while battling enemy forces in Iraq's Anbar Province.
Army Spec. Justin R. Jarrett, 21, Jonesboro. Killed Oct. 2, 2006 when a makeshift bomb exploded near his vehicle in Taji, Iraq.
Army Staff Sgt. Blake M. Harris, 27, Hampton. Killed March 15, 2007 when a makeshift bomb exploded near his unit during combat operations in Baghdad.
Army Master Sgt. Mitchell Young, 39, Jonesboro. Killed July, 13, 2008 when his vehicle struck a makeshift bomb in Kajaki Sofia, Afghanistan.
Army Pvt. Colman J. Meadows III, 19, Senoia. Died Dec. 16, 2008 from injuries sustained during a non-combat incident at Forward Operating Base Ramrod in Afghanistan.
Army National Guard Staff Sgt. John Beale, 39, Riverdale. Killed June 4, 2009 when his squadron was attacked by a makeshift bomb and small arms fire in Kapisa, Afghanistan.
Army Spec. Anthony Lightfoot, 20, Riverdale. Killed July 20, 2009 when a makeshift bomb exploded near his vehicle, followed by small arms fire and rocket propelled grenades in Wardak Province, Afghanistan.
Army Sgt. 1st Class Shawn McCloskey, 33, Peachtree City. Killed Sep. 16, 2009 when his vehicle was attacked by a makeshift bomb in Afghanistan's Helmund Province.
Army 1st. Lt. Robert Collins, 24, Tyrone. Killed April 7, 2010 when his vehicle was attacked by a makeshift bomb in Mosul, Iraq.
These men and their families have suffered for our sake. All we're asked to do in return is remember.
It's nominating season for the Supreme Court
President Barack Obama met with key Senators Wednesday to discuss the impending nomination and confirmation process for a Supreme Court justice to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.
Stevens, sometimes called the “liberal lion” of the court, has served since 1975. He was nominated by Republican Gerald Ford and confirmed by a unanimous Senate vote.
The Warren Burger court Stevens joined was decidedly more liberal than the John Roberts court of today. Stevens was seen as a moderate prior to his confirmation. He voted like a moderate for years, but his decisions gradually swung to the left as the court drifted further and further from the liberal ideals of the Earl Warren court.
Like Stevens, Warren was nominated by a Republican president (Eisenhower) and turned out to be much more liberal than expected.
The Warren court’s heyday spanned the years of Stevens’ civilian legal career and brought forth such landmark decisions as Brown v. Board of Education (ending forced school segregation), Gideon v. Wainwright (enforcing the 6th Amendment right to counsel), Mapp v. Ohio (establishing the exclusionary rule for evidence collected in violation of the 4th Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures) and Miranda v. Arizona (requiring the ‘Miranda Warning’ upon arrest, which notifies those arrested of their constitutional rights).
Warren and Stevens are not rare outliers. In the 20th century, there have been quite a few Supreme Court Justices who surprised the Presidents who nominated them with their decisions from the bench.
Byron White, who served from 1962-1993 was nominated by a liberal Democratic president, John F. Kennedy, but often sided with his conservative peers on the high court.
David Souter, who retired last year, was nominated by a moderate Republican president, George H.W. Bush, but was perceived as a liberal on the court.
Now, President Obama will look to nominate a justice who maintains the court’s ‘balance.’ Currently, four justices are considered conservative: Roberts, Sam Alito, Anthony Scalia and Clarence Thomas; four are labeled as liberals: the retiring Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. The ninth justice, Anthony Kennedy, is generally described as a conservative who sometimes sides with the liberals.
However, these labels are misleading. Since Sotomayor joined the court last year, only two of the 42 opinions handed down by the high court have seen justices split along the perceived ideological lines.
While certain justices clearly hold opposing views on certain issues, the Supreme Court does not operate in the same highly-charged political environment that dominates the rest of the nation’s capitol. When the court functions as it is supposed to, it serves as key constitutional check on the prevailing political winds of the day. Sometimes it justifiably stands to the left of the mainstream -- as it did during the Civil Rights era. Sometimes it leans to the right, as it does now.
Obama’s nominee needs only a simple majority vote by the Senate to join the court. The president’s choice should have no problem with the confirmation process as long as he or she possesses the proper qualifications and a track record that does not indicate overt partisan leanings.
Of course, there won’t be a unanimous confirmation vote. We haven’t seen one of those since Kennedy came to the court in 1988.
As the sound-bite circuit revs up for the confirmation process, be thankful that the Supreme Court is -- and hopefully always will be -- a non-partisan branch of government standing on its own.
Stevens, sometimes called the “liberal lion” of the court, has served since 1975. He was nominated by Republican Gerald Ford and confirmed by a unanimous Senate vote.
The Warren Burger court Stevens joined was decidedly more liberal than the John Roberts court of today. Stevens was seen as a moderate prior to his confirmation. He voted like a moderate for years, but his decisions gradually swung to the left as the court drifted further and further from the liberal ideals of the Earl Warren court.
Like Stevens, Warren was nominated by a Republican president (Eisenhower) and turned out to be much more liberal than expected.
The Warren court’s heyday spanned the years of Stevens’ civilian legal career and brought forth such landmark decisions as Brown v. Board of Education (ending forced school segregation), Gideon v. Wainwright (enforcing the 6th Amendment right to counsel), Mapp v. Ohio (establishing the exclusionary rule for evidence collected in violation of the 4th Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures) and Miranda v. Arizona (requiring the ‘Miranda Warning’ upon arrest, which notifies those arrested of their constitutional rights).
Warren and Stevens are not rare outliers. In the 20th century, there have been quite a few Supreme Court Justices who surprised the Presidents who nominated them with their decisions from the bench.
Byron White, who served from 1962-1993 was nominated by a liberal Democratic president, John F. Kennedy, but often sided with his conservative peers on the high court.
David Souter, who retired last year, was nominated by a moderate Republican president, George H.W. Bush, but was perceived as a liberal on the court.
Now, President Obama will look to nominate a justice who maintains the court’s ‘balance.’ Currently, four justices are considered conservative: Roberts, Sam Alito, Anthony Scalia and Clarence Thomas; four are labeled as liberals: the retiring Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. The ninth justice, Anthony Kennedy, is generally described as a conservative who sometimes sides with the liberals.
However, these labels are misleading. Since Sotomayor joined the court last year, only two of the 42 opinions handed down by the high court have seen justices split along the perceived ideological lines.
While certain justices clearly hold opposing views on certain issues, the Supreme Court does not operate in the same highly-charged political environment that dominates the rest of the nation’s capitol. When the court functions as it is supposed to, it serves as key constitutional check on the prevailing political winds of the day. Sometimes it justifiably stands to the left of the mainstream -- as it did during the Civil Rights era. Sometimes it leans to the right, as it does now.
Obama’s nominee needs only a simple majority vote by the Senate to join the court. The president’s choice should have no problem with the confirmation process as long as he or she possesses the proper qualifications and a track record that does not indicate overt partisan leanings.
Of course, there won’t be a unanimous confirmation vote. We haven’t seen one of those since Kennedy came to the court in 1988.
As the sound-bite circuit revs up for the confirmation process, be thankful that the Supreme Court is -- and hopefully always will be -- a non-partisan branch of government standing on its own.
Arizona's new anti-illegal immigration law won't stand
The new Arizona anti-illegal immigration law has hit the 24-hour news cycle like a tornado and it's whipping up hysteria all across the political spectrum.
The law, titled Arizona SB 1070, is a lengthy bill with one particularly incendiary clause:
"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person."
This means law enforcement officers in the state of Arizona can now ask to see a driver's license or some other form of identification if they suspect someone is in the country without proper documentation.
The law further allows police to detain those without proper documents, verify their immigration status and then turn them over to federal authorities if they are in the country illegally.
Arizona lawmakers who voted for the bill and their supporters insist that the law merely enforces current federal immigration statutes.
Opponents say the new law essentially legalizes un-Constitutional racial profiling.
SB 1070 prohibits officers from asking for documentation "solely [based on] race, color or national origin," but opponents claim there is no way to enforce that requirement.
The Arizona anti-illegal immigration law will likely not lead to widespread racial profiling because its major Constitutional flaws are not going to stand up in court.
The law won't take effect until 90 days after the end of the current Arizona legislative session. Lawsuits are already mounting.
Courts have long ruled that the federal government, not the states, has the exclusive authority to regulate immigration.
In the unlikely scenario that decades of legal precedents are overturned for SB 1070, there remains the monumental task of reconciling the law's "reasonable suspicion" clause with past Supreme Court interpretations of the Fourth Amendment's protection against illegal search and seizure.
As Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Tuesday, "I think they'll have a hard time upholding this law."
What the Arizona law has done rather effectively is re-inject the topic of immigration reform into the national dialogue.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, said Wednesday the law "signals a frustration with the failure of the Congress" to deal with immigration.
If the ill-conceived SB 1070 prods Congress into action, it may end up serving a viable purpose.
There is no question that more needs to be done to limit the flow of drugs and crime from Mexico into the U.S. and the counterflow of money and guns from the U.S. to Mexico. Congress also needs to come up with a fair and Constitutional solution for the over 10 million mostly-Latino migrants who skipped a trip to the customs office when they moved to the U.S. But, these are no easy tasks, especially in an extremely partisan Washington during an election year.
What SB 1070 has already done is create controversy. And politicians on both sides of the debate love controversies like these, because they have a way of quickly morphing into campaign contributions.
Jan Brewer, the current governor of Arizona, is facing a tough challenge in the Republican primary. Her opponents claim she's not conservative enough. In this political climate, her signing of SB 1070 makes complete sense -- for her at least. She is apparently more than willing to spend many thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money in SB 1070 legal fees as long as it helps her get re-elected.
The law, titled Arizona SB 1070, is a lengthy bill with one particularly incendiary clause:
"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person."
This means law enforcement officers in the state of Arizona can now ask to see a driver's license or some other form of identification if they suspect someone is in the country without proper documentation.
The law further allows police to detain those without proper documents, verify their immigration status and then turn them over to federal authorities if they are in the country illegally.
Arizona lawmakers who voted for the bill and their supporters insist that the law merely enforces current federal immigration statutes.
Opponents say the new law essentially legalizes un-Constitutional racial profiling.
SB 1070 prohibits officers from asking for documentation "solely [based on] race, color or national origin," but opponents claim there is no way to enforce that requirement.
The Arizona anti-illegal immigration law will likely not lead to widespread racial profiling because its major Constitutional flaws are not going to stand up in court.
The law won't take effect until 90 days after the end of the current Arizona legislative session. Lawsuits are already mounting.
Courts have long ruled that the federal government, not the states, has the exclusive authority to regulate immigration.
In the unlikely scenario that decades of legal precedents are overturned for SB 1070, there remains the monumental task of reconciling the law's "reasonable suspicion" clause with past Supreme Court interpretations of the Fourth Amendment's protection against illegal search and seizure.
As Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said Tuesday, "I think they'll have a hard time upholding this law."
What the Arizona law has done rather effectively is re-inject the topic of immigration reform into the national dialogue.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, said Wednesday the law "signals a frustration with the failure of the Congress" to deal with immigration.
If the ill-conceived SB 1070 prods Congress into action, it may end up serving a viable purpose.
There is no question that more needs to be done to limit the flow of drugs and crime from Mexico into the U.S. and the counterflow of money and guns from the U.S. to Mexico. Congress also needs to come up with a fair and Constitutional solution for the over 10 million mostly-Latino migrants who skipped a trip to the customs office when they moved to the U.S. But, these are no easy tasks, especially in an extremely partisan Washington during an election year.
What SB 1070 has already done is create controversy. And politicians on both sides of the debate love controversies like these, because they have a way of quickly morphing into campaign contributions.
Jan Brewer, the current governor of Arizona, is facing a tough challenge in the Republican primary. Her opponents claim she's not conservative enough. In this political climate, her signing of SB 1070 makes complete sense -- for her at least. She is apparently more than willing to spend many thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money in SB 1070 legal fees as long as it helps her get re-elected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
