Politics Progressive by Kevin_Foley
'Political misrepresentation of education'
March 16, 2015 02:20 PM | 128206 views | 0 0 comments | 2976 2976 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink

view as list
E Pluribus Meum
by Kevin_Foley
July 17, 2012 03:29 PM | 1971 views | 8 8 comments | 16 16 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink
The primary difference between conservatives and progressives is that conservatives believe in "me" while progressives believe in "we."


Evidence can be found in the presidential campaign where Mitt Romney insists the individual alone can achieve anything if left alone while President Obama says individuals are only as successful as the people around them, a point the president made the other day in a speech (which of course was distorted by the far right media into "criticism" of small business owners).


Having built and owned a successful business for over a quarter century, I agree with Obama. Nobody in business or any other worthy pursuit ever accomplished anything important without help, guidance and encouragement, including Romney.


Many of the people who worked for Romney at Bain Capital  were educated in public schools and universities paid for by the rest of us. Romney's business was defended by the military we paid for. To the extent Romney's companies produced any products, they were moved to markets over roads, bridges and interstate highways the rest of us paid for with our taxes. Without the rest of us, there would have never been a Bain Capital.


The notion that Romney and Romney alone achieved his success is an Ayn Rand fantasy (the mother of "Objectivism," by the way, never started and built a business).


A friend challenged me on this, insisting the Founding Fathers would agree with Romney. I reminded him the Constitution begins with the words, "We the People..."


After signing the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Franklin famously told his co-signers, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Indeed, our nation's motto is E Pluribus Unim. Out of many, one.

comments (8)
view/post comments
July 21, 2012
That no man is an island is not in dispute by anyone. So let's dispense with the me v. we stuff and get to the heart of the matter which is Obama's statement, "If you've got a business, that, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Presidential historian Michael Beschloss announced shortly after Obama's election that Obama is "probably the smartest guy ever to become president" and "his IQ is off the charts." Therefore, I'm sure Obama didn't misspeak when he made the above statement.

So Mr. Foley, whose capital was at risk when you started your business? It wasn't your own, correct? If, God forbid, your business had failed, who would have suffered the consequences? Somebody else, right?

Who determined your corporate structure, on your behalf?

Who made the hiring decisions for you?

You didn't worry about making payroll, right? Someone else carried that burden for you.

I could go on ad nauseum, but you get my drift.

Obama's statement was an affront to any risk-taking entrepreneur, such as yourself, and it was a bright line in his speech leading to a window into his soul.

Mitt Knows Best
by Kevin_Foley
July 13, 2012 01:41 PM | 1896 views | 6 6 comments | 21 21 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink
Mitt Romney sounded like an antebellum plantation owner when he addressed the NAACP convention the other day:

"...if it were possible to fully communicate what I believe is in the real, enduring best interest of African-American families, you would vote for me for president."

Romney, whose Bain Capital apparently had no African-Americans in its management ranks during his tenure and whose church discriminated against blacks for decades, now knows what's in the best interests of the black community.

"If you want a president who will make things better in the African-American community, you are looking at him," announced Romney with a straight face. "You take a look!"

They did look and it earned the GOP's presumptive presidential nominee hoots of derision. But Romney's loudest boos came when he proclaimed to the crowd he would repeal the Affordable Care Act, evidently unaware that ACA will help some 7 million uninsured African Americans, many of them children.

Of course this announcement wasn't made for the benefit of the NAACP audience. Instead, it was intended for the radical far right fringe who the Massachusetts Moderate thinks will sweep him into the White House. "I am going to give the same message to the NAACP that I give across the country," Romney told his reliable media outlet, Fox News.

Republican Party leader Rush Limbaugh went further: The "express reason" for the NAACP's existence is to "make sure that blacks don't vote Republican."

Actually, the NAACP's "express reason" to exist is the right to vote, which Republican state legislatures around the country including Georgia's are assiduously trying to prevent with draconian voter suppression laws, but that's another blog for another day.

Romney's is a continuation of the strangest presidential election strategy ever seen. Having already alienated women and Hispanic and Latino voters, he now appears intent on a trifecta, sending those few black voters who may be on the fence running to the Obama camp.

comments (6)
view/post comments
Statistics by Race
July 17, 2012
Lib in Cobb is right about the block vote of the black community for President Obama. It always struck me as a bit racist on the part of black voters. 95% is a crazy high number. But per the comments written in this article I guess Mitt Romney as a white guy should now ignore black people in this election just because they're black? That's a racist position. It shows a lot more respect to try and win members of the NAACP over to the Republican side with an appeal to reason. Not because of the color of their skin but because they're Americans.

Somebody Tell D.A. King his Quixotic Crusade is Irrelevant
by Kevin_Foley
July 09, 2012 11:21 AM | 2683 views | 23 23 comments | 20 20 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink

D.A. King who promised to ignore me, seems instead to have become fixated on yours truly. Should I be honored, threatened or just amused? I do appreciate the extra readers!

Let's take it from the top. Some weeks ago, I invited Mr. King to elevate the immigration debate and refrain from using a slur many Hispanic and Latinos find offensive to describe undocumented immigrants. I thought he might be a reasonable fellow, open to constructive criticism politely delivered. 

My bad.

Mr. King is a bully with a lot to say, but a man of scant substance. While he blusters on about the evils of undocumented immigrants, the parade is passing him by. America is moving on in search of reasonable and humane solutions to the immigration problem while Mr. King shrieks "stop!".

First, the Georgia State Legislature failed to pass SB 458 in its last session. Then the president announced some 800,000 young undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children may stay here legally. Finally, the Supreme Court struck down most of Arizona's draconian SB 1070 except the "show me your paper provisions" that so enrages Hispanics and Latinos.

Mr. King's approach has backfired big time with the political pay-off undeniably accruing to Democrats. The crucial Hispanic-Latino voting block, once solidly GOP until the anti-immigrant dead enders like Mr. King, Jan Brewer and Joe Arpiao shooed them off, now supports President Obama over Mitt Romney by wide margins.

Mr. King, you have my sympathies, sir. It must be terribly frustrating to see your crusade become irrelevant.

comments (23)
view/post comments
Rob Gant
July 23, 2012
This guy vs D.A. King is too hard to watch.

Kevin Foley - you should stick with speading the gunk given to you by the Huffington Post "intellectuals." You are forever minor league.

GOP Rep. Joe Walsh Displays True Colors in Time for July 4
by Kevin_Foley
July 05, 2012 08:24 AM | 2400 views | 7 7 comments | 21 21 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink
Just how low will a GOP candidate go to hold onto his office? Meet Rep. Joe Walsh (R, Ill.).

Walsh, a deadbeat dad who never served in the military, recently went after his Democratic opponent, Tammy Duckworth…that’s Lt. Col. Tammy Duckworth, a Purple Heart recipient who lost both legs and part of her arm when the Blackhawk helicopter she was piloting was shot down in Iraq. She later served in the Department of Veterans Affairs, helping our wounded warriors.

Walsh, speaking to a crowd of GOP supporters, accused Lt. Col. Duckworth of exploiting her service to win office, a false and disgraceful attack, but something you'd expect from a guy who fails to make his alimony and child support payments for his five kids.

Some of his audience chuckled at his "amusing" comments.

There are just some things you leave alone in politics, things that aren’t funny, and this is one of them. But GOP hacks like Walsh, always quick to hoot about their own patriotism, have no respect for propriety, of doing and saying the right thing.

Just imagine the far right firestorm if Obama had made a similar remark in 2007 about John McCain exploiting his service. But we get utter silence from House Speaker John Boehner and the other so-called leaders of the Grand Old Party when the victim of Walsh's verbal assault on an American war hero is a Democrat, not to mention a woman.

If you are a veteran or a woman or both and you’re thinking of voting Republican, I hope you think again.

comments (7)
view/post comments
Kevin Foley
July 13, 2012
Dave- See my latest post about nobody paying attention.

ACA Upheld, Rule of Law Wins
by Kevin_Foley
June 28, 2012 05:45 PM | 2180 views | 19 19 comments | 21 21 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink

Conservatives are always whining about "activist judges legislating from the bench" except when its their conservative judges attempting to legislate from the bench.

Thus, right wingers were rubbing their hands together as they counted on the five conservative Supreme Court justices act on their partisan convictions and strike down the Affordable Care Act. A Washington Times columnist even predicted the Court's ruling on immigration earlier in the week was designed to set up the president for a stinging rebuke.

So it was with great trepidation progressives watched the Supreme Court hustle to rule on Obama's signature achievement, duly enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president. I and many others were 99 percent certain the conservatives on the court would deal the president an embarrassing and costly political defeat just in time for the 2012 election.

Well hush my mouth.

Chief Justice John Roberts refused to be part of a plan to undermine the American democratic process. He voted with the four liberal-leaning justices to uphold most of ACA. Not only that, Roberts made a correction to the original legislation. He rejected the commerce clause argument offered by Obama, but called the penalty of those who failed to comply a "tax" that falls well within Congress' bailiwick.

The timing is splendid. Here we go into July 4 holiday with a rousing affirmation that, indeed, our democracy and the separation of powers created by the founders works.

comments (19)
view/post comments
July 05, 2012
If indeed it is a tax then it is only a tax on the small portion of people who decide to forego any type of health insurance. To frame it as a tax on the middle class is a bit of a stretch. Most people WANT health insurance. This reminds me of the commercial where 4 out of 5 dentist chew trident gum and the 5th guy only yells out "NO!!!" because a squirrel crawled up his legs chomped his junk. This sounds a lot like faux outrage for a "tax" "penalty" (whatever you want to call it) that very few people are going to wind up having to pay!!

Fast & Fallacious
by Kevin_Foley
June 22, 2012 03:41 PM | 2519 views | 2 2 comments | 23 23 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink

The National Rifle Association is behind the electronic lynching of Attorney General Eric Holder at the hands of Rep. Darrell Issa's House Oversight Committee.

Wayne LaPierre, the paranoid dictator of the NRA (and a good bit of the GOP congress), cooked up a delusional fantasy that goes like this:

President Obama wants to ban assault weapons so he ordered Holder to order the ATF to "walk guns" to Mexico drug cartels under the "Fast & Furious" code name. The ensuing violence, so LaPierre's conspiracy theory goes, would generate a huge public outcry for gun control.
Issa's committee got the message and voted to hold Holder in contempt of congress. And the NRA is telling lawmakers it's "scoring" their contempt votes, just in case they fail to do Wayne-o's bidding.
Now the facts:

1) Obama was inaugurated in 2009.

2) Fast & Furious was a 2006 initiative the ATF undertook with the approval of Michael Mukasey, the Bush administration AG.

3) It went predictably bad. A U.S. Border Patrol officer died in a gun battle in which one of the walked weapons was evidently used to kill him.

4) Holder put a stop to Fast & Furious.

5) Obama has never offered any legislation to control weapons of any kind. Only LePierre seems to know about Obama's sinister plot to lull gun owners to sleep.

If Issa was serious about a real investigation into Fast & Furious he would have called Mukasey to testify. But he's not serious. He's just a pathetic imitation of Joe McCarthy. Right after his committee did what the NRA wanted, Issa was on Fox reciting the LaPierre fairy tale chapter and verse, with El Rushbo and Fox piling on.

Last October, LePierre said "gun owners aren't stupid," something he clearly does not believe. LaPierre thinks he can concoct and charge the president with an outlandish scheme that has no basis in reality and his 4 million members will believe him, such is LePierre's contempt for their intelligence.
comments (2)
view/post comments
June 27, 2012
Couple things.

During the Bush administration, Phoenix based ATF agents, in conjunction with Mexican authorities, conducted operation Wide Receiver (WR). The goal of WR was to track the movement of weapons across the Mexican border for the purpose of learning who was in the drug cartels, where they were located, and to make arrests.

The weapons had tracking devices and the plan was to use on-the-ground surveillance and aircraft to follow the weapons. It turns out the smugglers discovered the tracking devices and, naturally, disabled them. Once ATF discovered that the smugglers were aware of the tracking efforts, WR was shut down. This was 2007.

Again, ATF attempted to track the weapons and Mexican law enforcement was an active partner. Also, the number of weapons involved ranged from 250 – 400.

Fast and Furious (FF) was another gun-walking program that began in October 2009. In FF, there was no attempt to track the weapons, Mexican authorities were completely in the dark, and over 2,000 weapons were involved.

Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered in December 2010, and 2 FF weapons were found at the scene. Furthermore, FF weapons were discovered at multiple crime scenes where scores of Mexican civilians were murdered.

Once FF was exposed to the public, gratuitous arrests of low-level participants were made to give the program a modicum of credibility.

Google “cbs news” and “sharyl attkisson” to begin your education.

Sensible Immigration Policy for Asterisked Americans
by Kevin_Foley
June 15, 2012 10:53 AM | 2290 views | 9 9 comments | 21 21 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink
Time magazine's June 25 cover is sure to grab D.A. King's attention along with the immigration news out of the White House today.

The cover features dozens of Hispanic and Latino young people under the bold title We Are Americans under which is asterisked *Just Not Legally. These folks didn't choose to break our laws and come here illegally.

They were brought to America as children by their parents from Mexico, Central America, Asia and elsewhere. They've lived here a long time. Like the hundreds of millions of other immigrants who came to the U.S., legally or illegally, they've become Americans. Today the Obama administration recognized this reality and the problems presented by deporting such people. It will begin issuing work permits to younger undocumented immigrants provided they've led law abiding lives. Up to 800,000 immigrants could be affected by the decision.

It's a policy that creates a humanitarian solution to a nagging aspect of the the illegal immigration problem. It also bypasses the GOP-led do-nothing House of Representatives, which you can expect to go into full howl along with Mr. King and his crowd.

As with so many other crucial matters - jobs, for example - Speaker John Boehner's House has failed to address the immigration issue. Obama's decision, which will likely be hailed when he addresses the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials at their convention this weekend, is a step toward creating a path toward citizenship.

Obama didn't need to do this. He's already got the overwhelming support of Hispanic and Latino voters. But the new policy does set up his 2012 presidential opponent, Mitt Romney, who's already on the record as a supporter of Arizona SB 1070-type laws and has said he would veto the DREAM act.

I predict here and now Romney will - hold on to your hats - reverse himself on the immigration stand he took during the primary when he speaks to the NALEAO Sunday.
comments (9)
view/post comments
Lib in Cobb
June 19, 2012
Doubting: No, I would not deport/prosecute the parents. We as a nation should be better than that. This country was built on the backs of the immigrants, mine and yours. My early ancestors came to this country long before any immigration policies. They came here because they were looking for a better life, the very same reasons why today's immigrants come here. The immigration process needs to be changed and streamlined, the people who are commonly referred to as "illegals" are economic refugees looking for a better life for themselves and their children.

Conservatism is Politics by Deception
by Kevin_Foley
May 24, 2012 04:41 PM | 1868 views | 9 9 comments | 21 21 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink

There are dozens of baseless charges leveled against President Obama by his legions of haters. With the presidential election fast approaching, I expect we'll be hearing many more.

True or false: Under Obama, government spending has dramatically increased. Listen to enough Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, Savage, et al and you would say true, Obama is just a tax and spend big government liberal who's bankrupting the nation, right?

Wrong. According to no less than Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal, from fiscal year 2010 to the present, government spending — including the stimulus bill — has risen at just a 1.4 percent annualized rate under Obama, slower than at any time since the 1950s. Under George W. Bush, by comparison, government spending grew 8.1 percent from 2006 to 2009. Under Ronald Reagan, from 1982 to 1985, it grew by 8.7 percent.

Why do conservatives make stuff up? Can't they just sell us on all the benefits conservatism has to offer without attacking progressives with easily debunked falsehoods?


No, conservatism can't tell you what it really is. Most Americans would never vote for any candidate calling himself a conservative if the truth were more widely known and accepted because conservatism is a political ideology based on deception. There are many examples of how this deception takes place ("Obama wasn't born in America" comes to mind), but look no further than "severely conservative" Mitt Romney for proof.

In 2002, Romney was a moderate Republican governor who publicly supported a wide variety of progressive positions such as a women's right to choose abortion, gun control, gay marriage, stem cell research and global warming. He was a 55-year-old man at the time. Most 55-year-old men I know have pretty fixed views that they've held most of their adult lives.

Yet Romney would have us believe he has undergone a metamorphosis of ideological thinking, perhaps through an amazing series of epiphanies that caused him to reverse virtually all his firmly held convictions of less than a decade ago. It's simply not plausible. Sorry, but Romney is trying to deceive you. He's practicing conservatism and it's as brazenly deceptive as Obama being characterized by the right as a big spender.



comments (9)
view/post comments
June 27, 2012
Couple things.

The 1.4% growth factor comes from an article by Rex Nutting and considers growth beginning in 2010, notwithstanding the fact that Obama was handed the keys to the White House in 2009.

Here's the rub - who was responsible for the 2009 budget? Whether you assign the 2009 budget to Bush or Obama makes a huge difference.

The 2009 budget should be assigned to Obama because the FY2009 budget was not passed by the Democratic congress until after Obama was sworn in, specifically, Obama signed the FY2009 budget on March 12, 2009. Said differently, Bush never saw the FY2009 budget.

The misleading 1.4% growth number has been thoroughly debunked.

Google "Rex Nutting", "Obama", "spending" and "growth" to begin your education.

Romney "Saved" the Auto Industry After He Predicted It's Failure
by Kevin_Foley
May 10, 2012 03:03 PM | 1876 views | 19 19 comments | 23 23 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Mitt Romney either hopes you aren't paying attention of you are just plain stupid. In an interview with an Ohio television station the other day, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee made this preposterous statement:

"I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy. And finally, when that was done, and help was given, the companies got back on their feet. So I'll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry's come back."

In 2008, under the headline "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt", Romney wrote in the New York Times, "If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye."

Romney couldn't have been more wrong, both in claiming credit for Detroit's resurgance and that a government bailout would lead to the demise of America's auto industry.

It took a bailout (the "help" that was "given") to salvage General Motors and Chrysler, exactly what Romney didn't want to see happen just a few short years ago. As a result of the bailout, both companies are back to profitability, the loans mostly repaid to the treasury.

By now, it's what we've come to expect from Romney a man who changes positions like the rest of us change socks. So this latest flip flop to all the others: Romney was for gun control. Now he's against it. Pro-choice. Now anti-abortion. For stem cell research. Now opposes. Individual mandates yes. Now no. Liked path to citizenship. Against today. Global warming supporter. Now global warming denier. Against gay marriage ban. Now supports.

comments (19)
view/post comments
Lib in Cobb
June 20, 2012
frog: Get in a long line and wait your turn.

GOP Can’t Handle the Truth
by Kevin_Foley
May 02, 2012 02:03 PM | 3003 views | 4 4 comments | 25 25 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink

There’s a memorable scene in the 1992 film, “A Few Good Men”, in which Jack Nicholson’s old school Marine commander defines the warrior ethos to Tom Cruise’s snarky young Navy prosecutor. In the climactic scene, Cruise demands the truth about a killing.

“You can’t handle the truth!” cries a frustrated Col. Nathan Jessup.

Republicans are having conniption fits because President Obama acknowledged the anniversary of the death of Osama bin Laden, the terrorist kingpin former President Bush said he was no longer concerned about in 2002, just six months after 9-11.

“I just don’t spend that much time worrying about him,” Bush said dismissively of the terrorist who murdered 2,752 innocent people on our soil.

It was Barack Obama who, almost a decade later, gave the order to kill bin Laden. Now Republicans can’t handle the truth.

Obama put Navy SEAL Team Six on the ground inPakistan. An air strike would have been far safer for Obama politically. He no doubt was thinking of the disaster in the Iranian desert in 1979 that cost Jimmy Carter his re-election when he unleashed the SEALs on bin Laden’s compound.

Thus, Obama put his presidency on the line and Republicans hate the outcome, never mind that we – all Americans – rejoiced.

After portraying Obama as soft on terror, the GOP can’t bring itself to admit the president did what his predecessor wouldn’t do. At least a score of terrorist leaders have been captured or killed on Obama’s watch but you wouldn’t know it listening to Rush Limbaugh, who wants you to believe Obama is in bed with the terrorists.

“Eight hundred million for the Taliban?” Limbaugh asked in February after the White House proposedU.S.aid for the Arab Spring countries. “Eight hundred million for Al Qaeda?”

Mitt Romney now casually says anyone would have made the same dangerous decision to take out bin Laden, this coming from the squishy Massachusetts Moderate who supported abortion, gun control and the individual mandate before he was against them.

Bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive. Last week, Vice President Joe Biden legitimately asked if the same could be said were Mitt Romney in the White House. Remember, it was Romney who wrote in 2008 that auto makers should be left to go bankrupt and that, as president, he would not attack bin Laden if he was hiding inPakistan.

“I do not concur,” declared Romney after then-candidate Obama said he’d go after bin Laden inPakistan. “I don’t think those kinds of comments help in this effort to draw more friends to our effort.”

When Obama arrived inAfghanistanTuesday, Romney, with former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in tow, hustled down to theManhattanfire house that lost 11 first responders on 9-11. There, using this shrine as his backdrop and without a shred of irony, he scolded the president for showboating.

“Politicizing it was — and trying to draw a distinction between himself and myself – was an inappropriate use of the very important event that brought America together, which was the elimination of Osama bin Laden,” huffed the former governor.

No it wasn’t, Mitt. You probably would have sat around in the war room triangulating your own political future before maybe delegating the decision to someone else because that’s what guys like you always do. If it went right, you’d take the credit. If it failed, you’d have your scapegoat.

Fortunately, we have a warrior president who isn’t afraid to stick his neck out to defendAmerica. And that’s the truth.


Kevin Foley is a public relations executive, author and writer

who lives in Kennesaw.

comments (4)
view/post comments
Lib in Cobb
May 05, 2012
To Snake Eater:

The author is aware that Seal Team Six killed OBL.

Read the article more carefully and you will understand what everyone else also understands.

page 1 .. 10 
12 .. 13 
Kevin Foley is a 1979 graduate of the University of Connecticut and a former newspaper reporter. In 1981, he began his 30-year career in public relations, working in account management for Burson-Marsteller and Ketchum, two international PR firms. In 1986, he launched KEF Media in Chicago, a firm specializing in broadcast and Internet public relations. He moved the company to Atlanta in 1993. His career has taken him around the world and to every major city in America. Along the way he has worked with celebrities and public figures like Hank Aaron, Jane Seymour, Bob Dole, Nolan Ryan and Ryan Seacrest. Kevin went into semi-retirement in 2009 to pursue his long delayed writing career. In 2008 he published his first novel, "Where Law Ends," and has three other novels in various stages of completion. Kevin serves on the board of directors at Pinetree Country Club where enjoys golf and tennis. He and his wife Susie live in Kennesaw. The couple has two grown children.

Other Blogs:

Improving Our Community
by Kevin_Foley
Feb 06, 2012 | 256 256 recommendations | email to a friend
A look at ways Cobb County and Kennesaw can become more enriched
Buy Local
by Kevin_Foley
Jan 19, 2012 | 215 215 recommendations | email to a friend
I'll Take Marietta Square Over A Mall