While my prior criticisms applied to Politico's news operations, I also was frustrated that whenever I read the political debates which took place at Politico's Arena, the political voice represented by this blog was not being heard.
For better or worse, I contacted Politico and requested contributor status at the Arena, and such request was granted.
So starting today, I will chime in on some -- but not all -- of the issues being debated at the Arena. These are not the equivalent of blog posts, but really just quick takes on an issue.
My first contribution today was on the issue of whether Republicans should be suspicious of the "mixed seating" proposals for the State of the Union address. Here is what I wrote:
For two years, legitimate opposition to Democratic policies, particularly Obamacare, was met with false accusations of hate speech and violence. Senior Democratic politicians (Chuck Schumer referring to Scott Brown) used the pejorative "teabagger," peaceful protesters were called un-American, and the entire tea party movement was labeled racist, all in the cause of passing the Democratic legislative agenda. Even at last year's State of the Union, President Obama attacked the Supreme Court decision Citizens United by falsely characterizing the nature of the decision, causing Democratic politicians to leap to their feet around the justices and clap loudly just feet from the justices.How did I do, and more importantly, was I right to enter the Arena?
Having accomplished many of their legislative goals the past two years through such partisanship and lack of legislative civility, it rings hollow for Democrats now to call for mixed seating at the State of the Union. While I'm sure some politicians make such a request in good faith, Republicans are right to be distrustful and to view the new call for civility primarily as a tactic to consolidate what has been accomplished.
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!