Is it impossible these days to have a discussion about an issue or a political race without it becoming personal? Apparently so, at least for one backer of Judge Jane Markey.
Markey is up against Colleen O'Brien for one of three Republican nominations for Michigan Supreme Court justice. As faithful readers of this blog know, your Wizard has published three articles critical of Markey decisions, principally on the grounds that they contradict her claim to be a "rule of law" judge. I have never attacked Judge Markey personally, nor have I attacked her supporters.
But they have attacked me personally.
The latest attack was purportedly authored by one Steven Vander Ark in an email distributed to the delegates to this weekend's Republican convention. He says that I practice "the dark art of magic - turning fiction into fact while hiding behind
the curtain of anonymity. Any lawyer reviewing his 'analysis' of Markey's
decisions would recognize a straight up hatchet job: it is no wonder he wants to
remain anonymous. His blog is a shameful sham set up for the sole purpose of
producing political smears under the guise of legal analysis." He goes on to criticize my discussion of the Wilkie case and my quoting of the Chief Justice in the Progressive Insurance case.
You know, if you're going to lie about me, at least tell the truth while doing it.
Here's where Mr. Vander Ark and the truth part company:
1. This blog was established in 2007; it was not "set up for the sole purpose of producing political smears under the guise of legal analysis."
2. I never discussed the Wilkie case, and I do not consider a reversal as any reason not to vote for a judge. As a judge whom I respect frequently says, "Even when the court of appeals affirms me, I still think I'm right." I have never criticized Judge Markey or any other judge because one of their decisions was reversed. My posts on Judge Markey may be reviewed here, here, and here.
3. Mr. Vander Ark is correct that I quoted the Chief Justice in my discussion of the Progressive Insurance case here, and I did not quote Justice Markman's concurrence. So what? Does that somehow delegitimize the point I was making? Am I under some obligation to quote Justice Markman? If so, am I also obligated to quote Justice Marilyn Kelly, who sided with Markey's opinion? And where is Mr. Vander Ark's defense of Judge Markey? She claimed then -- and claims now -- to be a rule of law judge, but in Progressive Insurance, she cast aside clear statutory language in favor of a result that comported with her "sense of justice and fair play." That is not a rule of law methodology; it is the very definition of an empathy judge. Yet, Mr. Vander Ark says nothing, falling back on the notion that her position is "defensible." That's a pretty low bar for someone who wants to be a Supreme Court justice.
So, you be the judge. Have I turned "fiction into fact," as Mr. Vander Ark suggests? If so, how? What exactly have I written that is incorrect?
Let's make things perfectly clear: for me, this is not a personal issue. I favor the rule of law, and I believe strongly, as Bob Young has written, that the "rule of law requires a judge to be subservient to the law itself, not the law to be subservient to the personal views of a judge."
In the cases I have described, Judge Markey has elevated her personal views over the the law. Whether you agree or disagree with her ultimate decisions, this approach, this decisionmaking process, is not the approach and the process followed by rule of law judges. That the results are "defensible" is irrelevant -- the rule of law does not concern itself with results, only with faithfully applying the law as written by the People through their elected representatives.
As I have written, Judge Markey seems like a very nice person. I have no interest in her political donation history or in any of the rumors being circulated about her. This is not personal; this is about job performance and judicial philosophy, period.
I don't know Mr. Vander Ark. Is it significant that his email was paid for by Markey's campaign? I don't think so. His name is on it, and he will have to defend it, regardless of who wrote it or who paid for it. His email is wrong and contains numerous factual errors, as I have outlined above, but I will not attempt to smear him as he has attempted to smear me. Frankly, I have no interest whatsoever in Mr. Vander Ark -- he is not running for anything. My only interest is in a full and frank discussion of the most important issue in this judicial campaign: who will be a rule of law justice on the Michigan Supreme Court?
Let's just stick to the issue. It's not personal.
Showing posts with label Michigan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michigan. Show all posts
Friday, September 7, 2012
Thursday, August 16, 2012
"Rule of Law" Should Be More Than Just A Slogan
Two years ago, your Wizard opined on the choice Republicans faced between potential Supreme Court nominees Mary Beth Kelly and Jane Markey. Judge Kelly, of course, is now Justice Kelly, and Judge Markey is trying again, this time squaring off against Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Colleen O'Brien.
As I wrote in 2010, "Judge Markey stresses her experience on the Court of Appeals. This is obviously a positive quality, but it should not be overstressed to the neglect of the quality of the decisions." Since then, I have still not had the opportunity to argue before Judge Markey, but I have attended meetings at which she has spoken, and she seems like a nice person. She describes herself as a "rule of law" judge, and, in a recent email, she stated:
One of the risks of touting your record is that people might actually read it.
The most glaring example of Judge Markey's departure from the law is her dissent from the majority decision in Progressive Michigan Insurance Company v Smith, a 2010 decision. In that case, Smith drove his truck across the center line of the road and injured two other people. Since he had too many points on his record and no valid license, Smith had not been able to procure insurance for his truck, so his girlfriend bought it. Smith was supposed to be excluded from coverage under the policy. If excluded, the injured persons had no claim against the insurance policy and would be deprived of a potential source of recovery. If not excluded, the insurance coverage would apply and potentially be available to those injured by Smith's negligence.
There is a Michigan statute directly on point here, MCL 500.3009(2), which states:
Thus, the policy did not comply with the clear requirements of the statute, and the Court of Appeals determined that Smith's exclusion was not valid, resulting in coverage for the injured motorists. This was a 2-1 decision. Both judges in the majority are of Republican heritage; Judge Markey dissented.
The majority reasoned:
The case was appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, but the application ultimately was denied. Still the denial afforded an opportunity for the justices to weigh in, and the Chief Justice did so, with his customary directness:
When a judge decides that a statute, despite its clarity, must be interpreted in a way that comports with "common sense" or her notion of "justice and fair play," her opinion becomes unmoored from the law, and the result becomes a function of her feelings. This removes important, perhaps the most important, characteristics of law itself -- the ability to know what the law is and to rely upon it.
In a just and ordered society, commercial and personal interaction depend upon our ability to rely on others' behavior. For example, roads and motor vehicles are useless without traffic laws, and without laws enforcing contracts, people cannot rely on their agreements, even if written. In this way, the rule of law promotes freedom because it produces a common understanding of what the law means and how it applies to us. In other words, we can play the game because we know the rules.
In Judge Markey's world, and in the world of the so-called "empathy judges," there really are no rules, since even crystal clear statutes must always pass the "feelings" test, and there will always be cases in which a judge simply doesn't like the result the law compels. At that point, she resorts to vague notions of "common sense" or her individual concept of "justice and fair play." A judge taking that approach ceases to apply the law and forfeits her right to proclaim herself a "rule of law judge." She has instead become simply another legislator, imposing her personal viewpoint on the parties before her and on anyone else affected by her decision. Her standard for decision-making is no standard at all.
More to come.
As I wrote in 2010, "Judge Markey stresses her experience on the Court of Appeals. This is obviously a positive quality, but it should not be overstressed to the neglect of the quality of the decisions." Since then, I have still not had the opportunity to argue before Judge Markey, but I have attended meetings at which she has spoken, and she seems like a nice person. She describes herself as a "rule of law" judge, and, in a recent email, she stated:
Judge Markey knows that a judge's role is to follow the plain text of our Constitutions and statutes. You can see that for yourself in almost two decades of decisions that demonstrate she is a consistent constitutional conservative. Only appellate court judges, and not state trial court judges, generate open, public, easily accessible, transparent records because their decisions are written and used statewide each day by attorneys and judges in all types of cases. Only Judge Markey has this crucial credential, i.e. proof she adheres to the Rule of Law. (Emphasis in original).Sounds good, right? Well, in the words of the immortal Lee Corso, not so fast, my friend. In 2010, I wrote about Allen v Bloomfield Hills School District, which was anything but a "rule of law" decision. And, unfortunately, since then, I have learned of more examples of Judge Markey's adventures in open field running, untethered by the law.
One of the risks of touting your record is that people might actually read it.
The most glaring example of Judge Markey's departure from the law is her dissent from the majority decision in Progressive Michigan Insurance Company v Smith, a 2010 decision. In that case, Smith drove his truck across the center line of the road and injured two other people. Since he had too many points on his record and no valid license, Smith had not been able to procure insurance for his truck, so his girlfriend bought it. Smith was supposed to be excluded from coverage under the policy. If excluded, the injured persons had no claim against the insurance policy and would be deprived of a potential source of recovery. If not excluded, the insurance coverage would apply and potentially be available to those injured by Smith's negligence.
There is a Michigan statute directly on point here, MCL 500.3009(2), which states:
If authorized by the insured, automobile liability or motor vehicle liability coverage may be excluded when a vehicle is operated by a named person. Such exclusion shall not be valid unless the following notice is on the face of the policy or the declaration page or certificate of the policy and on the certificate of insurance: Warning -- when a named excluded person operates a vehicle all liability coverage is void -- no one is insured. Owners of the vehicle and others legally responsible for the acts of the named excluded person remain fully personally liable. (Emphasis added).So, to exclude a person from coverage, (1) the person must be named as excluded and (2) the specified warning must appear on both (a) the face of the policy or declaration page or policy certificate, and (b) on the certificate of insurance. In this case, Smith was named as an excluded person and the specified warning appeared on the declaration page, but the warning on the certificate of insurance was not identical to the specified warning -- the last word was "responsible" instead of "liable."
Thus, the policy did not comply with the clear requirements of the statute, and the Court of Appeals determined that Smith's exclusion was not valid, resulting in coverage for the injured motorists. This was a 2-1 decision. Both judges in the majority are of Republican heritage; Judge Markey dissented.
The majority reasoned:
The Legislature did not merely set forth the substance of the required warning. Instead, the statute mandates use of "the following notice," which notice is explicitly provided for insurers to use verbatim. Further the Legislature did not merely state that this notice is required, without specifying the effect of noncomplicance. If the required warning notice is not provided, the named person "exclusion shall not be valid." The statute could not be clearer.Dissenting, Judge Markey began with words that will echo throughout her campaign, but are belied by numerous opinions she has authored:
I too strongly adhere to the philosophy that it is this Court's function to apply the law as plainly written. It is not our job to modify, amend, or read into a statute something that is not there; such legislating from the bench is simply improper. Legislating belongs to the Legislature.These are laudable sentiments, but they would be more persuasive if Judge Markey did not then immediately violate the philosophy she professes to share. Judge Markey stated that she would have found the insurance company complied with the statute and excluded coverage for Smith, and she did so under the banner of "common sense":
Must we as strict constructionists abandon "common sense" and render a decision not only remarkably hyper-technical legally but also profoundly unjust and jarring to what I will presume to say is the average person's sense of justice and fair play? I think not.It is thus apparent that Judge Markey will apply the rule of law except where she believes it is not consistent with "common sense" or "the average person's sense of justice and fair play." Under this standard, there is no standard -- she is free to rule as she wishes, without regard to the law, as long as she can fit her ruling under the unlimited umbrella of "common sense" or "fair play."
The case was appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court, but the application ultimately was denied. Still the denial afforded an opportunity for the justices to weigh in, and the Chief Justice did so, with his customary directness:
The dissenting opinion of Judge Markey in the Court of Appeals, although professing an adherence to the philosophy of interpreting the law as plainly written, nevertheless ignored the statutory language[.] (Emphasis in original).The Chief Justice described Judge Markey's opinion as "a shocking departure from the rule of law," and noted:
All Michigan citizens should be extraordinarily troubled by any judge who advances the notion that the rule of law must be enforced unless a judge finds an outcome in a particular case to be one of which he personally disapproves. In a constitutional republic, judges have no such authority, and the rule of law crumbles where a constitutional, validly enacted mandate can be ignored simply because it offends a judge's sensibilities -- even if on "rare occasion[s]." (Emphasis in original).As if that wasn't clear enough, the Chief Justice kept the pedal to the metal:
With all due respect to Judge Markey, our judicial oaths require judges to enforce the Legislature's policy choices, even when we may personally find the outcome in a given case "unjust," "inequitable," "jarring," "hyper-technical," or contrary to what we intuit an "average person's" sensibilities to be. As this Court has stated, it is a mere "caricature" of judicial restraint for a judge "to assert that her common sense should be allowed to override the language of the statute." (Emphasis in original; footnotes omitted).It's pretty simple -- "rule of law" is a standard to be applied in judicial decision-making. It embraces the notion that the people speak through the Legislature and that clear and unambiguous statutes -- like the one involved in the Smith case -- are to be enforced as written.
When a judge decides that a statute, despite its clarity, must be interpreted in a way that comports with "common sense" or her notion of "justice and fair play," her opinion becomes unmoored from the law, and the result becomes a function of her feelings. This removes important, perhaps the most important, characteristics of law itself -- the ability to know what the law is and to rely upon it.
In a just and ordered society, commercial and personal interaction depend upon our ability to rely on others' behavior. For example, roads and motor vehicles are useless without traffic laws, and without laws enforcing contracts, people cannot rely on their agreements, even if written. In this way, the rule of law promotes freedom because it produces a common understanding of what the law means and how it applies to us. In other words, we can play the game because we know the rules.
In Judge Markey's world, and in the world of the so-called "empathy judges," there really are no rules, since even crystal clear statutes must always pass the "feelings" test, and there will always be cases in which a judge simply doesn't like the result the law compels. At that point, she resorts to vague notions of "common sense" or her individual concept of "justice and fair play." A judge taking that approach ceases to apply the law and forfeits her right to proclaim herself a "rule of law judge." She has instead become simply another legislator, imposing her personal viewpoint on the parties before her and on anyone else affected by her decision. Her standard for decision-making is no standard at all.
More to come.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Crittendon's Island
Those of us steeped in 1960s culture have no problem recalling the most famous charter of all time -- the SS Minnow, hired for a three hour tour that lasted three seasons and 98 episodes.
Now, we have another charter that has beached, this time in the city of Detroit with a spinoff in the Ingham County Circuit Court. It's the Detroit City Charter, but this time, instead of the hapless Gilligan, we have Krystal Crittendon. Like the original series, this comedy seems destined to be with us for awhile.
You know the story by now. In a nutshell, the city and the state of Michigan signed a consent agreement in an 11th hour effort to avoid an emergency financial manager. As its implementation neared, Crittendon, the city's chief lawyer, filed a lawsuit in the Ingham County Circuit Court, claiming that the agreement is unenforceable because the city Charter prohibits agreements between the city and any entity that owes the city money. Crittendon alleges that, because the state owes the city money for past revenue sharing and other items, the agreement cannot be enforced. In response, the state is threatening to withhold $80 million in revenue sharing, which will send the city spiraling into insolvency.
It's important to note that neither the city council nor the mayor authorized or directed Crittendon to file this lawsuit. She filed on her own, claiming that the city Charter imposes on her not only the responsibility, but the obligation to do so. This line -- that the Charter gives her not just the authority to file but makes her file -- has been repeated in the press, but is it true?
There are three provisions of the Charter that, theoretically, might support Crittendon's position. Here they are:
Sec. 7.5-203. Civil Litigation.
The Corporation Counsel shall defend all actions or proceedings against the City. The Corporation Counsel shall prosecute all actions or proceedings to which the City is a party or in which the City has a legal interest, when directed to do so by the Mayor.
Sec. 7.5-204. Penal Matters.
The Corporation Counsel is the city prosecutor and shall:
1. Institute and conduct, on behalf of the people, all cases arising from the provisions of this Charter or city ordinances and, when authorized to do so by law, cases arising under state law.
Sec. 7.5-209. Enforcement of Charter.
The Corporation Counsel shall be responsible for enforcing compliance with the Charter. Corporation Counsel shall document in writing any violation of the Charter by the executive or legislative branches, Office of City Clerk, elected official or other persons subject to compliance with the Charter. This written notice shall contain the nature of the violation, including the Charter section(s) violated, direct the necessary action to be taken to remedy the violation, and date by which the remedial action must be taken. The time for taking the required remedial action shall not exceed fourteen (14) calendar days. The notice of Charter violation shall be presented to the offending body or individual, with a copy provided to the Mayor, City Council and City Clerk. In the event the offending body or individual fails to remedy the Charter violation within the time frame and manner required in the written notice, Corporation Counsel shall take all reasonable actions to secure compliance, including, but not limited to, judicial action.
Crittendon cannot rely on section 203, since she is barred from "prosecut[ing] all actions or proceedings to which the City is a party or in which the City has a legal interest," unless she is "directed to do so by the Mayor." The mayor has publicly stated his disapproval of the lawsuit, so I think it is safe to say he did not direct Crittendon to file it.
Sec. 7.5-210. Claim Reduction.
Corporation Counsel shall advise City departments, agencies and entities on risk reduction strategies that are necessary to limit or eliminate the City’s exposure to liability.
By filing this lawsuit, not only has Crittendon not acted to "limit or eliminate the City's exposure to liability," she has increased exponentially the possibility of an even greater financial crisis than currently exists.
Gilligan had a good heart, but when he tried to help his fellow castaways, he often made things worse. That seems to be the case here as well, on Crittendon's island.
Now, we have another charter that has beached, this time in the city of Detroit with a spinoff in the Ingham County Circuit Court. It's the Detroit City Charter, but this time, instead of the hapless Gilligan, we have Krystal Crittendon. Like the original series, this comedy seems destined to be with us for awhile.
You know the story by now. In a nutshell, the city and the state of Michigan signed a consent agreement in an 11th hour effort to avoid an emergency financial manager. As its implementation neared, Crittendon, the city's chief lawyer, filed a lawsuit in the Ingham County Circuit Court, claiming that the agreement is unenforceable because the city Charter prohibits agreements between the city and any entity that owes the city money. Crittendon alleges that, because the state owes the city money for past revenue sharing and other items, the agreement cannot be enforced. In response, the state is threatening to withhold $80 million in revenue sharing, which will send the city spiraling into insolvency.
It's important to note that neither the city council nor the mayor authorized or directed Crittendon to file this lawsuit. She filed on her own, claiming that the city Charter imposes on her not only the responsibility, but the obligation to do so. This line -- that the Charter gives her not just the authority to file but makes her file -- has been repeated in the press, but is it true?
There are three provisions of the Charter that, theoretically, might support Crittendon's position. Here they are:
Sec. 7.5-203. Civil Litigation.
The Corporation Counsel shall defend all actions or proceedings against the City. The Corporation Counsel shall prosecute all actions or proceedings to which the City is a party or in which the City has a legal interest, when directed to do so by the Mayor.
Sec. 7.5-204. Penal Matters.
The Corporation Counsel is the city prosecutor and shall:
1. Institute and conduct, on behalf of the people, all cases arising from the provisions of this Charter or city ordinances and, when authorized to do so by law, cases arising under state law.
Sec. 7.5-209. Enforcement of Charter.
The Corporation Counsel shall be responsible for enforcing compliance with the Charter. Corporation Counsel shall document in writing any violation of the Charter by the executive or legislative branches, Office of City Clerk, elected official or other persons subject to compliance with the Charter. This written notice shall contain the nature of the violation, including the Charter section(s) violated, direct the necessary action to be taken to remedy the violation, and date by which the remedial action must be taken. The time for taking the required remedial action shall not exceed fourteen (14) calendar days. The notice of Charter violation shall be presented to the offending body or individual, with a copy provided to the Mayor, City Council and City Clerk. In the event the offending body or individual fails to remedy the Charter violation within the time frame and manner required in the written notice, Corporation Counsel shall take all reasonable actions to secure compliance, including, but not limited to, judicial action.
Crittendon cannot rely on section 203, since she is barred from "prosecut[ing] all actions or proceedings to which the City is a party or in which the City has a legal interest," unless she is "directed to do so by the Mayor." The mayor has publicly stated his disapproval of the lawsuit, so I think it is safe to say he did not direct Crittendon to file it.
Section 204 appears to provide independent authorization for Crittendon to act on her own and to command her to act -- "The Corporation Counsel . . . shall institute and conduct. . ." But section 204 expressly relates to "Penal Matters," meaning criminal violations of city ordinances or charter provisions. Black's Law Dictionary defines "penal" as "punishable; inflicting a punishment; containing a penalty, or relating to a penalty." An action seeking a judgment declaring whether a contract is enforceable is not "penal" and, therefore, not a proper subject for unilateral action by the city's counsel.
Section 209 comes the closest to justifying Crittendon's position, but it falls short because it is obviously written to permit the city's counsel to enforce charter compliance internally, within the city government. It could be argued that, since the city council approved the consent agreement, allegedly in violation of the charter, Crittendon is doing nothing more than securing the council's compliance. The case, however, is City of Detroit vs. Michigan Treasury Department. If the case was really all about forcing council to comply, it would be captioned Corporation Counsel vs. City Council, or something similar. Section 209 does not apply to external entities.
Even if an arguable case can be made for Crittendon's actions, how can she square her lawsuit with section 210:
Sec. 7.5-210. Claim Reduction.
Corporation Counsel shall advise City departments, agencies and entities on risk reduction strategies that are necessary to limit or eliminate the City’s exposure to liability.
By filing this lawsuit, not only has Crittendon not acted to "limit or eliminate the City's exposure to liability," she has increased exponentially the possibility of an even greater financial crisis than currently exists.
Gilligan had a good heart, but when he tried to help his fellow castaways, he often made things worse. That seems to be the case here as well, on Crittendon's island.
Friday, March 2, 2012
An Open Letter to Michigan Republicans
Dear Michigan Republicans:
To some extent, of course it matters. We have to be able to work together to accomplish our common goals, and our recent primary certainly did not bring us any closer together, but we have lost our focus on those common goals that unite us. No two people have complete agreement on every issue -- how boring would that be? -- but I have witnessed people getting absolutely roasted over any minor deviation from an author's credo.
Have you looked at Facebook lately? I don't blame the Santorum folks for putting a positive spin on things, but the vitriol directed at the Romney campaign is out of place. And Romney people, until now I didn't know you could be a sore winner.
And how can there be a split on the Credentials Committee vote awarding the at-large delegates? It's arithmetic! There is a right answer!
One thing in particular that needs to change -- elected or paid GOP leadership, including our national committee people and all members of the state committee, should not be endorsing candidates in a contested primary. If you don't know why, look at the current controversy surrounding the Credentials Committee and the announced endorsements of the 4-2 majority. Call it what you want, but it taints the process. The Party should be the Party of all the candidates, ready to leap into action to support the winner of the primary, not divided by pre-primary endorsements that suggest the deck is stacked or that give the appearance of impropriety.
We are fond -- very fond -- of referring to Ronald Reagan, and the tug-of-war over his mantle is sometimes amusing to watch. But one thing Reagan did was to articulate his vision of America. Not a set of legislative priorities, but a vision of what this country means and could be. Then the voters came to that vision. As Reagan said in his famous 1974 "The Shining City Upon a Hill" speech:
The good news is that this can all be fixed. Easily, in fact. It will take, however, an en masse commitment to truth, transparency, and togetherness. For one, the Credentials Committee should reconsider its recent vote, and the Santorum campaign should drop all challenges. There should be a voluntary 30-day moratorium on saying anything bad against any fellow Republican. Let's focus on the target-rich environment the Democrats have provided, okay?
And in the future, let's remember that things don't need to be rigged. Debate doesn't need to be shut down. We don't need to "get around" anyone. Our party is about fair, open, honest debate and an unswerving commitment to freedom.
Time to get back to basics, before it's too late.
The Wiz.
Stop it. All of it.
Just stop.
It is truly amazing how we pay
lip service to unity, then immediately turn around and try to tear each other
apart. This gives aid and comfort to the
enemy, and it stokes the mistrust that so characterizes our current political
process.
The negative campaigning, the
dirty tricks, the middle-of-the-night meetings that rewrite the rule book –
does it matter? In the long run (meaning
about six months from now), will any of this matter?
To some extent, of course it matters. We have to be able to work together to accomplish our common goals, and our recent primary certainly did not bring us any closer together, but we have lost our focus on those common goals that unite us. No two people have complete agreement on every issue -- how boring would that be? -- but I have witnessed people getting absolutely roasted over any minor deviation from an author's credo.
Have you looked at Facebook lately? I don't blame the Santorum folks for putting a positive spin on things, but the vitriol directed at the Romney campaign is out of place. And Romney people, until now I didn't know you could be a sore winner.
And how can there be a split on the Credentials Committee vote awarding the at-large delegates? It's arithmetic! There is a right answer!
One thing in particular that needs to change -- elected or paid GOP leadership, including our national committee people and all members of the state committee, should not be endorsing candidates in a contested primary. If you don't know why, look at the current controversy surrounding the Credentials Committee and the announced endorsements of the 4-2 majority. Call it what you want, but it taints the process. The Party should be the Party of all the candidates, ready to leap into action to support the winner of the primary, not divided by pre-primary endorsements that suggest the deck is stacked or that give the appearance of impropriety.
We are fond -- very fond -- of referring to Ronald Reagan, and the tug-of-war over his mantle is sometimes amusing to watch. But one thing Reagan did was to articulate his vision of America. Not a set of legislative priorities, but a vision of what this country means and could be. Then the voters came to that vision. As Reagan said in his famous 1974 "The Shining City Upon a Hill" speech:
Standing on the tiny deck of the Arabella in 1630 off the Massachusetts coast, John Winthrop said, “We will be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us, so that if we deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword throughout the world.” * * *
Which of our candidates is describing this kind of vision of America? Which one of us is doing so? Has the polarization that grips the national political scene taken hold of the GOP here in the Enchanted Mitten?We cannot escape our destiny, nor should we try to do so. The leadership of the free world was thrust upon us two centuries ago in that little hall of Philadelphia. In the days following World War II, when the economic strength and power of America was all that stood between the world and the return to the dark ages, Pope Pius XII said, “The American people have a great genius for splendid and unselfish actions. Into the hands of America God has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind.”We are indeed, and we are today, the last best hope of man on earth.
The good news is that this can all be fixed. Easily, in fact. It will take, however, an en masse commitment to truth, transparency, and togetherness. For one, the Credentials Committee should reconsider its recent vote, and the Santorum campaign should drop all challenges. There should be a voluntary 30-day moratorium on saying anything bad against any fellow Republican. Let's focus on the target-rich environment the Democrats have provided, okay?
And in the future, let's remember that things don't need to be rigged. Debate doesn't need to be shut down. We don't need to "get around" anyone. Our party is about fair, open, honest debate and an unswerving commitment to freedom.
Time to get back to basics, before it's too late.
The Wiz.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
The Debate Ahead
Tonight, eight Republican presidential candidates square off again for two hours of highly structured questions and answers. This time, the debate takes place on the campus of Oakland University and will be televised by CNBC.
What to expect?
At a correspondents breakfast this morning, debate moderators Maria Bartiromo and John Harwood forecast that the debate would center primarily around jobs and the economy. The Michigan setting lends itself to that discussion, since the Enchanted Mitten is home to a reawakening automobile industry and a burgeoning renaissance of its own, courtesy of a Republican governor and Republican-controlled legislature.
Still, we won't escape more questions on the Herman Cain sexual harassment allegations. Should this be a topic during this precious time? Good question, but here's why I think these questions will get asked:
1. This is television, it's about viewers and ratings. The prurient element is a big ratings-getter.
2. It's the topic of the day, especially with Cain's press conference yesterday.
3. The moderators will want to see whether the other seven will rise to the occasion (sorry about that) and try to take advantage of Cain's misfortune.
4. Voters are certainly interested in whether a candidate can handle a crisis, especially since Obama has demonstrated he cannot. These unconfirmed allegations may not be worthy of much, it's hard to say, but this is a situation where a nonsubstantive issue bumps up against the need to discern character, composure, and integrity.
We'll see how it goes.
What to expect?
At a correspondents breakfast this morning, debate moderators Maria Bartiromo and John Harwood forecast that the debate would center primarily around jobs and the economy. The Michigan setting lends itself to that discussion, since the Enchanted Mitten is home to a reawakening automobile industry and a burgeoning renaissance of its own, courtesy of a Republican governor and Republican-controlled legislature.
Still, we won't escape more questions on the Herman Cain sexual harassment allegations. Should this be a topic during this precious time? Good question, but here's why I think these questions will get asked:
1. This is television, it's about viewers and ratings. The prurient element is a big ratings-getter.
2. It's the topic of the day, especially with Cain's press conference yesterday.
3. The moderators will want to see whether the other seven will rise to the occasion (sorry about that) and try to take advantage of Cain's misfortune.
4. Voters are certainly interested in whether a candidate can handle a crisis, especially since Obama has demonstrated he cannot. These unconfirmed allegations may not be worthy of much, it's hard to say, but this is a situation where a nonsubstantive issue bumps up against the need to discern character, composure, and integrity.
We'll see how it goes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)