But, But, But...Teh Facts

Here is a link to the blog I am critiquing 
       I found this blog at The Talking Points Memo blog and initially the title caught my eye. Upon reading the article I became interested in the short sided nature of the blogger in their attempt to appeal to their Democratic audience. He critiques Romney and his actions in regards to the Medicare situation currently facing the US. However, he takes a Democratic one-sided view and turns down Romney's statements. In his analysis, which is quite short, he gives little information on the debate at hand.
       In the TPM editor's blog, the blogger is critiquing the "contradictory actions" of Mitt Romney.  He states that Romney approved a similar bill to Obamacare in his home state, but claims that Obamacare is unconstitutional even though the Supreme Court said otherwise. He quotes Romney as saying that Obamacare was "bad law yesterday and bad law today." He believes that Romney is a hypocrite in the way he deals with medicare.
      The author is correct in stating that the Supreme Court agreed that the Health Care Bill was Constitutional based on the idea that it was a tax and not a violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.  But while the author may think that since the decision by the Supreme Court keeps the Law in effect, it does not necessarily mean that all Americans must accept it.  Romney is of the belief that it is a State issue and not a Federal issue.  Therefore, his criticism of Romney is a bit hasty. He writes that Romney is for Obamacare in his own state and should accept it now that the Supreme Court has made it legal in all states. What this blogger fails to adress is that though Romney is for that policy in his own state he believes healthcare is not a federal decision but one that should be made by the state. By not giving full facts on Romney's point of view the blogger lowers his credibility and makes the reader feel as if what he is saying is just intended to please the Democrats reading his blog.

Checks and Balances?

           In the ongoing debate over evidence from the "Fast and Furious", Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. has withheld some evidence from Congress pertaining to the investigation. Congress was fulfilling their duty under checks and balances to check the acts of the executive branch by checking on the investigation. The "Fast and Furious" scandal took place when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives allowed some weapons to slip over the boarder in order for them to track the weapons up the drug cartels. When they lost track of the weapons, they turned up in some border conflicts where US citizens were injured and a border patrol officer was killed. Senator Charles Grassley received news in a letter from the internal justice department that denied A.T.F engagement in the gun running strategy.  In late 2011 the department retracted the letter, sparking the investigation. The executive branch was looking into what happened and Congress decided to look in on how Eric Holder was conducting the investigation. Holder did turn over some evidence to Congress but left out some documents in his attempt to save the investigation. After much debate over whether Holder had to give up the information or not, President Obama stepped in using executive privilege to allow Holder to keep the evidence from Congress.
          The author of this New York Times editorial supplies sufficient background on the scandal, but lacks detail in Holder's reasoning for withholding the evidence and Obama's reasoning for barring Holder from prosecution. There is little detail telling why decisions were made, making it hard for the reader to take a knowledgable stance on the issue. We are being told who did what but not why, and who to agree with but the evidence given does not support the agreement enough. With more knowledge on the decisions I would be able to make a more educated decision and agree with one side or the other, but from this article I feel there must be something left out that would make President Obama's decision, and Holder's decision, logical and agreeable. The author does however correctly critique the petty debates between the Executive Branch and Congress over the role of Congress under Checks and Balances. Congress and the Executive Branch spark debate over issues whether big or small and the author properly highlights this. I think this author just sees the entire debate as being a political confrontation.  He disagrees with the Republicans investigation of Holder but also thinks that by invoking Executive Privilege Obama is playing political game too. 
Link to this editorial

Musical Chairs

     Tensions have risen as the election Gabrielle Giffords Arizona House seat draws near. Last year Giffords was shot in the head by a gunman and is now giving up her seat to focus on recovery. Giffords has backed her former staffer Ron Barber, a Democrat, in his campaign for her seat, and though he has a double diget lead over the Republican candidate, Jesse Kelly, the race is still a tossup. Kelly went up against Giffords in the previous election when Giffords won by 4,000 votes.

      On June 5 democrats in Wisconsin, failed to defeat GOP Gov. Scott Walker. This shows some faltering in the opinions of the people, making Democrats unsure about Giffords seat. If Barber loses in this election it sends a message about the poor performance of Democrats in office, mainly president Obama. This election is harder to predict because it is a special election, not a regular one. This election will be a key one for the Democratic party.

       I chose this article because I had heard about the Gabrielle Giffords accident on the news a while back and when I saw that she was back in the news I was interested in seeing how everything had worked out for her after the accident. This article is worth reading because it shows how a simple special election of one House Seat can say so much about the state of our Government and how well our political leaders are doing in their jobs. I am interested to see who wins the election and what influence it will have on the upcoming presidential election.

Link to the article