Iran's Clenched Fist, Obama's Sliding Polls, Health Care Sticker Shock & More

The declaration that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was reelected as Iran's president has led to an unexpected uprising that has brought to light the fragile ground on which Ahmadinejad's repressive regime stands. The protesters believe, and the evidence indicates, that the election was rigged in favor of the incumbent regime which has responded with the iron fist of violence and attempts to extinguish what it sees as dangerous demonstrations of freedom.

President Obama has been exceedingly reluctant to speak out strongly against the violence of the government against peaceful demonstrators and offer support for the people hungry for true freedom and democracy. Some caution is understandable as he is in a "no-win situation." As Reuters explains, "strong criticism could backfire but a muted response leaves an impression of weakness." His response indeed looked weak to many, leading Obama to shift his stance and strengthen his language in recent days "condemning" unjust actions and saying he is "appalled and outraged" by the violence. It has also been pointed out that this presents the President with a dilemma within his own liberalism. No one knows how the crisis in Iran will resolve, but here are four potential outcomes.

This is all happening against the backdrop of Iran and North Korea continuing to pursue nuclear weapons that would be a grave threat to the US, its allies and the world at large. This has weighed heavily on the President's response. Both rogue nations, along with other Mideast setbacks, seem to have intruded on Obama's diplomatic hopes although Secretary of State Clinton insists that, even in light of the "appalling" human rights violations we have seen in the last week, the administration will continue pursuing talks with the regime. Some on the right believe the election has exposed the flaw in Obama's approach to Iran, which has been to do the opposite of what his predecessor did.

As for North Korea, our President now stands accused of plotting nuclear war. This in response to the USS John McCain trailing a N Korean ship suspected of carrying nukes and other weapons. Meanwhile, residents of Hawaii are on edge as North Korea is reportedly planning to fire a long-range missile towards the islands on or around July 4th. To protect our 50th state, the Defense Department has moved ground-to-air missile defenses into position off the coast of Hawaii. These developments have increased criticism of President Obama's plan to cut missile defenses and the defense budget in general.

An interesting subplot of the Iran uprising story has been the essential role played by new media, particularly Twitter. Whereas in the past, Ahmadinejad's repressive actions of expelling journalists and cutting off communication from Iran would have succeeded in preventing the voices of demonstrators from reaching sympathetic ears around the world, today, we have Twitter, Flickr and Facebook, all serving as a "virtual mosque." Twitter has proved so critical to breaking through the information blackout, the US State Department actually asked the site to delay a schedule maintenance outage so as not to interrupt one of our only means of monitoring the situation. New media taking a prominent position in these events of global importance has led many in power to look at the fun tools of teenagers in a new light as even Defense Secretary Gates calls on the Pentagon to look for ways it can use social networking. Indeed, Twitter may change the way we live.

President Obama held a press conference yesterday, attempting to hit the "reset button" on several of his major issues on which he is losing public support. In the words of the RNC, Obama hoped for a hail mary as his agenda collapses on Capitol Hill. The President has been putting his high approval numbers to work on a myriad of major policies, but as the public looks more at his policies and less at him, the honeymoon appears to be coming to an end and his poll numbers are "starting to wilt." Gallop's daily tracking has Obama's job approval hitting new lows this week as his disapprove numbers steadily climb. As you see in the graph, the President's approval index hit 0 for the first time this week and actually fell as low as -2.

The big story is the gulf developing between Obama's still high favorability ratings and the much lower ratings for his specific policies. On his biggest policy priority, health care, Obama finds far less public support for rebuilding the system now than existed in 1993 when HillaryCare failed. The public is also wary of the growing deficit and actually opposes some of Obama's economic interventions. On the stimulus, confidence continues to fall as barely half now think it will boost the economy and Joe Biden concedes that "everyone guessed wrong." In a separate poll, a substantial majority do not believe Obama has a plan to deal with the budget deficit and many people disapprove of his health care plan, auto industry rescue and plan to close Guantanamo Bay. The public still does not blame Obama for the current state of the economy, but as time passes, unemployment continues to rise and people look at what the President does rather than what he says, it is becoming his to own.

Health Care is now, by far, the most dominant policy issue on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. The President and his allies on Capitol Hill have run into two different headwinds that threaten to derail their desired policies. The first is the public polling discussed above indicating less than an enthusiastic desire on the part of Americans for key parts of their plan. The second speed bump is sticker shock courtesy of the Congressional Budget Office which scored one Democratic proposal at $1 trillion over 10 years and another at $1.6 trillion amounting to a prognosis of debt. Some called the dose of reality a "death blow" to a government run health plan. This has led to concern within Obama's own party, finding themselves responsible for making unpleasant choices, that his health care plan lacks the votes needed to pass. The issue is sure to test Obama's resolve in the coming months as he continues pushing ahead and tries to keep his options open even as a bipartisan consensus looks increasingly unlikely. Try seeing the whole process from his perspective.

The issues and proposals at play in this debate are many, but I will highlight a few. Some believe doctors, the ones writing the bills, are the linchpin of real reform. These are, of course, some of the same doctors who booed Obama when he addressed them last week. A new Gallup poll shows that Americans trust doctors significantly more than Obama on health care.

The greatest point of contention to this point in the debate has been the public plan favored by Obama and the more liberal Congressional Democrats. Some believe the final reform bill is likely to have the public plan although the Senate Finance Committee's version leaves it out and Obama has signaled that he would be open to reform without it. Conservatives argue that the public plan would be the only plan and is a one-way-ticket to single payer health care but that it can be stopped. On the other side, Liberals say we need a public plan to force the private sector to improve. There is a fear that we could be creating a Welfare State that takes our country down the same path as GM as some even claim government health care would be unconstitutional.

When pressed at yesterday's press conference, Obama was forced to walk back his promise that even with a public plan, Americans would be able to keep the insurance they have, acknowledging that, as conservatives have repeatedly argued, the government plan could trump private plans leading some employers to dump their employees' coverage, this is what Americans worry about. Some believe you can't trust Obama on the issue, especially in light of past statements calling for a single payer system. They believe Obama is naive, hypocritical and dishonest in his claims that he will control health spending when his proposals have a good chance of doing the opposite.

Another point of debate is the rationing that conservatives fear would accompany a government takeover of the industry. Liberals push back that rationing will happen with or without the public plan. Also in the conversation, capping or eliminating the employer tax exclusion, which would be a goldmine of new revenue but is vigorously opposed by Obama supporters, and new taxes to pay for the overhaul. A proposal that has long been discussed is reining in medical malpractice lawsuits which have been credited for a large chunk of exploding costs. Obama's idea of extending Medicaid has met stiff resistance from governors of both parties who are facing record state deficits. Finally, Obama makes an argument about the global competitiveness of American busisnesses, one the WSJ finds hypocritical for a Democrat. On health care and other issues, Barone has picked up on an Obama pattern of dodging facts, skipping details and governing Chicago style.

Most Americans want health reform but express broad anxiety about its potential impact on their own care. Before trying to comprehend, much less form an intelligent opinion on this incredibly complex issue, it is important to gain some background and contextual knowledge. To this end, I have found Ezra Klein of the Washington Post helpful. While his views on the issue are decidedly liberal, he does a nice job of framing the debate. He offers a telling graphic showing that while the US pays more than other countries for health care, our results are rarely better and sometimes worse. He also explains the Dartmouth Atlas Studies showing the same phenomenon among US states. In his series Health Reform for Beginners, Klein explains the employer tax exclusion, a key player in McCain's proposals, as well as health insurance exchanges, both key players in the current debate. He also explains why it's the Senate Finance Committee that takes the lead on Health Care. He lays out why a reform aimed at bringing costs down long-term may come at a staggering initial cost and what a public plan is. Finally, he defines the difference between socialized medicine, single-payer health care and the unique system we are more likely to have. For a case study close to home, take a look at Massachusetts' experience with health reform under Mitt Romney.

OTHER STORIES OF NOTE:

There was a tragic crash on the Washington, DC metrorail this week as one train rearended another killing 9 people and injuring 70.

Obama has instituted new wage controls and proposed an overhaul of the nation's financial system which has provoked wide criticism, particularly from Wall Street. All the while, Obama claims he is aspiring to a "light touch" not a heavy hand as unemployment rises and the debt keeps him up at night.

It has been a bad week for two previously rising stars in the GOP. Nevada Senator John Ensign and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford have both admitted affairs, significantly affecting the landscape of the 2012 Republican field of Obama challengers.

Barack Obama, in one of his most impressive acts as president, terminated a fly that was interupting his interview. PETA was very upset with the President... please.

Finally, see Danny's comment on last week's post in which he offers a thoughtful assessment of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A new poll shows that only 6% of Israelis now see the US government as pro-Israel.

Government Motors, The Obamathon, Health Care, Economy & More

In the 20th Century it was said "What's good for GM is good for the country." Not a decade into the 21st Century, the county, more specifically the federal government, has taken over the company and is deciding what is good for GM. On June 1, 2009 General Motors collapsed into the government's arms. GM is the latest in a string of company takeovers in our history and the second biggest ever. Despite overwhelming public opposition, only 21% support, as well as opposition from many conservatives, the President took a 60% ownership stake in the company and fired its CEO. President Obama has repeatedly asserted that he has no interest in owning a car company and will not interfere in its day-to-day operations, but his administration's actions so far call those words into question. Obama taking on the job of GM CEO is a move that some think he will come to regret and others warn could drag the economy into a deeper recession. It is certainly a move that has been noticed around the world as Hugo Chavez joked to Fidel Castro that they risk being more conservative than Barack Obama.

The fact is Obama now owns GM; its success or failure will be his. As to the prospect of GM failing, George Will says, "if GM has not already failed, New Coke was a success." Be that as it may, Obama faces an incredible challenge to crack the infamously insular culture at GM. Some see Obama diving into a quagmire with no exit strategy. Many experts have a hard time seeing how GM will ever make money and do not believe we, the taxpayers, will ever get our $70,000,000,000 back. Some Senators such as Mike Johanns and John Thune are calling for much greater oversight in light of the administrations use of TARP money, meant for troubled bank assets, to purchase GM. Indeed, who would have thought we would see this happen. The public remains very unhappy with the move, 17% of Americans calling for a boycott of the company and only 42% of GM owners saying they are likely to buy GM again. We have been told the government intervention was necessary because GM was too big to fail. Really? Will points out the absurdity of this argument. Currently GM is worth about the same as California Pizza Kitchen, a nice restaurant but far from vital to US interest.

If America hopes to remain the world economic leader, we must understand and embrace the concept of creative destruction and comparative advantage. If other countries have proven themselves better able to efficiently manufacture automobiles, our country will do better by allowing the natural destruction of the inept parts of our automotive industry and creating greater value in other endeavors that will enhance, not detract from, our global competitiveness. "Out of destruction, a new spirit of creativity arises." The President should not have taken this dramatic step, blurring the fundamental line between government and business, the free enterprise that defines the capitalism on which our nation was founded. I hope for the sake of taxpayers and our economy that this experiment works. If it does not, Obama will not be the only one to suffer.

It's not news that the main stream media in this country has a liberal bent; it's even less surprising that they love Barack Obama. What is rather amazing is the fawning, constant and utterly uncritical coverage he is receiving from most of the press. When Bill Maher says "enough with the Obamathon" you know it's gotten out of control. I must admit, the wall to wall coverage of the President's every move did lead me to a great burger joint in Arlington, but burgers aside, the free press is failing at their duty of checking our politicians and offering critical analysis of their actions. This is not healthy for America. Pew Research Center found that Obama has enjoyed "substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George Bush." This infatuation with Obama has allowed him unquestioned authority that no president should have. Cal Thomas points out that we have many houses of worship in this country but newsrooms should not be one of them. Some in the press have even said that Obama is "sort of God." I beg to differ.

Despite the dangerous lack of critical press, the public is paying attention and is growing more and more uneasy with many of the President's policies. Obama is holding strong in public opinion polls due to his very high personal favorability numbers and the fact that many Americans still place the majority of blame for current problem on former President Bush. However, if you look at polling on individual Obama policies, his issues seem to be crumbling. Even with a press in love, if Obama's policies do not succeed, patience will run out, and Americans will make him pay.

The debate over what could be the greatest change to this country's health care system in history has begun in earnest and is heating up. While both sides of the aisle agree that something must be done to fix a system with cost running out of control, the points of agreement do not extend much farther into what the solution should look like. There are many, many facets to this debate, but the "rock" that threatens to derail the entire process is the public option which Obama and liberal Democrats support. There are many flavors of a public plan, but the one Obama would like to see in a health care bill has drawn loud criticism from the right and raised great concerns among the more moderate members of his own party. As Democrats fight amongst themselves over the legislation, Republicans are making their case to the American people with an alternative and are gaining trust from voters on the issue.

Some on the left believe conservative arguments are meant only to scare the public and ensure that Obamacare goes down just as Hillarycare did in the mid-90s. This is far from the truth as conservatives have very legitimate concerns about what decision making power being centered in Washington would mean to the future of health care in this nation. Conservatives, consistent with the age-old debate between big government vs. individual freedom, believe that decisions about health care should be left to individuals and their doctors. Which solution will improve a system in dire need of change is the question which we better hope Washington gets right. There is good and lively debate taking place between those who are wholly against a public plan, believing it will not improve health care, and lay out good arguments for that view and those who support such a solution and offer counter points. Before deciding which side has it right, it's prudent to get a basic understanding of and context for the debate.

Americans believe in prevention to improve our health care system and lower cost, but until we see it actually happen, there are a number of questions, in addition to the one on the efficacy of a public option, that must be answered. The most important, and the one that has the least clarity at the moment is how any new policy would be paid for. The Washington Post has criticized the administration for releasing reports on cutting the cost of health care that contain "few details about how those ambitious goals would be achieved" and do not "address any increased spending needed to implement reform." Such lack of a cost cutting plan lead conservatives to believe Obama is not addressing the problem and led USA Today to say that the Republican plan is more detailed and bolder than the one coming from the White House. Several ideas have been floated to pay for reform. Obama has considered taxing the wealthy to fund a health mandate. He has also said that it is ok to borrow more money, adding to our already approximately $1 trillion deficit for this fiscal year alone, to pay for health care. Some on the left have also floated the idea of taxing employee based health care, an idea that, when proposed by McCain, Obama vehemently attacked. The current House bill includes $600 billion in tax increases and $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicate, which hospitals oppose. Another idea is to have those Americans who are already insured pay more in taxes for greater security in their coverage. Observers on the right fear that cost will ultimately be cut by rationing care and limiting choice, which is what has led to the infamously long waits for care in Canada.

Some see Obama's rhetoric not matching up with reality and fear that he will kick the harder questions of funding down the road, to be dealt with when we are financially on the brink. Health care reform is, without a doubt, one of the President's top priorities, and he is realizing that he must take on a greater role if he hopes to see something pass. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal suspects that all the rush is because Democrats don't think their bill can stand public inspection. As Gerson notes, "the political fight on health care remains lopsided in Obama's favor, but the policy argument is growing more balanced." Therefore, as the debate becomes more complex, the outcome is less certain.

Pressure is mounting on the President as the economy continues to lag well below the predictions he used to push his stimulus bill through Congress, a bill that has shown little to no evidence of helping to jump start us out of recession. We lost another 345,000 jobs in May, an improvement but still enough to send our unemployment rate well past 9 percent. Meanwhile, benefit spending under Obama has soared to new highs at an average of $17,000 for each household. Also, oil has spiked above $70 and is rising fast signaling another summer of pain at the pump. Obama's tax proposals also promise to do more harm than good as Microsoft pledges to move jobs overseas if they pass. Some see the policy proposals as so anticompetitive that every firm could need a bailout, as if Obama is telling businesses to drop dead. With our budget deficit soaring out of control, almost $1 trillion this year alone, China is voicing fears and looking to diversify from the dollar. If and when that happens, the fun really is over.

Mindful of the disastrous consequences of losing fiscal credibility, Obama boldly proclaimed that he is reinstituting "paygo" rules for Congress to reign in the deficit. Let's just say that, with exceptions for every major Obama program including health care, the proclamation was worth little more than the teleprompter from which he read it. The president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget likened the President's announcement to quitting drinking but making an exception for beer and hard liquor. The WSJ sees a pattern emerging of spend, repent, spend again, repent and believes the paygo announcement is nothing more than a coverup. Obama has also started making a renewed push for his stimulus package, which has only spend 6% of its funds to date. How can that be stimulative? The AP called out Obama's rhetoric as spin and said his proclaimations are simply summer reruns. The stimulus was passed with Obama warning that if Congress failed to pass it, we could see unemployment rates of 8.5%; that aweful scenario would, of course, be avoided with the stimulus package. Oops, with the stimulus package, we are already at a rate of 9.4% and rising.

My favorite line oft repeated by Obama is that he will or has "saved or created" x number of jobs. What? Saved or created? How can you measure that? Answer, you can't. Therein lies the magic for Obama. As Democratic Senator Max Baucus observed, "you created a situation where you cannot be wrong... you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct." Somehow, see infatuation piece above, the media has fallen for this empty and baseless claim.

David Brooks believes we have moved from the Age of Leverage to the Great Unwinding and that politically difficult action will be required to pull the nation back up. Some economists and lawmakers are beginning to question whether Obama's activist agenda is helping or hurting the economy. Most believe that Obama's presidency will rise or fall on economic results. He himself has staked his success on his economic policies. However, his spending plans may pose political risks. Polling is now showing significant vulnerability for Obama on the economy as his policies are not working and the public has noticed.

The Obama administration has begun its public relations offensive for the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Republicans continue to have concerns about the Justice as I outlined previously. Michael Steele, the Chairman of the Republican Party, wrote in Politico that Sotomayor's is a milestone nomination but that her record requires scrutiny. Peggy Noonan has ideas about how Republicans should approach her nomination hearings, as grown-ups asking serious and legitimate questions that require thorough answers if she is to sit on the Supreme Court. In more thoroughly examing Sotomayor's record, it seems that gender and heritage are frequent topics for her, particularly how they affect her judging. In fact, she has repeatedly referenced 'wise woman' in her speeches over the years. Stuart Taylor of the Nation Journal takes an excellent, in depth look at the contoversial Ricci case and concludes that the more you examine the case, the more indefensible her decision looks. Meanwhile, Chris Dodd, the veteran but vulnerable Connecticut senator, is dodging questions about the case. Patrick Leahy, the Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee chairman who will oversee her confirmation hearings has unilaterally decided to begin the hearings on July 13th despite protest from Republicans that the schedule does not allow enough time for careful examination of her record. Please see the comments on the last post for a challenge of my assessment of Sotomayor and my response.

Virginia is one of two states holding a Governor's election in November of this year. As such, it has great national importance, to the psyche of the two parties going into the midterm elections of 2010 if nothing else. The Democratic primary in Virginia to determine who will face Republican and former Attorney General Bob McDonnell was very exciting, not least because Terry McAuliffe, Clintonite and Democratic fundraiser extraordinaire was in the race. In the end, this past Tuesday, Creigh Deeds, a state legislature from rural Virginia surged at the last minute to a "stunning win." How he did it is truly fascinating. Remember, in politics, it ain't over until the fat lady sings. Deeds' win has many implications for the general election race and beyond. For starters, the WSJ saw it as Clintonism going down. In addition, with Deeds the most moderate of the three Democratic candidates, some believe it sets up a tougher race for McDonnell. A key question for Deeds will be whether or not he can capitalize on the "Obamacization" of Virginia that took place in 2008. Turnout will be key, and it will be difficult for Deeds to recreate the massive turnout Democrats saw for Obama. Michael Barone looks at what Virginia voters were telling us on that and other points.

President Obama went to Cairo, Egypt, the heart of the Islamic world to deliver a much anticipated speech that some think could be a turning point in the history of US relations with Muslim nations. He saught "common ground" with Islam by highlighting our shared values and interest, which I believe was effective. Interestingly, after making his middle name off limits during his presidential campaign, in Cairo, he found value in using his middle name, Hussein, several times. Surrounding this speech, Jake Tapper saw the emergence of Obama's Muslim roots.

Some level of humility is necessary to earn the trust and ear of such an audience; however, some believe, and I agree, that he was overly gracious to the Islamic countries while simultaneously downplaying the great deeds of the United States in that part of the world throughout history and continuing his trend of highlighting our supposed downfalls as a nation and sounding an apologetic tone, which is rare for a president on foreign soil. While refusing to utter the word "terror" or directly challenge the human rights atrocities that take place every day in that part of the world, he declared that the United States is one of the largest Muslim counties on Earth. Curious given that we are only the 48th biggest Muslim country. I hope that after this first step of opening dialogue, he will feel able to be more frank with an Islamic audience in the future.

One of the most significant parts of his speech was his reiterating support for a Palestinian state to resolve the seemingly eternal Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He even went so far as to call on Israel to cease settlement activities, something Krauthammer calls a myth. These strong stands, in some ways against Israel, have caused growing anxiety in one of our closest allies. Israelis are beginning to wonder how much support they now have from Washington, and some are lashing out in anger at Obama. Feeling the pressure from the US President, Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister has endorsed a Palestinian state but rejected Obama's call to freeze settlements.

To be clear, I thought the President merely going to Cairo was a positive move and thought parts of his speech were very good and praiseworthy. In fact, the WSJ recognizes that just as Obama has validated much of George W. Bush's security agenda and foreign policy, parts of his speech in Cairo were "artfully repackaged versions of themes President Bush sounded with his freedom agenda." I agree with Thomas Friedman saying "when young Arabs and Muslims see an American president who looks like them, has a name like theirs, has Muslims in his family and comes into their world and speaks the truth, it will be empowering and disturbing at the same time. People will be asking: “Why is this guy who looks like everyone on the street here the head of the free world and we can’t even touch freedom?” You never know where that goes." I do believe there can be immeasurable, profound and history changing good done by us reaching out more proactively and humbly towards the Muslim world. While not without objections, I appreciate the effort the President is making and hope his greatest aims of improved relations and greater peace are realized.

OTHER STORIES OF NOTE:

A hate-filled and very disturbed man entered the U.S. Holocaust Museum in Washington, opened fire with a rifle and killed a brave guard who saved lives with his immediate actions. In light of this horrible killing, Michael Gerson wonders why anti-semitism has endured for so long.

North Korea has convicted two young, female journalists from the US on charges of entering the country illegally and sentenced them to 12 years of prison. Meanwhile, the North is shooting off more threats that I'm afraid we cannot dismiss. They have shown no signs of rationality, and no one truly knows what they will do next. The US is looking at intercepting North Korean shipments, which could prevent the spread of their weapons or nuclear technology and choke off a major money supply. The North of course sees this as a provocative act of war. North Korea presents us with a highly complex challenge. The WSJ looks at Bush's futility in dealing with North Korea via diplomacy and suggests that the sentencing of our journalists indicates the limits of talking and the futility of only gestures and conversation.

Facing polling that indicates Americans oppose the closing of Guantanamo Bay by a 2 to 1 margin and oppose the relocation of prisoners into the US by a 3 to 1 margin, Obama has given up on bringing detainees to the US. On the PG Poll, readers oppose closing the prison 24 to 7.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been declared the winner in Iran's presidential election, but protests have erupted in the streets and his challenger is crying foul.

The WHO has declared the first level 6 flu pandemic since 1968.

There are still very few answers as to what happened to the Air France flight that crashed into the Atlantic with 228 people on board. We do, however, have a better idea of the horror that was the flight's last 14 minutes.

President Obama has created a new Compensation Czar to monitor compensation of top employees at companies receiving taxpayer funds; however, conservatives fear that this new power of government could be extended to all companies.

The Senate passed a bill that will establish FDA regulation of cigarettes and other forms of tobacco. Obama looks forward to signing the bill.

We had quite the hot debate on the comments board about the legal proceedings still ongoing in Minnesota to determine the state's next senator. Do yourself a favor and have a look; it's very entertaining. There were also some great comments about my assessment of Judge Sotomayor as well as my view on affirmative action. Please see the comments as well as my response. Out of 13 votes in the PG Poll, 11 agree with me that affirmative action is a temporal issue, but 15 of 19 believe we have crossed the treshold and that affirmative action should not be practiced today. Finally, in response to Joe Christenbury's column, we had several great comments to which Joe responded.

COMMENT & VOTE: Please make your opinion known by commenting & voting in this week's new polls: Should Obama have bought GM? Will GM ever survive as a private company again? Should the media be more critical of Obama? Do you side more with liberals or conservatives on the health care debate? Do you think the economy will hurt Obama and Democrats in future elections?

TWITTER: Follow the new PGBlog on Twitter for breaking news updates throughout the week! Also see the feed on the left side of the page.

EMAIL: Get the PG Blog via email! Sent an email to pearcegodwinblog@gmail.com with subject line SUBSCRIBE in order to get each post directly to your inbox.

Sotomayor for SCOTUS? Affirmative Action & More

Just over 100 days into his Presidency, Barack Obama has excercised what some argue is the greatest power of the President, appointing a Supreme Court justice. This person's influence over our nation will extend decades after Obama's administration has ended and is thus of huge consequence. His pick, Sonia Sotomayor, is an Appeals Court justice with a compelling life story but a very troubling judicial philosophy as understood by looking at her past statements and cases.

A quote most have seen by now is from a speech she delivered at Berkeley in which she said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Try to imagine what would have happened to a White male who had made the same comment, only about his inherent superiority as a justice to a hispanic woman. His career would be over. In the face of growing pressure from Democrats, the White House has attempted to address the statement with Obama saying he is "sure she would have restated it."

Another problem for Sotomayor is the Ricci case in which white firefighters were denied promotions despite passing the necessary test because no black candidates scored high enough to be promoted. Sotomayor dismissed the case, drawing harsh criticism from a colleage appointed by Clinton. Her decision is likely to be overturned by the Supreme Court just before she would assume one of its chairs.

Finally, at my alma mater Duke, she stated that "the appeals court is where policy is made." A comment that flies in the face of the constitutional role of the judicial branch of government to interpret, not make, law. There is very little doubt the Sotomayor will assume the bench as the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court, but I agree that while Republicans may lose the vote, they can win the argument by making a good case against judicial activism. After all, "there is something in our political DNA that wants impartial umpires who apply the rules, regardless of who thereby wins or loses."

Obama’s nomination of Sotomayor to the Supreme Court has brought to the forefront the issue of affirmative action, both because she, a Hispanic woman, was chosen and as it relates to her court decisions and statements. In light of the nomination, I have thought and talked more than ever about the issue of affirmative action and have decided to address the issue here and open up the comments section and PG Polls for each of you to share your view.

I’ve always viewed affirmative action as a temporal issue. By that I mean that, like most policy problems, it is not black and white, and furthermore, that it is a matter of timing. The day after blacks were emancipated from the tragedy of slavery in America, they certainly needed a boost to assimilate into the already advanced white society and economic market. At some later point, affirmative action becomes counterproductive and detrimental to its own ends of racial equality.

Affirmative action, without question, accentuates and perpetuates division based on the color of one’s skin. The more we artificially elevate or suppress opportunity for a person based on race, the more we highlight color differences, foster resentment and cheat equality. Any special treatment, positive or negative, someone receives based on nothing more than the color of his or her skin is quite literally racist and not the ideal for America. The ideal is for there to be no material differentiation between people based on the color of their skin. As an aside, I believe the “melting pot” that is the United States affords us a wonderful opportunity to celebrate and learn from diverse cultures, races and ethnicities. I do not believe we should ever be “color blind.” That is unrealistic and undesirable. We all benefit from people who are different from us and rightly celebrate our shared heritage with those who are similar. However, there is a stark difference between celebrating disparate races and scoring a person differently based solely on skin color.

As I said, I believe affirmative action was necessary after slavery and at some point becomes detrimental and wrong. Now, whether that “tipping point” has been reached or is still some point in the future is a matter of honest debate. I do not pretend to have the answer; however, I suspect we are not quite there yet. To be clear, based on my experience, I believe affirmative action is still appropriate in certain circumstances but is growing less so. A friend of mine, arguing against affirmative action, pointed to the election of President Obama as proof that the ultimate end of affirmative action had been reached and thus it is no longer necessary. Leaving politics aside for the moment, the election of Barack Obama was an inspiration to the entire world and a huge step toward racial equality in this nation. The intangible impact of a black man taking the oath of office in a nation where 146 years before such a man may have been a slave is enormous. However, it is not necessarily indicative of the end game in racial equality. Equality will have been achieved when over a 100 or 200 year span the proportion of black presidents approximately reflects the proportion of blacks in society. Barack Obama is a remarkable man who has accomplished a first; however, I’m not sure that means we can honestly expect those proportions to equalize without a little more boosting of previously suppressed minorities.

The impact of Obama's election illustrates one of what I see as the three major justifications of affirmative action. A black man serving as president, or CEO or doctor serves to shatter glass ceilings that children of the same race may have believed existed, giving them hope that they too can reach for the highest levels of position and success, even to be the most powerful person in the world. When later generations are not constrained by the weight of what has never been done before, they will reach higher and achieve more, further equalizing the races, erasing the opportunity and achievement gap and moving the nation towards a time when the color of one’s skin says nothing about who the person will grow to be and need not be considered in getting them there. For proof of this point, I look no further than the new hip hop song by Maino entitled All The Above. In the song, Maino says, “This what the ghetto done made me; I put that on my father. Tryna hope for tomorrow. When I think that I can't, I envision Obama.”

Second, all parties benefit from an educational environment that is diverse in ideas, talents, backgrounds and race. My education at Duke was much richer for living with and learning from people of different races and cultures. Admissions officers at Duke have told me that Duke, like most universities, practices affirmative action in making admissions decisions. To the extent that practice enriched the diversity of my experience and thus quality of my education, I am glad they do.

Third, in professions such as law and medicine, it can be important that the demographics of the practitioners reflect that of the general population. This is principally a matter of trust, and trust is crucial between a patient and doctor. By and large, people are more trusting of those they see as similar to themselves, yes, even in terms of race.

The issue of affirmative action has of coursed come before the Supreme Court numerous times. Chief Justice John Roberts said in 2007 that, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” In 2003, writing the majority opinion for a Supreme Court case on the constitutionality of racial preferences in university admissions, Sandra Day O’Connor said, “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”

In conclusion, I believe affirmative action is unarguably unfair on the individual level (to the white applicant who is rejected to allow for a minority’s acceptance) but is beneficial to society as a whole both today and into the future. A world where the most qualified applicants are people of a variety of races is better than a world in which all of the most qualified applicants are white. I, like most Americans, agree with Martin Luther King that people should “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” I look forward to the day when all glass ceilings are broken and affirmative action is abolished forever.

Please comment and vote in the new polls on the site: Do you agree that affirmative action is a temporal issue? Do you believe affirmative action should be practiced today?

Other stories of note:

The California Supreme Court upheld the statewide vote in favor of Proposition 8, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, in what the WSJ calls a victory for democracy and Hertitage calls a victory for marriage. The decision set off a firestorm of protests ensuring that this is an issue that will be around in California and across the nation for a very long time. A new poll shows that 57% of Americans are against same-sex marriages.

Nicholas Kristof of the NYT has a fascinating piece about the inherent characteristics of a conservative versus a liberal. h/t Billy Hughes

Furor is growing over evidence that the Obama administration closed Crysler dealerships based on the party affiliation of the owners.

GM will file for bankruptcy today.

Business Week has a great cover story about the value of our online networks of friends.

A Texas hospital worker was forced to take down her American flag at the office.

Taxpayers are on the hook for an extra $55,000 per household.

A famous Kansas abortion doctor was killed in church this morning.

Heritage breaks down the 'largest expansion of government ever.'

Sonia Sotomayor has been described by lawers and colleages as a 'terror on the bench.'

Some believe Republicans risk losing Hispanics in opposing Sotomayor.

The NYT looks at Obama's extremely meticulous nominating process.

Opinion pieces abound on Sotomayor. Here are several I found interesting and worth a read:

WSJ: The 'Empathy' nominee

Rove: 'Empathy' is code for judicial activism

Krauthammer: Sotomayor- rebut, then confirm

Brooks: The empathy issue

Will: Identity justice

Will: The wreck of a spoils system

Barone: Will Sotomayor's style blunt her liberal views?

Thomas: Biography & the law

Sowell: 'Empathy' in action

Joe Christenbury, just home from studying in Singapore, has written a very thorough and enlightening column with his thoughts on health care for PG this week. Check it out! I also got a couple of great comments in response to my look at the health care debate. Please read what Danalee and Danny had to say. Below is my response to their comments:

"I certainly sympathize with Danalee's concerns about socialized medicine and, like her, look to other countries currently under the system to see its downfalls. Danny made a very interesting and important point when he said, "it's not that I do not have the same fears conservatives do of a public plan, it's my understanding of how horrible our health care system is today." As to this understanding, I defer to Danny as I have very little expertise on the health care system. It is very important to appropriately frame the policy choice against the status quo. If, as Danny suggest, the current system is worse than conservatives' worst fears about a socialized system, then the lesser of two evils becomes the best policy. I am not ready to concede that to be the case because I don't have a full understanding of the problems with the current system but am convinced of the major problems with socialized medicine.

What I've come to realize with the health care debate is that where you stand depends on where you sit, sort of. More accurately than where you sit, it is where your focus and chief concern is. My point is this, if you have or most care about people who have satisfactory health care then you vigorously oppose socialized medicine for all of the reasons Danalee and the Wall Street Journal have articulated. If you can't afford or most care about people who can't afford health care under the current system then you may support any means to extend coverage universally, even through a single payer system, despite and regardless of what aggregate cost such a plan would have on the system as a whole, especially those who can now afford care. As with so many policy problems, where you stand depends on where you sit."

Note: Thanks for making May the most successful month ever for the PG Blog. We had 571 unique visits to the website, crushing the October record of 244. Please leave your comments and answer the poll questions on the site! Thanks!