In what appeared to be a rare event, but probably not the first of its kind, the President openly condemned a recent Supreme Court ruling regarding campaign finance during the State of the Union address. And in what appeared to be an equally rare event, one of the Justices showed emotion and disagreement at the President’s assertion.

I’ve heard every kind of comment on this so far, from the notion that the President should not have made his remarks, and that Justice Alito should not have reacted. I disagree with the idea that either man was incorrect in his gesture.

Now, the President was, I think incorrect in his statement, but as a political figure it was not prudent nor polite to criticize the Court in such a setting. The black-robed justices sit there year after year managing to refrain from any show of support and I imagine they expect the same kind of restraint in return. However, they definitely have the right to speak up when condemned, they are justices, but they are also humans who wouldn’t be on the court if they did not have strong opinions one way or the other.

But the bigger issue is the President’s inability to see what kind of Battle Royale he is setting up for himself, his party, and his administration. But I’m all too happy to see the drama play out. Alito is 59 years old, and has life tenure so you don’t have to be a Harvard educated lawyer to see that he is going to be around and writing opinions long after this administration is over. By the looks of things he would really only have to stay on the court another 36 months anyway, but you get my drift. The President can urge Congress to pass a new law and the Court can just invalidate that as well.

This is a President who was very good at running a campaign, but the politics of D.C. are outside of his grasp.

What are your thoughts? But first watch the reaction via any network, and read the following if you haven’t already, it’s worth the read:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/28/toobin.obama.alito/index.html?hpt=C2

@Ashley Garry – Twitter

Perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself and looking forward to the 2012 election, but given the recent turn to red in places like the northeast, even before Scott Brown, Obama is vulnerable and I don’t think he’s got any tricks planned to make up the lost ground among independents.

General David Petraeus is most likely at the end of a much distinguished career. After all, what is left under this President? Petraeus could go to Europe as the Supreme Allied Commander…or…as would be an excellent move for the GOP retire and GO RED.

The General hasn’t given too strong of an indication of which way he would go but I’m thinking a moderate Republican. And I’m also thinking you can’t have a better candidate, one who Conservative and Liberal organizations alike have heaped praise on, and has the cool under pressure sensibility that to counter The One.

Here’s the thing, VP or Pres? I think VP, as a strong complement to Gingrich, Romney, or Huckabee (by the way where is he nowadays?).

This may be premature but the movement has got to start building now, because don’t kid yourself, the other side is well into the planning stages.

With the recent loss in Massachusetts its likely that Obama will come more to the center if he wants a second term, and given the way he’s been governing in his first year its unlikely that he has what it takes to convince “middle America” and independents that he understands there concerns.

That brings us to his potential running mate. Running mates frequently appeal to a base that the main candidate cannot or vice versa. In the recent release Game Change, the authors detail the friction between POTUS and VPOTUS, and Biden’s gaffes are no secret here or worldwide.

Biden will be 68 during the next presidential election cycle, a mere five year younger than Senator McCain who was considered two old and out of touch. Can we expect a younger ticket from the GOP to bring this into question and turn the “old man” politics around on Obama or is it too tangential a topic? But, Obama may try to make a run at a more center of the road policy and he wouldn’t really need a so-called foreign policy expert as his #2.

With the emergence of Scott Brown the GOP must take advantage of this. Find younger, conservative candidates who can reach sophisticated independents while at the same appealing to the base. If Obama limps into the election with a disastrous record of service and an old gaffe prone VP vulnerable is not even the word to describe his re-election chances.

What are your thoughts on who it might be?

@AshleyGarry

According to the Greenville News the Lt. Gov. of SC Andre Bauer recently proposed a somewhat novel idea for the state’s free and reduced lunch programs.

Bauer is running for the state’s Republican nomination for Governor of the state, and in a town hall meeting said that government should take away the assistance if parents did not pass drug tests, or attend parent teacher conferences.

I think this is a bold statement by Bauer and a strategy conservatives should take a look at. Let’s think about this in pragmatic terms. The social welfare state is here to stay and there will always be honest people who need assistance. Wouldn’t it be worthwhile to actually tie assistance to simple standards which law abiding and responsible citizens would have no problems meeting. Under this strategy you give the liberals little to complain about.

You can’t argue that the assistance isn’t being given, you just have to invest in yourself as much as you are asking other people to invest in you via their own money.

Twitter: @AshleyGarry

Read the story from which this post was based here:
(http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20100123/NEWS/1230308/Bauer-equates-%E2%80%98stray-animals-to-people-in-speech-on-aid-to-needy),

Yesterday supporters of gay marriage were dismayed at the Supreme Court’s decision to stay broadcast of the current trial over California’s Proposition 8, Hollingsworth v. Perry. The court expressed several concerns over the broadcast, but perhaps one of the most important is the affect the broadcast may have had on witnesses testifying in the trial.
Supporters of Proposition 8 have faced threats, harassment, and have been subjected to physical violence as a result of their opposition to gay marriage. According to a recent NY Times article: “a supporter found a flier in his neighborhood calling him a bigot and listing his employer. In another, white powder was sent to a Mormon temple and a facility run by the Knights of Columbus, the Catholic group, which contributed more than $1 million in support of Proposition 8. Other supporters, including the director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, Richard Raddon, have been forced to resign because of their backing of the measure, while some businesses have been boycotted because of Proposition 8.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/us/19prop8.html)
This upcoming holiday weekend millions in the United States and around the world will stop to remember one of our greatest Civil Rights icons, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King. When we reflect on the life of MLK we have to analyze his struggle for civil rights versus the current tactics being used by opponents of Proposition 8. If MLK used these tactics the struggle for equality would have stalled and Americans would have learned next to nothing about their fellow citizens. More importantly, supporters of gay marriage have consistently compared their position with Americans who sought the right to sit wherever they wanted, walk down the street without fear of lynching, and yes, marry someone of a different race without fear of incarceration. And these freedom fighters, both Black and White, rejected the violent suggestions of many in the interest of respecting the rights of all.
It remains to be seen how this will all play out. The Supreme Court cited in their decision the affect broadcast of the trial, Hollingsworth v. Perry, may have had on witnesses. And it must be true that the ongoing harassment played a part in that calculus. Maps have been distributed which show citizens across the country that made financial contributions in support of Proposition 8, leaving them open to harassment or attack by activists. As Frank Shubert, campaign manager for Protect Marriage told the NY Times, “… giving these people a map to your home or office leaves supporters of Proposition 8 feeling especially vulnerable. Really, it is chilling.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/us/19prop8.html?_r=1)
No American should be able to pursue their rights by trampling the Constitutional rights of others. The right to political participation must be protected. And if that political participation happens to occur at a nexus for protection of traditional marriage, so be it. Thankfully the Supreme Court decided, at least in this case, that attempting to win at any means may cost you what you want down the road.