A Bizarro World Elizabeth Warren

by Libby Sternberg

About a week ago, Massachusetts Democratic Senatorial candidate Elizabeth Warren set the liberal blogosphere abuzz with the following quote from a speech given to supporters (you can get a flavor of the swooning for this sentiment over at the Daily Kos):

I hear all this, oh this is class warfare, no! There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there -- good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea -- God Bless! Keep a Big Hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

Ms. Warren's argument is so simplistic it makes rebutting her almost too easy. Many have already thoroughly done so. She presents a target-rich argument. Therein lies the challenge, however--how to succinctly demolish her collectivist creed.

Well, let's not go there. Instead, let's imagine a sort of Bizarro World Elizabeth Warren -- let's call her, oh, Skippy; yes, Skippy Warren. Perhaps Skippy Warren would say something like this:

I hear all this, oh this is class warfare, no! There are no rich people in this country who want people to be poor. None.  So, you liberals built a government program out there -- good for you. But I want to be clear.  The rest of us-- half of us, at least -- paid for it.  We paid to educate poor children your way, and it failed. And now your communities are crumbling. You are unsafe in your cities ... Now look. You had an idea for a government program that would help the poor and it turned into something unworkable, a bad idea -- God bless--pat yourself on the back for good intentions. But part of the underlying social contract is you don't take other people's money to spend on programs that don't work -- that, in fact, end up killing communities, stifling innovation and stalling job growth, as well as busting the budget -- just so you can feel good about yourself. That's egotistical. Instead, you evaluate what's not working, you empower individuals and you pay forward for the next kid who comes along by balancing the budget and unshackling the free market.

To that I say, "well done, Skippy! You tell it, sister!"

The Green Energy Illusion

by Joseph Sternberg

President Barack Obama repeatedly touts "green energy" as the way of the future. Billions are being spent to subsidize wind and solar power to replace the use of fossil fuels (and, by the way, enrich Al Gore). Obama repeatedly asserts that this is the way to solve the carbon dioxide problem caused by using fossil fuels and that we are moving in the right direction by subsidizing green energy. He implies that if all the countries did the same the level of CO2 in the atmosphere could be stabilized at an acceptable level.

This claim is false. How do we know that it is false? The reports of the Energy Information Administration (EIA), which is part of the Department of Energy, provide the answer. The EIA  was set up years ago to  provide independent data and analyses for all forms of energy and associated emissions, not only in the US but also in the world. They are the administration experts, have access to all of the administration's programs, and the information they develop is publicly available on the web. Of course, it has to be recognized that "forecasting is difficult, particularly about the future." But the forecasts of CO2 emissions by the EIA have to be substantially more reliable than forecasts about green energy provided by proponents of wind and solar power. The EIA forecasts are provided out to the year 2035.

Before looking at the EIA reports, three points need emphasis. The world's production of energy is increasing. As a consequence, the rate of worldwide emissions is increasing. The priority for both China and India, with 2.4 billions of the world's population, is economic development which means increasing power generation resulting in increased emissions. The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, took a delegation to China in an attempt to persuade them to sign on to the Cap and Trade program that the Democrats were pushing. The Cap and Trade program would be expected to decrease energy production, not increase it. The Chinese told her to get lost. Any approach to controlling emissions has to be an approach that can be embraced by China and India or it will fail.

The second point is that it is not sufficient to be just "moving in the right direction" as Obama is wont to say.  This statement is irrelevant because it ignores the magnitude of reductions that must be achieved,  and by when, in order to stabilize the level of atmospheric CO2. The  level keeps increasing despite the fact that CO2 is continually being absorbed by the ocean which, in fact, eventually will absorb most of it. However, the  absorption is a slow process taking hundreds of years. So before being absorbed in the ocean, the CO2 piles up in the atmosphere. All of this is not scientifically controversial.

Numerous studies have been conducted to determine how much decrease in emissions is required to stabilize the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Such estimates are not precise, but they are not scientifically controversial. What do they say?  The studies show that if the increase in emissions could be stopped by about 2035 and the level of emissions then decreased close to half by the end of the century, the atmospheric level of CO2 could be stabilized at 550 parts per million (ppm) by the next century. This is the goal set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and would be double the atmospheric level of CO2 at the beginning of the industrial age.

The third point is that green energy is being pursued by many countries, including China and India, but green energy has inherent limitations. For example, consider the first proposed US offshore wind farm in Nantucket Sound. Because the wind doesn't choose to blow all the time, a representative wind farm will only produce about 30% of its rated capacity as compared with 90% of rated capacity currently being achieved by our nuclear plants. A wind farm delivering the same energy as a representative nuclear plant would cover an area of about 150 square miles. Wind energy requires a lot of area. As technology improves, green energy can be expected to have a place in future energy production.  But what is the basis for asserting that green energy is ready to replace the use of fossil fuels?  As we will see from the EIA data, there isn't any.

The largest contributor to emissions in the US is from the generation of electricity. Transportation is the second largest contributor. Nuclear reactors account for about 20% of electricity generation. The remainder of power plants use fossil fuels about equally divided between coal and natural gas. Renewables  include biomass, hydropower, geothermal, wind, and solar. All together renewables provided about 10% of electricity generation in the US,  about 2/3 of which has been provided by hydropower.  The total of solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, and wind provided about 4% of electricity generation. The use of renewables is forecast by the EIA to increase between 2011 and 2035. But the bottom line is that US emissions are forecast  to increase, not decrease, by perhaps 5%, between 2011 and 2035. The forecast increase in wind and solar power is not going to replace fossil fuels for electricity generation to any significant extent in the US.

What about China?  China is energetically pursuing the expansion of solar and wind farm development. They also are pursuing an ambitious program of nuclear power, and plan to have 60 nuclear plants in operation by 2020. Despite all that, the EIA forecasts that emissions from China are expected to increase substantially between 2011 and 2035. At present emissions from China exceed those from the US. It is clear based on the estimates from the EIA that green energy in not going to stop the rise in emissions from China. Worldwide, estimates indicate a 35% increase in emissions.

Obama's green energy program is an illusion. The result is to spend billions wastefully instead of spending the money accelerating the development of technologies that could also be employed by both the developed and the developing nations to reduce atmospheric emissions.

It is important to recognize some of the scientific uncertainties about the effect of increasing atmospheric CO2. The  IPCC concedes a possible variation of more than a factor of two in what the temperature rise might be due to increasing atmospheric CO2.  This is due to scientific uncertainty about how the atmosphere works. Scientists are working on the problems, but there is little prospect that the uncertainty will be reduced anytime soon. Second, if you assume a particular global temperature increase, there is considerable controversy and uncertainty about what the climatic consequences would be, including a rise in the sea level. Computer models are used to make the predictions, but the computer models are unproven. The global climate is very complex. So you are in something of a quandary about global warming. The paleoclimatology data from a hundred of million years ago indicates that a several-fold increase in atmospheric CO2 goes along with a large increase in global temperature, even including the disappearance of the earth's ice caps. But the levels of atmospheric CO2 now being considered are smaller than the historical levels and so are not much help in reducing the uncertainty.

Second, global warming is not the only concern. The surface ocean is being acidified. This is chemistry and is not controversial. What is uncertain is the consequence for the world's food supply.The Interacademy Panel on international issues representing a global network of science academies has issued a statement (2009) on ocean acidification. According to their statement, the rapid increase of acidity of the world's oceans has "-- potentially profound consequences for marine plants and animals especially those that require calcium carbonate to grow and survive and other species that rely on these for food. Marine food supplies are likely to be reduced with significant implications for food production--". Not much about this appears in the press, which focuses on global warming.

The difficulty here is that if it is discovered that the effects of increased atmospheric CO2 are causing effects on the high side of the predictions, no one knows what to do about it then. As one might say, it would be too late.

The belief that green energy will provide a replacement for the use of fossil energy is an illusion. The billions that are being spent in subsidizing green power should instead be used to  accelerate the development of technologies for carbon capture from fossil fuel plants. Where feasible, the substitution of natural gas for coal would help since for the same energy generated, natural gas emits half as much CO2 as coal. Coal is extensively used in China. Nuclear power can make a significant contribution. Limiting atmospheric CO2 must be accomplished in the face of a worldwide growth in energy production. China and India will not give up economic development.
____
Joseph Sternberg
Retired Professor of Physics
Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA

If I Were Interviewed by Chris Matthews

by Libby ...Somebody

So, in addition to having opinions, I also have...novels. I'm published in young adult mystery (where I earned an Edgar nomination) and women's fiction. My latest, a comedic novel available for Kindle, Nook and other e-readers, is part romance, part satire of the Ivory Tower, and I'm shamelessly trying to promote it now. 

Every author dreams of sales jump-started by attention from a television or print interview. Here's my nightmare dream of one such TV host talking to me about my latest release:

An interview with Libby Malin, about her new comedy, AEFLE AND GISELA, as if conducted by Chris Matthews on his MSNBC show, Hardball:

Okay, what’s the title of this book about? I mean, AEFLE AND GISELA. How do you even pronounce that?

Ay-fool and Jih-zel-lah is how I would pronounce—

So it’s kind of German, huh? You wrote this thing because you think all academics are Nazis, is that what you’re saying?

No, not at all. I just thought the academic setting, which should be the epitome of open-mindedness, would be perfect for a book that explores an issue like conformity and the pressures that—

Didn’t you hope to upset so-called “liberal elites” with this book?

Well, I’d hoped to spur discussion about conformity and other—

Yes or no—didn’t you just want to stick it to liberal academics?

Actually, I wanted to tell a funny story and also perhaps demonstrate that the pressure to conform occurs everywhere, even—

I’m not interested in your talking points. Okay, let’s try another one—Weren’t you trying to make these professors look like bozos? Isn’t the leading character, this Tommy fellow, a bozo?

Thomas is trying to learn what true courage is.

I mean, here you have this guy, this Tommy—

Charlemagne. Thomas Charlemagne.

--Okay, let's look at this. He's a professor. Medieval history or something. And he wonders if wandering into a Patriot Day celebration by mistake might torpedo his tenure quest? Is that what you really think of college professors—that they're small-minded morons?

Well, there have been instances of conservative speakers shouted off of campuses and…

Sure, sure. Talking points again. But isn’t this Tommy something of a caricature?

Well, yes, the book does creep into caricature territory. It’s a satire, after all.

Okay, satire. Whatever. But you were trying to make some pretty strong political statements here, weren’t you? I mean, you have one of the women—the gender studies professor, I think it was—

Women’s Studies.

You have her wearing a keffiyeh, I think it’s called, I had to look that one up—

Yes, the emblematic scarf associated with the Palestinian struggle.

And you make her out to be a very ugly—I mean not in a physical way, I’m not saying women’s studies professors are ugly, for God’s sake, but you have her ugly in outlook, how she acts—very petty, very passive-aggressive. So you’re kind of saying, aren’t you, that people who support that cause are like her?

I’m writing comedy. I think the reference to her wearing that scarf was extremely peripheral, very tangential.

So you’re saying it had no meaning whatsoever?

No, it does reflect her sympathies, but—

Oh, I see what you’re doing here. Very clever. Very sneaky. You think you can put this angry women’s studies professor in a keffiyeh and just shrug it off, just say, oh, it didn’t mean anything. My fingers just slipped when I was typing that. I get it.

No, I don’t think you do.

And when you say “tangential,” are you trying to make fun of me?

What?

You know, the thrill up the leg thing. You righties all do it. Go ahead, go ahead, I can take it. They all come on this show and mention it. But they say “tingle.” I didn’t say “tingle” up the leg, by the way, but go ahead and say it. It’s part of the right’s talking points.

Well, you did say you got a thrill up the leg when the president spoke—

Uh-huh, that’s right, that’s right. Say it. You all do when you come on the show. Thrill, not tingle. At least you got that right. Are you a racist?
What?”

All you conservatives, you have a thing against the president, don’t you, because he’s African-American?
No, I don’t. What on earth does that have to do with my book?

Well, you’re kind of pushing a conservative agenda here, aren’t you? Isn’t this book—how do you say it, AEFLE AND GISELA, yeah, AEFLE AND GISELA—isn’t it really about the struggle of right versus left on American campuses?

It’s really about the struggle of conformity versus open-mindedness that happens to take place on an American college campus.

Sure. I get you. Do you think Michelle Bachmann is open-minded? Yes or no. You obviously have thought a lot about this subject. Yes or no—is Michelle Bachmann open-minded?
I really don’t know.

Are you hypnotized?
You mean like you said Michelle Bachmann was…

Yes or no, is Michelle Bachmann open-minded—is she one of these open-minded folks you want us to think are conservatives?

The book’s not about her. I obviously don’t think about her as much as you do.

Sure, you haven’t thought about her. Yeah, I have a bridge to sell you, too.  Well, I guess we’re out of time. And I guess if people want to read your book, AEFLE AND GISELA, they will buy it.

Let’s hope so. And maybe other books by me, too. You can find them at my website: www.LibbySternberg.com

 ________

If you have an open mind and want a laugh, you can find Aefle & Gisela available for Kindle, Nook and other e-readers. It tells the story of history professor Thomas Charlemagne as he attempts to shed the "Timid Tommy" reputation of his past by stopping a wedding on a dare. When it turns out to be the wrong wedding, legal problems ensue that could wreck his career as the world's leading expert on a poetry-writing medieval monk, Aefle, and his secret love, Gisela.

Some praise for Libby Malin's other comedic novels:

• Booklist -- Malin creates a world of wit and chaos that is …smart and insightfully written (My Own Personal Soap Opera). 
• Publishers Weekly -- Malin's latest is heavy on humor… (she) coaxes plenty of laughs (My Own Personal Soap Opera).  
• Jo-Anne Greene Lancaster Sunday News -- Fire Me ...had this reader chuckling out loud.
• Washington Post -- The love story is charming and will be appreciated by any woman with bad taste in men who somehow inexplicably ends up with Mr. Right. (Loves Me, Loves Me Not) 
• Publishers Weekly --  A whimsical look at the vagaries of dating... an intriguing side plot adds punch and pathos to the story...(Loves Me, Loves Me Not) 
• Booklist -- Malin's clever debut toys with chick-lit stereotypes and offers quite a few surprises along the way. (Loves Me, Loves Me Not)

So You'd Like to Create a Tea Party?

By Leslie S. Lebl

Last Thursday Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, told reporters that organized labor will reduce its funding of Democratic party coffers and instead build up its own grassroots structure. This structure, which sounds a lot like the Tea Party, would pressure candidates to honor promises made during the campaign.

So what would such an organization look like and how might it function? Would it be able to duplicate the Tea Party's success in shaping decisions in Washington? First of all, the similarities:

-- The Tea Party grew out of frustration with both parties. The unions are clearly very frustrated with President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Despite spending over $400 million to help elect Obama, unions were disappointed when the president failed to deliver such things as the card check bill that would facilitate union organizing. And the president is reportedly about to submit three free trade agreements for congressional approval that the unions oppose. (The unions apparently don't give much weight to the passage of ObamaCare.) More importantly, as Trumka puts it, Obama has allowed the Republicans to shift the terms of debate to debt and deficit reduction - definitely not union priorities.

-- In 2010, money that Republican party organizations might have hoped to get went instead to Tea Party groups, and that's likely to happen again in 2012. But in the end, most of it supported Republican candidates.

-- It's hard to think of the unions not supporting Democratic candidates next year, in the final analysis. Like the Tea Party, they're likely to conclude that you're more likely to get what you want by working within the two-party system, rather than outside it.

The differences, though, are more numerous:

-- The Tea Party was a genuine grassroots movement; it wasn't organized top-down, although senior Republican politicians have since taken key Tea Party positions. I'd be very surprised if that's what Trumka is talking about; I suspect he's got "astroturf" -- a movement directed by professionals -- in mind instead.

-- Fairly early on, the Tea Party decided its priorities were reducing government deficits and debt, shrinking the size of government, and strengthening America's foreign and national security policy. Social issues had to take a back seat. But any real grassroots labor group may find such unity elusive.

-- First of all, unions have never controlled the actual votes of their members. Significant minorities have always voted Republican, and there haven't been any reports suggesting that this situation will change. That being the case, grassroots positions on the unions' political agenda are also likely to be split.

-- Second, Trumka said that his members were "working-class people ... looking for three things: jobs, jobs, jobs." But organized labor consists of two different groups: private sector unions, who now represent no more than 6-7 percent of private sector workers; and public sector unions, now including almost one-third of state and local employees. By now, the former have surely realized that stimulus spending doesn't help them; the latter will continue to press for such spending to preserve public sector jobs.

-- Third, new laws in several states no longer require all public employees to pay union dues, so organized labor may find itself with less money in its coffers than before. No matter what, this will translate as decreased influence - hardly an encouraging development. The Tea Party, on the other hand, started from zero so had the encouragement of an upward trend in money available to spend on key issues and on political campaigns.

-- It's also easier to get out activists and voters if you feel like you're on a roll. Unions are famous for their ability to turn out the demonstrators and voters, but that may not be so easy if there's less money to fund those people.

-- And there's one final problem: everything the unions want costs money. Already, unions in many states are battling the public perception that it is their extravagant costs that are running up state and local budget deficits. The Tea Party, on the other hand, is arguing for less spending. That may be unpopular in many quarters, and politically extremely difficult, but at least they're not demanding more resources when the coffers are empty.

So will Trumka find a way to energize his base and build a new organization capable of exerting significant pressure on Obama and Congressional Democrats? It seems unlikely - and he runs the risk that withholding union funding from the Democratic Party will contribute to its defeat in November 2012.

Leaps of Faith

by Libby Sternberg

Over at a New York Times blog, Bill Keller has decided to write about faith.

Scratch that, not faith in general. He's interested in what role religious faith plays in the lives of the presidential candidates.

Nope, scratch that again. He's interested in faith's role in the lives of Republican presidential candidates.

As numerous commentators have pointed out elsewhere (including in the comments section of the blog post itself), Mr. Keller and many in the media were not at all interested in exploring faith's role -- in particular, the role of the candidate's church -- when Senator Barack Obama was seeking the presidency. They only seem interested in it when they're not too keen on the party of the candidates.

Bill Keller believes in...?

Nonetheless, are Mr. Keller's questions out of line? No, not at all! I've come to the conclusion that the more we know about a president's past, including his or her beliefs and how they might have evolved over time, the better able we are to predict what a candidate will be like as a leader. 

Forget listening to candidates' promises. I know it will shock you, but candidates often, well, fudge the truth to get people to like them and vote for them. Yes, I know -- it's disappointing. But it happens.

Candidates also have no crystal balls that will show them precisely what challenges they'll confront in office, challenges that might cause them to rethink a previously stated position or promise. Didn't FDR promise, after all, to keep the country out of foreign wars?

No, the best way to vet candidates, I've decided, is to dig into their characters and what they've said and done in the past. Looking at their religious beliefs is part of that.

The problem with religious belief, though, is that it is intensely personal and often complex. Even for the outwardly ardently religious,  internal debates probably rage about God's mercy and justice, especially when sorrow afflicts one's life.

Listen to any minister's Sunday sermon in any church in America on any weekend in the year, and you hear those complicated issues discussed -- by people who make a living in the church, by people whose faith, one would assume, is secure.  Yet many of them might be hard-pressed to give simple answers to some of the snarky --yes, snarky -- questions Mr. Keller poses.

But wouldn't it be wonderful to have a real and thorough discussion on issues such as faith/Constitution conflicts or the legal ramifications of the Establishment versus the Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment, or whether the search for the "missing link" in evolution theory means the theory is flawed, or whether "Dominionism" as a tenet of any faith (not just Christian faith) is a threat to religious freedom?

Let's put it all on the table. Let's have a real rumble over these issues -- including all candidates, the incumbent among them.

But you know what? I'm guessing that Mr. Keller isn't really all that interested in that discussion. I'm guessing that Mr. Keller wants the candidates' thoughts -- wait, the Republican candidates' thoughts -- on his questions not so much because he's really curious about the answers as he's anticipating writing his response to the answers. My guess is that his response will begin with a strongly implied "Aha!" followed by a "now we know so-and-so is...." (insert synonyms for knuckle-dragging cretin here).

The media's role, say some wags, is to "afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted." I actually like to think of their role as afflicting the powerful -- no matter who the powerful are, what party they belong to, what business or nonprofit they run.

Mr. Keller's questions indicate he's only interested in afflicting Republicans. As to those whose political views align with his -- including those at the peak of power --he's willing to make a leap of faith.

When You Strike at a King...

by Libby Sternberg

When you strike at a king, you must kill him.

Wisconsin's  public sector unions and Democrats are surely giving serious thought to this pearl of wisdom from Ralph Waldo Emerson. They tried to strike at "a king" -- Republicans who had spearheaded budget-conscious legislation that affected collective bargaining and pensions for public employees -- and they failed.

As reported earlier, Democrats and unions did get on the ballot six recall elections for Republican legislators in the aftermath of the debate over changes to public pensions and collective bargaining. But they weren't successful in "killing the king" of GOP dominance. They only took two of the six seats, which means the Republicans still hang on to a hair-thin majority in the state Senate. While the Democrats did hang on to two Democratic seats up for recall, too, this feels more like status quo maintenance than victory, since it didn't result in increasing the Dem percentage in the legislature.

And now they face a big question -- do they proceed with a recall of Governor Scott Walker?

That answer might have been clearer before the recall elections that just took place. In the spring, public polling on this question showed that 50 percent of those polled supported a recall of Gov. Walker, compared to 47 percent who opposed.

However, those numbers flipped exactly after the legislative recall elections. Now, 50 percent of those polled oppose a recall of the governor, while 47 percent support it, according to Public Policy Polling, the firm that did the polling on the question in May, as well.

Taking Gov. Walker out of the governor's seat would be a huge victory for Democrats and union supporters. But if Gov. Walker kept his seat in a recall election, it would be a far bigger victory for Republicans. It would demonstrate that the general Wisconsin electorate is more on their side than on the Democrats' side. It would demonstrate that the Democrats are weak, perhaps just an angry mob (remember those images from Madison?) full of bluster but no bite.

Failing to "strike at the king" successfully in this case would weaken Democrats enormously. And they and their public sector union allies have already been weakened. If I were advising them, I'd suggest they keep their powder dry and look for good candidates to run in the general elections.

But hey, I'm sure they're not listening to me. And if they do decide to "strike at a king" again and fail, all the better for those interested in pubic sector employee reform.

Really?

by Libby Sternberg

So, apparently President Obama didn't show any righteous indignation at those who wanted to vote against raising the debt ceiling because he was trying to avoid the "angry black man trope."

Yes, I know. It's laughable. Are you done snickering?

If so, here's where this pearl came from -- Andrew Sullivan's column over at The Daily Beast. He writes:

"He just knows that the one thing the far right wants - and needs - to do is get into a fight with him, elevating them, diminishing him, and alienating the middle of the American electorate. His approach is the classic civil rights movement approach with a black leader addressing a largely white electorate: non-violence, reasoned argument..."

I'll let that sink in, too.

Okay, ready? Let's analyze this. Sullivan is suggesting that middle America's nascent racism will rear its ugly head should the president of the United States, who happens to be African-American, gets angry.

He's also suggesting that the president also thinks this and therefore tempers his reactions accordingly.

Words fail me. (And trust me, I'm rarely speechless.) Do we really have to go down this road again, Mr. Sullivan?

First, this argument is an insult to the president. Mr. Sullivan is essentially saying the president thinks a large swath of American populace is racist at heart. Now, Mr. Sullivan might think that. But does he really want to attribute that kind of stinkin' thinkin' to the president?

Second, the argument is an obvious insult to the many Americans who disagreed with raising the debt ceiling, a bunch of whom are in the president's own party. Uh, in case you need a refresher, 95 Democrats in the House voted against the bill raising the debt celing. Yeah, I know they didn't like various things in the bill, but the fact remains. They voted against raising the debt ceiling.

The final vote in the House was:  269-161

174 Republicans and 95 Democrats for
66 Republicans and 95 Democrats against

Let me summarize: more Democrats than Republicans opposed the debt ceiling bill in the House.

Maybe, just maybe, Mr. Sullivan, the president didn't open a can of "whup-ass," as you put it, criticizing those who voted in opposition to raising the debt ceiling, because a large number of them were in his own party. Give him some credit for political strategy.You might disagree with his politics and his policies (I do), but don't suggest he was motivated by racial considerations.

The fact that you do tells me who the real racist is.