Friday, February 5, 2010

Did Obama make a "tactical error ?"

I've been "chewing on" Mr. Obama's State of the Union Address for the last week and a half. I'll be honest. I did not watch it. I just read the news reports afterwards, read some commentaries, and briefly read part of the speech's transcript. In doing so, it has occurred to me that the Community Organizer in Chief may have made what could be referred to as a "tactical" or "strategic" error. Let me explain.

About a week before the speech, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down it's opinion in the Citizen United vs. Federal Election Commission (FEC) case which overturned the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (a.k.a. McCain-Feingold Act). McCain-Feingold prohibited both for-profit and not-for-profit corporations from running campaign advertisements either for or against a candidate in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections. Now, with the CU vs. FEC decision, corporations can run such political advertisements. However, they still can NOT make campaign contributions to a candidate.

During his speech, with the nine Supreme Court Justices and all 535 members of Congress in attendance, plus millions watching on TV, Obama basically called out the Supreme Court by saying :
"Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. Well, I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."
Afterwards, Justice Alito, who cast the deciding vote, was seen shaking his head and muttering, "not true" which caused a controversy similar to when Congressman Joe Wilson yelled, "you lie." However, can you really blame him since Obama basically insulted the nine justices on national TV ??

Now - here's why I say Obama made a tactical / strategic error. The Supreme Court is "The Supreme Law of the Land." The 535 members of Congress can pass any bill they want and Obama can sign it into law. However, if a legal challenge is made to that law and it makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court, then if just five of the nine justices decide the law is unconstitutional, the law is void and can NOT be enforced. It's the same as if the law never passed. So think about this - Obama's health care reform plan has still NOT passed, but state's attorney generals from all across the country are already planning court challenges if it does. If ObamaCare passes, is then challenged in court, and makes it to the Supreme Court, the same nine justices he dissed on national TV will decide it's fate. How long do you think they are gonna remember the dissing they took ?? Could it effect their decision ?? I'd like to think that those nine justices are more professional than that, but who knows. They are human and we humans can be vengeful.

Furthermore, there is still this controversy swirling around about whether Obama is or is not a natural born U.S. citizen, and there have been several lawsuits filed challenging his legal status. However, to my knowledge they have all be dismissed for "lack of standing." For arguments sake, let's say that one of those suits comes before a judge that was offended because his or her colleagues on the Supreme Court were disrespected. Let's also suppose that judge decides the case does have STANDING and allows it to proceed. As it works it's way through the system, the case winds up before the Supreme Court. Now Obama's in between a rock and a hard a place because the justices he basically called stupid will decide whether he remains in office. Can you say "oops ?"

Lastly, Obama saying the CU vs. FEC decision will allow foreign corporations and special interests to basically buy elections shows either no knowledge of Federal election campaign laws or he's simply twisting the truth. It is still unlawful for corporations to contribute to a candidate. All the decision does is allow corporations to put together advertisements supporting or opposing a candidate or the candidate's policies. I think Obama and the Democrats are afraid the decision hurts their chances of getting re-elected. Why ?? Groups like the tea partiers, pro-life groups, pro-gun organizations, and others can now run ads to support candidates that line up with their values and oppose the ones who don't. However, it also will allow unions to do the same thing for Obama and other Democrats. Think about this - Fox News and the NRA can now spend money to help conservative candidates and that makes Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, and others awful nervous, plus they know who just went to work for Fox News - Sarah Palin.

Enhanced by Zemanta

1 comment:

Dale said...

Another case of hoof in mouth disease by our illustious leader. Incidently, any person whose birth mother or biological father is a citizen of the USA, that baby is also a natural born citizen, regardless of where they were born. IE by two grandchildren, born in the Philippines, whose mother is a Filipino citizen, but their father is an United States citizen, are natula born citizens of the USA by virtue of their father's status. So, if Obama's mother was a citizen of the United States, then he is a citizen regardless of where he might have been born.

da ole biker Dale -- enjoying a Recycled Life -- Thanks Taylor
Recycle Life - Eliminate death waiting for an organ.