It wasn’t all that long ago when they fawned over him.
But now, three congressional Democrats from Arizona — Harry Mitchell, Gabriella Giffords and Ann Kirkpatrick — are twisting in the wind, as their beloved party leader President Barack Obama continues to punish our cash-strapped state with a costly and unpopular lawsuit to prevent the implementation of Arizona’s new illegal immigration law. It’s Obama vs. we, the people — with congressional Democrats caught in the middle.
But things were different on Feb. 17, 2009.
The delegation standing on the tarmac was electrified with excitement, as Air Force One taxied to a stop at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. The man who was the embodiment of all their dreams — who would give everyone a job, apologize to the world for President Bush, punish the “rich people” who “earned too much” over the previous eight years, give everyone in the U.S. “free” health care, make the world love America again, and ensure a Democrat majority in the Congress for years to come. Obama was visiting Arizona, and this was their special moment.
Mitchell, giddy with excitement, stood with a camera strap draped over his neck, snapping photos by the second as the president stepped down from the aircraft. It was cute to see this older gentleman so caught up in the victorious moment of a much younger man, like a dad on the sidelines at his son’s big game.
But Mitchell is an elected member of the United States Congress. He represents hundreds of thousands of people in the House of Representatives, and these people expect more from him than mere cheerleading.
Today, Mitchell appears to be on a path to electoral defeat because of 18 months of cheerleading and adoration of a president with a very self-serving agenda. Things have become so bad that Mitchell has had to publicly chastise Obama and suggest that he might spend taxpayers’ money in some more productive fashion than suing Arizona. Worse still, Mitchell has had to publicly call for securing the U.S./Mexico border, an idea that has been championed by Arizona Republicans for decades, and by Tea Partiers and Minutemen enthusiasts for at least the past six years.
Mitchell has made the terrible mistake — along with the majority of Congress — of finding his hopes and aspirations in the embodiment of one man, one personality, one persona. Mitchell should have known better, being a retired government and civics teacher. As constitutionally and historically illiterate as many members of Congress may be, there are still millions of us who understand that the United States is a nation resting on the foundation of specific principles and ideals, and not on the whims and charm of any individual personality.
Congressional Democrats like Mitchell are now in the painful process of discovering that Obama’s agenda was never about them, never about “the party” and never about the United States. They have been empowering a man who is committed to his own raw pursuit of power, and they are now finding themselves to be victims of his agenda.
—
Austin Hill (www.AustinHill.net) is author of “The Virtues of Capitalism” and a frequent guest host for Arizona’s Newstalk KTAR (92.3 FM)
SunWorshiper posted at 4:13 pm on Tue, Jun 29, 2010.
To be fair, a lot more than Giffords, Kirkpatrick and Mitchell bought into Obama's Hope & Change mantra (and some of us are downright ashamed to admit it!). For many, personal shame has been alleviated by the pure, unbridled shame felt at seeing the POTUS standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Calderon dissing American (Arizonan) citizens on our front steps and further suffering through the standing ovation given by our elected members of Congress. Perhaps it's this constituent rage conveyed to him that has Mitchell finally taking note.
Accuracy posted at 10:02 am on Wed, Jun 30, 2010.
Austin Hill: "Congressional Democrats like Mitchell are now in the painful process of discovering that Obama’s agenda was never about them, never about “the party” and never about the United States. They have been empowering a man who is committed to his own raw pursuit of power, and they are now finding themselves to be victims of his agenda."
As it has been stated in Tribune letters before, concerning President Barack Obama, his Marxist Communist czars, and, the most radical administration in our nation’s history:
Obama was/is for any executive order giving illegal aliens amnesty.
"Open Border" Obama IS NOT for securing the U.S./Mexico border, and IS NOT for implementation of illegal-immigration laws.
Obama was/is pro-abortion, for abortion groups, and for spending (more) millions of dollars in federal funds on abortion.
Obama and his liberal followers are for big government control items and total federal power.
Obama is for sending more U.S. troops overseas to the two wars.
It's Obama’s strategy to exploit the Tea Party's anti-spending movement.
allamer posted at 11:35 pm on Wed, Jun 30, 2010.
I have come to realize that most politicians today violate their oath of office by making laws which go beyond Congressional authority under Article I, section 8 of our Constitution and betray their constituents by representing special interests. They cannot be assumed to be honorable; they must prove it. The two parties concentrate power in a few "party leaders" which should be distributed equally among 435 independent representatives in the House and 100 in the Senate. The party leaders prostitute themselves and their members to special interests. Citizens are left frustrated by politicians who are out of control. Very few politicians are heroes.
forkedlift1 posted at 3:00 am on Sun, Jul 4, 2010.
The painful process for many, Mr. Hill, is in understanding the far reaching consequences to the nation if this precedent-setting law were to go into effect. In this case the matter most certainly is about the future of the United States regarding a national policy, specifically the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution which preempts states rights, and the state of Arizona did in usurping the nation's immigration laws. Yes, the country's immigration laws have not been being enforced properly and changes are in order, a matter which, hopefully, will soon be taken up by Congress.
However, particularly because of the political ballyhooing, a couple other states have reportedly "expressed an interest" in doing what Arizona did.
The ultimate result would likely result in 50 different immigration laws for our 50 states, affecting interstate commerce, people's right to travel, passports perhaps being required upon entry into one state from another, etc. I must disagree with Harry Mitchell and the others. This matter must be nipped in the bud -- the same as occurred in the 1960's after Alabama Gov. George Wallace refused to comply with federal law for integrating the state's public schools.
forkedlift1 posted at 11:08 pm on Sun, Jul 4, 2010.
Mr. Hill, I just re-read your column here which is far worse than I first realized. I'm curious if you had written any columns BEFORE the governor gave her seal of approval to SB 1070 on April 23, or if you were just standing on the sidelines.
There was a great deal of public information about the contents of Mr. Pearce's over-the-top, mean-spirited bill. Also, national civil rights organizations promising to sue the state over the bill's questioned constitutionality, all main-stream state news outlets editorially expressing their opposition to the proposed law, all police chiefs in the state jointly opposed to Pearce's unfunded mandate, a reported 6,000 letters, emails and faxes were received by the governor that urged her veto of the bill... (which doesn't even touch on the massive demonstrations beforehand in opposition to the bill.)
The governor signed the bill, and the negative national reaction was immediate and unprecedented. It has continued to grow, no end in sight, with at least two dozen cities and towns nationwide condemning Arizona, some taking action themselves with severe economic consequences to Arizona ever since. Three lawsuits were filed six days after she signed the bill and two more, representing a boxcar load of plaintiffs, have been filed since then. Cost to the state is no problem for the governor. She assertively dug in her heels and said she would go all the way to the Supreme Court if need be to defend her position.
The international ruckus over Arizona's usurpation of power DID get the attention of the administration, as well it should have. The president (who taught constitutional law for 12 years) opined that Arizona's law was "misguided," and a DOJ investigation ensued.
From the governor's and legislature's imprudent action, your twisted thinking assesses this matter, which has already cost the state (us) multi-millions of dollars, as follows:
"Obama continues (continues?) to punish our cash-strapped (why is it 'cash-strapped'?) state with a costly and unpopular (public school segregation was "popular") lawsuit to prevent the implementation of Arizona’s new illegal immigration law. It’s Obama vs. we, the people."
Effectively, "Aw, poor us, and it's all Obama's fault."
Mr. Hill, you mischaracterize the issue. It is not "Obama vs. we, the people." It is the U.S. Constitution vs. some irresponsible Arizona lawmakers.
Despite your partisan efforts, history will not be kind to those who are trampling on the supreme law of the land.