Passion for Politics Through the Decades

Posted by Janet Hinz

Some people follow sports. I don’t, but I follow politics with the same amount of enthusiasm as the biggest sports fanatics. My love of politics began quite young. I was born in Washington, DC in 1971 and grew up in suburban Maryland, so politics was always a part of my life.

It is hard to believe, but my first political memory is of President Nixon resigning. I remember seeing the president cry on TV. It stood out because all the adults were glued to the broadcast.

My next political memory is of the patriotism surrounding the 4^th of July 1976. My mother made cherry pies, cakes frosted with red, white and blue icing and I even had a bathing suit with the American flag on it. It seemed to me that everything that summer was all about pride in our nation.

When I stayed with my grandparents on Saturday nights as a child, I was given two options; either I watched Lawrence Welk with my grandmother or Agronsky & Company with my grandfather in the other room. I found Lawrence Welk boring, but the passion on Agronsky & Company was quite compelling. I loved the roundtable discussion format which is now common today even though I rarely understood the substance of the debates.

President Reagan inspired many of my generation and I was no exception. I wrote him a letter when I was 10 and he wrote back. From then on, I watched every single speech. The one that stands out as the most inspiring is his 1986 State of the Union Address where he said:

And tonight I want to speak directly to America’s younger generation, because you hold the destiny of our nation in your hands. With all the temptations young people face, it sometimes seems the allure of the permissive society requires superhuman feats of self-control. But the call of the future is too strong, the challenge too great to get lost in the blind alleyways of dissolution, drugs, and despair. Never has there been a more exciting time to be alive, a time of rousing wonder and heroic achievement. As they said in the film “Back to the Future,” “Where we’re going, we don’t need roads.”

Well, today physicists peering into the infinitely small realms of subatomic particles find reaffirmations of religious faith. Astronomers build a space telescope that can see to the edge of the universe and possibly back to the moment of creation.

I began college at Milwaukee’s Marquette University in 1989 and I was embarrassed to be from Washington, DC which was then Murder Capital of the USA and where Mayor Marion Barry was convicted of drug possession. Later, I began actively campaigning for Pat Buchanan and was actually one of the leaders of the WI chapter of his campaign for presidency. Buchanan appealed to me because he grew up in Bethesda, MD with my mother, aunts and uncles. He proved to be far too right-wing for me and for America at large.

During the 1992 presidential election night, I worked for the Associated Press Milwaukee Bureau helping to tabulate the votes and was stunned when Bill Clinton won. I didn’t share in my fellow co-worker’s excitement and felt left out.

I graduated from college and began working on Capitol Hill for Representative Steve Gunderson and my political views became much more moderate as I realized that the Republican party did include a tent wide enough for a large spectrum of voters. I also gained an appreciation for the majesty of the Capitol. Walking through its halls daily left me awestruck in a way all the grade-school fieldtrips hadn’t. I was a part of things and that was exciting. More exciting still was when the Republicans took control of the House and Senate. I remember clearly when a much older and experienced staffer who was legal counsel said, “Oh my God! Now we actually have to create legislation rather than block it.” His statement shocked me because I knew that wasn’t how it was supposed to work.

Speaker Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America was impressive and I was thrilled to be playing even the smallest role in his plan. It was so refreshing to see a politician follow through on his promises even though those first 100 days were quite exhausting.

The congressman announced his retirement and I went to work for an agriculture association. Each day on my way to work, I walked past Monica Lewinsky’s attorneys’ offices and the media permanently camped outside. I watched fascinated as President Clinton looked straight at the camera (and it seemed at me) and said, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” I read the Kenneth Starr report alternately shocked and disgusted. Clinton had lied and it had been proven with DNA evidence. When Clinton was impeached in 1998 and then refused to resign, I was dumbfounded. When he won reelection, I was both impressed with his tenacity and incredulous at his victory.

The George W. Bush and Al Gore presidential race was riveting. Like most Americans I watched as NBC’s Tim Russert held up a white board and said, “It all comes down to Florida.” The hanging chads situation reminded me of just how important each vote is in the country. I was thrilled when Bush won and grateful he was our president on September 11, 2001. I was proud of him when he spoke at Ground Zero and felt reassured by his State of the Union afterwards. The surge of patriotism that followed was comforting and unifying for Americans. It was wonderful to see something great come out of such a devastating tragedy.

The first time I saw IL Senate Candidate Barrack Obama speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, I knew that he had a special charisma. Still I was surprised that he became the 2008 presidential candidate. Senator John McCain didn’t excite me even though his service to our nation was impressive. I was reinvigorated in the election when McCain picked Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. For the first time ever, I really felt as if it might be possible for a woman to hold such a high office.

While I didn’t vote for Obama and couldn’t believe he won, he is my president because I am an American. I believe strongly in the system our forefathers created and I love watching it play out.

Similar to sports enthusiasts, I’ve found politics is always interesting even if my team doesn’t win.

Fearing Defeat by GOP Candidate Sean Duffy, David Obey Announces Retirement

Posted by Janet Hinz

On May 5, 2010 David Obey (D-WI) announced he will not run for reelection. Obey has served 20 terms and is the third longest serving member of the House. For the first time since 1994, Obey faced a major challenge with Sean Duffy.

This news is significant for all Americans, not just those in WI because Obey was the chairman of the House Appropriations committee and authored the Stimulus Bill. The committee decides how to spend the $1 trillion in annual government funds are spent.

Obey made his decision to retire after Democratic polling showed he was vulnerable. His retirement is overdue. He’s been serving since 1969 which is before Duffy was even born. Obey is the classic career politician.

Recently the campaign got ugly and desperate when The Democratic Party of Wisconsin sent out a press release on April 14, 2010 attacking Sean Duffy for being a white supremacist and used racial overtones to do it.

The press release stated, “Duffy was scheduled to appear at a Wausau Tea Party event Thursday alongside white supremacist Alabama militia Col. John Eidsmoe (Eidsmoe since canceled).” It continues, “But even before not answering questions about the Tea Party scandal, Duffy was not answering questions about his unexplained role at a Wisconsin Dells resort where he reportedly fled the scene after his wife got into a shoving match with GOP rival Dan Mielke. Shortly thereafter, his campaign manager either quit or was fired.”

Perhaps the worst of the short press release comes at the end from Democratic Party of Wisconsin Chair Mike Tate where he is quoted, “For someone who has spent the better part of his adulthood trying to prance around on television, Sean Duffy has been pretty scarce when it comes time to come clean about just who is funding his campaign and just what orders his Tea Party masters have given him,” Tate said. “Maybe he’s trying for a gig on “Dancing With the Stars,” where he can pretend he knows how to rumba instead of pretending to be a timber worker.”

Duffy for Congress campaign manager, Matt Seaholm fired back with a press release. It stated, “In response to the baseless claims of racism thrown at Ashland County District Attorney Sean Duffy, Duffy for Congress campaign manager, Matt Seaholm, said the Democrat Party of Wisconsin (DPW) owes the Republican congressional candidate and his family an apology. Today, the DPW and its Chairman Mike Tate accused Duffy, who is married to Rachel Campos-Duffy, a Mexican-American, of being a white supremacist.”

Seaholm said, “Sean Duffy is proudly married to a Mexican-American and together they have six wonderful children. The DPW crossed the line by blatantly playing the race card and insulting the Latino community. The Democrats owe the Duffy family an apology and Mr. Tate should resign immediately.”

What then about DPW’s claims of Duffy’s association with Eidsmore. Duffy’s press release says, “Sean believes the views of John Eidsmoe are abhorrent. Sean is not scheduled to speak at a Wausau Tea Party event and he had no more knowledge of the speakers than Mr. Tate did.”

Seaholm further addresses the allegations that Dufffy is racist by saying, “But today the DPW continued to play the disgusting race card with thinly veiled insults using Latin terms to smear the Duffys such as ‘majordomo’ and suggesting the 4-time elected prosecutor pretends to ‘rumba’.”

The Duffy campaign believed that DPW used that language intentionally in an attempt to attack Rachel Campos-Duffy’s ethnicity. Seaholm said, “It’s no mistake the DPW is using these Latino terms to smear Sean and his spouse’s Latino heritage. Dave Obey should publicly call on the Democrat Party of Wisconsin to retract their accusations. What the DPW is doing is truly disgusting and shameful.”

Who is the man who posed such a challenge to Obey? Duffy is the Ashland County District Attorney with more than a 90% trial success rate. You might recognize his name because he was on the Boston cast of MTV’s The Real World in the 1990s. Duffy has also received national attention in the New York Times, Time magazine and many other media outlets. His wife is also famous in her own right. Rachel Campos-Duffy is a conservative Republican commentator, guest co-host for The View and author of Stay Home, Stay Happy: 10 Secrets to Loving At-Home Motherhood.

Career politicians are no good for the country. Term limits are a great idea. If Members didn’t have to worry about constant re-election cycles, they could spend more time on the people’s business rather than on securing their own jobs.

Critical thinkers must ask, is the only way to improve congressional gridlock to clean House?

When it comes to financial reform, clear victims and victors are difficult to determine

Posted by Janet Hinz

Last week’s debate over financial reform both angered and confused many Americans. The Senate spent the final week of April debating a financial reform bill that failed to pass. It made for great TV and incited much debate.

The Senate’s 11-hour grilling of Goldman Sachs was frustrating to watch. It was filled with heated exchanges between lawmakers and past and present Goldman Sachs leaders. While some expressed a bit of compassion for Americans who lost money during the financial meltdown, most defended actions as falling within the norms of business. Senators accused executives of running a crooked casino. The 18-month Senate investigation found that Goldman Sachs bet against its own clients and profited as the housing market collapsed. It is important to note that Congress also played an important role in the economic collapse by repealing many safeguards put in place after the Great Depression.

The American economy is based on a free market system and there are many who defend Goldman Sachs. Warren Buffett is one of the most vocal supporters. Buffett is a very successful American investor, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway and generous philanthropist. At a press conference on May 2, Buffett said, “I don’t have a problem with the Abacus transaction at all, and I think I understand it better than most.” Another defender emerged earlier in the week in Fareerd Zakaria, a Washington Post Columnist in “Cool the Goldman rage.” He wrote, “the rage surrounding the Goldman Sachs case can cloud our perspective and distort public policy.” He continued, “Whatever the new rules, one thing will not change: We can’t be sure in advance which securities are ‘good’ and which are ‘bad.’ If you doubt this, pick any asset you think is overvalued — American stocks, Chinese real estate, Pakistani bonds — and bet against it. Six months from now, you’ll be proved a genius or a fool. Oh, and to make the bet you’ll have to find someone to take the other side, so you’ll need someone to handle the deal.”

It’s true that Wall Street investment has always involved chance, risk and the hope of a financial reward. Wall Street practices may seem unethical, but that is not the same as illegal.

The fact that Goldman Sachs representatives won’t say they are sorry and has ellicited contempt amongst Senators and most Americans. Few executives seemed to find any of their actions wrong, but betting homeowners couldn’t pay mortgages and then profiting when it tanked is clearly wrong. They showed no remorse and the outrage spreads.

Internal documents from Goldman Sachs were most damaging. Emails between employees used profanities to describe faulty deals. Senator Carl Levin, (D-MI) kept using profanities as he quoted the emails to prove his point. Goldman Sachs sold investors sub-prime mortgage packages, but then made its own bet that those investments would lose value without telling investors. CEO Lloyd Bankfein, said that there is no ethical obligation to tell investors when the firms short their investments. How could making money if their clients’ investments lose value not be unethical? He said, “In the context of marketing, that is not a conflict.”

Don’t the highly paid lawyers and consultants realize the proven way to handle a crisis? Step one is to admit wrong-doing. Step two is to sincerely apologize. Step three is to create an action plan to assure Americans that this will never happen again. Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms have failed to police themselves and now the government has stepped in to protect Americans.

Goldman Sachs executives weren’t the only ones using double-talk and failing to create an action plan. Senators engaged in a ridiculous battle filled with name-calling and ugliness. Democrats employed a strategy designed to make their Republican counterparts look as if they were against reform. Democrats called for three votes and three times they blamed Republicans who voted no. Republicans like Senator Kit Bond (R-MO) countered, “We, as Republicans, want to make sure we fix Wall Street without crippling Main Street.” Republicans won a few changes and Democrats got a deal to move financial reform to the front burner. The devil is in the details, however. New rules for banks and creating a whole new consumer agency will continue to be points of contention. Firms will lose profitability, but the average investor will benefit. Even the Goldman Sachs website seems to advocate financial reform. It says, “One lesson we have learned from the crisis is the need for more effective regulation. We are working with regulators on improved safeguards for the global financial system. One lesson we have learned from the crisis is the need for more effective regulation. We are working with regulators on improved safeguards for the global financial system.”

Senators have agreed to make changes to the financial system. Is it possible that a Wall Street Reform Bill will pass?

Climate Control

Posted by Janet Hinz

Join us on Wednesday, April 28 from 1:00 to 2:00 pm CT on Critical Thinking in the Real World as I speak with Keven Kennedy, National Press Secretary for the Alliance for Climate Protection. With the Senate scheduled to consider the Climate Bill this week, Keven will help us understand the issues.

The Gap Between Border Security and Obama’s Empty Promises to Reform Immigration

Posted by Janet Hinz

On Friday, April 23, 2010 Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed an immigration bill into law that is considered to be among the toughest in the United States. The law will make it a crime to not carry immigration documents. It will give local police the power to stop and arrest people suspected to be in the country illegally even if they aren’t suspected of any other crime. Opponents call it a license to discriminate. Supporters say it is essential to securing Arizona’s border.

Critical thinkers must ask, is it legal and is it ethical for a police officer to force a person to produce identification if he or she is suspected of entering the country illegally? Racial profiling is illegal, but isn’t that exactly what this law encourages? Does the need for security supersede the right to basic civil liberties?

What is legal is not always ethical. Breaking a promise is not illegal, but it is unethical. While campaigning, Obama promised to make fixing a broken immigration system a priority in his first year of the presidency, but it’s been more than a year and little has been accomplished.

President Obama has criticized the Arizona bill as misguided. He spoke at a naturalization ceremony for 24 active-duty service members on Friday and said that the Arizona bill threatens “to undermine basic notions of fairness which we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”

While presidents rarely comment on state legislation, the fact that Obama has been so vocal about criticizing the Arizona bill and praising congressional leaders for their bipartisan plans to reform immigration speaks to the power of the immigration debate in this country. There has been no action on the federal level and that is why Governor Brewer was forced to pass this bill. She said, “the law represents another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix.”

A congressional immigration debate would help mobilize Hispanic voters and could potentially help some Democrats fighting to keep their seats like Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) once again. A debate on immigration would also take the focus off other Democratic issues Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) priotizes like energy measures, however. An honest conversation on immigration seems to frighten Democrats.

Recently, the debate over border security was intensified following an Arizona cattle rancher’s murder. Robert Krentz was shot to death on his farm in March. His death drew attention to the threat of ongoing drug-cartel violence because the border is not just a human-smuggling route, it is also a drug-smuggling corridor. In 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder called the Mexican cartels a “national security threat.”

Why has Obama failed to live up to his promises and why does he praise plans that have yet to show results?

Brewer further argues that immigration reform is essential for securing the border of Mexico and Arizona. Most Americans agree that immigration reform and border security are priorities. But critical thinkers must ask, how do we accomplish both while maintaining our cherished civil liberties?

As Critical Thinkers, We Must Seek Out Information From Many Sources

Posted by Janet Hinz

Here are a few of the things I’m following right now:

AZ Immigration Bill

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/23/AR2010042301441.html?hpid=topnews

http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15954498

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=cqmidday-000003647871&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=top-storie

Rise of Radicalism

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/21/obama.facebook.prayer/index.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100413/ap_on_re_us/us_funeral_protests

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/eyeon2010/2010/04/millionfan-antiobama-page-does.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=eye-on-2010

U.S. Economy

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36742144/ns/business-economy_at_a_crossroads/

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-23/geithner-says-bailouts-will-cost-u-s-taxpayers-87-billion.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36735173/ns/business-real_estate/

More Collaboration is Necessary

Posted by Janet Hinz

Jenna Bush Hager interviewed former President Bill Clinton at the Clinton Global Initiative University on April 18 in a piece that aired on the Today show April 19. A Bush interviewing a Clinton isn’t as odd as it sounds. The two have much more in common than they have differences.

Hager is a teacher and a Today show contributor. Both share not only the unique experience of living in the White House, an interest in politics, but also a commitment to education. Hager began her interview by thanking Clinton for engaging in the “rarity” of “a Bush interviewing a Clinton.” Clinton responded jokingly, “I was thinking, you know, if your family fed in questions I’d be cooked.”

“No, no. They love you,” said Hager. “In fact, they joke that you’re my grandfather’s stepson … because he talks about you more than he talks about anyone else in the family.”

Clinton said Barbara Bush often refers to him as the “black sheep” in the Bush family.

President Barrack Obama appointed former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush to head up fundraising efforts in Haiti following the devastating earthquake. This bi-partisan approach is so powerful because there are some things that are human issues and politics play no role.

Critical thinkers must ask, what more could be accomplished if there were more collaborative efforts like these?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36639439#36639439

Are Negative Campaigns a Fixture of American Politics?

Posted by Janet Hinz

The Democratic Party of Wisconsin sent out a press release April 14, 2010 attacking Sean Duffy for being a white supremacist and used racial overtones to do it. Is this an indication that Rep. David Obey (D-WI) realizes he finally faces a serious challenger in the 40 years he’s been in office? Are party officials getting desperate to smear Duffy?

The press release states, “Duffy was scheduled to appear at a Wausau Tea Party event Thursday alongside white supremacist Alabama militia Col. John Eidsmoe (Eidsmoe since canceled).” It continues, “But even before not answering questions about the Tea Party scandal, Duffy was not answering questions about his unexplained role at a Wisconsin Dells resort where he reportedly fled the scene after his wife got into a shoving match with GOP rival Dan Mielke. Shortly thereafter, his campaign manager either quit or was fired.”

Duffy for Congress campaign manager, Matt Seaholm fired back with a press release. It states, “In response to the baseless claims of racism thrown at Ashland County District Attorney Sean Duffy, Duffy for Congress campaign manager, Matt Seaholm, said the Democrat Party of Wisconsin (DPW) owes the Republican congressional candidate and his family an apology. Today, the DPW and its Chairman Mike Tate accused Duffy, who is married to Rachel Campos-Duffy, a Mexican-American, of being a white supremacist.”

The Duffy campaign believes that DPW used that language intentionally in an attempt to attack Rachel Campos-Duffy’s ethnicity. Seaholm says, “It’s no mistake the DPW is using these Latino terms to smear Sean and his spouse’s Latino heritage. Dave Obey should publicly call on the Democrat Party of Wisconsin to retract their accusations. What the DPW is doing is truly disgusting and shameful.”

Why all the negativity? University of Wisconsin Madison political scientist Kenneth Goldstein wrote a book about it—Campaign Advertising and American Democracy. In the book, he argues that negative campaigns contribute to a health democracy because they succeed in engaging voters. Goldstein says that much of the criticism regarding negative advertising is rooted in the incorrect assumption that Americans are easily manipulated.

It may be hard to believe, but studies show negative ads help win political campaigns. Refraining from negativity speaks volumes about character, however. Will voters respond? Are negative ads a fixture of political campaigns? These are just a few of the questions critical thinkers must ask.

Interview with Mark Povinelli

Posted by Janet Hinz

I interviewed Mark Povenelli on Critical Thinking in the Real World Wednesday, April 14 from 1 to 2 pm CT. To listen to our interview, please access the podcast or visit iTunes.

Mark Povinelli has appeared in over 30 film/TV shows, and 25 professional theater productions. Mark toured the world as Torvald Helmer in the OBIE award winning production of Mabou Mines’ DollHouse. Other theater credits include the premiere of Belle Epoque at Lincoln Center as the lead role of Henri Toulouse-Lautrec. Mark also has worked regionally at the Shakepseare Theater, Children’s Theater Company, Radio City Music Hall, Oklahoma Lyric Theater, Will Geer Theatricum and UCLA Live. Mark’s camera credits include guest starring roles on Cold Case, ‘Til Death, It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Pushing Daisies, Charmed, Frasier, Dharma & Greg, and The Parkers. He will also be seen in the upcoming HBO series, Boardwalk Empire, produced by Martin Scorcese. Film credits include Epic Movie, Polar Express, Van Helsing, and Beer For My Horses. Mark is currently filming the title role in The Liliput, a true story about a Polish little person who survived the Holocaust by hiding in trash cans.

Mark’s short stature adds to the richness of his acting experience. While he prefers to be known simply by his name, the term little person is acceptable and he is a member of Little People of America. You can learn more about the organization at lpaonline.org.

Here’s a link to his information on IMDB.com.

Who is to Blame for the Coal Mine Disaster in West Virginia and How Can Such Tragedies be Prevented?

Posted by Janet Hinz

On April 5, 25 coal miners died in an explosion at the Massey Energy Company’s Upper Branch South Mine in West Virginia. This was the deadliest mining disaster the U.S. has experienced in 25 years.

Coal mining is an extremely dangerous profession. It always has been. Removing coal from the ground is extremely difficult. But this disaster causes critical thinkers to ask, why does it have to be so dangerous?

One of the biggest dangers in mines is methane. This colorless, odorless gas is so flammable that it can explode with even the spark generated from a static charge a person might get walking across a carpet during the winter. For this reason, miners are required to carry extra canister s of oxygen while they are underground. All mine explosions are preventable, said Kevin Stricklin who is an administrator for the Mine Safety and Health Administration.

Authorities will fully investigate what went wrong at the mine, but this particular mine has a history of safety violations. According to the Washington Post, the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration cited the mine for 1,342 safety violations over the past five years. Massey Energy reportedly contested 422 of those violations, but paid $742,830 in fines.

The Associated Press reported that just last year “federal inspectors fined the company more than $382,000 for repeated serious violations involving its ventilation plan and equipment.”

CNN interviewed Rep. Nick Rahall (D-West Virginia) who said that the mine appears to be a “bad apple, there’s no question about it, because of the history of violations, including as late as March 30 of this year.”

There is now little hope that the four missing West Virginia coal miners will be rescued. Rescuers first made it into the mine again early in morning on April 9. But when they got within 1,000 feet of the second refuge chamber, it was poisoned with smoke. Rescuers extinguished the fire and returned to the chamber and have not recovered any miners.

While some continue to hold out hope that there will be survivors, the community is mourning the loss of seven men whose bodies have been recovered as their funerals are held.

Why did this tragedy occur and how can disaster like these be prevented?

An April 9 article on The Huffington Post titled, Obama Administration Missed Chance to Get Tougher On Unsafe Mines, attempts to assign some blame on a lack of government regulations. It says, “Long before the explosion that killed at least 25 miners inside Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch Mine on Monday, Obama administration mine safety officials were aware of a major loophole that allowed companies like Massey to avoid stricter enforcement despite alarming safety records.”

We must not forget the severity of this recent tragedy and honor its victims by tirelessly working to makes the mines safer for those that work there.

UPDATE: April 10, 2010 The bodies of the missing miners have been found. According to CNN, West Virginian Gov. Joe Manchin said, “We did not receive the miracle we prayed for.” He made that sad statement “after notifying grieving family members that officials found the bodies of four miners who had been missing after a coal mine explosion.”