I have been discussing Bob Duffy's run for Lt. Governor with friends and family. I have been fairly surprised by how many of them see this as a cynical, political move by Duffy.
Actually, it is not the run for Lt. Governor that they see as cynical, it is his former protestations that he was not a "politician" which has been exposed as bull and some of his policy initiatives, which now look like political ploys. Even the Democrat & Chronicle went from lauding his "ascension" to questioning his motives and asking what his departure will mean for the City of Rochester.
I'm not sure how to read this. I have nothing against the Mayor. I did not understand his sinking of Ren. Square or his plan to take over City Schools. I also don't think he's done anything notable to improve the City. He's been a pleasant guy, but he's done very little of substance and certainly nothing to have earned the incredibly fawning press coverage he got from the D&C.
Frankly, his legacy to Rochester may ultimately be that he sucessfully unloaded the Fast Ferry. Other than that, it hasn't been a memorable run. Maybe his term as Lt. Governor will lead to something more. Only time will tell.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Obama's Responsibility
There has been a lot of criticism of President Obama lately. While I consider myself a fairly strong critic of the President, I think some of the recent charges go too far.
First, I've see a lot of commentary regarding Obama's taking a vacation in Chicago rather than laying the wreath at the tomb of the unknowns. I think this is a bit over the top. Both Presidents Bush took vacations on some Memorial Day week-ends. The President is entitled to some time with his family. Further, as I understand it, he is going to a ceremony at the Lincoln National Cemetery today. So, let's drop this one.
More notably, the President is coming under increasing fire regarding the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I really have mixed emotions about this one. It is not at all clear that the Federal government could have done much in the wake of the explosion. I think people have outsized expectations about what a President and the government can do, in any event.
Perhaps that is the legitimate criticism of the President. He, like many of his Democrat colleagues, tout the almost unlimited ability of the Federal government to solve virtually any problem. Perhaps its fitting that he get some blame as the oil continues to spill from the damaged BP well and the Feds look helplessly on.
Still, like Bush with Katrina, I do not think it is fair to lay the entire matter at the President's feet. This is a true environmental disaster. We should take a close look at all of the reasons why it happened (including why our oil companies have to drill in deep water when there are shallow coastal areas, and remote land areas [like ANWR] where drilling is safer and easier, that are off limits). The response by the Obama Administration may ultimately be deemed insufficient, but at this point, I think its too early to make a definitive determination.
I am always afraid that people will stop listening if they think criticism is knee-jerk and unwarranted. I'd rather restrict my catcalls for Obama's clear and unequivocal mistakes (of which there are many). Lets keep our powder dry on weak issues so that our valid "indictments" of Obama are returned with a guilty verdict.
UPDATE: If you want to read some opinions which outline serious and damning criticism of the President, take a look at this and this.
First, I've see a lot of commentary regarding Obama's taking a vacation in Chicago rather than laying the wreath at the tomb of the unknowns. I think this is a bit over the top. Both Presidents Bush took vacations on some Memorial Day week-ends. The President is entitled to some time with his family. Further, as I understand it, he is going to a ceremony at the Lincoln National Cemetery today. So, let's drop this one.
More notably, the President is coming under increasing fire regarding the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. I really have mixed emotions about this one. It is not at all clear that the Federal government could have done much in the wake of the explosion. I think people have outsized expectations about what a President and the government can do, in any event.
Perhaps that is the legitimate criticism of the President. He, like many of his Democrat colleagues, tout the almost unlimited ability of the Federal government to solve virtually any problem. Perhaps its fitting that he get some blame as the oil continues to spill from the damaged BP well and the Feds look helplessly on.
Still, like Bush with Katrina, I do not think it is fair to lay the entire matter at the President's feet. This is a true environmental disaster. We should take a close look at all of the reasons why it happened (including why our oil companies have to drill in deep water when there are shallow coastal areas, and remote land areas [like ANWR] where drilling is safer and easier, that are off limits). The response by the Obama Administration may ultimately be deemed insufficient, but at this point, I think its too early to make a definitive determination.
I am always afraid that people will stop listening if they think criticism is knee-jerk and unwarranted. I'd rather restrict my catcalls for Obama's clear and unequivocal mistakes (of which there are many). Lets keep our powder dry on weak issues so that our valid "indictments" of Obama are returned with a guilty verdict.
UPDATE: If you want to read some opinions which outline serious and damning criticism of the President, take a look at this and this.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Does He Really Want This Job?
As you all know, Andrew Cuomo tapped Rochester Mayor, Bob Duffy as his choice for Lt. Governor. Since Cuomo is a lock, this is tantamount to saying Rochester is getting a new Mayor.
Still, I wonder why Duffy wants the job. The Lt. Governor slot is barely more than a ceremonial office. This job makes being Vice-President look like a super post. I suppose it lends some prestige to Duffy if he runs for higher office in the future, but I don't think that many Lt. Governors have risen to the top job.
On the other hand, given recent history, Duffy may believe that being next in line may be worth something. Maybe Duffy thinks that Cuomo may have a skeleton in his closet similar to those that ruined Elliot Spitzer and weakened David Paterson.
Meanwhile, I think everyone who thinks this appointment will help Upstate NY ought to reserve judgement. Stan Lundine was from Upstate. I don't recall all the benefits he brought us. Cuomo probably looked at prior year's polling results and noted that Monroe County was one of the few parts of the State where Dems don't do well in state-wide races. He probably figured that the Duffy nod would seal the deal in the only (relative) weak spot he was likely to have.
Finally, who will be Duffy's replacement? And, most importantly, who will become the D&C's favorite Democrat?
Still, I wonder why Duffy wants the job. The Lt. Governor slot is barely more than a ceremonial office. This job makes being Vice-President look like a super post. I suppose it lends some prestige to Duffy if he runs for higher office in the future, but I don't think that many Lt. Governors have risen to the top job.
On the other hand, given recent history, Duffy may believe that being next in line may be worth something. Maybe Duffy thinks that Cuomo may have a skeleton in his closet similar to those that ruined Elliot Spitzer and weakened David Paterson.
Meanwhile, I think everyone who thinks this appointment will help Upstate NY ought to reserve judgement. Stan Lundine was from Upstate. I don't recall all the benefits he brought us. Cuomo probably looked at prior year's polling results and noted that Monroe County was one of the few parts of the State where Dems don't do well in state-wide races. He probably figured that the Duffy nod would seal the deal in the only (relative) weak spot he was likely to have.
Finally, who will be Duffy's replacement? And, most importantly, who will become the D&C's favorite Democrat?
Thursday, May 20, 2010
What's Good For The Goose
President Obama and Mexico's President Calderon both spoke out against the Arizona Immigration Law. At least Calderon has an excuse. For Mexico, illegal immigration to the U.S. by excess workers is a safety valve. But what is Obama thinking?
I think its typical of his aggogance. He doesn't care that a clear majority of Americans do not support his ideas about comprehensive immigration reform. He knows they are just bitter clingers. He's sure that if he just tells us what he thinks enough times, we'll finally understand. He ought to check the effect that support for immigration reform had on George W. Bush's approval numbers.
But back to Calderon. He was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer. He initially criticised the Arizona Law, saying it violated human rights. Then, however, when asked by Blitzer Calderon if Mexican police asked people for "their papers", he quickly acknowledged that they did. Blitzer then asked if foreigners who entered the country illegally could stay in Mexico. Calderon all but scoffed, saying that they could not.
So, apparently, the law of a US State which is less severe than Mexico's law is discriminatory, while Mexico's Law is apparently fair and reasonable. I don't get it.
I think its typical of his aggogance. He doesn't care that a clear majority of Americans do not support his ideas about comprehensive immigration reform. He knows they are just bitter clingers. He's sure that if he just tells us what he thinks enough times, we'll finally understand. He ought to check the effect that support for immigration reform had on George W. Bush's approval numbers.
But back to Calderon. He was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer. He initially criticised the Arizona Law, saying it violated human rights. Then, however, when asked by Blitzer Calderon if Mexican police asked people for "their papers", he quickly acknowledged that they did. Blitzer then asked if foreigners who entered the country illegally could stay in Mexico. Calderon all but scoffed, saying that they could not.
So, apparently, the law of a US State which is less severe than Mexico's law is discriminatory, while Mexico's Law is apparently fair and reasonable. I don't get it.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Does Michelle Know?
President Obama visited the Buffalo area yesterday on his "White House to Main Street" tour. In addition to speaking with workers at a local factory, he stopped for lunch at Duff's, a popular Buffalo area chicken wing restaurant.
The President ordered 10 wings, french fries and onion rings. I was really shocked by his order, given the First Lady's commitment to healthy eating. This link will take you to the website outlining her plan to fight childhood obesity.
What kind of example is the President setting by eating high-fat, deep fried foods? He apparently believes that appearing to be a "regular guy" who likes to try local dishes, trumps his wife's efforts as a food Nazi.
I'm with him on this one!
The President ordered 10 wings, french fries and onion rings. I was really shocked by his order, given the First Lady's commitment to healthy eating. This link will take you to the website outlining her plan to fight childhood obesity.
What kind of example is the President setting by eating high-fat, deep fried foods? He apparently believes that appearing to be a "regular guy" who likes to try local dishes, trumps his wife's efforts as a food Nazi.
I'm with him on this one!
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Where's The Outrage?
I have been travelling quite a bit by plane and car over the past few weeks.
Yesterday, as I filled my tank, I noted that the price of gas has climbed over $3.00/gallon, just about everwhere. Funny, though, I have not seen any stories in the media nor heard Chuck Schumer calling for an investigation. I distictly remember that the last time gas prices were this high, apoplexy swept through Washington and the news media.
So what's different today? (Yes, it's a rhetorical question.) Obviously, the fact that Obama is in the White House means three dollar gas is OK, while when Bush was in there it was an outrage (and probably a conspiracy).
I guess that with Obama in charge we should not sweat $3.00 gas; its probably all part of some plan of his to make the country better. I can't wait for $4.00 gas!
Yesterday, as I filled my tank, I noted that the price of gas has climbed over $3.00/gallon, just about everwhere. Funny, though, I have not seen any stories in the media nor heard Chuck Schumer calling for an investigation. I distictly remember that the last time gas prices were this high, apoplexy swept through Washington and the news media.
So what's different today? (Yes, it's a rhetorical question.) Obviously, the fact that Obama is in the White House means three dollar gas is OK, while when Bush was in there it was an outrage (and probably a conspiracy).
I guess that with Obama in charge we should not sweat $3.00 gas; its probably all part of some plan of his to make the country better. I can't wait for $4.00 gas!
Kagan Appointment
As everyone knows, Pres. Obama has nominated Solicitor General, Elena Kagan to replace Justice Stevens who is retairing from the Supreme Court. The nomination has drawn fire from both left and right. I assume that she will be affirmed, however. She seems to be intellectually qualified even though she was never a judge and she has a rather sparse paper trail. I have to assume that she will be a reliable liberal vote on the Court.
Frankly, this is one of the consequenses of Presidential elections. The President gets to nominate judges that he believes think like him. Appointments to the Federal bench are, in my opinion, the most long-lasting and material impacts of a Presidency. During his eight years as President, Bill Clinton appointed a vast number of liberal judges whose rulings have grave impacts on a wide range of issues that affect our lives.
This is the second Obama nominee. While Kagan, like Sotomayor, is a liberal, her confirmation will not markedly alter the make-up of the Court. Both she and Sotomayor replaced other liberals, thus the balance of the Court is little changed.
It is interesting to note that the "liberals" they replaced were both appointees of Republican Presidents (Souter by H. W. Bush and Stevens by Gerald Ford). Its ironic that many GOP nominees move to the left over the years. It never seems to work the other way.
Frankly, this is one of the consequenses of Presidential elections. The President gets to nominate judges that he believes think like him. Appointments to the Federal bench are, in my opinion, the most long-lasting and material impacts of a Presidency. During his eight years as President, Bill Clinton appointed a vast number of liberal judges whose rulings have grave impacts on a wide range of issues that affect our lives.
This is the second Obama nominee. While Kagan, like Sotomayor, is a liberal, her confirmation will not markedly alter the make-up of the Court. Both she and Sotomayor replaced other liberals, thus the balance of the Court is little changed.
It is interesting to note that the "liberals" they replaced were both appointees of Republican Presidents (Souter by H. W. Bush and Stevens by Gerald Ford). Its ironic that many GOP nominees move to the left over the years. It never seems to work the other way.
Paterson Postures
Governor Paterson finally made it official. There will be no special election in the 29th Congressional District.
That was no surprise, but the concerns Paterson alleged as the reasons for his decison were simply bull. He cited the cost of a special election and the possible dis-enfranchisement of members of the military.
Funny, but the costs did not bother him when we had special elections in other districts. The disenfranchisement claim is the real hoot. First of all, he's disenfranchising the whole 29th district by refusing to hold the special election. Moreover, if he was concerned that military members might miss out on the vote, how is it possible that he allowed a special election in the 23rd district, which included Ft. Drum?
The answer is simple: pure politics. The Democrats don't have a credible candidate, so Paterson wants to put off allowing Republican Tom Reed getting into the seat.
Paterson made up his "concerns" to cover the political basis for the decision. We're not that dumb, Governor.
That was no surprise, but the concerns Paterson alleged as the reasons for his decison were simply bull. He cited the cost of a special election and the possible dis-enfranchisement of members of the military.
Funny, but the costs did not bother him when we had special elections in other districts. The disenfranchisement claim is the real hoot. First of all, he's disenfranchising the whole 29th district by refusing to hold the special election. Moreover, if he was concerned that military members might miss out on the vote, how is it possible that he allowed a special election in the 23rd district, which included Ft. Drum?
The answer is simple: pure politics. The Democrats don't have a credible candidate, so Paterson wants to put off allowing Republican Tom Reed getting into the seat.
Paterson made up his "concerns" to cover the political basis for the decision. We're not that dumb, Governor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
