The legislative session each year in Maryland is a period of three frenetic months during which there are many hearings on proposed legislation Frequently there is prolonged public discussion about bills, while many citizens wander the halls of power to lobby about their interests or noisily rally on lobby night (Monday evenings) in Lawyers Square to promote their causes. Elected officials attend forums, speak at civic events and update constituents about progress of particular bills. Many senators and delegates send frequent letters and emails explaining their votes and receive communications in return. Maryland has what is termed a citizen or part-time legislature -- although their duties extend throughout the year after the session, many officials have other jobs the remainder of the year and all are only paid for part-time service.
Despite improvements in recent years, the legislative process is not as transparent as it might be. Often bills are amended with intent to dilute or defeat them. Other times, committee members do not allow bills to pass out of committee, so the public never gets the opportunity to hear a free debate on the merits of the issue at hand. Sometimes, to the view of the public, committees deal with matters that seem to have little actual bearing on their mandate, but such is the governance of our state. Committee Chairs in Annapolis have a lot of power and are seldom reticent in establishing their control as they perceive it. Montgomery County has worked hard to continue to keep local officials in these positions once obtained. Currently the county has one Senate Chair -- Brian Frosh, who leads the Judicial Proceedings Committee. Three senators from the county are on that committee. Three other senators from Montgomery County serve on the Budget and Taxation Committee. In the House of Delegates our one chair is Sheila Hixson, who leads the powerful Ways and Means Committee -- a total of five county delegates sit on that committee. Ways and Means and Judicial proceedings, where Kathleen Dumais is Vice-chair, have the highest percentage memberships on any committee for Montgomery County with five delegates serving on each. Chairs are allocated by the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House. The majority party in charge makes the choices, so Maryland committee chairs are all Democratic elected officials.
Given this background, bills raise and dash hopes as they proceed through the legislative process. A bill passes the Senate, only to stall in the House. Bills pass but are amended and must be reconsidered. A flurry of legislation becomes a blizzard by the final days of the session when there is little time for modification, mediation or considered deliberation. Sometimes, as a result, good bills die and bad legislation succeeds. The attitude in Annapolis seems to be: "we’ll fix it next year." There must be a more logical way to run a state, but it has not yet surfaced.
A look at the status of several bills considered progressive in the so-called "blue state" of Maryland should give us all pause and perhaps compel us to go back and look at candidate promises made during campaigns and perhaps spur some action to hold our elected officials to their public statements. Many voters have certain interests that make them choose one candidate over another. For me, for example, a candidate who supports renewable energy and voices concern for environmental issues might be favored over one thought to be in the pocket of those not favoring EPA safety concerns. Voters weigh candidates on multiple issues often giving more weight to issues close to home. Some voters are single issue voters such as on women's choices or school vouchers. Those voters may not investigate other positions their chosen candidate has taken and may subsequently be poorly informed voters. Some voters address ethnic or religious similarities and vote for a candidate on perceived shared interests or identities. Voting is often emotional, rather than rational. (Was Scott Brown chosen as a U.S. Senator (R-MA) for his choice of party, his intellectual prowess, work ethic or "star quality" as a former model?)
Recently I joined many progressive groups as we journeyed to Annapolis to hold the first Progressive Summit. We also rallied, lobbied, heard from and presented our issues to state elected officials. We, who were from Montgomery, Howard, Baltimore and Prince George's Counties, were assured by most that they supported our concerns. However a recent check on some of the measures does not hold a lot of hope for their passage.
Dream Act -- has passed the Senate and awaits a decision by the House of Delegates. It seems to have momentum this year. Maybe it will make it. It appears that it will get no Republican support.
Wind Power -- supported by the Governor, seemed to be on the inside track but has run out of steam and opposition is gathering. I am hopeful that the concerns over nuclear energy may give this a much needed boost.
Combined Reporting -- would bring in revenue in a year when revenues are hurting; opposed by the Chambers of Commerce, large businesses who avoid Maryland taxes and the Examiner papers. For it: many small businesses based here who already pay their fair share of taxes to the state. It is said that it sometimes takes several years to pass a bill in Annapolis. It is looking doubtful also for this one.
Marriage Equality -- was passed by the Senate and released from committee to await a House of Delegates vote when some Delegates got cold feet and despite eloquent pleas from gay members, a vote was avoided. It has now been sent back to await a future reprieve, maybe next year. Personally, despite the merits of the bill -- which I support -- I think it will be skipped next year as no Democrats want to give the national opponents of this bill a reason to storm into the blue state of Maryland for a gay marriage referendum vote in a Presidential election year. For those Delegates who sponsored the bill, and others who ran on support of this and backed out, I do hope the voters have good and long memories. Too often politicians expect that votes taken are easily forgotten; here, votes avoided should be remembered.
Health care -- Maryland single payer is not happening. Small incremental reforms may yet happen. Certainly Maryland is one of the states going forward with Medicaid expansion. But as one who supports a national single payer program, I do wish that this state had shown the way.
Other issues apparently not happening which should: campaign finance reform, alcohol tax, gas tax, pension stability.
I'd love to hear from you about measures which should have been considered but weren't, or which you feel should not have passed but did.
I’ve gone out on a limb with my prognostications here -- let's hear yours.
As most of you know, I am a resident of Olney, Maryland. As such I have watched the ICC grow from the moving mounds of dirt a few short years ago once Governor O'Malley gave it the green light. However, since I have opposed this road for most of my more than 30 years residence in this county, I have not celebrated this new highway. Last week saw state and county leaders congregate to cut the ribbon and applaud this long trumpeted construction. Billions of dollars have been borrowed to pay for this road. Our transportation funds are now tapped out. But will the road address its promise? We were told that the local roads would be freed of the commuters and cut through traffic and large trucks would now have a way to reach BWI and Route 95. However with only a third of this road now opened, this is a question which remains to be answered. The environmental compromises promised bike lanes and express buses and monitoring of air quality and stream valley runoffs. To this date, the water quality has been an ongoing problem and noise and pollution remain current concerns. The bike lanes were reduced due to supposed cost restraints. The express buses to BWI/Marshall Airport and Fort Meade are starting up now.
However, in an attempt to be objective, on a sunny Saturday afternoon, I drove onto I-270 northbound, exited onto a very bumpy I-370 near Shady Grove Road and arrived unceremoniously onto the new Route 200. I traveled across nearly empty lanes which were smooth and gently curved as they crossed rolling hills. The unexpected tunnel was bright and attractive. Natural hues were displayed across miles of unnatural sound barrier walls. The signage and exit lane warnings were not as clear as they might have been. Surprisingly large overhead automatic toll collectors loomed ominously across the roadways; one is on notice that these will not be avoided. State Police cars blinked their displeasure as the patrols ticketed traffic offenders. Wide open roads seem like such an invitation to speed, but they are most definitely not. The journey was over in just a few minutes as I exited smoothly onto Route 97 north. For your information, the speed limit is 55, which seems painfully slow for such low traffic volume.
But as bucolic as this ride was, a glance along the route showed the cost. The roadside was populated by mini-trees which had replaced vibrant long standing forests. The deforestation was extensive and appeared excessive. Thick underbrush which previously provided habitat for many small animals had disappeared. The area is now left even more vulnerable to flooding and storm water runoff. The parklands of Lake Needwood were bisected. Farms and homes, former meadows and hills were no longer. Social costs to neighborhoods along the route are yet to be measured as some homes and neighborhoods were isolated and walled off. Although construction has ceased, the drone of traffic will continue to intrude upon sleeping and waking hours for those along the routes.
True, the road was opened before it is completed. Some may even say it is not yet ready and the rush to open was premature. Many in Olney requested that the local portion of the road opening be delayed until the entire route was finished. The community was told that the traffic urgency was too great to leave unabated. Now, this community has seen some of its worst dreams borne out. Traffic along the local roads at rush hours is not improved. It is far worse than promised. The northbound merge lanes along Georgia Avenue at the entrance to 200 west bound are confusing, poorly striped, and dimly illuminated. Last week was problematic as local road travelers and exiting drivers all jockeyed for some of the same landscape. Drivers facing the ICC entrance suddenly scrambled right as they did not wish to enter the highway. Northbound evening traffic was backed up almost a mile, south of Norbeck Road at Georgia Avenue and gridlock was the order of the day. Granted there has been significant email dialogue, on-site monitoring and communication with the administrators of the State Highway Administration and the ICC project staff, but even they admitted that the snafus of last week were unexpected. The blame was placed on poor traffic control by the county and malfunctioning traffic cameras, also under county control. But those were not the only problems. Better striping, lighting and signage are promised and some improvements are said to be occurring soon.
WTOP radio has reported that the ICC is significantly underperforming traffic count expectations on these opening days. In these free two week trial periods traffic has averaged around 30,000 cars per day. The big rigs, which were expected to easily pay the toll fees have not yet materialized in large numbers. These drivers must realize that despite the promised seven minutes travel time from Shady Grove to Norbeck, the route then means an extra 30 minutes on local roads, and with gas prices spiking lately, they may not wish to sit longer in traffic. Commuters are also doing the math. One of my co-workers travels from Rockville to Columbia daily. Just this small stretch of road would cost her more than $60.00 a month if she traveled both ways at rush hour, and she still would have to pay the MD transponder fee and surcharges. Is it any wonder that many have called this highway the Lexus road?
The road is here to stay and we as taxpayers will be paying for it for a long time. It appears to me that we need to be vigilant, keep our eyes on what is said and then done and keep our eyes on the road. The second portion is due to open within the year if all goes well. It is possible that local traffic will abate by then. I am counting on each of you to keep us all apprised of the saga of the ICC as it unfolds throughout the next few months.
The average Social Security payment in Wisconsin, (and the United States), for a retiree is about $1,100 per month or slightly more than $12,000 a year. Average pension payments are generally under $20,000 a year for state employees, including those who were required to pay into the system. States have traditionally used employee pensions as a float to underfund state budgets. As an example, Maryland's pension system is currently very much underfunded, which is one reason the Governor wanted to return the burden to the counties. Required contributions have been set aside for several years in order to balance the budget in tough times.
The Tea Party members who support Governor Walker in Wisconsin are railing against "unions feeding and getting fat at the public trough," but a look at the facts proves this to be untrue. They claim the workers are taking money unfairly and getting plush retirements. General Motors won concessions from workers regarding promised benefits in it's reorganization. But should life always offer a "re-do"? When do promised earnings become a maybe? Don't these public employees work for their living and not rely on tax breaks or favoritism? The average worker, union or not, in this country has less than $50,000 saved for retirement outside of a pension system. Many planned on ever increasing home values to carry them through their retirement years. We now know how deeply the recession and falling home prices have impacted this dream. Workers who retire at 65 many live 20-30 more years. This is why this battle is so intense. Workers are fighting for the right to live into retirement with the expectation of the middle class quality of life which they have earned.
The women who teach our children -- and teachers are still primarily women -- earn an average of under $50,000 a year after ten years in their jobs. Many in Wisconsin have said they will agree to pay more toward their benefits and even retirement which will further reduce their take-home pay, but they must retain their collective bargaining rights. The union movement is indeed under assault. Many states, especially across the south, have laws against union shops and collective bargaining. Are we moving toward destruction of the middle class worker and creating a nation of haves and have-nots? Surely the legions of union members who were the so-called Reagan Democrats must be regretting their decisions. Much of this anti-union effort was begun when Reagan destroyed the Air Traffic Controllers group and fired all who were striking for better conditions.
The Democratic State Senators who have abandoned their legislative posts had the right idea. Leave the state until the Governor will agree to negotiate. This is the only way to force him to listen to both sides and be a governor for all of the people in his state. If the Governor is only trying to balance his budget, why did he give huge tax concessions to businesses as one of his first acts once elected? If he and his fellow Republican Governors in Ohio and New Jersey are truly not interested in union busting, then why are they posturing rather than coming to the bargaining table? Are they not furthering the message of Citizens United in trying to destroy the Democratic union sources of funding? Just as the right wing went after trial lawyers who supported Democrats -- think of the spurious efforts for "tort reform" -- they are now targeting the union members and their PACs. Union membership has been decreasing, especially in the last two decades, but they still have political clout. Diminishing power and membership will decrease their treasuries and ability to advocate. In 2010 the Public Service unions were the only entities with enough funding to combat the funding sources controlled by Karl Rove, which are mostly outside public scrutiny.
It is unknown whether foreign interests or right wing nuts gave him his hundreds of millions which were used to spread half truths and outright lies in many cases. This contributed greatly to the Democratic defeats. NDC Chair (and friend of the President), Tim Kain, mounted few effective defenses against this full court press from the right.
Democrats should seriously heed this threat and be ready to combat it now and in through the 2012 campaign.
President Obama has moved cautiously in support of the Wisconsin workers. What would you have him do? Let's hear your views on this topic.
And suddenly, journalists were getting detained, the internet was disrupted and camel riding thugs started breaking up gatherings. The world watched despite the interference, and still the marchers increased in numbers. The doctors came in and patched the wounded, checkpoints were established to keep the thugs away, and the army stood by. That single factor kept the drive alive and sent a message to the Egyptian leader. Mubarek, (and sorry Mr. Biden -- he was a dictator) seemed distanced from both the situation and his country. Apparently he thought he could brush off the complaints with promises to step down at the end of his term. But the protestors would not be denied and responded with strong negatives and demanded he leave office immediately.
I think our President sent the right message but tried also not to interfere publicly. It appeared that he wanted to come out more strongly on the side of the protestors but was warned off by the State Department and others concerned with the status quo. When Mubarek made his TV announcement that he was not stepping down, when most had been led to expect that he would, the gloves came off and President Obama said that the resignation needed to happen "now". Although several office-seeking Republicans chided him for not jumping in earlier, many others have acknowledged that by keeping on the sidelines, and encouraging, but not meddling, he played the situation from a strong hand.
And -- when Mubarek did step down -- the whole world WAS watching and cheering with the protestors. (Well, almost the whole world was cheering, it has been said that many Middle-Eastern dictators are looking carefully over their shoulders and trying to find appeasing moves to quiet their poverty-stricken multitudes.)
Where do we go from here? The military is apparently in charge and is making moves to govern in an interim until elections can be held -- with luck by September. The country needs to return to commerce, banking, education and international relations. Structures need to be reorganized since parliament and cabinets have been disbanded. Hopefully some of those leaders who have come forward from the ranks of the protestors will be brought in to help the reorganization. They showed themselves to be resourceful organizers, both idealists and pragmatic and incidentally, both male and female educated and effective communicators. The Internet, Twitter and Facebook genies have been unleashed by these young people and they will not be returned to their lamp of restive silence again. The young Google executive who was detained then released was indeed a leader, though he disclaimed the title. He showed courage and resilience as did many of his fellow demonstrators.
None of us knows just what the future will bring for Egypt. We can hope. America can help with NGO assistance and not weapons. A free, educated, employed, fed and informed public is a terrific weapon against extremism. Let's hope that we can help make that happen. Egypt has millions of poor and poorly-educated residents. They were not the numbers in the streets, but to make this revolution meaningful their needs must be addressed. And America needs to understand that this is their revolution and they may make mistakes and may go in directions we would not choose. Democracy is messy; freedom is fanciful at times. We as a country need to step back, just as a parent does when a child rides a bike without training wheels for the first time and be close enough to help if need be.
A cartoon was reprinted in the Saturday Washington Post in which a cartoonist showed a pyramid losing its top of "auto"-cracy but not yet deciding whether to try on the top of "demo"-cracy or "theo"-cracy.
What do you think the future will show for Egypt? I do not see the country becoming a nation such as Iran, dominated by Imams. Few of those were in evidence in the crowds, nor do I see a military martial law in effect long-term. I remain hopeful that parties will form and elections will be held later this year. It is hoped that they will be free and fair without being rigged and a government of sorts will ensue, warts and all, just as we did in our early days as a country. There were those who considered making George Washington a King; thankfully he declined and we formed a more or less imperfect country -- free for some, then and eventually later for the rest of us, but based on the principles of democracy. I heard an Egyptian haltingly say that they wanted: "a government of the people, for the people and by the people" -- now who should argue with that?
Let's hear your thoughts on this most unexpected turn of events.
In the wake of the recent tragedy in Arizona, efforts were made to change not only the appearance but also the reality of the mood under the Capitol Dome. But, as the President mentioned in acknowledgement of the pairing off of parties and philosophies, sitting together in a bi-partisan manner for one night is not enough. All must work together on the morrow. The words for this evening were not those of the partisan stump speech with a nod to every interest group which we have become accustomed to in recent years. This was a more substantive and serious speech pitched more to the American people than those in the room.
The theme of the speech was to look forward, expand horizons, and send a positive message. Here was not the discussion of doom and gloom, lost jobs and foreclosures, but rather a look forward despite the debt issues with a promise of uplifting solutions such as was done in the race to put a man on the moon. Instead of moving toward deficit warnings he promoted individual entrepreneurs and innovative discoveries. Mention was not made of the success from the automotive bailout, but a challenge was sent to the business community. He asked for a reduction of the tax breaks for millionaires as well as the oil and gas industries and for a commitment from the corporate world to train and employ more workers. Pushing the need for competitiveness for the US as world class economic players, he also encouraged decreasing outsourcing and bringing the jobs back home. In this challenge to corporations, he urged movement toward the industries of the new age, innovation and alternative energy options. In this down economy as corporate incomes begin to again rise, many businesses are sitting on large amounts of cash and are not spending to develop more businesses or hire more workers. His challenge was for this to change -- to both look forward and to prepare for future changes. Education, innovation, infrastructure improvement and technology changes were all said to be necessary steps on the country’s pathway to the future.
Some have criticized the speech for not being more specific on job creation and being too soft on the matter of broad corporate responsibility. With Bill Daley (who comes with major political and corporate ties) as a new member in the White House camp, it remains to be seen how many corporations can be brought in to assist in these goals. The Progressive community grumbled about the message being too oriented toward business and not leaning left enough in his broad message. Issues such as the environment and energy initiatives were overlooked. The lack of a strong call for automatic weapons reform was voiced across the internet. Some worried that his message was too centrist; however those who had previously screamed "socialism" had little fodder to for their messaging.
The President rightly stood up for healthcare and signaled his intent to continue to do so, even while acknowledging that some improvements could be made. He mentioned the removal of the small business vendor 1099 form requirement -- which has nothing to do with healthcare, but was apparently requested by the IRS -- and is seen as a welcome change in many circles. But Obama brought forward this discussion from a position of strength, not confrontation and used humor to push his message. Budget freezes and denial of earmarks were presented as a start toward budget reductions. Entitlements were taken off the table. On the war front he indicated that all combat troops would be coming home from Iraq in June, leaving only administrative forces in place, while in Afghanistan, he indicated that he expects to start removing some combat forces about the same time. The repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" was heralded. He did not mention his inability, due to Congressional restraints, to keep his promise about closing the prison base at Guantanamo.
Much was made of the camaraderie shown in the Chamber during the speech which was said to have been interrupted some 75 times for applause (so much better than the outburst last year!) Despite the furor about the remarks the President made last year about Citizens United, Chief Justice Roberts did attend, along with Justice Kennedy and the Democratic appointed members, Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan. (Justice Alito was in Hawaii, and Scalia and Thomas were also absent.) Each of the Justices was personally greeted by the President as he arrived for the speech.
In conclusion, public opinion polls were strongly positive and said to appreciate the upbeat message. I would tend to agree with that assessment and feel that in this way the President has taken the message and the momentum, despite the opposition. In fact considering the negativity from the triad of follow-up critical speakers: Representatives Ryan, Bachman and former governor Palin, none managed to land a punch or make an effective counter-argument. Ryan was predictably wonky and dire in his budget predictions. Bachman had a garbled message, spoken while looking disconcertingly into the wrong camera, while Palin was mostly off topic and somewhat rude.
What do you think should have been in the speech, but was missed? Did you find it superficial or special? Let me know your thoughts here.
All three persons are connected in multiple layered ways. Eisenhower was President in 1954 when the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in the Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education that 'separate' is not equal and ordered that the operation of parallel educational systems for blacks and whites cease. Subsequently he ordered Federal enforcement of integration in Little Rock, Arkansas, and elsewhere when community resistance grew pronounced. He was President when Rosa Parks was arrested for sitting in a 'whites only' seat on a bus and a little known preacher named King led a boycott against the city run bus system in Montgomery Alabama.
That became a seminal event in the Civil Rights struggle of the 50s and 60s.
While campaigning for President a young Senator, John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, was more involved in attempting to convince voters that a Catholic President would not take direction from the Pope on policy issues than he was involved in the civil rights movement. Yet when Martin Luther King was jailed without due process, Kennedy's call to Coretta Scott King and assistance in gaining Kings' release helped move many African American voters into his camp during the very close fought election that November.
Both John and his brother Bobby would become more involved in the movement, although reluctantly at times.
With the assistance of the Federal government, Dr. King was able to pursue his dream of a Freedom March on Washington as a symbol of the Civil Rights struggle. Despite dire predictions of trouble and definite ambivalence on the part of authorities, the March was a huge success with a non violent and joyful celebration by an mixed racial audience of hundreds of thousands in Washington DC. And this week we celebrated both the life of Dr. King and the words he spoke that day in his "I have a dream" speech.
The words of these three men, although they were unaware of it at the time, remain linked across the ages and continue to have relevance to us today. Additionally, the actions of these men have influenced the "greatest" and silent generations, the boomers, the rockers and disco fans, the "gen xers" and beyond to the current era. Although I never heard Eisenhower or Dr. King, I did stand in the snow on the Capitol grounds and get to hear Kennedy's inaugural address where he spoke of new ideas and new service and gave a call to the nation to ask what we could do for our country. Many of us were excited about the Peace Corps that came from that day and proposed Civil Rights legislation, started during the Eisenhower years, which became law under Lyndon Johnson after Kennedy was assassinated.
Susan Eisenhower wrote recently in the Washington Post about her grandfather's farewell address in which he warned against the "military-industrial complex." His words were heard but not heeded. He spoke of how we had gone to war with civilians producing tanks and guns as our car factories and machine shops were converted from domestic uses to serve the war efforts. But in the 50s we developed the industries of war and produced cars and tanks, airplanes and bombers and grew a defense industry. This industry once created, needed to be kept busy and a reason for a war machine and a permanent military was created. We began to export war machines to other countries and a trade relationship and arms race ensued. The way to be promoted in the military is to excel in war. Should we not instead honor those who prevent war? We have not listened to his warnings.
Kennedy's Peace Corps has lasted through the ages and his first Director, Sargent Shriver was just laid to rest at the age of 95. But the promise and trust of the Peace Corps efforts, as many generations of Americans who went into the world to make the lives of those in poorer countries better were cheered, was later counter balanced by US support for dictators and against freedom efforts in many places. Our export of ideals is not welcomed as freely today.
Thousands joined Dr. King in the 60s as various groups held sit-ins, voter registration drives and marches for equality, especially in the South. But after he won the Nobel Peace Prize and spoke out against the Viet Nam War, and spoke up for the rights of workers, fair housing and poor people, some turned away. But his rules of non-violence and words of peace held true whether in Skokie or Memphis where he met with an assassin's bullet.
So this week we remember and we celebrate three intertwined lives. It is time to re-read their words and to reemphasize some of their themes. Do we have peace, justice and equality in the world? Have we moved into a post racial, non violent brotherhood? Do we each give service to our country, our county, our neighborhood? Can we each work to make this a better world for all?
The attendees at the service were seemingly on an emotional edge. Tucson was noted to be reeling from the unexpected violence in its midst. The President noted that he had visited the wounded who were still hospitalized and seen Congresswoman Giffords, who was looking better. After he further indicated, that during this visit with her Congressional colleagues, she opened her eyes for the first time since her surgery, the arena unexpectedly erupted in cheers. Those in attendance appeared eager for some good news. There were members of Congress, both Democrat and Republican in attendance, Supreme Court Justice Kennedy and retired Justice Sandra Day O'Conner, an Arizona resident, and members of the medical team also were in the audience. And like the audience, those in the Safeway parking lot that day reflected America. Mark Shields, speaking on PBS News Hour remarked that only in America would a Catholic Republican Judge stop by to see a Democratic Jewish woman member of Congress to thank her for her service. She would be rescued by a gay Mexican-American student intern and operated upon by a Korean-American Trauma surgeon. A former Marine colonel and a white haired woman would be among those who tackled the shooter. It so does take a village to make a community.
The President also called for greater civility and more civil discourse. Whether or not that will happen remains to be seen. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), in an op-ed in the Washington Post wrote about being at the memorial service and spoke about the correctness of the tone of voice from the President. Senator McCain even brought out the Biblical "Golden Rule" as a basis for balanced discussions amongst politicians. He urged treatment toward others to include empathy and mutual respect, even while acknowledging that he and the President have differences of opinion.
McCain indicated that he knew the President to be both a patriot and a legitimate leader and decried those who did not give him the respect due his office. He supported these words of healing and urged others to do the same. We do need more civic and political leaders to echo these remarks. On the other hand, Sarah Palin, in a message that was tone deaf to the pain of a nation, chose the day of mourning to appear in a slickly scripted taped video to address the criticism she had received for the targeted gun-sight map of Giffords and her congressional race in 2010. No one has said that she put the gun in the hands of a disturbed young man, but her words and actions during the campaign did coarsen the debate in the country at-large and at Tea Party gatherings. Unfortunately to many, her words were seen as angry, self-centered, defensive and ill-timed. Several elected officials in the Republican Party disassociated themselves from her remarks. Ultimately, she waited too long to speak out and sent the wrong message.
Where do we go from here? Do we look at sensible gun laws? Unfortunately, shortly after these shootings sales of extended clips rose precipitously. But really, even the police, who use Glocks, do not carry such clips, so they cannot be of much use to enforce laws. Extended clips are not for self defense, they are for killing large numbers of people. We need to restore the assault rifle ban and deny the use of these clips. Will the Federal government assess the lacks in the national mental health system and push to enhance care options? Will the states support such efforts? The National Health care reform act is scheduled to be re-opened in the Congress this week. This debate will be the first of many that may test the boundaries for civility in the Congress this year. Let us all keep our fingers crossed.
Please let me know what you think.
