Thinking Aloud….. January 24, 2010
- Scott Brown winning the Massachusetts Senate race is actually a good thing for President Obama. In his first year, Obama has set domestic policy by allowing Congress– Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid– to do it for him. When Barack Obama was elected president back in November 2008, the nation wanted him to lead, not Congress– which had a lower approval rating that George W. Bush in October 2008. Massachusetts to Barack Obama: lead!
- Scott Brown II: Remember most elections are more local than national. Illinois could have a republican senator this time next year. Without thinking twice, I’ll vote for Mark Kirk over Alexi Giannoulias, if Alexi wins the democratic primary. I’ll actually have to consider the candidates if David Hoffman wins. If I vote for Mark Kirk, I’m not thinking about the national implications of my vote– I’m voting for the person who will best represent my state in the senate. That’s what happened in Massachusetts.
- The Village Voice headline: Republicans Reclaim Senate Majority, 41-59!
- President Barack Obama is not feeling great after year one, huh? To feel better, please see Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Once the economy turned around for both presidents, their poll numbers increased dramatically. As a matter of fact, in 1993, President Clinton spent all of his political capital on getting a stimulus package passed– to stimulate an economy that was in recession under George Bush– with no republican support. The economy rebounded. So did Bill Clinton. Sound familiar?
- Republicans must stop talking about “activist judges.” Look up “activist judge” in the dictionary and you will now see Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative majority. Last week’s ruling striking down laws limiting corporate political spending went against years of jurisprudence and overruled two supreme court rulings from 1990 and 2003. Judicial activism is creating new law by overruling Supreme Court precedent. Conservatives, what happened to judicial restraint?
- Speaking of the Supreme Court: if the court is non-political, how come court rulings in the most controversial cases always come down 5-4? With Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas all voting the same way (with Anthony Kennedy being the swing vote)? With all of the “democrats” on the Court always voting together, instead of the “Roberts Court”, the Court should be called the “Kennedy Court” because as Kennedy goes, so goes the Court.
- With George W. Bush and Bill Clinton touring together, did you notice how democrats and republicans came come together to help Haiti? Its great they can come together to help other countries in need. Now, maybe the parties should come together to help our country.