One of my regular features is selecting a cartoon, usually accompanied by my own commentary. There are a few good conservative cartoonists, but let's just say I review cartoons from a number of sources, and it should not be a surprise that there are far more Koolaid-drinking liberal cartoonists. There was the fairly predictable attempt to paint Senator Scott Brown as a male bimbo for posing in Cosmopolitan (versus Playgirl) as a college student nearly 30 years ago (I mean, where is the comparable outrage over a recent Democratic national candidate whom went through his own version of the Maury Povich Show "I am NOT the father" moment? Another example of a progressive whom can't do simple arithmetic... Not only that, but he cheated on a wife stricken with cancer.) Brown overcame a 31-point lead without shedding his clothes once for the female vote...
In particular, Obama and his progressive cronies are continuing two annoying themes: the Republicans are obstructionists, the party of "no"; the Supreme Court in the recent Citizens United case allegedly legalized special-interest takeovers of elections .
The obstructionist charge is false; it is true that Republican senators have blocked legislation, but that is simply because the Democrats have been trying to jam progressive, not centrist, bills down the nation's throat, bills that violated conservative principles, and the corrupt deal making was possible only because the Democrats have not negotiated in good faith with the Republicans and have tried to pick off just enough moderate Republican senators.
The Citizens United case was inevitable; if you are going to tax, mandate, and regulate companies, they should have the ability to support policies favorable to their own business interests. The status quo before the decision was arbitrary de facto censorship of organizations whom are for-profit. The Supreme Court did NOT lift contribution restrictions against direct contributions to the official campaigns, but allowed corporations to express their opinions, whether it's a direct or indirect support of a particular candidate. Now to the extent that Democrats have been pushing initiatives against the interests of companies (e.g., restrictions against domestic oil and gas exploration, tax hikes to small businesses (e.g., reversion to Clinton-era high tax brackets), government benefit mandates, etc.), yes, it's likely many corporations prefer Republican pro-economic growth policies.
But the bottom line is that American voters, not companies, whom cast ballots, and it sounds like Obama and his cronies have no faith in the judgment of the American people. Elections already have third parties running ads for or against a candidate. Corporations, of course, do have more subtle ways to influence power brokers; for example, there have been understandings between the Obama Administration with Big Pharma, major health care insurers, labor unions, and other parties during the health care debate. Of course, the former lobbyists hired by the White House are "more equal" than the same for the opposition.
These protests are a red herring. Most companies (and credit unions) have employees, vendors and customers with a diversity of political views. There are, of course, consequences; for instance, when I was at the University of Texas, I had a subscription to a Houston newspaper at a nominal cost; the Houston paper endorsed the Republican candidate, and I canceled my subscription in protest (I'm sure they lost sleep over that). I'm confident that corporations are not interested in getting involved in litmus test, divisive political issues, the process will be transparent, and they are not interested in burning bridges, but trying to influence policy, no matter which candidate wins an election. And let's not forget that corporate perspectives vary, even within an industry. For example, a common assertion in business pages over the past year was that WalMart has been more supportive of the Dems' health care proposals, because they think key rivals (e.g., Target) would be affected more. Large corporations have the scale and staffing to handle government paperwork (e.g., Sarbanes-Oxley) better than smaller competitors. AIG competitors have been furious over the bailout and are convinced that AIG, with the government behind them, has been pricing their bids aggressively to win or retain business.
Iranian Hype over February 11 Announcements
On the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, President Ahmadinejad has been hinting at a major announcement involving its nuclear ambitions, suggests that the country's scientists have developed a safe cure for AIDS, and made a threat to strike a blow against materialism , which some have speculated may be some sort of technological or other attack against global financial systems but (more likely) may have something to do with threatening the world's access to Middle East oil supplies, since energy is a key resource for developed economies. (Let us not forget Saddam Hussein's belief if only he had a nuclear weapon, he could have blackmailed the rest of the world against interfering with his dreams of regional conquest.)
It looks like the Obama Administration is finally realizing all this diplomatic talk (particularly with Russia and China, reluctant to sanction Iran) is getting nowhere and is taking some anticipatory steps by deploying land- and sea-based missile defense systems, including four unidentified Gulf region countries.
Political Cartoon
Steve Kelley notes that with super-majorities, the Dems are being disingenuous by arguing that the GOP are obstructionist. The majority refuses to negotiate on major policy issues (and the Democrats have been notorious over the last decade about peeling off or luring Republican members to their caucus--remember the defections of Jeffords and Specter, peeling off the Maine senators on the stimulus package, and reported attempts to get retiring Ohio Senator Voinovich to switch after the Brown election?) Are we so quick to forget that impeached President Clinton got a pass from all Senate Democrats, despite the fact he materially misled an Arkansas court, enough to later be sanctioned by the court? (As I recall, there was only a weak attempt by Senator Feinstein to plead for a censure.) And then there was a particularly divisive attempt to deny highly qualified Bush judicial nominees (remember Miguel Estrada?) based solely on ideological differences with their judicial philosophy (Obama himself wanted to filibuster and voted against Justice Alito's nomination) by an abuse of the filibuster. Judicial nominees are not by the Constitution required to have a super-majority. In contrast, the GOP did not attempt to filibuster Justice Sotomayor.
Musical Interlude: Country Supergroup Alabama
"Feels So Right"
"Deep River Woman" (with Lionel Richie)
