Austin Hill’s column on Wednesday was full of, ahem, right-wing bias. Harry Mitchell isn’t the only one guilty of unrealistic expectations re President Obama. The audacity to hope, given Congress’ pathological gridlock, is not a hanging offense as Hill would have us believe. I see Hill as another rough, tough, hard-to-diaper conservative, guilty of party over people.
Few presidents have ever seen such polarized obstructionism. Mr. Hill, YOU try working with Congress! Let’s start with outlawing the all-consuming process of legalized bribery called lobbying. As for Mr. Hill, please, look up critical thinking.
D.J. Diebold, Mesa
—
Letters policy: Click here to submit a letter. Please be brief (no more than 300 words) and type or print name, address, city and phone number for verification. Comments may be edited for clarity and length.
forkedlift1 posted at 12:18 pm on Mon, Jul 5, 2010.
Not only is Austin Hill "guilty of party over people," he is likewise guilty of "party over issue" -- in this case a very serious issue -- to arrive at his predetermined warped conclusion: that President Obama is at fault for the unconstitutional actions of Arizona's state politicians.
A review of the facts was needed, and I conveyed the following for Mr. Hill's enlightenment.
"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."
forkedlift1 posted at 11:45 am on Mon, Jul 5, 2010.
The truth in Diebold's words concerning the polarized obstructionism that has taken hold can be found right here in the comment by "Accuracy."
Austin Hill tossed his partisan-polarization-advocacy ball to readers. "Accuracy" took it up, running as fast as possible with it, knocking down teammates, committing numerous fouls along the way, and going right off the right edge of the map, still hanging on to Hill's polarization ball for dear life.
allamer posted at 3:49 pm on Fri, Jul 2, 2010.
Well Mr. Diebold, politicians certainly are being bribed by special interests through their lobbyists. Well-funded special interests and party-bred politicians create the environment for lobbying. You say it should be outlawed, but that is tricky. We all have the constitutional right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Of course, special interests are really doing a lot more than that. If you wanted to meet with your representative, you might be able to schedule 30 minutes and it might be with a staffer. Also, if you want follow-up meetings or phone discussions, he won't be able to fit you into his busy schedule. So there is a big difference between the influence of an ordinary constituent on the representative versus a special interest using lobbyists. So, money talks--loudly. And the parties have monopolized the election process. It's very difficult for independent candidates to get on the ballot and fund a campaign. Enough said. Mr. Diebold, put your thinking cap on.
Accuracy posted at 7:57 am on Fri, Jul 2, 2010.
The title of Austin Hill’s column on Wednesday was "Arizona Democrats suffering from Obama's agenda".
Austin Hill stated: "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 any illegal-immigration laws in any state.
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.
Polarized obstructionism?? It's Obama’s strategy to exploit the Tea Party's anti-spending movement.