Obama doesn’t need any more controversy

January 5th, 2009

The approaching inauguration of President Barack Obama is expected by many Americans to usher in a new era in politics. 

It’s hoped that the partisan bickering and gridlock that have kept our government from enacting necessary change in the past will finally give way to a Washington mindset that pays more attention to ideas and their merit rather than party loyalties. 
But as that Jan. 20 inauguration looms, it seems the ugly head of politics as usual is threatening to blemish Obama’s change message. 
The arrest of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich seemed from the start that it would sooner or later take some sort of toll on the Obama administration. Obama himself couldn’t help but be drug into the fray, seeing that Blagojevich would be selecting someone to take the president-elect’s place in the Senate.
The big fear when federal authorities first accused Blagojevich of trying to sell Obama’s Senate position to the highest bidder was that Obama or one of his inner circle would be implicated as co-conspirators. 
That hasn’t happened, but the fact Obama’s soon-to-be chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, had spoken several times and at length to Blagojevich about the Senate post has raised some questions. 
As long as nothing is turned up connecting Obama or someone in his camp to Blagojevich’s alleged crimes, this controversy will not take away from Obama’s historic inauguration and the confidence many Americans have in him.  
However, another story emerged last weekend that again put Obama in an unfortunate position.  
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has decided to decline Obama’s offer of a Cabinet-level position.
Richardson, who Obama had picked to be his commerce secretary, said Sunday that federal authorities are several weeks away from finishing their investigation of him and he feels this would delay his confirmation by Congress. Richardson said he’s declining Obama’s job offer because the free falling economy requires that the new president’s Cabinet be in place as soon as possible.
“I have concluded that the ongoing investigation would have forced an untenable delay in the confirmation process,” Richardson said in a statement. “I could not in good conscience ask the president-elect and his administration to delay for one day the important work that needs to be done.”
The investigation involves how CDR Financial Products and its chief executive, David Rubin, who have contibuted at least $110,000 to Richardson, managed to land a lucrative New Mexico transportation contract. 
What’s odd about Richardson’s decline of the position is that it was known at the time Obama picked him that this investigation was ongoing. We might all find out in coming weeks if the investigation has turned up something damaging about New Mexico’s governor.
It would be in the best interest of our new president if there are no more potholes on his road to inauguration. 
After eight years of politics at what some would call its worst, most Americans are hoping to start a new chapter in how our government operates. Obama was elected president because the American people have put their faith in him to deliver on his promised change.
Controversies that paint our politicians in a bad light make us all think the worst of those in that profession. When those controversies have ties to our future president, it can’t help but threaten and potentially tarnish his image.
For Obama’s sake, let’s hope that nothing else comes up that makes us question whether he is the right man for the job. 
 
Ian H. Fennell is editor of the Idaho State Journal.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

Comment on ‘Barack the Magic Negro’

December 28th, 2008
Here are the lyrics for the Paul Shanklin song that has caused such a controversy lately. Let me know by commenting if you think the words are racist or not. And will this issue further hurt the Republicans’ efforts to rebound after recent election defeats? Also, in reading the lyrics, keep in mind that Shanklin pretends to be the Rev. Al Sharpton when singing them.


Barack the Magic Negro lives in D.C.

The L.A. Times, they called him that

‘Cause he’s not authentic like me.

Yeah, the guy from the L.A. paper

Said he makes guilty whites feel good

They’ll vote for him, and not for me

‘Cause he’s not from the hood.

See, real black men, like Snoop Dog,

Or me, or Farrakhan

Have talked the talk, and walked the walk.

Not come in late and won!

[refrain] Oh, Barack the Magic Negro, lives in D.C.

The L.A. Times, they called him that

‘Cause he’s black, but not authentically.

Oh, Barack the Magic Negro, lives in D.C.

The L.A. Times, they called him that

‘Cause he’s black, but not authentically.

Some say Barack’s “articulate”

And bright and new and “clean.”

The media sure loves this guy,

A white interloper’s dream!

But, when you vote for president,

Watch out, and don’t be fooled!

Don’t vote the Magic Negro in -

‘Cause — ’cause I won’t have nothing after all these years of sacrifice

And I won’t get justice. This is about justice. This isn’t about me, it’s about justice.

It’s about buffet. I don’t have no buffet and there won’t be any church contributions,


And there’ll be no cash in the collection plate.

There ain’t gonna be no cash money, no walkin’ around money, no phoning money.

Now, Barack going to come in here and -

Lyrics Source: conservativeculture.com


Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments »

Voters, not governors should make appointments

December 23rd, 2008

When a lawmaker leaves office prematurely, it’s left to his or her state governor to appoint a replacement. 

This is the way such departures have always been handled and some might say why change now?
But recent events are going a long way toward proving that the system of governors having the authority to make congressional appointments has outlived its usefulness. 
These appointments can make or break political careers and no matter who is selected, hard feelings and accusations of back room deals often prevail.
In the world of politics it’s just darn near impossible for a governor making a congressional appointment to please everybody. Perhaps the better solution is for voters to make these picks via the ballot box.
There is currently more than one political storm brewing over senatorial appointments. Among these scraps is the escalating debate over who will take the place of Sen. Hillary Clinton following her appointment to secretary of state. 
Many Democrats are pushing for JFK’s daughter Caroline Kennedy. But also in the running are former TV nanny Fran Drescher and Andrew Cuomo, the son of former N.Y. Gov. Mario Cuomo.
Current New York Gov. David Paterson has a lot to consider with the appointment, not the least of which is who among the prospects could end up running against him if they don’t get the job.
Barack Obama’s successful bid for the White House has clearly brought the appointment issue to the forefront. His election and subsequent team building have left four states looking for new senators, including his home state of Illinois. 
The alleged attempt to sell Obama’s Senate post to the highest bidder by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich shows that putting this process in the hands of one person, even a governor, can have embarrassing consequences, to put it politely. 
In Delaware, outgoing Democratic Gov. Ruth Ann Minner appointed Vice President-elect Joe Biden’s chief of staff Ted Kaufman to fill his Senate seat. The move came under immediate criticism because Kaufman is believed by some to be a place holder for Biden’s son, Beau, who is currently serving in Iraq. Critics contend that come the 2010 election Kaufman will quietly decide not to run and might get an Obama administration appointment, all so Beau can ascend to the Senate. 

Problem is that some Democrats wanted former Lt. Gov. John Carney to get the nod to replace Joe. Carney is now talking about challenging Beau (not Kaufman) in the 2010 primary. 

The appointment of Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar to be the next secretary of the Interior will put another governor in the position of kingmaker. 

The leading contender for Salazar’s spot is his brother, already a member of the U.S. House. Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter said the politicking for the appointment has been tame thus far, compared to what’s going on in Illinois and New York. But who knows what’s really going on behind closed doors.

Some would say the current system of governor’s appointing replacements for resigning lawmakers is good enough. The voters eventually have the final say on whether the appointee stays in office. 

Others would say that recent controversies show such appointments are so sought after that no governor should be tasked with making the decision. 
The opportunities for politics at its ugliest and most illegal are just too abundant.

There are increasing calls for such appointments to be made by the voters rather than governors who might not be able to keep their own self-interests out of the picture. 

Special elections do cost money but holding them in order settle these matters would eliminate much of the criticism and weakness of the current system.

Best of all, there’d be less opportunity for the likes of Blagojevich to get into trouble.

Ian H. Fennell is editor of the Idaho State Journal.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

Shoe incident says volumes about Bush

December 16th, 2008

President George Bush never imagined that the big story following his weekend trip to Iraq and Afghanistan would be about shoes being thrown at him.

But that’s what happened in the wake of a Sunday press conference during which Iraqi TV reporter Muntader al-Zaidi decided to voice his anger at the president in traditional Middle Eastern form.
The president ducked, causing al-Zaidi to miss on both throws. 
Afterward Bush joked about the incident, downplaying the 10-inch shoes that had been hurled his way by saying such things can happen in free societies. But the media jumped on the story and the video of the president nearly getting beamed was an instant Internet sensation. 
From the moment al-Zaidi threw that first shoe his actions were destined to become fodder for comedians everywhere. 
Shoe-throwing jokes have already hit the late-night TV circuit and don’t expect a let up anytime soon. 
Not to downplay the incident, but it was impressive that Bush so quickly ducked both of the shoes and even seemed to be smiling as they were headed his way. His fast reflexes were even noticed by his critics in the U.S., some of whom have expressed dismay on blogs that al-Zaidi missed.
It was less of a laughing matter that the Iraqi not only had enough time to throw one shoe, but was able to get off a second try before anyone in the room tried to stop him. Other Iraqi journalists were the ones who initially subdued him, causing us to question where was our U.S. Secret Service? 
What would have happened had it been a loaded gun drawn against our president instead of shoes being tossed at him? 
One would have thought the moment al-Zaidi made his move that the Secret Service would have taken notice and tackled him, or at least jumped in front of the president to eliminate any chance of him being hit.
This was definitely not a proud moment for those who protect our commander-in-chief and we can only hope that they will pay more attention in the future. 
As the Bush presidency winds down, this case of shoe-throwing can’t help but be examined as a sort of microcosm of how he’s viewed.
The obvious statement made by al-Zaidi is that in many circles President Bush is probably one of the most unpopular presidents in U.S. history. The fact that the shoe-throwing has been applauded by even some Americans proves that Bush is seen here and abroad as a large part of what’s wrong with our country.
By the same token the shoe-throwing has added fuel to the calls among some Americans for a U.S. troop withdrawal from war-torn Iraq. It’s easy to see how many of us might feel that if the Iraqis are going to try to nail our president with shoes, why should Americans be dying in the effort to bring freedom and democracy to the country?
The incident’s clearly a sad commentary on our Iraq involvement. We rid the country of the murderous Saddam Hussein, only to have our leader embarrassed on the global stage by a shoe-throwing Iraqi.
The flip-side of that argument is of course that tens of thousands of Iraqis have died since the ill-planned U.S. invasion and occupation. And it’s only been in recent months that anything resembling a peace has returned to Iraq. Saddam Hussein might have been evil, but his rule did provide amenities to most Iraqis such as running water, working electricity and an environment where nationwide death and destruction were not the norm. 
In the wake of the shoe-throwing, there have been demonstrations in Iraq supporting al-Zaidi. Iraqi authorities are looking at it differently and plan to charge him with initiating an aggressive act against a head of a foreign state on an official visit, punishable by up to seven years in prison.
But al-Zaidi’s becoming such a folk hero in the Bush-hating Arab world that it’s unclear if he’ll serve any jail time.
The one certainty about his actions is the fact he was able to disrespect our president without fear for his life can be attributed to the man he was targeting. 
Not to defend Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, but it was the ousting of Saddam Hussein’s regime that gave Iraqis like al-Zaidi the freedom to show anything resembling civil disobedience. 
If al-Zaidi had tossed his shoes at Hussein, the Iraqi leader would have very likely had him tortured and killed in the most slow and painful way possible.
That’s the true irony of what happened during that Baghdad press conference on Sunday.
 
Ian H. Fennell is editor of the Idaho State Journal.

Posted in Uncategorized | 23 Comments »

A new kind of politics?

December 8th, 2008

When Barack Obama was campaigning for the presidency, he talked a lot about bringing a new kind of politics to Washington.

He promised that his “change” message was more than just a slogan, and he told voters that if elected his administration would be anything but politics as usual. 
Now that Obama has been elected, he’s facing perhaps the highest expectations of any commander-in-chief. Some members of the media are painting him as the next Franklin D. Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy, raising those expectations even higher, and it’s clear that if he doesn’t at least get the economy back on track he will be viewed as an utter failure.
Obama’s Cabinet is taking shape and some are already saying his picks make it abundantly clear that all his campaign speeches about “change” were just a politician trying to win an election. 
The truth is that Obama’s Cabinet does include some surprises that are fitting with his campaign mantra. But clearly there are enough familiar faces from the Washington crowd to give his critics fodder to opine. 
Here’s the lineup thus far.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: the most controversial of Obama’s picks, mainly because of her many accusations during the primary that Obama lacked the experience necessary to be president. In the wake of Clinton’s selection, Obama’s supporters immediately put out the spin that the new kind of politics he mentioned during his campaign referred to new policies rather than fresh faces filling Cabinet positions.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates: Obama’s surprising decision to keep on Bush’s second defense secretary shows the president-elect is making some effort to make good on his campaign talk about being a different kind of politician. Gates has proven himself to be capable and Obama’s decision to keep him on shows the new commander-in-chief values talent, regardless of political affiliation. It will be interesting to see how long Gates lasts, but for now this is a very solid pick.
Commerce Secretary Bill Richardson: What should be most interesting about this pick is the interaction between Hillary Clinton and Richardson, who many Clinton supporters called a “Judas” for his endorsement of Obama during the primary. Richardson’s resume includes his current position as governor of New Mexico as well as secretary of energy and UN ambassador posts during the Clinton administration. Obama critics see Richard’s appointment as further proof that the new president is filling his Cabinet with career politicians, not change agents.
Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki: One of Obama’s best picks, as evidenced by the fact no one seems to be criticizing it. Shinseki ran afoul of the Bush administration when as the Army’s chief of staff he took issue with the plan to invade Iraq, saying hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to keep the peace in the country after Saddam Hussein’s regime was toppled. The Cabinet position is justice for Shinseki for correctly citing a glaring deficiency in the Bush administration’s Iraq plans and being ostracized by some for it. 
The rest of Obama’s Cabinet looks like it will be made up of lesser-known individuals. Susan Rice has been selected for the UN ambassador post. James Jones, a retired four-star general, will be Obama’s national security adviser. Lawrence Summers, President Clinton’s treasury secretary, will lead Obama’s National Economic Council, while Timothy Geithner, the president of the New York Federal Reserve, will be treasury secretary. Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board will be led by Paul Volcker, the former Fed chairman. None of the names are especially well known to most Americans.
A little better known, at least by some, will be Obama’s chief of staff. It didn’t take long for the new president to name Rahm Emanuel as the man who would manage his White House. Emanuel is known as a fierce partisan and his appointment perhaps set the wrong tone for the direction of Obama’s inner circle. It might have been better if Gates or Shinseki was Obama’s first appointment rather than someone whose antics could be called anything but bipartisan.
Without a doubt, President-elect Obama set a high bar for himself during his campaign. He promised to bring change to Washington, and the American people will be watching closely to see if he delivers or is just another politician talking the talk. 
Our country has perhaps never needed an all-star in the White House as much as it does right now. Although some of his Cabinet picks are ripe for criticism, especially considering Obama’s campaign scorn for anything smelling of “politics as usual,” anyone who hopes to see our new president fail is hoping to see our country fail. 
We all better hope that Obama makes the right decisions, from who’s on his Cabinet to the direction he leads our nation.
Because if Obama falls short, we will all surely be worse off. 
Ian H. Fennell is editor of the Idaho State Journal.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

We must learn from Mumbai

December 1st, 2008

U.S. and British investigators are on the ground in Mumbai, India, trying to learn as much as they can about the terrorist attacks that killed more than 170 people there, including six Americans. 

The FBI and Britain’s Scotland Yard are meeting with Indian police and are touring the carnage of one of the world’s worst cases of terrorism in recent memory. 
So far what’s been pieced together about the attacks is alarming in that the terrorists appear to have been much better prepared and equipped than the Indian military and police units opposing them.
The investigation has revealed that 10 members of the banned Pakistani militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba carried out the slaughter. Only one of the attackers survived and he’s been very open with Indian interrogators, telling them about how his group trained for months in Pakistan for the three-day massacre. 
The Associated Press reports that the survivor has said his training included close-combat techniques, explosives, hostage-taking, satellite navigation and survival skills.
Terrorists worldwide will likely see the Mumbai attacks as a success worth emulating. Although nine of the 10 attackers were killed, they had the full attention of the media during the three day assault and the coverage will likely continue in one form or another for the next several days or even weeks.
In the end, attention for their cause is typically what drives terrorists to kill.
The U.S. and its allies would be foolish not to thoroughly investigate this incident, find out what Indian authorities did right and wrong, and prepare for the worst. In the wake of the Mumbai attacks other terrorist organizations will surely come to the conclusion that they could launch similar operations elsewhere and perhaps inflict even higher body counts. It’s not at all a stretch to think that this type of assault could be tried on an American city.
The Pakistan connection to the attack should come as no surprise. Terrorism is quickly becoming that country’s major export.
Many Indians are furious that the terrorists were based in Pakistan and apparently targeted Mumbai’s civilian population in protest of India’s presence in the disputed Kashmir region. The terrorist group blamed for the attacks, Lashkar-e-Taiba, also has ties to the Pakistani intelligence service. Despite the tense emotions of the situation, Indian and Pakistani diplomats are clearly stepping lightly with their rhetoric. Neither country has moved toward the traditional beefing up of military forces along the border, often a first response when relations go south between them.
The attacks, however, are another reason to believe that Pakistan needs to crack down on the many terrorist organizations that are using it as a base. In fact, when the Mumbai incident first developed everyone suspected it was the work of al-Qaida, another terrorist group known to operate freely in Pakistan. Many intelligence experts believe al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden is currently living in the country’s tribal regions.
Out of this tragedy the world must put pressure on Pakistan to bring its terrorist population to justice. The U.S. and its allies should offer the country all the assistance necessary to get this done. 
Until Pakistan puts terrorists on notice that they can’t see the country as a safe haven, Islamabad has no right to become upset when foreign forces cross its borders to take matters into their own hands. 
But the world must also learn from what happened in Mumbai so that the next time terrorists target innocents, they’re stopped sooner rather than later.
And unfortunately, there will be a next time.
 
Ian H. Fennell is editor of the Idaho State Journal.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

Palin not going away anytime soon

November 13th, 2008

The election happened more than a week ago but President-elect Barack Obama has found himself competing for the spotlight.


He’s discovered that Americans are equally interested in GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, who’s gotten as much if not more media play than the man who come January will be our nation’s first black commander-in-chief.

During the campaign Palin was often the center of attention for good and bad reasons and typically drew much larger crowds than Republican presidential nominee John McCain. The public and media just seemed to be much more interested in hearing from her than McCain, and now she’s coming close to upstaging the election’s winner.

Statements by anonymous McCain aides casting doubt on her intelligence and making her out to be a shop-a-holic have only given Alaska’s governor a bigger soap box and guaranteed that when she speaks, the national media is there to cover it. Seems any attack on Palin only causes Republicans to rally around her and she’s probably more popular now than on Nov. 4. 

It took McCain a week before he came to Palin’s defense against his own aides, and some pundits say that’s telling. But Palin has proven that she can handle herself. 

The attacks on Palin by McCain’s aides might actually do greater harm to him than her, giving his critics more ammunition when they chide him for running a terrible campaign.

He is the one who chose Palin over a list of alternatives led by Mitt Romney, whose economic know-how McCain could have used in a running mate as his poll numbers sank with the nose-diving stock market. 

For those who believe Palin was such a bad pick that it cast doubt on McCain’s judgment, the blame obviously goes back to the Arizona senator.

But it’s clear that there are many Republicans who believe Palin was the best part of the GOP ticket. 

Democrats and much of the media, on the other hand, are striving to disparage Palin by any means possible. 
The never-ending discussion of her Republican-funded wardrobe is arguably among the most sexist treatment a female candidate has ever received. And the media’s willingness to grant McCain’s aides anonymity to blast away at Palin not only brings up ethical questions, but also makes one strongly consider that some of the accusations might be exaggerated.

If anything, Palin could make a strong case that she was totally mishandled by the McCain campaign, from the decisions on who should be granted interviews with her to the leaking of negative comments about her before the election had even happened. 

But in the end, Palin has emerged from the election as a winner of sorts. The amount of post-election news coverage she’s received by far outpaces any other failed VP candidate and over the course of a couple months she’s become a household name.

Not since Hillary Clinton, however, has the American political scene encountered such a divisive individual. While Palin’s popularity seems to be soaring with Republicans, there is little hope that those on the other side of the aisle would vote for her. 

And that’s a huge problem for Palin.

The best compliment to her is that while McCain has already begun his descent into obscurity, one can’t talk about the 2012 presidential race without mentioning her name. 

Four years is a long time but Palin is clearly not going away and there are plenty of Republicans who’d like to see her in the White House.
Ian H. Fennell is editor of the Idaho State Journal.


 

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

Post election blog

November 7th, 2008

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Where do we go from here politically?

November 4th, 2008

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Bias toward political candidates by media, etc.

October 30th, 2008

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

« Older Entries