Archive for ‘Political commentary’

February 6, 2011

What do You VOTE FOR?

by Steve Dana

I was out visiting with friends in the community recently and a woman comes up to me and said “I just wanted you to know that I voted for you.”  Out of the blue, she told me that in spite of the fact that I was a Republican, she voted for me.  She went on to say that as an avowed Democrat, she had never voted for a Republican but that my message was the right message for our time.  She said that she has known me or about me for many years so I wasn’t a total stranger, but she knew we were on the wrong path with the leadership that was in charge and that she could trust me to do what I said.

I last ran for office in 2009 so this lady didn’t forget in all that time.  I was flattered that she voted for me, but I was encouraged that my message of respecting property rights, smaller more accountable government had reached across the partisan divide and had at least reached one voter.

Since I ran for County Council in 2009, the political landscape has changed immeasurably.  I remember talking to a popular Republican strategist in early 2009 about the fact that the mood in the country was changing.  That in my interactions with my customers I could sense that people who had never been involved in the political process were getting fed up with the partisanship of both sides.  They were concerned that Nero was fiddling as Rome burned.  He told me I was full of crap.

There is no doubt that most of my loyal customers tended to be more conservative than liberal, but even the liberals were becoming alarmed with the direction their party was leading our country.

What followed that visit with the Republican strategist was the upwelling of the Tea Party movement.  So who had their finger on the pulse on that one?

The lady that spoke to me the other day was a union member and she told me that I needed to know that even though her union advocated for a particular point of view, they didn’t necessarily speak for her or others that she knew in her union.  She said that solutions to the problems we face will have to be based upon what is right for all the people first before the interests of the unions or the businesses.  She said she respected my opinions and trusted that I would do the right thing.

That got me to thinking about how many other union members felt the same way.  I didn’t have to look very far for my answer.  One of my very best friends in the world is a member of the Operators Union.  He works in the construction industry.  He is one of the most conservative people I know.  He has always maintained that the union did not speak for him.

Along the same lines, the suggestion that all business owners are Republicans is similarly false.

Our challenge in the coming months and years is to connect with union members who still believe in the benefits of union membership but also recognize that the message coming from union leadership is not necessarily the message of the rank and file.

Unfortunately, when union members speak publicly in opposition to the union stand on the issue, there is fear of retribution from other union members.  The unions are not too tolerant of members who step out of line.  It’s too bad that the unions can’t allow their members to disagree without becoming disagreeable.  That may very well be their undoing!

My message to that lady the other day was to get involved.  The days are gone when we can count on someone else to do what’s right.  The stakes are so high at every level of government; we can’t leave the job to “others” any longer.  If you are concerned about your community, then run for office or volunteer to serve on a board or commission to learn how the process works and you can be aware of the changes that are taking place right under your nose.

My message for everyone today is the same.  If you are prepared to suffer from the decisions left to others then by all means go on your merry way, but if you are concerned about what is happening with your school district, fire district or diking district attend some meetings, volunteer for committees and commissions or run for office.  Community service is a good thing.

If not, you may be leaving the decisions to folks with a radically different agenda!  Can we really afford that?

February 2, 2011

Is Obama Care Down For the Count?

by Steve Dana

When Federal Judge Robert Vinson declared unconstitutional a key provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – the so-called “individual mandate” he effectively rendered the whole act unconstitutional because of the lack of severability the Democrats insisted be a condition of passage.

I’m sure that there are some in the congress who understand the non-marquee provisions of the act that will percolate their way through the system and at some date be sprung on us because those individuals planted them deep in the act.  Many of them in the form of limits to our rights or fees we have to pay that weren’t established up front.  The one about national tax on home sales for instance. (Now that I am a real estate broker I am more concerned than I used to be.)

I can’t say that the Democrats are the only ones that do these devious things.  I am reasonably certain they are not.  But I can say that when either party puts “poison pill” clauses in a federal law that specifically prevent repeal of the act for political reasons, I am inclined to repeal for that reason alone.

If us American citizens who oppose “Obama Care” can be given another chance to get it right through a court action declaring it unconstitutional, we better be ready to step up with some better legislation to take its place.  I am happy to see Mitch McConnell offering a couple suggestions to get the ball rolling, but we better have more rabbits in our hat than the couple he cited (medical mal-practice reform and interstate contracting for insurance).  We wanted the national healthcare issue be a campaign issue for the next presidential election, but if it is struck down early, then the campaign issue will be about substitute ideas that are better rather than up or down on the existing law.

We may have gotten what we wanted in repealing the act, but the voters have not gotten what they want in a more effective health care system. 

The Republican leadership in the House better get busy with a replacement that is substantial and comprehensive. 

We can’t let the advantage swing back to the other side because we lack a better idea.

February 2, 2011

Who’s on First, What’s on Second?

by Steve Dana

If a President is judged by his success in dealing with crises then this situation in Egypt should provide a good measuring stick for Barack Obama. 

If President Obama and his diplomatic team working in concert with the diplomatic efforts of every other major Western power can help broker a peaceful transition from Mubarak to a caretaker government that will allow the democratic process to mature in Egypt then the President will be able to get some of the credit and it will be a big win for an administration frequently thought of as being inept at foreign affairs.

The implications of change in Egypt are monumental.  The politics of the region related to security in Israel are crucial, added to the strategic value of the Suez Canal in facilitating transport of petroleum products to Europe along with transporting every other kind of products back and forth from the Mediterranean community to the Arabian Peninsula really makes the adjustment in the human condition almost an afterthought. 

Geo-Politically, security in the Mediterranean and the Middle East all hinge on the cooperation between Egypt and various Western interests.  Our country supports dictators when their cooperation is needed to achieve our political goals. We have chosen over the years to overlook the internal workings of despot governments that cooperate with us while we have been critical of the ones that don’t play ball by our rules.

Nobody will argue that the people of Egypt don’t have every right to overthrow a dictator that has abused his country for so many years.  We applaud their guts for taking the risk in standing up to a well armed strong man. 

But wait a minute, if they toss out this bad guy that they hate but we sorta like because he sees things our way and someone seizes power that they like but we don’t like so much, where does that leave our Geo-Political security?

If preserving Israel is your number one priority, how would that affect your desires in Egypt?  If you were concerned about oil availability and price to the world markets how important would the “right” leadership be in Egypt?

And in my very simple overview, how does the possible change from a secular government to an Islamic non-secular government affect the game?  And within their own ranks the battle between the two major sects of the Muslim religion poses another set of problems.

I have to admit that the political differences between the Sunni and Shiite Muslims still perplex me.  I know they dislike each other like the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, but I have never studied their history well enough to really know why. 

What I know is if the oil in the Middle East dried up nobody would care what happened there just like we didn’t care before we found out they had oil and we wanted it.

Who rules Egypt matters because a significant chunk of the world economy depends on a reliable stream of oil moving from the Middle East to all other parts of the world.

Even if the US developed alternative sources of fuel for our cars, we would still care because of the inability of our other trading partners to satisfy their own energy needs.  We can’t stick our head in the sand on this issue.

Our President will need to reveal what his priorities are as the politics in the region evolve.  He will be judged by how well he spins them compared to their outcome.

The reason a guy runs for President of the United States is because he thinks he is the smartest guy in the room and has all the best ideas.  Let’s see how smart this one is and if he has any ideas at a very crucial time in our history!

January 28, 2011

What’s Happening in Africa?

by Steve Dana

The news out of Cairo does not bode well for “President” Mubarak’s government in Egypt.  Following the ouster of the long standing government in Tunisia, the trend in North Africa is a little disturbing.

I know that peace in the international community requires that our government forge alliances with standing foreign governments that don’t resemble our own whether that be in structure or values.

If you believe that everyone in the world should believe what we believe then our government’s mission is to convert them to our way of thinking; regardless of the ramifications.

I suspect that foreign countries who have a strong belief in their structure of government would advocate for their own model.

That does create a source of conflict for us and them. 

If we can agree that China, Russia, North Korea or Iran is entitled to adopt positions on human rights that are different from our own without us criticizing them, then we can co-exist by agreeing to disagree.  If we cannot agree on this, then we are doomed to fight for the overthrow of their governments so we can install one more sympathetic to our own personal world view.

In spite of our differences, we have been good friends with President Mubarak for decades.  That relationship has been the foundation for peace in North Africa.

So now, our foreign policy is in a quandary.  Do we support a President and a government that has been such a great friend to peace in the region but in conflict with our social view of the world or do we throw him over to the uncertainty of an unknown government?

On the one hand, if the new government supported our human rights agenda, then we could get on board and root for the overthrow.  On the other hand, if this were to signal the shift of power to a non-secular Muslim controlled government that did little to address human rights issues but put the power in the hands of the people would that be better or worse than what we have today?

The problem we face in imposing our social agenda on the world is convincing them that what we have works better than what they already have.

It is clear that we are divided in our own country about whether one agenda is preferable to another so how is it that we can impose our conflict on everyone else?

We support kings and dictators all around the globe because it serves the security needs of our country.  Do we send the message to them that even though we have treaties with them we are working behind the scenes to overthrow their governments?

When did it become our job to make these decisions for the rest of the world?  The mine field we have entered in the past couple weeks with Tunisia and Egypt will have repercussions around the globe because our treaties don’t promise to defend against internal threats.

Our current administration champions the undermining of long standing governments if it furthers their social agenda even if it achieves their goals at the cost of security in the world.  This turn of events in North Africa is not a good omen for peace between nations.