Posted by Dave Poff (haystack) (Profile)
Monday, August 30th at 9:49PM EDT
I have been watching iCasualties.Org daily for the past 5 weeks. This is not a morbid curiosity; I have done this because I noticed back then that June 2010 was the worst month for US casualties of any so far in the Afghanistan war…ANY point during the 9 years we’ve been fighting it.
I noticed, upon further investigation, that the numbers were on pace to be even worse in July (which they ultimately were) and that there was not one [expletive deleted in deference to the posting guidelines] mention of this anywhere in the major media outlets. I was angry, however unsurprised I might have been, but I determined that I would quietly watch…and “listen”… to the news to see if anyone else was paying attention over these past 5 short weeks. They were not.
Over 50 Soldiers have died since I started paying attention, and the only news story I’ve seen tells of the 7 Soldiers that died last weekend. A death here or 2 or 3 there don’t, apparently, qualify as news. Meanwhile, our metrosexual President (unable to talk to the American people or the families of our fallen heroes because he’s been just too busy riding his girl’s mountain bike adorned in that goofy looking helmet which keeps him safe on his harrowing ride along the treacherous streets of Martha’s Vineyard), seems completely indifferent to these numbers.
I wouldn’t want to talk to these families either, if I were him.
In 86 months the total number of casualties in Afghanistan was 630 under the Bush command. Under Obama’s weak, waffling, hand-wringing and navel-gazing command, in just 19 months, the US casualty count as of August 30, 2010 now surpasses Bush’s numbers, sitting now at a total of 632…and counting. How can this be?
We’ve had 4,763 strategy reviews. We’ve made kissy-face with our enemies. We’ve announced to them that we have a date-certain withdrawal plan if only they could just quiet themselves and wait us out. We’ve changed leadership on the ground, modified the ROE, incorporated the Rahm Emanuel-style approach to winning friends and influencing people there, and we’ve even begun indirect negotiations with our enemy to help facilitate their return to power once we tuck tail and run.
While our former President vacationed on his ranch, running chainsaws and wearing his man pants, he took time to visit Soldiers and the loved ones of the fallen wherever time allowed. He does so still. THIS President, beclowning himself at the Vineyard on our dime playing golf, either misunderstands his role as Commander-in-Chief during hostilities or he doesn’t care. George Bush, while winning (or trying to win) wars endured daily headlines about body counts. He endured countless calls for his resignation or, failing that, his impeachment. George Bush was a lot of things to a lot of people but he always cared about the Soldiers and their families…and he SHOWED it to them on a regular basis. He cared then, and he cares to this very day. Obama clearly does not.
The question now, with Obama’s complete lack of care or concern about the Soldiers or their families or their sacrifices, is when the calls will come from the left for his own resignation or his own impeachment. I’m fairly certain, like the chirping crickets in the headlines across America, I know the answer already
http://www.redstate.com/haystack/2010/08/30/counting-the-deaths-on-commander-in-chief-obamas-impotent-hands/
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
Welfare agencies boost voters
By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
The recession that impoverished millions of Americans is producing a side effect: new voters.
Lawsuits by voting rights groups in Missouri and Ohio have led hundreds of thousands of people to file voter registration applications at welfare agencies, as mandated by the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, or the "motor voter" law. Cases pending in Indiana, New Mexico and other states, as well as new Justice Department guidelines, probably will boost those figures.
Voting rights advocates say millions of low-income people could be registered this way. A U.S. Election Assistance Commission report in 2007-08 showed 21 states registered less than 1% of voters at welfare offices. Only Vermont, Tennessee and New York registered more than 4% that way.
An increase could help President Obama and his party. A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll in June showed 55% of Americans with incomes less than $20,000 like Obama's performance, tied for his best showing among income groups.
Those numbers could influence elections. Nearly 90% of registered voters cast ballots in 2008, according to the Census Bureau. Republican John McCain won Missouri by 4,000 votes in 2008.
The Census Bureau says 71% of eligible Americans were registered to vote in 2008, but only 64% of those with family incomes less than $20,000 did so. "When you're on food stamps, your primary concern is where your next meal is going to come from," says Nicole Kovite of Project Vote, one of the litigants.
The 1993 law requires most states to offer voter registration at motor vehicles offices, social services agencies and other sites. More than 2.6 million people filled out voter registration applications at public aid offices in 1995-96, or 6.3% of all applicants. The number dropped below 1 million by 2007-08.
Donetta Davidson, who chairs the Election Assistance Commission, sees ample reason for the lawsuits. "I think these groups have a reason to holler 'foul,' " she says. "Things fall through the cracks, and you don't want to disenfranchise your voters."
Jason Torchinsky, a former Justice Department lawyer in the Bush administration, says liberal groups want welfare offices to replace the work of ACORN, a coalition of anti-poverty groups that disbanded this year after allegations of voter fraud.
"With the demise of ACORN, the left needs somebody to pick up that function," he says.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2010-07-22-1Apoorvoters22_ST_N.htm
The recession that impoverished millions of Americans is producing a side effect: new voters.
Lawsuits by voting rights groups in Missouri and Ohio have led hundreds of thousands of people to file voter registration applications at welfare agencies, as mandated by the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, or the "motor voter" law. Cases pending in Indiana, New Mexico and other states, as well as new Justice Department guidelines, probably will boost those figures.
Voting rights advocates say millions of low-income people could be registered this way. A U.S. Election Assistance Commission report in 2007-08 showed 21 states registered less than 1% of voters at welfare offices. Only Vermont, Tennessee and New York registered more than 4% that way.
An increase could help President Obama and his party. A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll in June showed 55% of Americans with incomes less than $20,000 like Obama's performance, tied for his best showing among income groups.
Those numbers could influence elections. Nearly 90% of registered voters cast ballots in 2008, according to the Census Bureau. Republican John McCain won Missouri by 4,000 votes in 2008.
The Census Bureau says 71% of eligible Americans were registered to vote in 2008, but only 64% of those with family incomes less than $20,000 did so. "When you're on food stamps, your primary concern is where your next meal is going to come from," says Nicole Kovite of Project Vote, one of the litigants.
The 1993 law requires most states to offer voter registration at motor vehicles offices, social services agencies and other sites. More than 2.6 million people filled out voter registration applications at public aid offices in 1995-96, or 6.3% of all applicants. The number dropped below 1 million by 2007-08.
Donetta Davidson, who chairs the Election Assistance Commission, sees ample reason for the lawsuits. "I think these groups have a reason to holler 'foul,' " she says. "Things fall through the cracks, and you don't want to disenfranchise your voters."
Jason Torchinsky, a former Justice Department lawyer in the Bush administration, says liberal groups want welfare offices to replace the work of ACORN, a coalition of anti-poverty groups that disbanded this year after allegations of voter fraud.
"With the demise of ACORN, the left needs somebody to pick up that function," he says.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2010-07-22-1Apoorvoters22_ST_N.htm
Record number in government anti-poverty programs
By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Government anti-poverty programs that have grown to meet the needs of recession victims now serve a record one in six Americans and are continuing to expand.
More than 50 million Americans are on Medicaid, the federal-state program aimed principally at the poor, a survey of state data by USA TODAY shows. That's up at least 17% since the recession began in December 2007
Virtually every Medicaid director in the country would say that their current enrollment is the highest on record," says Vernon Smith of Health Management Associates, which surveys states for Kaiser Family Foundation.
The program has grown even before the new health care law adds about 16 million people, beginning in 2014. That has strained doctors. "Private physicians are already indicating that they're at their limit," says Dan Hawkins of the National Association of Community Health Centers.
More than 40 million people get food stamps, an increase of nearly 50% during the economic downturn, according to government data through May. The program has grown steadily for three years.
Caseloads have risen as more people become eligible. The economic stimulus law signed by President Obama last year also boosted benefits.
"This program has proven to be incredibly responsive and effective," says Ellin Vollinger of the Food Research and Action Center.
Close to 10 million receive unemployment insurance, nearly four times the number from 2007. Benefits have been extended by Congress eight times beyond the basic 26-week program, enabling the long-term unemployed to get up to 99 weeks of benefits. Caseloads peaked at nearly 12 million in January — "the highest numbers on record," says Christine Riordan of the National Employment Law Project, which advocates for low-wage workers.
More than 4.4 million people are on welfare, an 18% increase during the recession. The program has grown slower than others, causing Brookings Institution expert Ron Haskins to question its effectiveness in the recession.
As caseloads for all the programs have soared, so have costs. The federal price tag for Medicaid has jumped 36% in two years, to $273 billion. Jobless benefits have soared from $43 billion to $160 billion. The food stamps program has risen 80%, to $70 billion. Welfare is up 24%, to $22 billion. Taken together, they cost more than Medicare.
The steady climb in safety-net program caseloads and costs has come as a result of two factors: The recession has boosted the number who qualify under existing rules. And the White House, Congress and states have expanded eligibility and benefits.
Conservatives fear expanded safety-net programs won't contract after the economy recovers. "They're much harder to unwind in the long term," says Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
Other anti-poverty experts say the record caseloads are a necessary response to economic hardship. "We should be there to support people when the economy can't," says LaDonna Pavetti of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-08-30-1Asafetynet30_ST_N.htm
WASHINGTON — Government anti-poverty programs that have grown to meet the needs of recession victims now serve a record one in six Americans and are continuing to expand.
More than 50 million Americans are on Medicaid, the federal-state program aimed principally at the poor, a survey of state data by USA TODAY shows. That's up at least 17% since the recession began in December 2007
Virtually every Medicaid director in the country would say that their current enrollment is the highest on record," says Vernon Smith of Health Management Associates, which surveys states for Kaiser Family Foundation.
The program has grown even before the new health care law adds about 16 million people, beginning in 2014. That has strained doctors. "Private physicians are already indicating that they're at their limit," says Dan Hawkins of the National Association of Community Health Centers.
More than 40 million people get food stamps, an increase of nearly 50% during the economic downturn, according to government data through May. The program has grown steadily for three years.
Caseloads have risen as more people become eligible. The economic stimulus law signed by President Obama last year also boosted benefits.
"This program has proven to be incredibly responsive and effective," says Ellin Vollinger of the Food Research and Action Center.
Close to 10 million receive unemployment insurance, nearly four times the number from 2007. Benefits have been extended by Congress eight times beyond the basic 26-week program, enabling the long-term unemployed to get up to 99 weeks of benefits. Caseloads peaked at nearly 12 million in January — "the highest numbers on record," says Christine Riordan of the National Employment Law Project, which advocates for low-wage workers.
More than 4.4 million people are on welfare, an 18% increase during the recession. The program has grown slower than others, causing Brookings Institution expert Ron Haskins to question its effectiveness in the recession.
As caseloads for all the programs have soared, so have costs. The federal price tag for Medicaid has jumped 36% in two years, to $273 billion. Jobless benefits have soared from $43 billion to $160 billion. The food stamps program has risen 80%, to $70 billion. Welfare is up 24%, to $22 billion. Taken together, they cost more than Medicare.
The steady climb in safety-net program caseloads and costs has come as a result of two factors: The recession has boosted the number who qualify under existing rules. And the White House, Congress and states have expanded eligibility and benefits.
Conservatives fear expanded safety-net programs won't contract after the economy recovers. "They're much harder to unwind in the long term," says Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
Other anti-poverty experts say the record caseloads are a necessary response to economic hardship. "We should be there to support people when the economy can't," says LaDonna Pavetti of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-08-30-1Asafetynet30_ST_N.htm
Obama,Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
08/27/10 3:45 PM EDT
Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880.
By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744.
Disclosure of the heavily Democratic contributions by influential employees of the three major broadcast networks follows on the heels of controversy last week when it was learned that media baron Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. contributed $1 million to the Republican Governors Association.
The News Corp. donation prompted Nathan Daschle, executive director of the Democratic Governors Association and son of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, to demand in a letter to Fox News chairman Roger Ailes that the cable news outlet include a disclaimer in its coverage of gubernatorial campaigns. Fox News is owned by News Corp., which also owns The Wall Street Journal.
The data on contributions by broadcast network employees was compiled by CRP at the request of The Examiner and included all 2008 contributions by individuals who identified their employer as one of the three networks or subsidiaries. The data does not include contributions by employees of the three networks who did not identify their employer.
The CRP is the organization behind OpenSecrets.org, the web site that for more than a decade has put campaign finance data within reach of anybody with an Internet connection.
President Obama received 710 such contributions worth a total of $461,898, for an average contribution of $651 from the network employees. Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain received only 39 contributions totaling $26,926, for an average donation of $709.
Ninety-six contributions by broadcast network employees to the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Senate and House campaign committees totaled $217,881.
Thirty-eight contributions by broadcast network employees to the Republican National Committee and the Republican Senate and House campaign committees totaled $23,805.
Among the individuals in the data are ABC News president Lloyd Braun, who contributed $1,000 to the Our Common Values PAC, which is associated with White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, and ABC Radio Networks president Jim Robinson, who gave $250 to GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson.
Other individual givers found in the data include ABC reporters Sarah Amos, who gave $1,285 to Democratic presidential aspirant Bill Richardson, Clarisa Ward, who gave $500 to President Obama, and Kristina Wong, who gave $400 to the Democratic Party of Virginia.
Notable contributors found in the CBS data include "journalist" Seth Davis, who gave $2,750 to Obama, CBS Corporation vice president and editor-in-chief Jane Goldman, who contributed $250 to Obama, CBS Radio "host" Mike Omeara, who gave $1,471 to Obama, and "journalist" Beverly Williams, who donated $200 to Obama.
Among NBC contributors were Saturday Night Live producer Jeffrey Ross, who contributed $500 to Sen. Chris Dodd, D-CN, former NBC Today Show weatherman Willard Scott. who gave $500 to the Republican National Committee, NBC Universal CFO Jennifer Cabalquinto, whose donations to Obama totaled $1,200, and NBC Universal "editor" David Mack, with $250 to Obama and $2,300 McCain
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-
Editorial Page Editor
08/27/10 3:45 PM EDT
Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880.
By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744.
Disclosure of the heavily Democratic contributions by influential employees of the three major broadcast networks follows on the heels of controversy last week when it was learned that media baron Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. contributed $1 million to the Republican Governors Association.
The News Corp. donation prompted Nathan Daschle, executive director of the Democratic Governors Association and son of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, to demand in a letter to Fox News chairman Roger Ailes that the cable news outlet include a disclaimer in its coverage of gubernatorial campaigns. Fox News is owned by News Corp., which also owns The Wall Street Journal.
The data on contributions by broadcast network employees was compiled by CRP at the request of The Examiner and included all 2008 contributions by individuals who identified their employer as one of the three networks or subsidiaries. The data does not include contributions by employees of the three networks who did not identify their employer.
The CRP is the organization behind OpenSecrets.org, the web site that for more than a decade has put campaign finance data within reach of anybody with an Internet connection.
President Obama received 710 such contributions worth a total of $461,898, for an average contribution of $651 from the network employees. Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain received only 39 contributions totaling $26,926, for an average donation of $709.
Ninety-six contributions by broadcast network employees to the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Senate and House campaign committees totaled $217,881.
Thirty-eight contributions by broadcast network employees to the Republican National Committee and the Republican Senate and House campaign committees totaled $23,805.
Among the individuals in the data are ABC News president Lloyd Braun, who contributed $1,000 to the Our Common Values PAC, which is associated with White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, and ABC Radio Networks president Jim Robinson, who gave $250 to GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson.
Other individual givers found in the data include ABC reporters Sarah Amos, who gave $1,285 to Democratic presidential aspirant Bill Richardson, Clarisa Ward, who gave $500 to President Obama, and Kristina Wong, who gave $400 to the Democratic Party of Virginia.
Notable contributors found in the CBS data include "journalist" Seth Davis, who gave $2,750 to Obama, CBS Corporation vice president and editor-in-chief Jane Goldman, who contributed $250 to Obama, CBS Radio "host" Mike Omeara, who gave $1,471 to Obama, and "journalist" Beverly Williams, who donated $200 to Obama.
Among NBC contributors were Saturday Night Live producer Jeffrey Ross, who contributed $500 to Sen. Chris Dodd, D-CN, former NBC Today Show weatherman Willard Scott. who gave $500 to the Republican National Committee, NBC Universal CFO Jennifer Cabalquinto, whose donations to Obama totaled $1,200, and NBC Universal "editor" David Mack, with $250 to Obama and $2,300 McCain
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-
Friday, August 27, 2010
The last refuge of a liberal
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, August 27, 2010
Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James Carville) into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the "bitter" people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging "to guns or religion or" -- this part is less remembered -- "antipathy toward people who aren't like them."
That's a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.
-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.
-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.
-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.
-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.
Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?
Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities -- often lopsided majorities -- oppose President Obama's social-democratic agenda (e.g., the stimulus, Obamacare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage and reject a mosque near Ground Zero.
What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument. The most venerable of these trumps is, of course, the race card. When the Tea Party arose, a spontaneous, leaderless and perfectly natural (and traditionally American) reaction to the vast expansion of government intrinsic to the president's proudly proclaimed transformational agenda, the liberal commentariat cast it as a mob of angry white yahoos disguising their antipathy to a black president by cleverly speaking in economic terms.
Then came Arizona and S.B. 1070. It seems impossible for the left to believe that people of good will could hold that: (a) illegal immigration should be illegal, (b) the federal government should not hold border enforcement hostage to comprehensive reform, i.e., amnesty, (c) every country has the right to determine the composition of its immigrant population.
As for Proposition 8, is it so hard to see why people might believe that a single judge overturning the will of 7 million voters is an affront to democracy? And that seeing merit in retaining the structure of the most ancient and fundamental of all social institutions is something other than an alleged hatred of gays -- particularly since the opposite-gender requirement has characterized virtually every society in all the millennia until just a few years ago?
And now the mosque near Ground Zero. The intelligentsia is near unanimous that the only possible grounds for opposition is bigotry toward Muslims. This smug attribution of bigotry to two-thirds of the population hinges on the insistence on a complete lack of connection between Islam and radical Islam, a proposition that dovetails perfectly with the Obama administration's pretense that we are at war with nothing more than "violent extremists" of inscrutable motive and indiscernible belief. Those who reject this as both ridiculous and politically correct (an admitted redundancy) are declared Islamophobes, the ad hominem du jour.
It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful variety of forms). Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" -- blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims -- a nation that is, as Michelle Obama once put it succinctly, "just downright mean"?
The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama over-read his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082605233.html
Friday, August 27, 2010
Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James Carville) into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the "bitter" people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging "to guns or religion or" -- this part is less remembered -- "antipathy toward people who aren't like them."
That's a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.
-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.
-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.
-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.
-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.
Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?
Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities -- often lopsided majorities -- oppose President Obama's social-democratic agenda (e.g., the stimulus, Obamacare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage and reject a mosque near Ground Zero.
What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument. The most venerable of these trumps is, of course, the race card. When the Tea Party arose, a spontaneous, leaderless and perfectly natural (and traditionally American) reaction to the vast expansion of government intrinsic to the president's proudly proclaimed transformational agenda, the liberal commentariat cast it as a mob of angry white yahoos disguising their antipathy to a black president by cleverly speaking in economic terms.
Then came Arizona and S.B. 1070. It seems impossible for the left to believe that people of good will could hold that: (a) illegal immigration should be illegal, (b) the federal government should not hold border enforcement hostage to comprehensive reform, i.e., amnesty, (c) every country has the right to determine the composition of its immigrant population.
As for Proposition 8, is it so hard to see why people might believe that a single judge overturning the will of 7 million voters is an affront to democracy? And that seeing merit in retaining the structure of the most ancient and fundamental of all social institutions is something other than an alleged hatred of gays -- particularly since the opposite-gender requirement has characterized virtually every society in all the millennia until just a few years ago?
And now the mosque near Ground Zero. The intelligentsia is near unanimous that the only possible grounds for opposition is bigotry toward Muslims. This smug attribution of bigotry to two-thirds of the population hinges on the insistence on a complete lack of connection between Islam and radical Islam, a proposition that dovetails perfectly with the Obama administration's pretense that we are at war with nothing more than "violent extremists" of inscrutable motive and indiscernible belief. Those who reject this as both ridiculous and politically correct (an admitted redundancy) are declared Islamophobes, the ad hominem du jour.
It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful variety of forms). Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" -- blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims -- a nation that is, as Michelle Obama once put it succinctly, "just downright mean"?
The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama over-read his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082605233.html
Faxed Sanctimony in the Capital
Thomas F. Roeser 27 August 2010
There’s no publication that exceeds thecapitolfaxblog.com in touchy-touchy race sanctimony (it groaned in fear that the stonewalling juror in the Blago trial might just be black: she was and so what?). As a wondrously comprehensive publication (and I must salute it for candidly saying something Richard M. Daley does not want to hear: Chicago is bankrupt)
Yet it’s often marvelously blind-sided on political correctness. Seemingly, to it the mere mention of race being used as a political cudgel is a no-no. Certainly for Republicans. It went after State Sen. Kirk Dillard (R-Hinsdale) yesterday for an allegedly “insensitive” remark he made about the Quinn appointment of Michelle Sadler as his chief of staff.
It gave prominent coverage to a very ordinary Quinn news release and video alleging that Dillard was playing the racial card when he described Sadler thusly:
“While she as an African American-Asian woman is a political choice it remains to be seen if she can govern state government.”
Yikes! (to borrow the publication’s favorite kid exclamation)…have we gotten to the point that it is “insensitive” to…even with nuance mention …the racial identity of a key governmental-political appointee in government and the possible benefit to the elected official who names him/her? Answer: Yes, insensitive if the one who mentions it is a Republican. Meaning: a Democratic appointment can be made with the benefits of racial identity in mind but a Republican is in danger of being “insensitive” if he/she alludes to it. Journalists can do it, understand. And thecapitolfaxblog.com does it all the time. Just don’t let Republicans get caught referring to an appointee in any terms other than an “individual.”
For proof of the double standard, here is ultra-sanctimonious thecapitolfaxblog.com worrying about the possibility of Democrat Alexi Giannoulias being politically disadvantaged from the all-important (to Democrats) black vote by a candidate…almost unknown…running for the Senate seat for the Green Party.
To it, It’s okay to mention race in connection with a super-close election where the Green candidate just might siphon a fraction of the vital black vote away from Giannoulias, resulting in a Giannoulias loss to…ugh…Republican Mark Kirk. Even if the Green candidate urges the banning of all nuclear weaponry and wants multi-lateral nuclear disarmament (you know what that would mean: we’d disarm and they would say they would but won’t)… and attests that Wall Street has brought more harm to the black community than anything else. That’s a Jesse Jackson, Sr. stretch of imagination.
The Green party candidate is LeAlan Jones, a 31-year-old radio and film producer from Englewood. Thecapitolfaxblog.com forgets its racial sanctimony to dig deep into a scary disadvantage for Giannoulias:
“Jones has no political or governmental record and paltry cash—plus a monstrous helping of chutzpah. He owns one unmistakable asset—he is African American. Jones may be a Green but the color of the moment is black.”
Now just for a moment, consider if Kirk Dillard said that. The statement thecapitolfax.com made is true—as true as Dillard’s earlier one about Michelle Sadler. But what would CapitolFax.com say if the senator made that remark? “Grossly insensitive!” it would thunder.
That’s why the liberal mantra of “insensitivity” on Republican mention of race in politics is so hypocritical. Yet, if you want to be “in” on all the political news…plus gossip…you must subscribe and read the blog.
**
Tom Roeser is the Chairman of the Editorial Board of the Chicago Daily Observer
http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/faxed-sanctimony-in-the-capital/
There’s no publication that exceeds thecapitolfaxblog.com in touchy-touchy race sanctimony (it groaned in fear that the stonewalling juror in the Blago trial might just be black: she was and so what?). As a wondrously comprehensive publication (and I must salute it for candidly saying something Richard M. Daley does not want to hear: Chicago is bankrupt)
Yet it’s often marvelously blind-sided on political correctness. Seemingly, to it the mere mention of race being used as a political cudgel is a no-no. Certainly for Republicans. It went after State Sen. Kirk Dillard (R-Hinsdale) yesterday for an allegedly “insensitive” remark he made about the Quinn appointment of Michelle Sadler as his chief of staff.
It gave prominent coverage to a very ordinary Quinn news release and video alleging that Dillard was playing the racial card when he described Sadler thusly:
“While she as an African American-Asian woman is a political choice it remains to be seen if she can govern state government.”
Yikes! (to borrow the publication’s favorite kid exclamation)…have we gotten to the point that it is “insensitive” to…even with nuance mention …the racial identity of a key governmental-political appointee in government and the possible benefit to the elected official who names him/her? Answer: Yes, insensitive if the one who mentions it is a Republican. Meaning: a Democratic appointment can be made with the benefits of racial identity in mind but a Republican is in danger of being “insensitive” if he/she alludes to it. Journalists can do it, understand. And thecapitolfaxblog.com does it all the time. Just don’t let Republicans get caught referring to an appointee in any terms other than an “individual.”
For proof of the double standard, here is ultra-sanctimonious thecapitolfaxblog.com worrying about the possibility of Democrat Alexi Giannoulias being politically disadvantaged from the all-important (to Democrats) black vote by a candidate…almost unknown…running for the Senate seat for the Green Party.
To it, It’s okay to mention race in connection with a super-close election where the Green candidate just might siphon a fraction of the vital black vote away from Giannoulias, resulting in a Giannoulias loss to…ugh…Republican Mark Kirk. Even if the Green candidate urges the banning of all nuclear weaponry and wants multi-lateral nuclear disarmament (you know what that would mean: we’d disarm and they would say they would but won’t)… and attests that Wall Street has brought more harm to the black community than anything else. That’s a Jesse Jackson, Sr. stretch of imagination.
The Green party candidate is LeAlan Jones, a 31-year-old radio and film producer from Englewood. Thecapitolfaxblog.com forgets its racial sanctimony to dig deep into a scary disadvantage for Giannoulias:
“Jones has no political or governmental record and paltry cash—plus a monstrous helping of chutzpah. He owns one unmistakable asset—he is African American. Jones may be a Green but the color of the moment is black.”
Now just for a moment, consider if Kirk Dillard said that. The statement thecapitolfax.com made is true—as true as Dillard’s earlier one about Michelle Sadler. But what would CapitolFax.com say if the senator made that remark? “Grossly insensitive!” it would thunder.
That’s why the liberal mantra of “insensitivity” on Republican mention of race in politics is so hypocritical. Yet, if you want to be “in” on all the political news…plus gossip…you must subscribe and read the blog.
**
Tom Roeser is the Chairman of the Editorial Board of the Chicago Daily Observer
http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/faxed-sanctimony-in-the-capital/
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Honey, I Shrunk My Approval Ratings
The White House is having a disastrous 'summer of recovery.'
By KARL ROVE
In what will rank as one of the all-time presidential PR disasters, we're now well over half way through what the White House called "the summer of recovery." And what a recovery it's been.
Earlier this month, first-time claims for unemployment hit a nine-month high. The unemployment rate remains at 9.5% and 18.4% of workers are out of a job, can only get part-time work, or have given up looking for a job altogether. Sales of existing homes dropped 27% from June to July, hitting the lowest point since data were first collected in 1999. The Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index fell to 50.4 in July, continuing a slide that started in February. And the stock market is down 11% from its peak in April.
All of this has helped shatter public confidence in the president. In early May, Mr. Obama's approval on the economy in the YouGov/Polimetrix poll was 42%. By mid-August, it was 35%—a frightening number for Democrats less than 70 days from a midterm election. According to this week's Reuters poll, 72% are "very" worried about jobs and 67% "very concerned" about government spending.
Mr. Obama's credibility is crumbling, and for good reason: He and his people are saying things people don't believe. At the start of his summer of recovery road show, the president flatly asserted that last year's massive stimulus package had "worked." Vice President Joe Biden, not to be outdone, promised monthly job gains of up to 500,000 and insisted that the recovery's pace "continues to increase, not decrease" as stimulus spending was "moving into its highest gear."
It's slightly surreal. "Who are you going to believe," as Groucho Marx once said, "me or your own eyes?"
The administration's claims have collided with reality in other instances as well. Mr. Obama's Council of Economic Advisers Chair Christina Romer—speaking before the 2009 stimulus was approved—said unemployment would top out at 8% by the third quarter of 2009 and decline to less than 7% by the end of 2010. Even the White House now admits that the unemployment rate will stay at or above 9% through 2011.
The White House also frequently asserts that "between 2.3 million and 2.8 million jobs were either saved or created" by the $620 billion in stimulus money spent by June. Set aside the absurdity of the administration inventing the "saved" category and then pretending it can ascertain, with scientific precision, the number of jobs that have been "saved." Since the stimulus passed, 2.6 million Americans have lost their jobs and 1.2 million people have given up even looking for work.
Mr. Obama and his people also mischaracterize where most stimulus dollars go. Their constant prattle about "shovel ready projects" is an attempt to leave the impression that most goes to bricks and mortar. Not true: Only 3.3% of the $814 billion stimulus went to the Federal Highway Administration for highway and bridge projects.
The administration's misleading statements and obfuscations aren't limited to the economy. On health care, for example, Mr. Obama continues saying that (a) health-care reform will reduce costs and the deficit, (b) no one who wants to keep existing coverage will lose it, and (c) the law's cuts in Medicare won't threaten any senior's health care. These assertions are laughable.
The president's habit of exaggeration and misstatement has infected other Democrats. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for example, routinely talks about how the recently passed "Stimulus II" spending bill protected the jobs of police and firemen.
But it didn't.
Stimulus II consisted of two parts: $10 billion for education and $16 billion for Medicaid. States can't spend Medicaid money for anything but Medicaid, and they can only spend the education money on education, i.e., they can't shuffle state funds around. Language allowing Stimulus II dollars to pay for police and firemen didn't make it out of the Senate. Yet Democratic leaders persist in saying that their latest stimulus has helped keep police and firefighters on the job. The claim is flatly untrue.
By overselling the stimulus before its passage in 2009 and exaggerating its benefits with layer upon layer of slippery half-truths in 2010, Mr. Obama has made voters angrier. This is not America's summer of recovery; it is a summer of economic discontent that will ensure that Democrats take a pounding in the midterm elections.
Mr. Rove, the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, is the author of "Courage and Consequence" (Threshold Editions, 2010).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703632304575451502211231456.html
By KARL ROVE
In what will rank as one of the all-time presidential PR disasters, we're now well over half way through what the White House called "the summer of recovery." And what a recovery it's been.
Earlier this month, first-time claims for unemployment hit a nine-month high. The unemployment rate remains at 9.5% and 18.4% of workers are out of a job, can only get part-time work, or have given up looking for a job altogether. Sales of existing homes dropped 27% from June to July, hitting the lowest point since data were first collected in 1999. The Conference Board's Consumer Confidence Index fell to 50.4 in July, continuing a slide that started in February. And the stock market is down 11% from its peak in April.
All of this has helped shatter public confidence in the president. In early May, Mr. Obama's approval on the economy in the YouGov/Polimetrix poll was 42%. By mid-August, it was 35%—a frightening number for Democrats less than 70 days from a midterm election. According to this week's Reuters poll, 72% are "very" worried about jobs and 67% "very concerned" about government spending.
Mr. Obama's credibility is crumbling, and for good reason: He and his people are saying things people don't believe. At the start of his summer of recovery road show, the president flatly asserted that last year's massive stimulus package had "worked." Vice President Joe Biden, not to be outdone, promised monthly job gains of up to 500,000 and insisted that the recovery's pace "continues to increase, not decrease" as stimulus spending was "moving into its highest gear."
It's slightly surreal. "Who are you going to believe," as Groucho Marx once said, "me or your own eyes?"
The administration's claims have collided with reality in other instances as well. Mr. Obama's Council of Economic Advisers Chair Christina Romer—speaking before the 2009 stimulus was approved—said unemployment would top out at 8% by the third quarter of 2009 and decline to less than 7% by the end of 2010. Even the White House now admits that the unemployment rate will stay at or above 9% through 2011.
The White House also frequently asserts that "between 2.3 million and 2.8 million jobs were either saved or created" by the $620 billion in stimulus money spent by June. Set aside the absurdity of the administration inventing the "saved" category and then pretending it can ascertain, with scientific precision, the number of jobs that have been "saved." Since the stimulus passed, 2.6 million Americans have lost their jobs and 1.2 million people have given up even looking for work.
Mr. Obama and his people also mischaracterize where most stimulus dollars go. Their constant prattle about "shovel ready projects" is an attempt to leave the impression that most goes to bricks and mortar. Not true: Only 3.3% of the $814 billion stimulus went to the Federal Highway Administration for highway and bridge projects.
The administration's misleading statements and obfuscations aren't limited to the economy. On health care, for example, Mr. Obama continues saying that (a) health-care reform will reduce costs and the deficit, (b) no one who wants to keep existing coverage will lose it, and (c) the law's cuts in Medicare won't threaten any senior's health care. These assertions are laughable.
The president's habit of exaggeration and misstatement has infected other Democrats. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, for example, routinely talks about how the recently passed "Stimulus II" spending bill protected the jobs of police and firemen.
But it didn't.
Stimulus II consisted of two parts: $10 billion for education and $16 billion for Medicaid. States can't spend Medicaid money for anything but Medicaid, and they can only spend the education money on education, i.e., they can't shuffle state funds around. Language allowing Stimulus II dollars to pay for police and firemen didn't make it out of the Senate. Yet Democratic leaders persist in saying that their latest stimulus has helped keep police and firefighters on the job. The claim is flatly untrue.
By overselling the stimulus before its passage in 2009 and exaggerating its benefits with layer upon layer of slippery half-truths in 2010, Mr. Obama has made voters angrier. This is not America's summer of recovery; it is a summer of economic discontent that will ensure that Democrats take a pounding in the midterm elections.
Mr. Rove, the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, is the author of "Courage and Consequence" (Threshold Editions, 2010).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703632304575451502211231456.html
Bush Campaign Chief and Former RNC Chair Ken Mehlman: I'm Gay
Aug 25 2010, 5:45 PM ET | Comment
Ken Mehlman, President Bush's campaign manager in 2004 and a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, has told family and associates that he is gay.
Mehlman arrived at this conclusion about his identity fairly recently, he said in an interview. He agreed to answer a reporter's questions, he said, because, now in private life, he wants to become an advocate for gay marriage and anticipated that questions would arise about his participation in a late-September fundraiser for the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), the group that supported the legal challenge to California's ballot initiative against gay marriage, Proposition 8.
"It's taken me 43 years to get comfortable with this part of my life," said Mehlman, now an executive vice-president with the New York City-based private equity firm, KKR. "Everybody has their own path to travel, their own journey, and for me, over the past few months, I've told my family, friends, former colleagues, and current colleagues, and they've been wonderful and supportive. The process has been something that's made me a happier and better person. It's something I wish I had done years ago."
Privately, in off-the-record conversations with this reporter over the years, Mehlman voiced support for civil unions and told of how, in private discussions with senior Republican officials, he beat back efforts to attack same-sex marriage. He insisted, too, that President Bush "was no homophobe." He often wondered why gay voters never formed common cause with Republican opponents of Islamic jihad, which he called "the greatest anti-gay force in the world right now."
Mehlman's leadership positions in the GOP came at a time when the party was stepping up its anti-gay activities -- such as the distribution in West Virginia in 2006 of literature linking homosexuality to atheism, or the less-than-subtle, coded language in the party's platform ("Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country..."). Mehlman said at the time that he could not, as an individual Republican, go against the party consensus. He was aware that Karl Rove, President Bush's chief strategic adviser, had been working with Republicans to make sure that anti-gay initiatives and referenda would appear on November ballots in 2004 and 2006 to help Republicans.
Mehlman acknowledges that if he had publicly declared his sexuality sooner, he might have played a role in keeping the party from pushing an anti-gay agenda.
"It's a legitimate question and one I understand," Mehlman said. "I can't change the fact that I wasn't in this place personally when I was in politics, and I genuinely regret that. It was very hard, personally." He asks of those who doubt his sincerity: "If they can't offer support, at least offer understanding."
"What I do regret, and think a lot about, is that one of the things I talked a lot about in politics was how I tried to expand the party into neighborhoods where the message wasn't always heard. I didn't do this in the gay community at all."
He said that he "really wished" he had come to terms with his sexual orientation earlier, "so I could have worked against [the Federal Marriage Amendment]" and "reached out to the gay community in the way I reached out to African Americans."
Mehlman is aware that his attempts to justify his past silence will not be adequate for many people. He and his friends say that he is aware that he will no longer control the story about his identity -- which will simultaneously expose old wounds, invite Schadenfruede, and legitimize anger among gay rights activists in both parties who did not hide their sexual orientations.
Mehlman, who has never married, long found his sexuality subject to rumor and innuendo. He was the subject of an outing campaign by gay rights activist Mike Rogers, starting when Mehlman was Bush's campaign manager. Rogers's crusades against closeted gay Republicans split the organized gay lobby in Washington but were undoubtedly effective: he drove several elected officials, including Virginia Rep. Ed Shrock, from office, pushed out a would-be presidential campaign manager for George Allen well before Allen was set to run, slung rumors about Sen. Larry Craig's sexual orientation well before Craig's incident in a Minneapolis airport bathroom, and even managed to make homosexuality a wedge issue within the party's activist circles.
In 2006, Rogers caught up to Mehlman and asked him why he gave "so many confusing answers to social conservatives about your homosexuality," and followed up by asking whether Mehlman knew of a man who Rogers had claimed was Mehlman's secret partner. Mehlman denied to Rogers that he had given conflicting answers and said that the man in question was a law school classmate.
In several discussions I've had with Mehlman since he stepped down from the Republican National Committee in 2007, he never volunteered information about his sexual orientation, although charges that he presided over a resurgence in anti-gay sentiment were clearly an ongoing burden to him.
The disclosure at this stage of Mehlman's life strikes one close friend as being like a decision to jump off of a high diving board: Mehlman knows that there is plenty of water below, but it is still very scary to look down and make the leap. Mehlman likes order and certainty, and he knows that the reaction to his public confirmation cannot be predicted or contained.
Mehlman is the most powerful Republican in history to identify as gay.
Because his tenure as RNC chairman and his time at the center of the Bush political machine coincided with the Republican Party's attempts to exploit anti-gay prejudices and cement the allegiance of social conservatives, his declaration to the world is at once a personal act and an act of political speech.
"I wish I was where I am today 20 years ago. The process of not being able to say who I am in public life was very difficult. No one else knew this except me. My family didn't know. My friends didn't know. Anyone who watched me knew I was a guy who was clearly uncomfortable with the topic," he said.
During the Rogers crusades, many news organizations made attempts to confirm rumors and stories about Mehlman's sexuality. Republicans close to Mehlman either said they did not know, or that it did not matter, or that the question was offensive.
Mehlman once joked in public that although he was not gay, the rumors put a crimp on his social life. He admits to having misled several people who asked him directly.
He said that he plans to be an advocate for gay rights within the GOP, that he remains proud to be a Republican, and that his political identity is not defined by any one issue.
"What I will try to do is to persuade people, when I have conversations with them, that it is consistent with our party's philosophy, whether it's the principle of individual freedom, or limited government, or encouraging adults who love each other and who want to make a lifelong committment to each other to get married."
"I hope that we, as a party, would welcome gay and lesbian supporters. I also think there needs to be, in the gay community, robust and bipartisan support [for] marriage rights."
Ed Gillespie, a former RNC chairman and long-time friend of Mehlman, said that "it is significant that a former chairman of the Republiucan National Committe is openly gay and that he is supportive of gay marriage." Although Gillespie himself opposes gay marriage, he pointed to party stalwarts like former Vice President Dick Cheney and strategist Mary Matalin as open advocates for gay rights who had not been drummed out of the party. He acknowledged "big generational differences in perception when it comes to gay marriage and gay rights as an agenda, and I think that is true on the Republican side."
But, Gillespie said, he does not envision the party platform changing anytime soon.
"There are a lot of Republicans who are gay, there are a lot of Republicans who support government sanction of gay marriage, a lot of Republicans who support abortion on demand, a lot of Republicans who support cap-and-trade provisions. They're not single-issue voters." Gillespie acknowledged that the party had been inhospitable to gays in the past, and said that he hopes Mehlman's decision to come out leads the party to be "more respectful and civil in our discourse" when it comes to gays.
Mehlman said that his formal coming-out process began earlier this year. Over the past several weeks, he has notified former colleagues, including former President Bush. Once he realized that the news would probably leak, he assembled a team of former advisers to help him figure out the best way to harness the publicity generated by the disclosure for the cause of marriage rights. He is worried that some will see his decision to go public as opportunistic. Mehlman recently moved to Chelsea, a gay mecca in New York City. He refused to discuss his personal life with me, and he plans to give only a few print interviews on the subject.
Chad Griffin, the California-based political strategist who organized opposition to Proposition 8, said that Mehlman's quiet contributions to the American Foundation for Equal Rights are "tremendous," adding that "when we achieve equal equality, he will be one of the people to thank for it." Mehlman has become a de facto strategist for the group, and he has opened up his rolodex -- recruiting, as co-hosts for the AFER fundraiser: Paul Singer, a major Republican donor, hedge fund executive, and the president of the Manhattan Institute; Benjamin Ginsberg, one of the GOP's top lawyers; Michael Toner, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission; and two former GOP governors, William Weld of Massachusetts and Christie Todd Whitman of New Jersey.
Dustin Lance Black, the Academy Award winning writer of "Milk," said, "Ken represents an incredible coup for the American Foundation for Equal Rights. We believe that our mission of equal rights under the law is one that should resonate with every American. As a victorious former presidential campaign manager and head of the Republican Party, Ken has the proven experience and expertise to help us communicate with people across each of the 50 states."
Ken Mehlman, President Bush's campaign manager in 2004 and a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, has told family and associates that he is gay.
Mehlman arrived at this conclusion about his identity fairly recently, he said in an interview. He agreed to answer a reporter's questions, he said, because, now in private life, he wants to become an advocate for gay marriage and anticipated that questions would arise about his participation in a late-September fundraiser for the American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER), the group that supported the legal challenge to California's ballot initiative against gay marriage, Proposition 8.
"It's taken me 43 years to get comfortable with this part of my life," said Mehlman, now an executive vice-president with the New York City-based private equity firm, KKR. "Everybody has their own path to travel, their own journey, and for me, over the past few months, I've told my family, friends, former colleagues, and current colleagues, and they've been wonderful and supportive. The process has been something that's made me a happier and better person. It's something I wish I had done years ago."
Privately, in off-the-record conversations with this reporter over the years, Mehlman voiced support for civil unions and told of how, in private discussions with senior Republican officials, he beat back efforts to attack same-sex marriage. He insisted, too, that President Bush "was no homophobe." He often wondered why gay voters never formed common cause with Republican opponents of Islamic jihad, which he called "the greatest anti-gay force in the world right now."
Mehlman's leadership positions in the GOP came at a time when the party was stepping up its anti-gay activities -- such as the distribution in West Virginia in 2006 of literature linking homosexuality to atheism, or the less-than-subtle, coded language in the party's platform ("Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country..."). Mehlman said at the time that he could not, as an individual Republican, go against the party consensus. He was aware that Karl Rove, President Bush's chief strategic adviser, had been working with Republicans to make sure that anti-gay initiatives and referenda would appear on November ballots in 2004 and 2006 to help Republicans.
Mehlman acknowledges that if he had publicly declared his sexuality sooner, he might have played a role in keeping the party from pushing an anti-gay agenda.
"It's a legitimate question and one I understand," Mehlman said. "I can't change the fact that I wasn't in this place personally when I was in politics, and I genuinely regret that. It was very hard, personally." He asks of those who doubt his sincerity: "If they can't offer support, at least offer understanding."
"What I do regret, and think a lot about, is that one of the things I talked a lot about in politics was how I tried to expand the party into neighborhoods where the message wasn't always heard. I didn't do this in the gay community at all."
He said that he "really wished" he had come to terms with his sexual orientation earlier, "so I could have worked against [the Federal Marriage Amendment]" and "reached out to the gay community in the way I reached out to African Americans."
Mehlman is aware that his attempts to justify his past silence will not be adequate for many people. He and his friends say that he is aware that he will no longer control the story about his identity -- which will simultaneously expose old wounds, invite Schadenfruede, and legitimize anger among gay rights activists in both parties who did not hide their sexual orientations.
Mehlman, who has never married, long found his sexuality subject to rumor and innuendo. He was the subject of an outing campaign by gay rights activist Mike Rogers, starting when Mehlman was Bush's campaign manager. Rogers's crusades against closeted gay Republicans split the organized gay lobby in Washington but were undoubtedly effective: he drove several elected officials, including Virginia Rep. Ed Shrock, from office, pushed out a would-be presidential campaign manager for George Allen well before Allen was set to run, slung rumors about Sen. Larry Craig's sexual orientation well before Craig's incident in a Minneapolis airport bathroom, and even managed to make homosexuality a wedge issue within the party's activist circles.
In 2006, Rogers caught up to Mehlman and asked him why he gave "so many confusing answers to social conservatives about your homosexuality," and followed up by asking whether Mehlman knew of a man who Rogers had claimed was Mehlman's secret partner. Mehlman denied to Rogers that he had given conflicting answers and said that the man in question was a law school classmate.
In several discussions I've had with Mehlman since he stepped down from the Republican National Committee in 2007, he never volunteered information about his sexual orientation, although charges that he presided over a resurgence in anti-gay sentiment were clearly an ongoing burden to him.
The disclosure at this stage of Mehlman's life strikes one close friend as being like a decision to jump off of a high diving board: Mehlman knows that there is plenty of water below, but it is still very scary to look down and make the leap. Mehlman likes order and certainty, and he knows that the reaction to his public confirmation cannot be predicted or contained.
Mehlman is the most powerful Republican in history to identify as gay.
Because his tenure as RNC chairman and his time at the center of the Bush political machine coincided with the Republican Party's attempts to exploit anti-gay prejudices and cement the allegiance of social conservatives, his declaration to the world is at once a personal act and an act of political speech.
"I wish I was where I am today 20 years ago. The process of not being able to say who I am in public life was very difficult. No one else knew this except me. My family didn't know. My friends didn't know. Anyone who watched me knew I was a guy who was clearly uncomfortable with the topic," he said.
During the Rogers crusades, many news organizations made attempts to confirm rumors and stories about Mehlman's sexuality. Republicans close to Mehlman either said they did not know, or that it did not matter, or that the question was offensive.
Mehlman once joked in public that although he was not gay, the rumors put a crimp on his social life. He admits to having misled several people who asked him directly.
He said that he plans to be an advocate for gay rights within the GOP, that he remains proud to be a Republican, and that his political identity is not defined by any one issue.
"What I will try to do is to persuade people, when I have conversations with them, that it is consistent with our party's philosophy, whether it's the principle of individual freedom, or limited government, or encouraging adults who love each other and who want to make a lifelong committment to each other to get married."
"I hope that we, as a party, would welcome gay and lesbian supporters. I also think there needs to be, in the gay community, robust and bipartisan support [for] marriage rights."
Ed Gillespie, a former RNC chairman and long-time friend of Mehlman, said that "it is significant that a former chairman of the Republiucan National Committe is openly gay and that he is supportive of gay marriage." Although Gillespie himself opposes gay marriage, he pointed to party stalwarts like former Vice President Dick Cheney and strategist Mary Matalin as open advocates for gay rights who had not been drummed out of the party. He acknowledged "big generational differences in perception when it comes to gay marriage and gay rights as an agenda, and I think that is true on the Republican side."
But, Gillespie said, he does not envision the party platform changing anytime soon.
"There are a lot of Republicans who are gay, there are a lot of Republicans who support government sanction of gay marriage, a lot of Republicans who support abortion on demand, a lot of Republicans who support cap-and-trade provisions. They're not single-issue voters." Gillespie acknowledged that the party had been inhospitable to gays in the past, and said that he hopes Mehlman's decision to come out leads the party to be "more respectful and civil in our discourse" when it comes to gays.
Mehlman said that his formal coming-out process began earlier this year. Over the past several weeks, he has notified former colleagues, including former President Bush. Once he realized that the news would probably leak, he assembled a team of former advisers to help him figure out the best way to harness the publicity generated by the disclosure for the cause of marriage rights. He is worried that some will see his decision to go public as opportunistic. Mehlman recently moved to Chelsea, a gay mecca in New York City. He refused to discuss his personal life with me, and he plans to give only a few print interviews on the subject.
Chad Griffin, the California-based political strategist who organized opposition to Proposition 8, said that Mehlman's quiet contributions to the American Foundation for Equal Rights are "tremendous," adding that "when we achieve equal equality, he will be one of the people to thank for it." Mehlman has become a de facto strategist for the group, and he has opened up his rolodex -- recruiting, as co-hosts for the AFER fundraiser: Paul Singer, a major Republican donor, hedge fund executive, and the president of the Manhattan Institute; Benjamin Ginsberg, one of the GOP's top lawyers; Michael Toner, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission; and two former GOP governors, William Weld of Massachusetts and Christie Todd Whitman of New Jersey.
Dustin Lance Black, the Academy Award winning writer of "Milk," said, "Ken represents an incredible coup for the American Foundation for Equal Rights. We believe that our mission of equal rights under the law is one that should resonate with every American. As a victorious former presidential campaign manager and head of the Republican Party, Ken has the proven experience and expertise to help us communicate with people across each of the 50 states."
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Halvorson-Kinzinger race tightens,
By: Paul Merrion August 24, 2010
(Crain's) — Another neutral political observer says the race between U.S. Rep. Debbie Halvorson, D-Crete, and her Republican challenger, Adam Kinzinger, has gotten too close to call.
The Rothenberg Political Report on Tuesday joined the Cook Political Report's decision last week to put the race in the toss-up category.
Both Washington, D.C.-based nonpartisan newsletters had given the freshman Democrat a slight edge up until now.
“Halvorson finds herself in deeper trouble than expected,” the Rothenberg report said. “The state political environment is increasingly toxic for Democrats.”
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20100824/NEWS02/100829948/halvorson-kinzinger-race-tightens-observer-says
(Crain's) — Another neutral political observer says the race between U.S. Rep. Debbie Halvorson, D-Crete, and her Republican challenger, Adam Kinzinger, has gotten too close to call.
The Rothenberg Political Report on Tuesday joined the Cook Political Report's decision last week to put the race in the toss-up category.
Both Washington, D.C.-based nonpartisan newsletters had given the freshman Democrat a slight edge up until now.
“Halvorson finds herself in deeper trouble than expected,” the Rothenberg report said. “The state political environment is increasingly toxic for Democrats.”
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20100824/NEWS02/100829948/halvorson-kinzinger-race-tightens-observer-says
Friday, August 20, 2010
HULTGREN WIDENS LEAD IN THE 14th DISTRICT TO 7%
St. Charles - St. Charles - In poll results released today from We Ask America, State Senator Randy Hultgren is leading the incumbent, Bill Foster, in the race for Illinois’ 14th Congressional District 44% to 37%.
The August 4th poll sampled responses from 1,028 registered voters in the 14th Congressional District.
“While we do not live and die by every poll that comes out, today’s We Ask America poll shows clear momentum for Randy’s campaign for Congress,” said John Cooney, Campaign Manager for Randy Hultgren.
“Just two months ago, Randy led by a single percentage point, so this survey shows real movement as voters begin to focus on the candidates and their records.”
“Along with a seven point lead among registered voters, Randy enjoys a ten point advantage among independent voters who strongly reject the failed policies of the Foster/Pelosi Congress,” said Cooney. “Bill Foster voted for a stimulus package that failed to create jobs and a health care boondoggle that cuts $500 billion out of Medicare. Illinois voters are coming to realize that Randy Hultgren is the right choice for our families and our future.”
Illinois CD 14
Date of Poll: 8/4/2010
Participants: 1,028 registered voters
Margin of Error: ±3.05%
CONGRESS CHOICE
(D) Bill Foster
37.07% Total
76.49% Democrat
8.41% Republican
32.42% Independent
(R) Randy Hultgren
44.09% Total
7.72% Democrat
77.18% Republican
42.31% Independent
Other/Unsure
18.84% Total
15.79% Democrat
14.41% Republican
25.27% Independent
The August 4th poll sampled responses from 1,028 registered voters in the 14th Congressional District.
“While we do not live and die by every poll that comes out, today’s We Ask America poll shows clear momentum for Randy’s campaign for Congress,” said John Cooney, Campaign Manager for Randy Hultgren.
“Just two months ago, Randy led by a single percentage point, so this survey shows real movement as voters begin to focus on the candidates and their records.”
“Along with a seven point lead among registered voters, Randy enjoys a ten point advantage among independent voters who strongly reject the failed policies of the Foster/Pelosi Congress,” said Cooney. “Bill Foster voted for a stimulus package that failed to create jobs and a health care boondoggle that cuts $500 billion out of Medicare. Illinois voters are coming to realize that Randy Hultgren is the right choice for our families and our future.”
Illinois CD 14
Date of Poll: 8/4/2010
Participants: 1,028 registered voters
Margin of Error: ±3.05%
CONGRESS CHOICE
(D) Bill Foster
37.07% Total
76.49% Democrat
8.41% Republican
32.42% Independent
(R) Randy Hultgren
44.09% Total
7.72% Democrat
77.18% Republican
42.31% Independent
Other/Unsure
18.84% Total
15.79% Democrat
14.41% Republican
25.27% Independent
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Deconstructing Harry Reid
By KARL ROVE
The Senate majority leader's inexplicable desire to debate taxes in September.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can say the darndest things. He certainly did last week when he proclaimed: "I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican." That must have thrilled his son, Rory, who's trailing a Hispanic Republican, Judge Brian Sandoval, in the Nevada governor's race by 16 points in the most recent Mason-Dixon poll.
Mr. Reid can also do inexplicable things, such as tentatively schedule a floor debate in September on extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that expire on Jan. 1.
There are many ways this debate can hurt Democrats in November's election, such as deepening their image as tax-and-spend liberals. There are only a few ways it could help, such as if they agreed with Republicans to keep the Bush tax cuts in place. Rightly sensing trouble and trying to protect vulnerable House Democrats from yet another unpopular vote, Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that her chamber would take up the issue only if the Senate passed a bill first.
That's unlikely. At least three Senate Democrats support renewing the Bush-era tax cuts: Sens. Evan Bayh, Kent Conrad and Ben Nelson. This puts Mr. Reid at least four votes short of gaining cloture on any tax increase he'd pursue.
By arguing that now is not the time to raise taxes, Messrs. Bayh, Conrad and Nelson may be out of step with their Democratic colleagues and the White House, but not with the American people. The Aug. 5-9 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll reported 71% of Americans favor extending the tax cuts for at least a year, while only 24% said permanently eliminating all the tax cuts was acceptable.
The Wall Street Journal's recent survey of 53 economists also found that only three supported allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire, while 32 favored keeping them. Eleven backed President Barack Obama's position of continuing them for individuals making less than $200,000 a year or families making less than $250,000.
Mr. Reid will not only face opposition inside the Democratic caucus from his right. Liberal senators might follow the lead of Iowa's Tom Harkin, who wants to preserve tax cuts only to those earning $150,000 or less.
Mr. Reid also has the problem that God so loves middle-class taxpayers that he created a lot of them. Individual filers who make $200,000 or less and families who earn $250,000 or less received the lion's share of the Bush-era tax cuts. The "cost" (to the government) of keeping tax cuts in place for them would be $1.29 trillion over the next 10 years.
Yet Mr. Reid, Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats have vowed to "pay" for any tax cuts with offsetting tax increases or spending cuts elsewhere—a policy called pay-go. Abandoning pay-go on some tax cuts now will make it hard for Democrats to resurrect it later. But raising taxes and cutting spending will gore a lot of oxen weeks before the midterms, driving everyone who faces a tax hike to vote Republican in order to keep House Democrats from passing any Senate bill.
The GOP will seize this opportunity to argue that the country should not absorb history's largest tax increase as the economy is struggling to get airspeed and altitude. In a June Rasmussen poll, Republicans already enjoyed a 52-to-36 lead on the question of which party can be trusted on taxes. A September tax debate will only strengthen the GOP's standing.
With tiresome predictability, Senate Democrats will attack GOP colleagues for protecting tax cuts for the rich. But Republicans have a very strong small business card to play. Raising the top income tax rates would increase taxes on small businesses that report profits as individuals. Higher income tax rates would raise taxes on 54% of Subchapter S small companies, 33% of sole proprietorships, and half of all small business income. Affected firms employ a quarter of all small business workers.
Small business owners are already jazzed about this year's elections. An assault on them in September will only increase their agitation, making it more likely they share their concerns with employees, suppliers and customers.
Democrats are in a terrible bind. Having pursued policies that have made our fiscal situation unsustainable, they are now reverting to old habits, trying to raise taxes to pay for their profligacy.
Mr. Reid is drawing attention to some of his party's very worst impressions. Already facing the prospect of huge election losses in November, many Democratic candidates may find themselves victims of their majority leader's extraordinarily bad judgment if he follows through on his decision to schedule a tax debate next month.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703649004575437413307858620.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
The Senate majority leader's inexplicable desire to debate taxes in September.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can say the darndest things. He certainly did last week when he proclaimed: "I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican." That must have thrilled his son, Rory, who's trailing a Hispanic Republican, Judge Brian Sandoval, in the Nevada governor's race by 16 points in the most recent Mason-Dixon poll.
Mr. Reid can also do inexplicable things, such as tentatively schedule a floor debate in September on extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that expire on Jan. 1.
There are many ways this debate can hurt Democrats in November's election, such as deepening their image as tax-and-spend liberals. There are only a few ways it could help, such as if they agreed with Republicans to keep the Bush tax cuts in place. Rightly sensing trouble and trying to protect vulnerable House Democrats from yet another unpopular vote, Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that her chamber would take up the issue only if the Senate passed a bill first.
That's unlikely. At least three Senate Democrats support renewing the Bush-era tax cuts: Sens. Evan Bayh, Kent Conrad and Ben Nelson. This puts Mr. Reid at least four votes short of gaining cloture on any tax increase he'd pursue.
By arguing that now is not the time to raise taxes, Messrs. Bayh, Conrad and Nelson may be out of step with their Democratic colleagues and the White House, but not with the American people. The Aug. 5-9 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll reported 71% of Americans favor extending the tax cuts for at least a year, while only 24% said permanently eliminating all the tax cuts was acceptable.
The Wall Street Journal's recent survey of 53 economists also found that only three supported allowing the Bush-era tax cuts to expire, while 32 favored keeping them. Eleven backed President Barack Obama's position of continuing them for individuals making less than $200,000 a year or families making less than $250,000.
Mr. Reid will not only face opposition inside the Democratic caucus from his right. Liberal senators might follow the lead of Iowa's Tom Harkin, who wants to preserve tax cuts only to those earning $150,000 or less.
Mr. Reid also has the problem that God so loves middle-class taxpayers that he created a lot of them. Individual filers who make $200,000 or less and families who earn $250,000 or less received the lion's share of the Bush-era tax cuts. The "cost" (to the government) of keeping tax cuts in place for them would be $1.29 trillion over the next 10 years.
Yet Mr. Reid, Mr. Obama and congressional Democrats have vowed to "pay" for any tax cuts with offsetting tax increases or spending cuts elsewhere—a policy called pay-go. Abandoning pay-go on some tax cuts now will make it hard for Democrats to resurrect it later. But raising taxes and cutting spending will gore a lot of oxen weeks before the midterms, driving everyone who faces a tax hike to vote Republican in order to keep House Democrats from passing any Senate bill.
The GOP will seize this opportunity to argue that the country should not absorb history's largest tax increase as the economy is struggling to get airspeed and altitude. In a June Rasmussen poll, Republicans already enjoyed a 52-to-36 lead on the question of which party can be trusted on taxes. A September tax debate will only strengthen the GOP's standing.
With tiresome predictability, Senate Democrats will attack GOP colleagues for protecting tax cuts for the rich. But Republicans have a very strong small business card to play. Raising the top income tax rates would increase taxes on small businesses that report profits as individuals. Higher income tax rates would raise taxes on 54% of Subchapter S small companies, 33% of sole proprietorships, and half of all small business income. Affected firms employ a quarter of all small business workers.
Small business owners are already jazzed about this year's elections. An assault on them in September will only increase their agitation, making it more likely they share their concerns with employees, suppliers and customers.
Democrats are in a terrible bind. Having pursued policies that have made our fiscal situation unsustainable, they are now reverting to old habits, trying to raise taxes to pay for their profligacy.
Mr. Reid is drawing attention to some of his party's very worst impressions. Already facing the prospect of huge election losses in November, many Democratic candidates may find themselves victims of their majority leader's extraordinarily bad judgment if he follows through on his decision to schedule a tax debate next month.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703649004575437413307858620.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Obama no help on campaign trail even in Illinois
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Obama on the Trail
Illinois voters say they would be negatively influenced if a candidate was endorsed by Barack Obama. And if his support isn't an asset in his home state it's hard to imagine where it is.
40% of voters in the state say they'd be less likely to support an Obama endorsed candidate to only 26% who say it would be an asset. The reality at this point is that Obama turns Republican voters off to a much greater extent than he excites Democrats. That's reflected in the fact that 83% of Republicans say an Obama endorsement would be a negative with them while only 49% of Democrats say it would be a positive. Independents also respond negatively by a 38/19 margin.
The numbers on an Obama endorsement are perhaps more relevant with undecided voters. Among those who have not yet made up their minds in the Senate race 21% say an Obama endorsement would resonate positively with them while 33% say it would be a turnoff.
An Obama endorsement does at least go across better with Illinois voters than a Sarah Palin one does. That's not the case in Pennsylvania. There 28% of voters say they'd be more inclined to vote for someone supported by Palin while only 20% say the same about Obama. Likewise 49% say an Obama endorsement would hurt a candidate's cause with them to 46% who say the same about Palin.
Obviously these numbers are skewed somewhat by the fact that many 2008 Obama voters are not in the likely voter pool and the argument in favor of having him come campaign for you is that you might be able to draw more of those folks out. But his visits didn't seem to have that impact in New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Virginia. It's becoming increasingly clear that Obama is not much of an asset for Democratic candidates on the campaign trail and that for most of them it would be better if he just stayed away.
Full results here:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_PAIL_819.pdf
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/08/obama-on-trail.html
Obama on the Trail
Illinois voters say they would be negatively influenced if a candidate was endorsed by Barack Obama. And if his support isn't an asset in his home state it's hard to imagine where it is.
40% of voters in the state say they'd be less likely to support an Obama endorsed candidate to only 26% who say it would be an asset. The reality at this point is that Obama turns Republican voters off to a much greater extent than he excites Democrats. That's reflected in the fact that 83% of Republicans say an Obama endorsement would be a negative with them while only 49% of Democrats say it would be a positive. Independents also respond negatively by a 38/19 margin.
The numbers on an Obama endorsement are perhaps more relevant with undecided voters. Among those who have not yet made up their minds in the Senate race 21% say an Obama endorsement would resonate positively with them while 33% say it would be a turnoff.
An Obama endorsement does at least go across better with Illinois voters than a Sarah Palin one does. That's not the case in Pennsylvania. There 28% of voters say they'd be more inclined to vote for someone supported by Palin while only 20% say the same about Obama. Likewise 49% say an Obama endorsement would hurt a candidate's cause with them to 46% who say the same about Palin.
Obviously these numbers are skewed somewhat by the fact that many 2008 Obama voters are not in the likely voter pool and the argument in favor of having him come campaign for you is that you might be able to draw more of those folks out. But his visits didn't seem to have that impact in New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Virginia. It's becoming increasingly clear that Obama is not much of an asset for Democratic candidates on the campaign trail and that for most of them it would be better if he just stayed away.
Full results here:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_PAIL_819.pdf
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/08/obama-on-trail.html
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
A Tea Party Manifesto
The movement is not seeking a junior partnership with the Republican Party. It is aiming for a hostile takeover.
By DICK ARMEY AND MATT KIBBE
On Feb. 9, 2009, Mary Rakovich, a recently laid-off automotive engineer, set out for a convention center in Fort Myers, Fla. with protest signs, a cooler of water and the courage of her convictions. She felt compelled to act, having grown increasingly alarmed at the explosion of earmarks, bailouts and government spending in the waning years of the Bush administration. President Barack Obama, joined by then-Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, was in town promoting his plan to spend a trillion dollars in borrowed money to "stimulate" the economy.
Mary didn't know it, but she was on the front lines of a grass-roots revolution that was brewing across the nation. More than 3,000 miles away, Keli Carender, a young Seattle school teacher and a member of a local comedy improv troupe, was feeling equally frustrated. She started to organize like-minded citizens. "Our nation's fiscal path is just not sustainable," she said. "You can't continue to spend money you don't have indefinitely."
Today the ranks of this citizen rebellion can be counted in the millions. The rebellion's name derives from the glorious rant of CNBC commentator Rick Santelli, who in February 2009 called for a new "tea party" from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. By doing so he reminded all of us that America was founded on the revolutionary principle of citizen participation, citizen activism and the primacy of the individual over the government. That's the tea party ethos.
The tea party movement has blossomed into a powerful social phenomenon because it is leaderless—not directed by any one mind, political party or parochial agenda.
The criteria for membership are straightforward: Stay true to principle even when it proves inconvenient, be assertive but respectful, add value and don't taking credit for other people's work. Our community is built on the Trader Principle: We associate by mutual consent, to further shared goals of restoring fiscal responsibility and constitutionally limited government. These were the principles that enabled the Sept. 12, 2009 taxpayer march on Washington to be one of the largest political protests in the history of our nation's capital.
The many branches of the tea party movement have created a virtual marketplace for new ideas, effective innovations and creative tactics. Best practices come from the ground up, around kitchen tables, from Facebook friends, at weekly book clubs, or on Twitter feeds. This is beautiful chaos—or, as the Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek put it, "spontaneous order."
Decentralization, not top-down hierarchy, is the best way to maximize the contributions of people and their personal knowledge. Let the leaders be the activists who have the best knowledge of local personalities and issues. In the real world, this is common sense. In Washington, D.C., this is considered radical.
The big-government crowd is drawn to the compulsory nature of centralized authority. They can't imagine an undirected social order. Someone needs to be in charge—someone who knows better. Big government is audacious and conceited.
By definition, government is the means by which citizens are forced to do that which they would not do voluntarily. Like pay high taxes. Or redistribute tax dollars to bail out the broken, bloated pension systems of state government employees. Or purchase, by federal mandate, a government-defined health-insurance plan that is unaffordable, unnecessary or unwanted.
For the left, and for today's Democratic Party, every solution to every perceived problem involves more government—top-down dictates from bureaucrats presumed to know better what you need. Tea partiers reject this nanny state philosophy of redistribution and control because it is bankrupting our country.
While the tea party is not a formal political party, local networks across the nation have moved beyond protests and turned to more practical matters of political accountability. Already, particularly in Republican primaries, fed-up Americans are turning out at the polls to vote out the big spenders. They are supporting candidates who have signed the Contract From America, a statement of policy principles generated online by hundreds of thousands of grass-roots activists.
Published in April, the Contract amounts to a tea party "seal of approval." It demands fiscal policies that limit government, restrain spending, promote market reforms in health care—and oppose ObamaCare, tax hikes and cap-and-trade restrictions that will kill job creation and stunt economic growth. Candidates who have signed the Contract—including Marco Rubio in Florida, Mike Lee in Utah and Tim Scott in South Carolina—have defeated Republican big spenders in primary elections all across the nation.
These young legislative entrepreneurs will shift the balance in the next Congress, bringing with them a more serious, adult commitment to responsible, restrained government.
But let us be clear about one thing: The tea party movement is not seeking a junior partnership with the Republican Party, but a hostile takeover of it.
The American values of individual freedom, fiscal responsibility and limited government bind the ranks of our movement. That makes the tea party better than a political party. It is a growing community that can sustain itself after November, ensuring a better means of holding a new generation of elected officials accountable.
Mr. Armey, a former House Republican majority leader, is chairman of Freedomworks. Mr. Kibbe is president and CEO of Freedomworks. They are the authors of "Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto," out today from HarperCollins.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425061553154540.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel_1
By DICK ARMEY AND MATT KIBBE
On Feb. 9, 2009, Mary Rakovich, a recently laid-off automotive engineer, set out for a convention center in Fort Myers, Fla. with protest signs, a cooler of water and the courage of her convictions. She felt compelled to act, having grown increasingly alarmed at the explosion of earmarks, bailouts and government spending in the waning years of the Bush administration. President Barack Obama, joined by then-Republican Gov. Charlie Crist, was in town promoting his plan to spend a trillion dollars in borrowed money to "stimulate" the economy.
Mary didn't know it, but she was on the front lines of a grass-roots revolution that was brewing across the nation. More than 3,000 miles away, Keli Carender, a young Seattle school teacher and a member of a local comedy improv troupe, was feeling equally frustrated. She started to organize like-minded citizens. "Our nation's fiscal path is just not sustainable," she said. "You can't continue to spend money you don't have indefinitely."
Today the ranks of this citizen rebellion can be counted in the millions. The rebellion's name derives from the glorious rant of CNBC commentator Rick Santelli, who in February 2009 called for a new "tea party" from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. By doing so he reminded all of us that America was founded on the revolutionary principle of citizen participation, citizen activism and the primacy of the individual over the government. That's the tea party ethos.
The tea party movement has blossomed into a powerful social phenomenon because it is leaderless—not directed by any one mind, political party or parochial agenda.
The criteria for membership are straightforward: Stay true to principle even when it proves inconvenient, be assertive but respectful, add value and don't taking credit for other people's work. Our community is built on the Trader Principle: We associate by mutual consent, to further shared goals of restoring fiscal responsibility and constitutionally limited government. These were the principles that enabled the Sept. 12, 2009 taxpayer march on Washington to be one of the largest political protests in the history of our nation's capital.
The many branches of the tea party movement have created a virtual marketplace for new ideas, effective innovations and creative tactics. Best practices come from the ground up, around kitchen tables, from Facebook friends, at weekly book clubs, or on Twitter feeds. This is beautiful chaos—or, as the Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek put it, "spontaneous order."
Decentralization, not top-down hierarchy, is the best way to maximize the contributions of people and their personal knowledge. Let the leaders be the activists who have the best knowledge of local personalities and issues. In the real world, this is common sense. In Washington, D.C., this is considered radical.
The big-government crowd is drawn to the compulsory nature of centralized authority. They can't imagine an undirected social order. Someone needs to be in charge—someone who knows better. Big government is audacious and conceited.
By definition, government is the means by which citizens are forced to do that which they would not do voluntarily. Like pay high taxes. Or redistribute tax dollars to bail out the broken, bloated pension systems of state government employees. Or purchase, by federal mandate, a government-defined health-insurance plan that is unaffordable, unnecessary or unwanted.
For the left, and for today's Democratic Party, every solution to every perceived problem involves more government—top-down dictates from bureaucrats presumed to know better what you need. Tea partiers reject this nanny state philosophy of redistribution and control because it is bankrupting our country.
While the tea party is not a formal political party, local networks across the nation have moved beyond protests and turned to more practical matters of political accountability. Already, particularly in Republican primaries, fed-up Americans are turning out at the polls to vote out the big spenders. They are supporting candidates who have signed the Contract From America, a statement of policy principles generated online by hundreds of thousands of grass-roots activists.
Published in April, the Contract amounts to a tea party "seal of approval." It demands fiscal policies that limit government, restrain spending, promote market reforms in health care—and oppose ObamaCare, tax hikes and cap-and-trade restrictions that will kill job creation and stunt economic growth. Candidates who have signed the Contract—including Marco Rubio in Florida, Mike Lee in Utah and Tim Scott in South Carolina—have defeated Republican big spenders in primary elections all across the nation.
These young legislative entrepreneurs will shift the balance in the next Congress, bringing with them a more serious, adult commitment to responsible, restrained government.
But let us be clear about one thing: The tea party movement is not seeking a junior partnership with the Republican Party, but a hostile takeover of it.
The American values of individual freedom, fiscal responsibility and limited government bind the ranks of our movement. That makes the tea party better than a political party. It is a growing community that can sustain itself after November, ensuring a better means of holding a new generation of elected officials accountable.
Mr. Armey, a former House Republican majority leader, is chairman of Freedomworks. Mr. Kibbe is president and CEO of Freedomworks. They are the authors of "Give Us Liberty: A Tea Party Manifesto," out today from HarperCollins.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425061553154540.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_RIGHTTopCarousel_1
Monday, August 16, 2010
Calendar for GOP day at the state fair
Thursday, August 19…
* 8:30 a.m. – 9:30 a.m. SCC and County Chairman’s Assoc. Breakfast. Northfield Inn, Suites & Conference Center. 3280 Northfield Drive . Contacts: Steve Ettinger (217) 525-0011 and Randy Pollard (618) 267-2547
* 9:30 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. County Chairman’s Association Meeting Northfield Inn, Suites & Conference Center. 3280 Northfield Drive. Contacts: Randy Pollard (618) 267-2547
* 10:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. Republican Day @ the Illinois State FairDirector’s Lawn / IL State Fairgrounds. Contact: Steve Ettinger (217) 525-0011.
10:00 a.m. Kids Area open (All Day)
12:00 p.m. Lunch served (Anticipated time)
12:30 p.m. Speaking Program (Anticipated time)
1:15 p.m. Live Entertainment (Concludes at 3:00 p.m.)
* 2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. (Following the GOP Luncheon) Sen. Dan Rutherford, reception. Free. Franny’s Tavern, Corner of 8th & Sangamon Avenue, Outside State Fair Gate 11. Special Guests Steve Kim Candidate for Attorney General And Robert Enriquez Candidate for Secretary of State. Contact: Dan Rutherford Campaign Committee (815) 842-2475
* 3:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. Bill Brady for Governor Reception. Sangamon County Central Committee HQ. 1132 E. Sangamon Avenue. SE of the Main Gate to the Fairgrounds. Contact: 217-241-9830
* GOPUSA ILLINOIS / TAPROOT table at the Illinois Republican Party event at the State Fair in Springfield
* 5-7 pm. Sen. John Millner, fundraiser. Maldaner’s Restaurant. 630.251.4468.
* 8:30 a.m. – 9:30 a.m. SCC and County Chairman’s Assoc. Breakfast. Northfield Inn, Suites & Conference Center. 3280 Northfield Drive . Contacts: Steve Ettinger (217) 525-0011 and Randy Pollard (618) 267-2547
* 9:30 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. County Chairman’s Association Meeting Northfield Inn, Suites & Conference Center. 3280 Northfield Drive. Contacts: Randy Pollard (618) 267-2547
* 10:00 a.m. – 3:00 p.m. Republican Day @ the Illinois State FairDirector’s Lawn / IL State Fairgrounds. Contact: Steve Ettinger (217) 525-0011.
10:00 a.m. Kids Area open (All Day)
12:00 p.m. Lunch served (Anticipated time)
12:30 p.m. Speaking Program (Anticipated time)
1:15 p.m. Live Entertainment (Concludes at 3:00 p.m.)
* 2:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. (Following the GOP Luncheon) Sen. Dan Rutherford, reception. Free. Franny’s Tavern, Corner of 8th & Sangamon Avenue, Outside State Fair Gate 11. Special Guests Steve Kim Candidate for Attorney General And Robert Enriquez Candidate for Secretary of State. Contact: Dan Rutherford Campaign Committee (815) 842-2475
* 3:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m. Bill Brady for Governor Reception. Sangamon County Central Committee HQ. 1132 E. Sangamon Avenue. SE of the Main Gate to the Fairgrounds. Contact: 217-241-9830
* GOPUSA ILLINOIS / TAPROOT table at the Illinois Republican Party event at the State Fair in Springfield
* 5-7 pm. Sen. John Millner, fundraiser. Maldaner’s Restaurant. 630.251.4468.
Quinn's prison release fiasco
Gov. Pat Quinn hasn't fired anyone in his administration over the flawed early release of prisoners, but he is the only one facing the voters this fall.
The Meritorious Good Time Push program was ill-conceived. The Department (of Corrections) exhibited institutional myopia: While pursuing cost-saving measures, it neglected the most important consideration — the potential impact on public safety."
— report of retired Appellate Judge David Erickson, Aug. 13, 2010
We keep wondering if the early-release debacle that freed 1,754 Illinois prisoners — some of them violent offenders — will cost a high-ranking state official his job in the administration of Gov. Pat Quinn. No, we're not talking about Department of Corrections Director Michael Randle or people in his agency who allegedly tried to undermine him. We're talking about Quinn himself, who has correctly acknowledged that the buck stops with him.
This scandal has been nothing but bad news for the governor since it broke in December. His Democratic challenger, state Comptroller Dan Hynes, nearly rode it to victory in the Feb. 2 Illinois primary. And an autopsy of the scandal issued Friday — a report from former Judge David Erickson — probably threatens Quinn's prospects in the Nov. 2 general election as well.
One of Quinn's initial responses in December was to ask Erickson to lead a committee review of early release in Illinois. The report issued Friday is Erickson's response. He said at a news conference that while early release can be a valuable corrections tool, Illinois' program had devolved into "a dismal failure" over three decades: Governors weren't on top of it, and some legislators kept urging more early releases. Erickson said the Quinn administration's accelerated 2009 program of granting early release, the so-called MGT Push, "took a broken system and made it worse."
The report documents how, last Aug. 31, the Department of Corrections inaugurated MGT Push, "replacing the 60-day minimum stay policy with an 11-day minimum stay policy" for offenders who had been sentenced to short prison terms. Over the next three-months-plus, 1,754 inmates were released under MGT Push; on average they served 36 fewer days than they otherwise would have. The report says the agency "failed to adequately notify local jurisdictions of inmates' impending releases" and concludes that the program "failed to accomplish the overriding goals of the State's Code of Corrections: protecting the public's safety and restoring inmates to useful citizenship."
The Alumni Notes from MGT Push: 685 parolees are free and compliant, 498 have been discharged, and 13 have died. But 390 have been returned to Illinois prisons, some for committing violent offenses; another 36 are incarcerated elsewhere; 32 have outstanding warrants but haven't yet been arrested; and 100 are the subjects of federal immigration enforcement.
Quinn's chief of staff, Jerry Stermer, said Friday he was present last summer and fall when the governor told Randle he was not to release violent offenders under MGT Push. Randle took responsibility for not supervising his subordinates closely enough to make sure they followed that dictum. As a result, he said, "It happened."
These kinds of government failures usually produce internecine back-stabbing, and this episode is no different. We can't say with certainty whether Quinn is too protective of Randle, or whether agency rivals who were gunning for Randle couldn't quite make him the fall guy. What we do know is that only one person tied to this mess has to stand for re-election: the boss.
Stermer would rather talk about Quinn's quick elimination of MGT Push when the scandal broke, the ongoing suspension of a similar program, and the numerous improvements that should make for a better early-release culture in Illinois. He said Quinn needs legislative cooperation to fund a $30 million overhaul of the Corrections computer systems. And, echoing Erickson's report, he said the governor wants to narrow the universe of offenders eligible for early release.
At first read, Erickson's report is an excellent map to reforming early release in Illinois. You can find the full document at chicagotribune.com/prisoners.
But tomorrow's reforms may not insulate Quinn from yesterday's failure to have such a potentially dangerous program under better management
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-earlyrelease-20100816,0,5191318.story
The Meritorious Good Time Push program was ill-conceived. The Department (of Corrections) exhibited institutional myopia: While pursuing cost-saving measures, it neglected the most important consideration — the potential impact on public safety."
— report of retired Appellate Judge David Erickson, Aug. 13, 2010
We keep wondering if the early-release debacle that freed 1,754 Illinois prisoners — some of them violent offenders — will cost a high-ranking state official his job in the administration of Gov. Pat Quinn. No, we're not talking about Department of Corrections Director Michael Randle or people in his agency who allegedly tried to undermine him. We're talking about Quinn himself, who has correctly acknowledged that the buck stops with him.
This scandal has been nothing but bad news for the governor since it broke in December. His Democratic challenger, state Comptroller Dan Hynes, nearly rode it to victory in the Feb. 2 Illinois primary. And an autopsy of the scandal issued Friday — a report from former Judge David Erickson — probably threatens Quinn's prospects in the Nov. 2 general election as well.
One of Quinn's initial responses in December was to ask Erickson to lead a committee review of early release in Illinois. The report issued Friday is Erickson's response. He said at a news conference that while early release can be a valuable corrections tool, Illinois' program had devolved into "a dismal failure" over three decades: Governors weren't on top of it, and some legislators kept urging more early releases. Erickson said the Quinn administration's accelerated 2009 program of granting early release, the so-called MGT Push, "took a broken system and made it worse."
The report documents how, last Aug. 31, the Department of Corrections inaugurated MGT Push, "replacing the 60-day minimum stay policy with an 11-day minimum stay policy" for offenders who had been sentenced to short prison terms. Over the next three-months-plus, 1,754 inmates were released under MGT Push; on average they served 36 fewer days than they otherwise would have. The report says the agency "failed to adequately notify local jurisdictions of inmates' impending releases" and concludes that the program "failed to accomplish the overriding goals of the State's Code of Corrections: protecting the public's safety and restoring inmates to useful citizenship."
The Alumni Notes from MGT Push: 685 parolees are free and compliant, 498 have been discharged, and 13 have died. But 390 have been returned to Illinois prisons, some for committing violent offenses; another 36 are incarcerated elsewhere; 32 have outstanding warrants but haven't yet been arrested; and 100 are the subjects of federal immigration enforcement.
Quinn's chief of staff, Jerry Stermer, said Friday he was present last summer and fall when the governor told Randle he was not to release violent offenders under MGT Push. Randle took responsibility for not supervising his subordinates closely enough to make sure they followed that dictum. As a result, he said, "It happened."
These kinds of government failures usually produce internecine back-stabbing, and this episode is no different. We can't say with certainty whether Quinn is too protective of Randle, or whether agency rivals who were gunning for Randle couldn't quite make him the fall guy. What we do know is that only one person tied to this mess has to stand for re-election: the boss.
Stermer would rather talk about Quinn's quick elimination of MGT Push when the scandal broke, the ongoing suspension of a similar program, and the numerous improvements that should make for a better early-release culture in Illinois. He said Quinn needs legislative cooperation to fund a $30 million overhaul of the Corrections computer systems. And, echoing Erickson's report, he said the governor wants to narrow the universe of offenders eligible for early release.
At first read, Erickson's report is an excellent map to reforming early release in Illinois. You can find the full document at chicagotribune.com/prisoners.
But tomorrow's reforms may not insulate Quinn from yesterday's failure to have such a potentially dangerous program under better management
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-earlyrelease-20100816,0,5191318.story
Israel's Netanyahu Poised to Take Out Iran's Nuclear Sites
Monday, 16 Aug 2010 09:43 AM Article Font Size
By: George Will
When Israel declared independence in 1948, it had to use mostly small arms to repel attacks by six Arab armies. Today, however, Israel feels, and is, more menaced than it was then, or has been since. Hence the potentially world-shaking decision that will be made here, probably within two years.
To understand the man who will make it, begin with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's belief that stopping Iran's nuclear weapons program is integral to stopping the worldwide campaign to reverse 1948. It is, he says, a campaign to "put the Jew back to the status of a being that couldn't defend himself — a perfect victim."
Today's Middle East, he says, reflects two developments. One is the rise of Iran and militant Islam since the 1979 revolution, which led to al-Qaida, Hamas, and Hezbollah. The other development is the multiplying threat of missile warfare.
Now Israel faces a third threat, the campaign to delegitimize it in order to extinguish its capacity for self-defense.
After two uniquely perilous millennia for Jews, the creation of Israel meant, Netanyahu says, "the capacity for self-defense restored to the Jewish people." But note, he says, the reflexive worldwide chorus of condemnation when Israel responded with force to rocket barrages from Gaza and from southern Lebanon. There is, he believes, a crystallizing consensus that "Israel is not allowed to exercise self-defense."
From 1948 through 1973, he says, enemies tried to "eliminate Israel by conventional warfare." Having failed, they tried to demoralize and paralyze Israel with suicide bombers and other terrorism. "We put up a fence," Netanyahu says. "Now they have rockets that go over the fence." Israel's military, which has stressed offense as a solution to the nation's lack of strategic depth, now stresses missile defense.
That, however, cannot cope with Hamas' tens of thousands of rockets in Gaza and Hezbollah's 60,000 in southern Lebanon. There, U.N. resolution 1701, promulgated after the 2006 war, has been predictably farcical. This was supposed to inhibit the arming of Hezbollah and prevent its operations south of the Litani River.
Since 2006, Hezbollah's rocket arsenal has tripled and its operations mock resolution 1701. Hezbollah, learning from Hamas, now places rockets near schools and hospitals, certain that Israel's next response to indiscriminate aggression will turn the world media into a force multiplier for the aggressors.
Any Israeli self-defense anywhere is automatically judged "disproportionate." Israel knows this as it watches Iran.
Last year was Barack Obama's wasted year of "engaging" Iran. This led to sanctions that are unlikely to ever become sufficiently potent. With Russia, China, and Turkey being uncooperative, Iran is hardly "isolated." The Iranian democracy movement probably cannot quickly achieve regime change. It took Solidarity 10 years to do so against a Polish regime less brutally repressive than Iran's.
Hillary Clinton's words about extending a "defense umbrella over the region" imply, to Israelis, fatalism about a nuclear Iran. As for deterrence working against a nuclear-armed regime steeped in an ideology of martyrdom, remember: In 1980, Ayatollah Khomeini said: "We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."
You say, that was long ago? Israel says, this is now:
Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, says Israel is the "enemy of God." Tehran, proclaiming that the Holocaust never happened and vowing to complete it, sent an ambassador to Poland who in 2006 wanted to measure the ovens at Auschwitz to prove them inadequate for genocide. Iran's former president, Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is considered a "moderate" by people for whom believing is seeing, calls Israel a "one-bomb country."
If Iran were to "wipe the Zionist entity off the map," as it vows to do, it would, Netanyahu believes, achieve a regional "dominance not seen since Alexander." Netanyahu does not say Israel will, if necessary, act alone to prevent this. Or does he?
He says CIA Director Leon Panetta is "about right" in saying Iran can be a nuclear power in two years. He says 1948 meant this: "For the first time in 2,000 years, a sovereign Jewish people could defend itself against attack." And he says: "The tragic history of the powerlessness of our people explains why the Jewish people need a sovereign power of self-defense." If Israel strikes Iran, the world will not be able to say it was not warned.
George Will's e-mail address is georgewill@washpost.com.
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
http://www.newsmax.com/GeorgeWill/Will--Iran--nuclear--Netanyahu--Israel--war--strike/2010/08/16/id/367558
By: George Will
When Israel declared independence in 1948, it had to use mostly small arms to repel attacks by six Arab armies. Today, however, Israel feels, and is, more menaced than it was then, or has been since. Hence the potentially world-shaking decision that will be made here, probably within two years.
To understand the man who will make it, begin with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's belief that stopping Iran's nuclear weapons program is integral to stopping the worldwide campaign to reverse 1948. It is, he says, a campaign to "put the Jew back to the status of a being that couldn't defend himself — a perfect victim."
Today's Middle East, he says, reflects two developments. One is the rise of Iran and militant Islam since the 1979 revolution, which led to al-Qaida, Hamas, and Hezbollah. The other development is the multiplying threat of missile warfare.
Now Israel faces a third threat, the campaign to delegitimize it in order to extinguish its capacity for self-defense.
After two uniquely perilous millennia for Jews, the creation of Israel meant, Netanyahu says, "the capacity for self-defense restored to the Jewish people." But note, he says, the reflexive worldwide chorus of condemnation when Israel responded with force to rocket barrages from Gaza and from southern Lebanon. There is, he believes, a crystallizing consensus that "Israel is not allowed to exercise self-defense."
From 1948 through 1973, he says, enemies tried to "eliminate Israel by conventional warfare." Having failed, they tried to demoralize and paralyze Israel with suicide bombers and other terrorism. "We put up a fence," Netanyahu says. "Now they have rockets that go over the fence." Israel's military, which has stressed offense as a solution to the nation's lack of strategic depth, now stresses missile defense.
That, however, cannot cope with Hamas' tens of thousands of rockets in Gaza and Hezbollah's 60,000 in southern Lebanon. There, U.N. resolution 1701, promulgated after the 2006 war, has been predictably farcical. This was supposed to inhibit the arming of Hezbollah and prevent its operations south of the Litani River.
Since 2006, Hezbollah's rocket arsenal has tripled and its operations mock resolution 1701. Hezbollah, learning from Hamas, now places rockets near schools and hospitals, certain that Israel's next response to indiscriminate aggression will turn the world media into a force multiplier for the aggressors.
Any Israeli self-defense anywhere is automatically judged "disproportionate." Israel knows this as it watches Iran.
Last year was Barack Obama's wasted year of "engaging" Iran. This led to sanctions that are unlikely to ever become sufficiently potent. With Russia, China, and Turkey being uncooperative, Iran is hardly "isolated." The Iranian democracy movement probably cannot quickly achieve regime change. It took Solidarity 10 years to do so against a Polish regime less brutally repressive than Iran's.
Hillary Clinton's words about extending a "defense umbrella over the region" imply, to Israelis, fatalism about a nuclear Iran. As for deterrence working against a nuclear-armed regime steeped in an ideology of martyrdom, remember: In 1980, Ayatollah Khomeini said: "We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."
You say, that was long ago? Israel says, this is now:
Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, says Israel is the "enemy of God." Tehran, proclaiming that the Holocaust never happened and vowing to complete it, sent an ambassador to Poland who in 2006 wanted to measure the ovens at Auschwitz to prove them inadequate for genocide. Iran's former president, Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is considered a "moderate" by people for whom believing is seeing, calls Israel a "one-bomb country."
If Iran were to "wipe the Zionist entity off the map," as it vows to do, it would, Netanyahu believes, achieve a regional "dominance not seen since Alexander." Netanyahu does not say Israel will, if necessary, act alone to prevent this. Or does he?
He says CIA Director Leon Panetta is "about right" in saying Iran can be a nuclear power in two years. He says 1948 meant this: "For the first time in 2,000 years, a sovereign Jewish people could defend itself against attack." And he says: "The tragic history of the powerlessness of our people explains why the Jewish people need a sovereign power of self-defense." If Israel strikes Iran, the world will not be able to say it was not warned.
George Will's e-mail address is georgewill@washpost.com.
© Newsmax. All rights reserved.
http://www.newsmax.com/GeorgeWill/Will--Iran--nuclear--Netanyahu--Israel--war--strike/2010/08/16/id/367558
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Panel's report slams Quinn's prison-release program
BY ABDON M. PALLASCH Political Reporter apallasch@suntimes.com
Gov. Quinn made public his long-delayed report on his administration’s embarrassing prison-release program Friday.
A panel led by former Judge Dave Erickson confirmed what everyone has already said: Allowing violent prisoners out of prison early was a dumb idea.
About 500 of the 1,754 prisoners released under the “Meritorious Good Time” plan had violent histories, the report said.
The “Meritorious good time” program will remain on ice until it is reformed, Quinn said.
Erickson said if the program is ever brought back, “good time” — trouble-free periods that can lead to early release — should be revocable if prisoners misbehave.
“The department had taken the position that it was not revocable,” Erickson said. “That’s the carrot-and-stick approach without the stick. That doesn't make any sense. From this point forward, it will be revocable.”
Quinn’s Republican opponent for governor, Bill Brady, dismissed the report as “too little, too late.”
“The report fails to provide citizens with basic answers to questions about the approval and responsibly for this program,” Brady said.
Both Quinn and Corrections Director Michael Randle re-iterated that Quinn told Randle not to release violent prisoners, but that Randle did anyway.
Quinn said he thought about firing Randle but decided that Randle’s one mistake should not outweigh an otherwise well-regarded career.
“I told him I was very disappointed in the fact that he made a mistake,” Quinn said. “He was clearly told that no violent prisoners would be able to be released early, period. ”
Quinn said he’d like Brady’s help getting legislative approval to spend $30 million from the state’s capital budget upgrading the prison computer system as Erickson recommends.
“He went around getting people to vote ‘No” on that,” Quinn said.
“We found out, shockingly, that 39 computer systems within the Department of Corrections exist and they don't talk to each other,” Erickson said.
Asked how he’d get money to pay for some of Erickson’s recommended reforms, Quinn said he hired 700 new guards this year and will hire 800 more next year.
How will that help save money? It will cut the overtime hours current guards work, he said.
http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3078437581805316374
Gov. Quinn made public his long-delayed report on his administration’s embarrassing prison-release program Friday.
A panel led by former Judge Dave Erickson confirmed what everyone has already said: Allowing violent prisoners out of prison early was a dumb idea.
About 500 of the 1,754 prisoners released under the “Meritorious Good Time” plan had violent histories, the report said.
The “Meritorious good time” program will remain on ice until it is reformed, Quinn said.
Erickson said if the program is ever brought back, “good time” — trouble-free periods that can lead to early release — should be revocable if prisoners misbehave.
“The department had taken the position that it was not revocable,” Erickson said. “That’s the carrot-and-stick approach without the stick. That doesn't make any sense. From this point forward, it will be revocable.”
Quinn’s Republican opponent for governor, Bill Brady, dismissed the report as “too little, too late.”
“The report fails to provide citizens with basic answers to questions about the approval and responsibly for this program,” Brady said.
Both Quinn and Corrections Director Michael Randle re-iterated that Quinn told Randle not to release violent prisoners, but that Randle did anyway.
Quinn said he thought about firing Randle but decided that Randle’s one mistake should not outweigh an otherwise well-regarded career.
“I told him I was very disappointed in the fact that he made a mistake,” Quinn said. “He was clearly told that no violent prisoners would be able to be released early, period. ”
Quinn said he’d like Brady’s help getting legislative approval to spend $30 million from the state’s capital budget upgrading the prison computer system as Erickson recommends.
“He went around getting people to vote ‘No” on that,” Quinn said.
“We found out, shockingly, that 39 computer systems within the Department of Corrections exist and they don't talk to each other,” Erickson said.
Asked how he’d get money to pay for some of Erickson’s recommended reforms, Quinn said he hired 700 new guards this year and will hire 800 more next year.
How will that help save money? It will cut the overtime hours current guards work, he said.
http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=3078437581805316374
Obama defends Ground Zero mosque
By ABBY PHILLIP | 8/13/10 8:37 PM EDT Updated: 8/14/10 11:28 AM EDT
President Barack Obama on Friday endorsed a controversial plan to build a mosque and Islamic center just blocks from Ground Zero in Manhattan, despite the strong objections of conservatives, the ADL and those who lost loved ones in the September 11 attacks.
“Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground,” Obama said at a White House dinner celebrating the Muslim holiday of Ramadan. “But let me be clear: as a citizen and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”
Having steered clear of the controversy for weeks, Obama took on opposition to the mosque directly — a move that many other Democratic lawmakers had been hesitant to do in the face of highly emotional appeals against its construction.
But polls indicate the issue could be a high-voltage third rail for politicians who support the project: a recent CNN poll found that 68 percent of those surveyed did not approve of building a mosque so close to where the World Trade Center towers fell, killing more than 2,000 people.
As perhaps the White House had anticipated, the reaction from conservatives and at least one 9/11 rescue worker was swift and angry. Most echoed Rick Lazio, the Republican gubernatorial hopeful who helped draw national attention back to the Ground Zero-area mosque by using it against his Democratic rival, Andrew Cuomo,
"President Obama and Attorney General Cuomo still are not listening to New Yorkers," Lazio said in a statement, suggesting that the backers of the project have obscured their true motives and funding.
There has been "a deliberate attempt to avoid transparency and a deliberate attempt to build the mosque at this location," Lazio said. "Why?"
In recent weeks, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs had deflected questions on the issue, insisting it is “a matter for New York City and the local community to decide.” But Obama had been criticized for being slow to weigh in on the controversy, especially in light of his past statements in support of religious freedom and tolerance for Muslims in the United States.
In his speech Friday, Obama called for sensitivity with respect to developing in lower Manhattan but cautioned against drawing comparisons between mainstream Islam and the ruthlessly violent ideology of Al Queda, which he said is a “gross distortion” of the faith.
“Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect to those who are different from us — a way of life that stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today,” he said.
Obama spoke before a group of about 90 people, including Muslim community leaders, ambassadors, dignitaries and Rep. Andre Carson (D-Ind.), one of two Muslim members of Congress. After his statement, a number of individuals reportedly rushed to the stage to shake Obama’s hands following his unexpectedly direct endorsement of the mosque.
Earlier this week, in a statement recognizing the onset of the Muslim holy month, Obama said that the rituals of Ramadan “remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.”
The event is this White House’s second recognition of Ramadan, the Islamic month of fasting, with a traditional iftar dinner—a communal event that traditionally marks the breaking of the fast at sundown.
The project, spearheaded by the Cordoba Institute, an organization that works to improve the relationship between Muslims and the West, proposes that a 152-year-old building be demolished two blocks away from Ground Zero to make way for the new Muslim community center and mosque.
Opponents have argued that, if constructed, the mosque would be a painful insult to survivors, rescue workers and families of those who died on 9/11. Proponents counter that the presence of a mosque so close to the center of the attacks would be a powerful signal of American religious tolerance — a counterweight to the terrorist attack. At the same time, they argue, blocking its construction violates the Constitutional right to freedom of religion.
A number of prominent conservatives, including GOP presidential hopefuls Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, and moderate Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), decried plans for the mosque.
“There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia,” Gingrich wrote on his website. “The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.”
Earlier this mornth, the ADL came out against the mosque. This week, prominent conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer even compared the proposed mosque to construction of German heritage center at the Auschwitz concentration camp.
By contrast, Michael Bloomberg, New York's mayor, hailed Obama's endorsement.
The mayor called the project "as important a test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime, and I applaud President Obama’s clarion defense of the freedom of religion tonight.”
Still, some Democratic lawmakers from New York have been reluctant to address the issue.
A spokesman for Sen. Chuck Schumer has said only that the New York senator is “not opposed” to the controversial proposal.
Rep. Anthony Weiner — who is said to have mayoral ambitions and who gained notoriety last month for railing against Republican opposition to a bill supporting medical funds for 9/11 first responders — has declined to talk specifically about the mosque.
Already, New York’s conservative politicians are doubling down on their opposition to the proposal. POLITICO reports that the New York State Conservative Party will launch statewide ads asking Con Edison, the utility company that owns part of the land, to halt the project.
Rather than tackle the issue head-on, most on the left have preferred to deal with a more concrete issue: whether the government can lawfully stop the project.
“I feel strongly that the constitutional protection of freedom of religion from the overreach of government means that elected officials should endeavor to stay out of the business of deciding where houses of worship may or may not be,” Weiner said in a letter to Bloomberg that praised the mayor's defense of religious freedom in a speech about the project last week.
But Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said Obama is “wrong” to endorse an “insensitive and uncaring” project.
“While the Muslim community has the right to build the mosque they are abusing that right by needlessly offending so many people who have suffered so much,” he said in a statement Friday. “The right and moral thing for President Obama to have done was to urge Muslim leaders to respect the families of those who died and move their mosque away from Ground Zero. Unfortunately, the president caved in to political correctness."
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the religious leader for the mosque and head of the Cordoba Institute, has been sent by the Bush and Obama administrations to parts of the Muslim world to speak about religious tolerance in the United States.
The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission voted unanimously to allow the project to move forward. But that vote is likely to only spark further litigation.
A group affiliated with conservative religious leader Pat Robertson, American Center for Law and Justice, said that it would challenge the vote by the Landmarks Preservation Commission in court.
Tim Brown, a New York City firefighter and the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed recently aimed at stopping the mosque based on the argument that the city failed to follow its own landmark policies, said, "I really think he was not speaking to us, I think he was speaking to the Muslim world."
"It's hurtful," he said. "Our own president, the president of the United States, has abandoned the families who gave too much already. It's insensitive what he did, it's hurtful what he did, and he couches it in religious freedom except (the Imam building the mosque)" doesn't feel that way."
"I think he's also trying to do damage control — he's trying to turn the polls back a bit." Brown said.
Maggie Haberman contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41060_Page3.html#ixzz0wbE5GdpQ
President Barack Obama on Friday endorsed a controversial plan to build a mosque and Islamic center just blocks from Ground Zero in Manhattan, despite the strong objections of conservatives, the ADL and those who lost loved ones in the September 11 attacks.
“Ground Zero is, indeed, hallowed ground,” Obama said at a White House dinner celebrating the Muslim holiday of Ramadan. “But let me be clear: as a citizen and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”
Having steered clear of the controversy for weeks, Obama took on opposition to the mosque directly — a move that many other Democratic lawmakers had been hesitant to do in the face of highly emotional appeals against its construction.
But polls indicate the issue could be a high-voltage third rail for politicians who support the project: a recent CNN poll found that 68 percent of those surveyed did not approve of building a mosque so close to where the World Trade Center towers fell, killing more than 2,000 people.
As perhaps the White House had anticipated, the reaction from conservatives and at least one 9/11 rescue worker was swift and angry. Most echoed Rick Lazio, the Republican gubernatorial hopeful who helped draw national attention back to the Ground Zero-area mosque by using it against his Democratic rival, Andrew Cuomo,
"President Obama and Attorney General Cuomo still are not listening to New Yorkers," Lazio said in a statement, suggesting that the backers of the project have obscured their true motives and funding.
There has been "a deliberate attempt to avoid transparency and a deliberate attempt to build the mosque at this location," Lazio said. "Why?"
In recent weeks, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs had deflected questions on the issue, insisting it is “a matter for New York City and the local community to decide.” But Obama had been criticized for being slow to weigh in on the controversy, especially in light of his past statements in support of religious freedom and tolerance for Muslims in the United States.
In his speech Friday, Obama called for sensitivity with respect to developing in lower Manhattan but cautioned against drawing comparisons between mainstream Islam and the ruthlessly violent ideology of Al Queda, which he said is a “gross distortion” of the faith.
“Our capacity to show not merely tolerance, but respect to those who are different from us — a way of life that stands in stark contrast to the nihilism of those who attacked us on that September morning, and who continue to plot against us today,” he said.
Obama spoke before a group of about 90 people, including Muslim community leaders, ambassadors, dignitaries and Rep. Andre Carson (D-Ind.), one of two Muslim members of Congress. After his statement, a number of individuals reportedly rushed to the stage to shake Obama’s hands following his unexpectedly direct endorsement of the mosque.
Earlier this week, in a statement recognizing the onset of the Muslim holy month, Obama said that the rituals of Ramadan “remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.”
The event is this White House’s second recognition of Ramadan, the Islamic month of fasting, with a traditional iftar dinner—a communal event that traditionally marks the breaking of the fast at sundown.
The project, spearheaded by the Cordoba Institute, an organization that works to improve the relationship between Muslims and the West, proposes that a 152-year-old building be demolished two blocks away from Ground Zero to make way for the new Muslim community center and mosque.
Opponents have argued that, if constructed, the mosque would be a painful insult to survivors, rescue workers and families of those who died on 9/11. Proponents counter that the presence of a mosque so close to the center of the attacks would be a powerful signal of American religious tolerance — a counterweight to the terrorist attack. At the same time, they argue, blocking its construction violates the Constitutional right to freedom of religion.
A number of prominent conservatives, including GOP presidential hopefuls Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, and moderate Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), decried plans for the mosque.
“There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia,” Gingrich wrote on his website. “The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.”
Earlier this mornth, the ADL came out against the mosque. This week, prominent conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer even compared the proposed mosque to construction of German heritage center at the Auschwitz concentration camp.
By contrast, Michael Bloomberg, New York's mayor, hailed Obama's endorsement.
The mayor called the project "as important a test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime, and I applaud President Obama’s clarion defense of the freedom of religion tonight.”
Still, some Democratic lawmakers from New York have been reluctant to address the issue.
A spokesman for Sen. Chuck Schumer has said only that the New York senator is “not opposed” to the controversial proposal.
Rep. Anthony Weiner — who is said to have mayoral ambitions and who gained notoriety last month for railing against Republican opposition to a bill supporting medical funds for 9/11 first responders — has declined to talk specifically about the mosque.
Already, New York’s conservative politicians are doubling down on their opposition to the proposal. POLITICO reports that the New York State Conservative Party will launch statewide ads asking Con Edison, the utility company that owns part of the land, to halt the project.
Rather than tackle the issue head-on, most on the left have preferred to deal with a more concrete issue: whether the government can lawfully stop the project.
“I feel strongly that the constitutional protection of freedom of religion from the overreach of government means that elected officials should endeavor to stay out of the business of deciding where houses of worship may or may not be,” Weiner said in a letter to Bloomberg that praised the mayor's defense of religious freedom in a speech about the project last week.
But Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said Obama is “wrong” to endorse an “insensitive and uncaring” project.
“While the Muslim community has the right to build the mosque they are abusing that right by needlessly offending so many people who have suffered so much,” he said in a statement Friday. “The right and moral thing for President Obama to have done was to urge Muslim leaders to respect the families of those who died and move their mosque away from Ground Zero. Unfortunately, the president caved in to political correctness."
Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the religious leader for the mosque and head of the Cordoba Institute, has been sent by the Bush and Obama administrations to parts of the Muslim world to speak about religious tolerance in the United States.
The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission voted unanimously to allow the project to move forward. But that vote is likely to only spark further litigation.
A group affiliated with conservative religious leader Pat Robertson, American Center for Law and Justice, said that it would challenge the vote by the Landmarks Preservation Commission in court.
Tim Brown, a New York City firefighter and the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed recently aimed at stopping the mosque based on the argument that the city failed to follow its own landmark policies, said, "I really think he was not speaking to us, I think he was speaking to the Muslim world."
"It's hurtful," he said. "Our own president, the president of the United States, has abandoned the families who gave too much already. It's insensitive what he did, it's hurtful what he did, and he couches it in religious freedom except (the Imam building the mosque)" doesn't feel that way."
"I think he's also trying to do damage control — he's trying to turn the polls back a bit." Brown said.
Maggie Haberman contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41060_Page3.html#ixzz0wbE5GdpQ
Rostenkowski Reflects: His Thoughts on Kennedy, Daley, Obama, and More
By Carol Felsenthal
Last March, I met Dan Rostenkowski for lunch at Mitchell’s on Clybourn Avenue. The former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, a self-described “kingpin” of Congress who died yesterday at his home in Wisconsin, went to prison in 1996 on fraud charges including taking vouchers for stamps, exchanging them for cash at the House Post Office and pocketing the proceeds. He was later pardoned by Bill Clinton, but not before losing his chairmanship, his seat in Congress, and his reputation—all over relatively petty crimes.
When we met, he had made a kind of comeback—giving speeches, lecturing at Loyola, and preparing to write his memoirs. Born and bred in Chicago, Rosty was also suffering from the lung cancer that eventually claimed his life at age 82. A hulking man—6’2” with a beefy, open face—he was dressed that day in a Special Olympics sweatshirt and wore a star sapphire pinky ring. He insisted on paying for lunch and left a hefty tip. If anyone recognized the man who had been among the top powerbrokers in Chicago and nationally, no one approached him as we talked for 90 minutes.
Here, some highlights of our conversation, which covered more than 50 years of local and national politics and included his thoughts on Mayor Daley, John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and more:
On the late Richard J. Daley and his son, Mayor Richard M. Daley: I liked Dick Daley, and I liked the way that he was running the city. We had what was then called an organization; you call it a machine. [Richard M.] surprises me. I didn’t think he’d be good [as mayor] at all. I didn’t think that he had the ability. Richie Daley is a very physical mayor. He wants you to see his mayorship—the flowers [on Michigan Avenue], et cetera.
On former Commerce Secretary Bill Daley: Billy Daley started to come to Washington and, of course, he’d come to see me and I was very helpful to Billy Daley. He’s clever. A palm tree, not an oak, but good at what he does. Very self-centered; he’s busy being Billy Daley, trying to get elected to something. He wants to be a public official.
On John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson: Jack was kind of an upstart. Lyndon Johnson was the Majority Leader of the Senate. Lyndon Johnson was doing things that Jack Kennedy could never get accomplished. Kennedy was a suntanned, handsome young guy. You gotta remember, too, that, for eight years, [Kennedy’s predecessor, Dwight D.] Eisenhower was just a monotone—nothing exciting. Kennedy was young, and Jackie was a great asset to him, and the press loved him.
On Kennedy’s selection of LBJ as vice president in 1960 and Bobby Kennedy’s attempt to stop the appointment: Lyndon really hated Bobby; Bobby hated Lyndon. I was sitting with Dick Daley when Jack Kennedy called and he said, “What do you think about Lyndon Johnson?” Daley says, “Listen, you’re the nominee, if you put Snow White on the back end of that ticket, I’ll be for it. But this is your call.” Johnson called Daley, he says “Goddamn it. Bobby Kennedy’s running around here [the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles]. Jack’s telling me I’m the choice, and Bobby’s running all over the goddamned city of Los Angeles condemning the crap out of me.”
On how the Kennedys treated Johnson, the VP: They would ignore him, they would make fun of him. Lyndon Johnson would go into see Jack Kennedy and say, “Goddamn it, you’re asking [Speaker of the House] Sam Rayburn for appointments to the judiciary. I’m the vice president. You don’t even ask me?” As VP, Johnson was not doing much of anything. He was frustrated.
On John Kennedy’s re-election chances in 1964 and his short presidency: I think he would have had a problem. Jack Kennedy took his wife to Dallas [on November 22, 1963 when he was assassinated] because they were having a problem with support. College campuses were really turning conservative. I don’t think Illinois would have gone for Jack Kennedy the second time…. Aside from Camelot and a wonderfully delicate, beautiful wife, tell me what else he did.
On LBJ taking over as president after Kennedy’s assassination: What Kennedy did is he laid out a program that he knew he couldn’t pass because he had southern Democrats in all the chairmanships except two. Johnson did it because he was a southerner and Johnson felt, “I’ll show you, I’ll pass everyone of those goddamned programs,” and he did.
On Lyndon Johnson’s earmarks: Lyndon Johnson would say, “Could you help me out on this? I’d really appreciate it.” “I don’t know, Mr. President, I just don’t think that I can do that.” “Well, I’ll tell you what. You’re worried about getting that Highway 93 coming through your area. I don’t think you’re gonna see that Highway 93. The federal building you were supposed to get, that’s gone, too.” “You know, Mr. President, I think I can help you.” They criticized LBJ for twisting arms, breaking bones, but… the country was moving like gangbusters. If Lyndon Johnson didn’t sign a bill every day of his presidency, he thought the day was a total failure.
On Lyndon Johnson calling Rostenkowski about the funds to build the CTA line to O’Hare:
LBJ said, “Well Danny Boy, you did it. Got that money for the trolley train to go out to O’Hare.” I said, “Jesus Christ, that is wonderful! Oh, man, I can’t wait until I tell Richard Daley.” [Rostenkowski called Daley, who then called LBJ.] Next day I get a call from the President, “Danny, I made a mistake. I didn’t mean that the trolley was going to go out to O’Hare. It’s going out the Dan Ryan.” I said, “Lyndon, did you talk to Richard Daley?” He says, “Danny, the goddamned thing’s going out the Dan Ryan. That’s the end of it, you understand?” I said, “You son of a gun, you. You screwed me, you gave it to Daley for the South Side.” [The CTA to O’Hare was built later.]
On Johnson’s reaction to Rostenkowski’s decision to oppose the war in Vietnam:
When I went against the Vietnam War, he said, “Danny, what did you do to me? You stabbed me in my heart.” I told him, “I can’t do this any longer.” I [gave] a commencement address to the Gordon Technical High School. I sat there, and I looked into the faces of those kids. I just couldn’t do it because those kids were the ones who were going to go—not the ones at Yale and at Harvard.
On former Mayor Jane Byrne: I can’t stand her because she’s the dumbest broad I ever met in my life. If that girl had patience she could have been the vice presidential nominee, but you know what she wanted to do? Hire and fire garbage workers. Nutty.
On Bill Clinton pardoning him in 2000: I didn’t ask him for it. Bill Clinton said to [then-advisor] Paul Begala, “Hey, aren’t we going to take care of Rostenkowski? Get the papers. Don’t be bothering getting affidavits.” [The pardon did not go through the normal Justice Department vetting.] I learned about it when [journalist] Andrea Mitchell called to ask me for my reaction.
On how he rates Clinton as president: I think he did a very good job. I think the only other time we were in the black was Eisenhower. [Clinton] was the brightest president that I’ve ever served under. Of all the presidents, the best president was Lyndon Johnson. The smartest president—Bill Clinton, no question about it.
On Rod Blagojevich: How can you ask me about Blagojevich? Who can you ask about Blagojevich except Blagojevich? Blagojevich is off-balance.
On Roland Burris: I feel sorry for Burris. He’s a basket case, and listen, if they didn’t need his vote, they’d throw him out of the Senate.
On Dick Durbin: I like Durbin, but Durbin is so goddamned liberal, and this state is not that liberal.
On Governor Pat Quinn: I can’t stand Pat Quinn. I admire him. He’s totally honest about what he’s saying. He’s a gadfly.
On Hillary Clinton: I was for Hillary [for the Democratic nomination for president]. I think she would have been a great president. She would have been Margaret Thatcher. She lost because people just hate her. [In private] she’s a delightful girl.
On Barack Obama: It’s terrible that we have to have an Obama saying one thing to get elected and do another thing as President. What kind of politician and public service is this where you’ve got to lie to get the office? I don’t agree with his policies—this idea of this money that they’re spending [in stimulus programs]. You know when you’re bankrupt. You can’t keep throwing money at problems without throwing some vinegar [cutting spending] into the mix.
On whether he voted for Obama or John McCain in 2008: That’s none of your business
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/Felsenthal-Files/August-2010/Dan-Rostenkowski-Reflects-His-Thoughts-on-Kennedy-Daley-Obama-and-More/
Last March, I met Dan Rostenkowski for lunch at Mitchell’s on Clybourn Avenue. The former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, a self-described “kingpin” of Congress who died yesterday at his home in Wisconsin, went to prison in 1996 on fraud charges including taking vouchers for stamps, exchanging them for cash at the House Post Office and pocketing the proceeds. He was later pardoned by Bill Clinton, but not before losing his chairmanship, his seat in Congress, and his reputation—all over relatively petty crimes.
When we met, he had made a kind of comeback—giving speeches, lecturing at Loyola, and preparing to write his memoirs. Born and bred in Chicago, Rosty was also suffering from the lung cancer that eventually claimed his life at age 82. A hulking man—6’2” with a beefy, open face—he was dressed that day in a Special Olympics sweatshirt and wore a star sapphire pinky ring. He insisted on paying for lunch and left a hefty tip. If anyone recognized the man who had been among the top powerbrokers in Chicago and nationally, no one approached him as we talked for 90 minutes.
Here, some highlights of our conversation, which covered more than 50 years of local and national politics and included his thoughts on Mayor Daley, John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and more:
On the late Richard J. Daley and his son, Mayor Richard M. Daley: I liked Dick Daley, and I liked the way that he was running the city. We had what was then called an organization; you call it a machine. [Richard M.] surprises me. I didn’t think he’d be good [as mayor] at all. I didn’t think that he had the ability. Richie Daley is a very physical mayor. He wants you to see his mayorship—the flowers [on Michigan Avenue], et cetera.
On former Commerce Secretary Bill Daley: Billy Daley started to come to Washington and, of course, he’d come to see me and I was very helpful to Billy Daley. He’s clever. A palm tree, not an oak, but good at what he does. Very self-centered; he’s busy being Billy Daley, trying to get elected to something. He wants to be a public official.
On John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson: Jack was kind of an upstart. Lyndon Johnson was the Majority Leader of the Senate. Lyndon Johnson was doing things that Jack Kennedy could never get accomplished. Kennedy was a suntanned, handsome young guy. You gotta remember, too, that, for eight years, [Kennedy’s predecessor, Dwight D.] Eisenhower was just a monotone—nothing exciting. Kennedy was young, and Jackie was a great asset to him, and the press loved him.
On Kennedy’s selection of LBJ as vice president in 1960 and Bobby Kennedy’s attempt to stop the appointment: Lyndon really hated Bobby; Bobby hated Lyndon. I was sitting with Dick Daley when Jack Kennedy called and he said, “What do you think about Lyndon Johnson?” Daley says, “Listen, you’re the nominee, if you put Snow White on the back end of that ticket, I’ll be for it. But this is your call.” Johnson called Daley, he says “Goddamn it. Bobby Kennedy’s running around here [the Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles]. Jack’s telling me I’m the choice, and Bobby’s running all over the goddamned city of Los Angeles condemning the crap out of me.”
On how the Kennedys treated Johnson, the VP: They would ignore him, they would make fun of him. Lyndon Johnson would go into see Jack Kennedy and say, “Goddamn it, you’re asking [Speaker of the House] Sam Rayburn for appointments to the judiciary. I’m the vice president. You don’t even ask me?” As VP, Johnson was not doing much of anything. He was frustrated.
On John Kennedy’s re-election chances in 1964 and his short presidency: I think he would have had a problem. Jack Kennedy took his wife to Dallas [on November 22, 1963 when he was assassinated] because they were having a problem with support. College campuses were really turning conservative. I don’t think Illinois would have gone for Jack Kennedy the second time…. Aside from Camelot and a wonderfully delicate, beautiful wife, tell me what else he did.
On LBJ taking over as president after Kennedy’s assassination: What Kennedy did is he laid out a program that he knew he couldn’t pass because he had southern Democrats in all the chairmanships except two. Johnson did it because he was a southerner and Johnson felt, “I’ll show you, I’ll pass everyone of those goddamned programs,” and he did.
On Lyndon Johnson’s earmarks: Lyndon Johnson would say, “Could you help me out on this? I’d really appreciate it.” “I don’t know, Mr. President, I just don’t think that I can do that.” “Well, I’ll tell you what. You’re worried about getting that Highway 93 coming through your area. I don’t think you’re gonna see that Highway 93. The federal building you were supposed to get, that’s gone, too.” “You know, Mr. President, I think I can help you.” They criticized LBJ for twisting arms, breaking bones, but… the country was moving like gangbusters. If Lyndon Johnson didn’t sign a bill every day of his presidency, he thought the day was a total failure.
On Lyndon Johnson calling Rostenkowski about the funds to build the CTA line to O’Hare:
LBJ said, “Well Danny Boy, you did it. Got that money for the trolley train to go out to O’Hare.” I said, “Jesus Christ, that is wonderful! Oh, man, I can’t wait until I tell Richard Daley.” [Rostenkowski called Daley, who then called LBJ.] Next day I get a call from the President, “Danny, I made a mistake. I didn’t mean that the trolley was going to go out to O’Hare. It’s going out the Dan Ryan.” I said, “Lyndon, did you talk to Richard Daley?” He says, “Danny, the goddamned thing’s going out the Dan Ryan. That’s the end of it, you understand?” I said, “You son of a gun, you. You screwed me, you gave it to Daley for the South Side.” [The CTA to O’Hare was built later.]
On Johnson’s reaction to Rostenkowski’s decision to oppose the war in Vietnam:
When I went against the Vietnam War, he said, “Danny, what did you do to me? You stabbed me in my heart.” I told him, “I can’t do this any longer.” I [gave] a commencement address to the Gordon Technical High School. I sat there, and I looked into the faces of those kids. I just couldn’t do it because those kids were the ones who were going to go—not the ones at Yale and at Harvard.
On former Mayor Jane Byrne: I can’t stand her because she’s the dumbest broad I ever met in my life. If that girl had patience she could have been the vice presidential nominee, but you know what she wanted to do? Hire and fire garbage workers. Nutty.
On Bill Clinton pardoning him in 2000: I didn’t ask him for it. Bill Clinton said to [then-advisor] Paul Begala, “Hey, aren’t we going to take care of Rostenkowski? Get the papers. Don’t be bothering getting affidavits.” [The pardon did not go through the normal Justice Department vetting.] I learned about it when [journalist] Andrea Mitchell called to ask me for my reaction.
On how he rates Clinton as president: I think he did a very good job. I think the only other time we were in the black was Eisenhower. [Clinton] was the brightest president that I’ve ever served under. Of all the presidents, the best president was Lyndon Johnson. The smartest president—Bill Clinton, no question about it.
On Rod Blagojevich: How can you ask me about Blagojevich? Who can you ask about Blagojevich except Blagojevich? Blagojevich is off-balance.
On Roland Burris: I feel sorry for Burris. He’s a basket case, and listen, if they didn’t need his vote, they’d throw him out of the Senate.
On Dick Durbin: I like Durbin, but Durbin is so goddamned liberal, and this state is not that liberal.
On Governor Pat Quinn: I can’t stand Pat Quinn. I admire him. He’s totally honest about what he’s saying. He’s a gadfly.
On Hillary Clinton: I was for Hillary [for the Democratic nomination for president]. I think she would have been a great president. She would have been Margaret Thatcher. She lost because people just hate her. [In private] she’s a delightful girl.
On Barack Obama: It’s terrible that we have to have an Obama saying one thing to get elected and do another thing as President. What kind of politician and public service is this where you’ve got to lie to get the office? I don’t agree with his policies—this idea of this money that they’re spending [in stimulus programs]. You know when you’re bankrupt. You can’t keep throwing money at problems without throwing some vinegar [cutting spending] into the mix.
On whether he voted for Obama or John McCain in 2008: That’s none of your business
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/Felsenthal-Files/August-2010/Dan-Rostenkowski-Reflects-His-Thoughts-on-Kennedy-Daley-Obama-and-More/
Friday, August 13, 2010
The stunning decline of Barack Obama:
10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in meltdown
By Nile Gardiner
The last few weeks have been a nightmare for President Obama, in a summer of discontent in the United States which has deeply unsettled the ruling liberal elites, so much so that even the Left has begun to turn against the White House. While the anti-establishment Tea Party movement has gained significant ground and is now a rising and powerful political force to be reckoned with, many of the president’s own supporters as well as independents are rapidly losing faith in Barack Obama, with open warfare breaking out between the White House and the left-wing of the Democratic Party. While conservatism in America grows stronger by the day, the forces of liberalism are growing increasingly weaker and divided.
Against this backdrop, the president’s approval ratings have been sliding dramatically all summer, with the latest Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll of US voters dropping to minus 22 points, the lowest point so far for Barack Obama since taking office. While just 24 per cent of American voters strongly approve of the president’s job performance, almost twice that number, 46 per cent, strongly disapprove. According to Rasmussen, 65 per cent of voters believe the United States is going down the wrong track, including 70 per cent of independents.
The RealClearPolitics average of polls now has President Obama at over 50 per cent disapproval, a remarkably high figure for a president just 18 months into his first term. Strikingly, the latest USA Today/Gallup survey has the President on just 41 per cent approval, with 53 per cent disapproving.
There are an array of reasons behind the stunning decline and political fall of President Obama, chief among them fears over the current state of the US economy, with widespread concern over high levels of unemployment, the unstable housing market, and above all the towering budget deficit. Americans are increasingly rejecting President Obama’s big government solutions to America’s economic woes, which many fear will lead to the United States sharing the same fate as Greece.
Growing disillusionment with the Obama administration’s handling of the economy as well as health care and immigration has gone hand in hand with mounting unhappiness with the President’s aloof and imperial style of leadership, and a growing perception that he is out of touch with ordinary Americans, especially at a time of significant economic pain. Barack Obama’s striking absence of natural leadership ability (and blatant lack of experience) has played a big part in undermining his credibility with the US public, with his lacklustre handling of the Gulf oil spill coming under particularly intense fire.
On the national security and foreign policy front, President Obama has not fared any better. His leadership on the war in Afghanistan has been confused and at times lacking in conviction, and seemingly dictated by domestic political priorities rather than military and strategic goals. His overall foreign policy has been an appalling mess, with his flawed strategy of engagement of hostile regimes spectacularly backfiring. And as for the War on Terror, his administration has not even acknowledged it is fighting one.
Can it get any worse for President Obama? Undoubtedly yes. Here are 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in serious trouble, and why its prospects are unlikely to improve between now and the November mid-terms.
1. The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people
In a previous post I noted how the Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime, extravagant, decaying and out of touch with ordinary Americans. The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Spain at a time of widespread economic hardship was symbolic of a White House that barely gives a second thought to public opinion on many issues, and frequently projects a distinctly elitist image. The “let them eat cake” approach didn’t play well over two centuries ago, and it won’t succeed today.
2. Most Americans don’t have confidence in the president’s leadership
This deficit of trust in Obama’s leadership is central to his decline. According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, “nearly six in ten voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country”, and two thirds “say they are disillusioned with or angry about the way the federal government is working.” The poll showed that a staggering 58 per cent of Americans say they do not have confidence in the president’s decision-making, with just 42 per cent saying they do.
3. Obama fails to inspire
In contrast to the soaring rhetoric of his 2004 Convention speech in Boston which succeeded in impressing millions of television viewers at the time, America is no longer inspired by Barack Obama’s flat, monotonous and often dull presidential speeches and statements delivered via teleprompter. From his extraordinarily uninspiring Afghanistan speech at West Point to his flat State of the Union address, President Obama has failed to touch the heart of America. Even Jimmy Carter was more moving.
4. The United States is drowning in debt
The Congressional Budget Office Long-Term Budget Outlook offers a frightening picture of the scale of America’s national debt. Under its alternative fiscal scenario, the CBO projects that US debt could rise to 87 percent of GDP by 2020, 109 percent by 2025, and 185 percent in 2035. While much of Europe, led by Britain and Germany, are aggressively cutting their deficits, the Obama administration is actively growing America’s debt, and has no plan in place to avert a looming Greek-style financial crisis.
5. Obama’s Big Government message is falling flat
The relentless emphasis on bailouts and stimulus spending has done little to spur economic growth or create jobs, but has greatly advanced the power of the federal government in America. This is not an approach that is proving popular with the American public, and even most European governments have long ditched this tax and spend approach to saving their own economies.
6. Obama’s support for socialised health care is a huge political mistake
In an extraordinary act of political Harakiri, President Obama leant his full support to the hugely controversial, unpopular and divisive health care reform bill, with a monstrous price tag of $940 billion, whose repeal is now supported by 55 per cent of likely US voters. As I wrote at the time of its passing, the legislation is “a great leap forward by the United States towards a European-style vision of universal health care, which will only lead to soaring costs, higher taxes, and a surge in red tape for small businesses. This reckless legislation dramatically expands the power of the state over the lives of individuals, and could not be further from the vision of America’s founding fathers.”
7. Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive
While much of the spilled oil in the Gulf has now been thankfully cleared up, the political damage for the White House will be long-lasting. Instead of showing real leadership on the matter by acing decisively and drawing upon offers of international support, the Obama administration settled on a more convenient strategy of relentlessly bashing an Anglo-American company while largely sitting on its hands. Significantly, a poll of Louisiana voters gave George W. Bush higher marks for his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, with 62 percent disapproving of Obama’s performance on the Gulf oil spill.
8. US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration
It is hard to think of a single foreign policy success for the Obama administration, but there have been plenty of missteps which have weakened American global power as well as the standing of the United States. The surrender to Moscow on Third Site missile defence, the failure to aggressively stand up to Iran’s nuclear programme, the decision to side with ousted Marxists in Honduras, the slap in the face for Great Britain over the Falklands, have all contributed to the image of a US administration completely out of its depth in international affairs. The Obama administration’s high risk strategy of appeasing America’s enemies while kicking traditional US allies has only succeeded in weakening the United States while strengthening her adversaries.
9. President Obama is muddled and confused on national security
From the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the War on Terror, President Obama’s leadership has often been muddled and confused. On Afghanistan he rightly sent tens of thousands of additional troops to the battlefield. At the same time however he bizarrely announced a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces beginning in July 2011, handing the initiative to the Taliban. On Iraq he has announced an end to combat operations and the withdrawal of all but 50,000 troops despite a recent upsurge in terrorist violence and political instability, and without the Iraqi military and police ready to take over. In addition he has ditched the concept of a War on Terror, replacing it with an Overseas Contingency Operation, hardly the right message to send in the midst of a long-war against Al-Qaeda.
10. Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness
Barack Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism, and has made apologising for his country into an art form. In a speech to the United Nations last September he stated that “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.” It is difficult to see how a US president who holds these views and does not even accept America’s greatness in history can actually lead the world’s only superpower with force and conviction.
There is a distinctly Titanic-like feel to the Obama presidency and it’s not hard to see why. The most left-wing president in modern American history has tried to force a highly interventionist, government-driven agenda that runs counter to the principles of free enterprise, individual freedom, and limited government that have made the United States the greatest power in the world, and the freest nation on earth.
This, combined with weak leadership both at home and abroad against the backdrop of tremendous economic uncertainty in an increasingly dangerous world, has contributed to a spectacular political collapse for a president once thought to be invincible. America at its core remains a deeply conservative nation, which cherishes its traditions and founding principles. President Obama is increasingly out of step with the American people, by advancing policies that undermine the United States as a global power, while undercutting America’s deep-seated love for freedom.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100050412/the-stunning-decline-of-barack-obama-10-key-reasons-why-the-obama-presidency-is-in-meltdown/
By Nile Gardiner
The last few weeks have been a nightmare for President Obama, in a summer of discontent in the United States which has deeply unsettled the ruling liberal elites, so much so that even the Left has begun to turn against the White House. While the anti-establishment Tea Party movement has gained significant ground and is now a rising and powerful political force to be reckoned with, many of the president’s own supporters as well as independents are rapidly losing faith in Barack Obama, with open warfare breaking out between the White House and the left-wing of the Democratic Party. While conservatism in America grows stronger by the day, the forces of liberalism are growing increasingly weaker and divided.
Against this backdrop, the president’s approval ratings have been sliding dramatically all summer, with the latest Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll of US voters dropping to minus 22 points, the lowest point so far for Barack Obama since taking office. While just 24 per cent of American voters strongly approve of the president’s job performance, almost twice that number, 46 per cent, strongly disapprove. According to Rasmussen, 65 per cent of voters believe the United States is going down the wrong track, including 70 per cent of independents.
The RealClearPolitics average of polls now has President Obama at over 50 per cent disapproval, a remarkably high figure for a president just 18 months into his first term. Strikingly, the latest USA Today/Gallup survey has the President on just 41 per cent approval, with 53 per cent disapproving.
There are an array of reasons behind the stunning decline and political fall of President Obama, chief among them fears over the current state of the US economy, with widespread concern over high levels of unemployment, the unstable housing market, and above all the towering budget deficit. Americans are increasingly rejecting President Obama’s big government solutions to America’s economic woes, which many fear will lead to the United States sharing the same fate as Greece.
Growing disillusionment with the Obama administration’s handling of the economy as well as health care and immigration has gone hand in hand with mounting unhappiness with the President’s aloof and imperial style of leadership, and a growing perception that he is out of touch with ordinary Americans, especially at a time of significant economic pain. Barack Obama’s striking absence of natural leadership ability (and blatant lack of experience) has played a big part in undermining his credibility with the US public, with his lacklustre handling of the Gulf oil spill coming under particularly intense fire.
On the national security and foreign policy front, President Obama has not fared any better. His leadership on the war in Afghanistan has been confused and at times lacking in conviction, and seemingly dictated by domestic political priorities rather than military and strategic goals. His overall foreign policy has been an appalling mess, with his flawed strategy of engagement of hostile regimes spectacularly backfiring. And as for the War on Terror, his administration has not even acknowledged it is fighting one.
Can it get any worse for President Obama? Undoubtedly yes. Here are 10 key reasons why the Obama presidency is in serious trouble, and why its prospects are unlikely to improve between now and the November mid-terms.
1. The Obama presidency is out of touch with the American people
In a previous post I noted how the Obama presidency increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime, extravagant, decaying and out of touch with ordinary Americans. The First Lady’s ill-conceived trip to Spain at a time of widespread economic hardship was symbolic of a White House that barely gives a second thought to public opinion on many issues, and frequently projects a distinctly elitist image. The “let them eat cake” approach didn’t play well over two centuries ago, and it won’t succeed today.
2. Most Americans don’t have confidence in the president’s leadership
This deficit of trust in Obama’s leadership is central to his decline. According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, “nearly six in ten voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country”, and two thirds “say they are disillusioned with or angry about the way the federal government is working.” The poll showed that a staggering 58 per cent of Americans say they do not have confidence in the president’s decision-making, with just 42 per cent saying they do.
3. Obama fails to inspire
In contrast to the soaring rhetoric of his 2004 Convention speech in Boston which succeeded in impressing millions of television viewers at the time, America is no longer inspired by Barack Obama’s flat, monotonous and often dull presidential speeches and statements delivered via teleprompter. From his extraordinarily uninspiring Afghanistan speech at West Point to his flat State of the Union address, President Obama has failed to touch the heart of America. Even Jimmy Carter was more moving.
4. The United States is drowning in debt
The Congressional Budget Office Long-Term Budget Outlook offers a frightening picture of the scale of America’s national debt. Under its alternative fiscal scenario, the CBO projects that US debt could rise to 87 percent of GDP by 2020, 109 percent by 2025, and 185 percent in 2035. While much of Europe, led by Britain and Germany, are aggressively cutting their deficits, the Obama administration is actively growing America’s debt, and has no plan in place to avert a looming Greek-style financial crisis.
5. Obama’s Big Government message is falling flat
The relentless emphasis on bailouts and stimulus spending has done little to spur economic growth or create jobs, but has greatly advanced the power of the federal government in America. This is not an approach that is proving popular with the American public, and even most European governments have long ditched this tax and spend approach to saving their own economies.
6. Obama’s support for socialised health care is a huge political mistake
In an extraordinary act of political Harakiri, President Obama leant his full support to the hugely controversial, unpopular and divisive health care reform bill, with a monstrous price tag of $940 billion, whose repeal is now supported by 55 per cent of likely US voters. As I wrote at the time of its passing, the legislation is “a great leap forward by the United States towards a European-style vision of universal health care, which will only lead to soaring costs, higher taxes, and a surge in red tape for small businesses. This reckless legislation dramatically expands the power of the state over the lives of individuals, and could not be further from the vision of America’s founding fathers.”
7. Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill has been weak-kneed and indecisive
While much of the spilled oil in the Gulf has now been thankfully cleared up, the political damage for the White House will be long-lasting. Instead of showing real leadership on the matter by acing decisively and drawing upon offers of international support, the Obama administration settled on a more convenient strategy of relentlessly bashing an Anglo-American company while largely sitting on its hands. Significantly, a poll of Louisiana voters gave George W. Bush higher marks for his handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, with 62 percent disapproving of Obama’s performance on the Gulf oil spill.
8. US foreign policy is an embarrassing mess under the Obama administration
It is hard to think of a single foreign policy success for the Obama administration, but there have been plenty of missteps which have weakened American global power as well as the standing of the United States. The surrender to Moscow on Third Site missile defence, the failure to aggressively stand up to Iran’s nuclear programme, the decision to side with ousted Marxists in Honduras, the slap in the face for Great Britain over the Falklands, have all contributed to the image of a US administration completely out of its depth in international affairs. The Obama administration’s high risk strategy of appeasing America’s enemies while kicking traditional US allies has only succeeded in weakening the United States while strengthening her adversaries.
9. President Obama is muddled and confused on national security
From the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to the War on Terror, President Obama’s leadership has often been muddled and confused. On Afghanistan he rightly sent tens of thousands of additional troops to the battlefield. At the same time however he bizarrely announced a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces beginning in July 2011, handing the initiative to the Taliban. On Iraq he has announced an end to combat operations and the withdrawal of all but 50,000 troops despite a recent upsurge in terrorist violence and political instability, and without the Iraqi military and police ready to take over. In addition he has ditched the concept of a War on Terror, replacing it with an Overseas Contingency Operation, hardly the right message to send in the midst of a long-war against Al-Qaeda.
10. Obama doesn’t believe in American greatness
Barack Obama has made it clear that he doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism, and has made apologising for his country into an art form. In a speech to the United Nations last September he stated that “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. No balance of power among nations will hold.” It is difficult to see how a US president who holds these views and does not even accept America’s greatness in history can actually lead the world’s only superpower with force and conviction.
There is a distinctly Titanic-like feel to the Obama presidency and it’s not hard to see why. The most left-wing president in modern American history has tried to force a highly interventionist, government-driven agenda that runs counter to the principles of free enterprise, individual freedom, and limited government that have made the United States the greatest power in the world, and the freest nation on earth.
This, combined with weak leadership both at home and abroad against the backdrop of tremendous economic uncertainty in an increasingly dangerous world, has contributed to a spectacular political collapse for a president once thought to be invincible. America at its core remains a deeply conservative nation, which cherishes its traditions and founding principles. President Obama is increasingly out of step with the American people, by advancing policies that undermine the United States as a global power, while undercutting America’s deep-seated love for freedom.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100050412/the-stunning-decline-of-barack-obama-10-key-reasons-why-the-obama-presidency-is-in-meltdown/
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Democrats Sinking with Demographics, Will Republicans Bail them Out?
Thomas F. Roeser 9 August 2010
As the Democratic ship Titanic takes on water, the good ship Republican is proceeding apace to score a signal victory in the mid-term elections of November before pulling into port with a new captain for the nation in 2012. I tip my hat to from Mark McKinnon, an astute analyst writing in The Daily Beast.
Things look almost too good for the Republicans. Looking at the map where red states are Republican and blue Democratic, it’s evident that the red eight states in the South and West (Republican) will gain one or more House seats with the biggest gainer Texas. Ten blue states (Democratic), centered in the Northwest, will lose one or more. Texas which is spurting in economic growth due to a tough, pro-enterprise governor, will surely fill its extra seat with a Republican.
GOP Likely to Pick up the House.
Across the country, the GOP is distinctly ahead in the run for control of the House where 39 pickups are needed for the derrick to come and uproot Madam Pelosi from the Speaker’s podium.
The generic question which asks Americans “which party’s candidate will you vote for in elections for the U. S. House?” has Republicans winning 45 percent to 41. For many years—at least as long as I’ve been seriously watching elections as journalist and campaign strategist—the polls have almost always shown incumbents ahead of challengers…for many simple reasons: incumbents have had years earlier to get publicity, staffs to do favors for constituents etc.
Another maxim I learned early: an incumbent who’s running at 50 percent approval or lower is in trouble and an incumbent running behind a challenger is in big trouble. Today lots of Dem incumbents are running behind their challengers: one each from Arizona, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio; two from Virginia, three from Pennsylvania. And none of the Democrats have personal or ethical scandals.
In my own dark blue Illinois, home of The Squid, Republicans are favored in three Dem districts: the 11th south of Chicago, whose blue-collar and socially conservative area represented by pro-abort, pro-gay rights Dem feminist Debbie Halvorson is a natural for young, pro-life Air Force National Guard pilot, 32-year-old Protestant Adam Kinzinger…the 14th, the generally conservative district where downstate begins, at least in the westerly direction from Chicago—the district which boasted Denny Hastert as Speaker until he kissed it off by resigning to become a rich, full-time lobbyist—with pro-lifer evangelical Protestant State Sen. Randy Hultgren favored over pro-abort multi-millionaire liberal non-religiously affiliated Dem Bill Foster…
…And a distinct surprise, the 17th consisting of the west central sector of the state including the Illinois portion of the Quad Cities (Rock Island, Moline and East Moline) now represented by liberal Dem Catholic Phil Hare but likely to fall to conservative Catholic Bobby Schilling who captured attention by vowing not to take a fat congressional pension but keep his own private sector one, to observe term limits and “not to vote for any piece of legislation I haven’t read.”
Republicans thus far are distinctly ahead in national Senate contests. The party is leading in eight seats now held by Dems and is ahead in defending all GOP seats.
In addition, Illinois voters have finally…finally…become sufficiently sickened with Squid corruption and unelected, Blago-appointed Sen. Roland Burris to see Republican Congregationalist Cong. Mark Kirk, albeit a liberal who has been accused of stretching his resume and military record out of proportion, running neck-and-neck with Dem State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (Greek Orthodox and Obama’s pick-up basketball buddy) who as chief loan officer of a family bank staked mobster and one-time bordello owner Michael (Jaws) Giorango to a $20 million loan.
Republican capture of the Senate at this point looks unrealistic, experts say it can be done after the second election cycle.
Dem Governorships are Teetering
Nationally, Republicans are ahead in key governorship races. This includes Illinois where conservative Catholic, pro-lifer Bill Brady is running seven-points ahead of Quinn for governor. In addition, the following non-incumbent held governorships are veering to Republican control: Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.
In addition, the GOP is scoring far ahead of the Dems on key issues. Polls show likely voters trusting Republicans more than Democrats in nine out of ten issues including managing the economy. Voters who list taxes as the highest issue score the highest ratings in U. S. political history. Republicans are winning on trust—53 to 36 percent. Moreover 55 percent of likely voters in 12 swing states, including 57 percent of independents, tell pollsters they are not likely to vote for Democrats if the Bush tax cuts are ended.
Moreover Democrats are falling way behind on state legislative races across the country. Up for grabs this November are 83 percent of all legislative seats.
Spectacularly to my mind, given the fact that Obama has governed almost entirely from the Left, only 43 percent of Hispanics polled—a major Dem voting bloc—are satisfied with his performance, listing the sagging economy as reason…with 32 percent undecided and a shocking 21 percent who say he rates unsatisfactory. Gallup shows his support at 85 percent among blacks in contrast to the 94 percent he received on election day, 2008 but I don’t believe that figure given the indentured nature of African Americans to the Democratic party…although some may stay home on election day.
These Republican numbers are even more revelatory when you consider that in 2008 Obama won by 53 percent—more than any other Democrat except historic winners Andrew Jackson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson. But if today’s numbers hold, the Dems in 2010 and Obama in 2012 are in for a seething voter revolution. Yet there’s more.
Demographics Favor the GOP.
Every poll I’ve seen recently shows that Democrats are hemorrhaging whites, men, women and independents. White support dropped from 51 percent in July, 2009 to 37 percent a year later. The party popularity among independents has shrunk from 52 percent to 38. Numbers of male supporters have evaporated, from 54 percent to 39. Women: down 14 percent from last year to 45 percent. Young people who turned 18 in 2008 and voted for the first time supported Obama 2 to 1 with his popularity standing at 73 percent shortly before Inauguration Day. Now it stands at 57 percent and when paired against any unnamed RepublicanObama trails with voters 18 to 34.
With these kinds of numbers, you’d say the Republicans are sure winners in 2012, wouldn’t you? Nope. Don’t forget: Republicans are famous for goofing up, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. All you have to do is say over and over to yourself: President Thomas E. Dewey.
Much will depend on the identity of the person who runs for president against Obama in 2012. Thus endeth the analysis, most of the numbers from McKinnon.
Handicapping the GOP Presidential Race.
Here they are in terms of today’s popularity, with my comments added thereto.
Understand that as of today at least one poll has found that Obama would lose to any Republican. Quinnipiac University’s highly rated survey shows that Americans would rather vote for an unnamed Republican than Obama in 2012 by a 39 percent to 36 margin. But let’s assume this will change. Here are my highly subjective impressions of the logical Republican presidential candidates. They’re all pro-life and anti-gay rights.
Newt Gingrich. A brilliant guy, resourceful speaker and debater, recent Catholic convert. But Henry Hyde who knew him very well told me that he’s 50 percent genius and 50 percent nuts. I have to agree. Who else would on becoming the first Republican Speaker in more than 40 years, launch a for profit program to sell his books, a for profit sale of DVDs of him teaching politics…get rebuked by the House Ethics committee for it and engage in an extra-marital affair with the woman who became his third wife, whom he met while cheating on his second?
Mitt Romney. Another well-spoken guy, a masterful organizer who took the Salt Lake Olympics which was floundering in debt and put it in the black. A masterful speaker and spectacular analyst of world economic and military affairs: lawyer and businessman extraordinaire. But as governor of Massachusetts he devised Romney-Care which hangs around his neck like an albatross. Unless he can explain away the charges that he earlier devised what is unpopular in Massachusetts and is known as Obama-Care lite, he’ll be a loser. Well-financed but a loser.
Sarah Palin. She has made wondrous strides since her vice presidential foray in 2008. She has a fan club that embraces not just the Tea Party people but millions in the Republican party. She’s improved her understanding of the issues but at least in my estimation she’s too slangy like Ethel Merman playing Calamity Jane in “Annie Get Your Gun.” Much of her slang (“you betcha!”) is not presidential, as per her rough-edged vulgar comment (however true) that
Arizona Governor Brewer has more masculine qualities in dealing with illegal immigration than Obama. If she can start sounding like a president, she’d vastly improve. But I still expect she’ll be No. 1 or 2 on the GOP ticket. A good omen: Daughter Bristol’s decision to break her engagement to Levi Johnson has spared us a recurring soap opera sure to happen if she married the guy.
Mitch Daniels. I favored the brilliant governor of Indiana who has matchless experience—a success in the private sector, strong force as head of the federal budget office under Bush II and courageous in the Indianapolis state house in bringing a state with budget in the red to where it’s finances are solidly in the black. But recently he declared that there should be a “moratorium” on social issues like pro-life, gay-rights. He’s a social conservative all right but that statement left me cold. Besides, how can any president rule off social issues which are so key in this secular cultural climate? I don’t think he’ll ever recover from that gaffe.
Haley Barbour. The governor of Mississippi has been a greatly underestimated force. He was a Washington lobbyist who learned early how to ameliorate hard feelings and get things done. He took that skill to the Republican National committee and was by all odds its most effective chairman since Mark Hanna, contributing powerfully to the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994. As governor he has been among the nation’s best, mobilizing the state early so that when Katrina hit the resources were already there. Again with the Gulf oil spill, he was calm, magnetic—better so than Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, too gaunt, looking like an advance man for a famine. . Barbour’s a dark horse candidate but a very skilled one. Probably his only electoral disadvantage is a broad Mississippi accent.
Mike Huckabee. Polls notwithstanding, anyone who runs against Obama had better be an orator and on top of his game. Remember when the only thing John McCain could say about rescuing the economy was to end appropriation earmarks? Huckabee’s communications skills are at least equal to Reagan’s. Since his run in 2008, he’s hosted a Fox News TV program which further honed his already sharpened talents. He’s been a successful governor and is a Baptist preacher so his pro-life, anti-gay rights credentials are in fine order. He’s a little cornpone and however it happened he freed too many penitentiary inmates early with some disastrous consequences. But when I hear him make a speech I am struck with how eloquent he is. At this point I like him best. Barbour a close second.
Tim Pawlenty. A good governor of Minnesota, showed guts in dealing with a liberal legislature but he’s got stiff opposition from those above.
John Thune. As a junior senator from South Dakota he’s just running for exercise—and the future.
Ron Paul. By 2012 he will be seventy-seven, one year younger than Ronald Reagan was when he retired after his second term. Mass discontent with big government, bailouts and over-involvement in foreign-military affairs have ratified Paul’s early predictions. Who could carry his libertarian banner? No one appears in sight for 2012 but in the future his son, Rand, if elected Senator from Kentucky, might.
I tip my hat to from Mark McKinnon, an astute analyst writing in The Daily Beast, for the background on this column.
http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/democrats-sinking-with-demographics-will-republicans-bail-them-out/
As the Democratic ship Titanic takes on water, the good ship Republican is proceeding apace to score a signal victory in the mid-term elections of November before pulling into port with a new captain for the nation in 2012. I tip my hat to from Mark McKinnon, an astute analyst writing in The Daily Beast.
Things look almost too good for the Republicans. Looking at the map where red states are Republican and blue Democratic, it’s evident that the red eight states in the South and West (Republican) will gain one or more House seats with the biggest gainer Texas. Ten blue states (Democratic), centered in the Northwest, will lose one or more. Texas which is spurting in economic growth due to a tough, pro-enterprise governor, will surely fill its extra seat with a Republican.
GOP Likely to Pick up the House.
Across the country, the GOP is distinctly ahead in the run for control of the House where 39 pickups are needed for the derrick to come and uproot Madam Pelosi from the Speaker’s podium.
The generic question which asks Americans “which party’s candidate will you vote for in elections for the U. S. House?” has Republicans winning 45 percent to 41. For many years—at least as long as I’ve been seriously watching elections as journalist and campaign strategist—the polls have almost always shown incumbents ahead of challengers…for many simple reasons: incumbents have had years earlier to get publicity, staffs to do favors for constituents etc.
Another maxim I learned early: an incumbent who’s running at 50 percent approval or lower is in trouble and an incumbent running behind a challenger is in big trouble. Today lots of Dem incumbents are running behind their challengers: one each from Arizona, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio; two from Virginia, three from Pennsylvania. And none of the Democrats have personal or ethical scandals.
In my own dark blue Illinois, home of The Squid, Republicans are favored in three Dem districts: the 11th south of Chicago, whose blue-collar and socially conservative area represented by pro-abort, pro-gay rights Dem feminist Debbie Halvorson is a natural for young, pro-life Air Force National Guard pilot, 32-year-old Protestant Adam Kinzinger…the 14th, the generally conservative district where downstate begins, at least in the westerly direction from Chicago—the district which boasted Denny Hastert as Speaker until he kissed it off by resigning to become a rich, full-time lobbyist—with pro-lifer evangelical Protestant State Sen. Randy Hultgren favored over pro-abort multi-millionaire liberal non-religiously affiliated Dem Bill Foster…
…And a distinct surprise, the 17th consisting of the west central sector of the state including the Illinois portion of the Quad Cities (Rock Island, Moline and East Moline) now represented by liberal Dem Catholic Phil Hare but likely to fall to conservative Catholic Bobby Schilling who captured attention by vowing not to take a fat congressional pension but keep his own private sector one, to observe term limits and “not to vote for any piece of legislation I haven’t read.”
Republicans thus far are distinctly ahead in national Senate contests. The party is leading in eight seats now held by Dems and is ahead in defending all GOP seats.
In addition, Illinois voters have finally…finally…become sufficiently sickened with Squid corruption and unelected, Blago-appointed Sen. Roland Burris to see Republican Congregationalist Cong. Mark Kirk, albeit a liberal who has been accused of stretching his resume and military record out of proportion, running neck-and-neck with Dem State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (Greek Orthodox and Obama’s pick-up basketball buddy) who as chief loan officer of a family bank staked mobster and one-time bordello owner Michael (Jaws) Giorango to a $20 million loan.
Republican capture of the Senate at this point looks unrealistic, experts say it can be done after the second election cycle.
Dem Governorships are Teetering
Nationally, Republicans are ahead in key governorship races. This includes Illinois where conservative Catholic, pro-lifer Bill Brady is running seven-points ahead of Quinn for governor. In addition, the following non-incumbent held governorships are veering to Republican control: Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.
In addition, the GOP is scoring far ahead of the Dems on key issues. Polls show likely voters trusting Republicans more than Democrats in nine out of ten issues including managing the economy. Voters who list taxes as the highest issue score the highest ratings in U. S. political history. Republicans are winning on trust—53 to 36 percent. Moreover 55 percent of likely voters in 12 swing states, including 57 percent of independents, tell pollsters they are not likely to vote for Democrats if the Bush tax cuts are ended.
Moreover Democrats are falling way behind on state legislative races across the country. Up for grabs this November are 83 percent of all legislative seats.
Spectacularly to my mind, given the fact that Obama has governed almost entirely from the Left, only 43 percent of Hispanics polled—a major Dem voting bloc—are satisfied with his performance, listing the sagging economy as reason…with 32 percent undecided and a shocking 21 percent who say he rates unsatisfactory. Gallup shows his support at 85 percent among blacks in contrast to the 94 percent he received on election day, 2008 but I don’t believe that figure given the indentured nature of African Americans to the Democratic party…although some may stay home on election day.
These Republican numbers are even more revelatory when you consider that in 2008 Obama won by 53 percent—more than any other Democrat except historic winners Andrew Jackson, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson. But if today’s numbers hold, the Dems in 2010 and Obama in 2012 are in for a seething voter revolution. Yet there’s more.
Demographics Favor the GOP.
Every poll I’ve seen recently shows that Democrats are hemorrhaging whites, men, women and independents. White support dropped from 51 percent in July, 2009 to 37 percent a year later. The party popularity among independents has shrunk from 52 percent to 38. Numbers of male supporters have evaporated, from 54 percent to 39. Women: down 14 percent from last year to 45 percent. Young people who turned 18 in 2008 and voted for the first time supported Obama 2 to 1 with his popularity standing at 73 percent shortly before Inauguration Day. Now it stands at 57 percent and when paired against any unnamed RepublicanObama trails with voters 18 to 34.
With these kinds of numbers, you’d say the Republicans are sure winners in 2012, wouldn’t you? Nope. Don’t forget: Republicans are famous for goofing up, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. All you have to do is say over and over to yourself: President Thomas E. Dewey.
Much will depend on the identity of the person who runs for president against Obama in 2012. Thus endeth the analysis, most of the numbers from McKinnon.
Handicapping the GOP Presidential Race.
Here they are in terms of today’s popularity, with my comments added thereto.
Understand that as of today at least one poll has found that Obama would lose to any Republican. Quinnipiac University’s highly rated survey shows that Americans would rather vote for an unnamed Republican than Obama in 2012 by a 39 percent to 36 margin. But let’s assume this will change. Here are my highly subjective impressions of the logical Republican presidential candidates. They’re all pro-life and anti-gay rights.
Newt Gingrich. A brilliant guy, resourceful speaker and debater, recent Catholic convert. But Henry Hyde who knew him very well told me that he’s 50 percent genius and 50 percent nuts. I have to agree. Who else would on becoming the first Republican Speaker in more than 40 years, launch a for profit program to sell his books, a for profit sale of DVDs of him teaching politics…get rebuked by the House Ethics committee for it and engage in an extra-marital affair with the woman who became his third wife, whom he met while cheating on his second?
Mitt Romney. Another well-spoken guy, a masterful organizer who took the Salt Lake Olympics which was floundering in debt and put it in the black. A masterful speaker and spectacular analyst of world economic and military affairs: lawyer and businessman extraordinaire. But as governor of Massachusetts he devised Romney-Care which hangs around his neck like an albatross. Unless he can explain away the charges that he earlier devised what is unpopular in Massachusetts and is known as Obama-Care lite, he’ll be a loser. Well-financed but a loser.
Sarah Palin. She has made wondrous strides since her vice presidential foray in 2008. She has a fan club that embraces not just the Tea Party people but millions in the Republican party. She’s improved her understanding of the issues but at least in my estimation she’s too slangy like Ethel Merman playing Calamity Jane in “Annie Get Your Gun.” Much of her slang (“you betcha!”) is not presidential, as per her rough-edged vulgar comment (however true) that
Arizona Governor Brewer has more masculine qualities in dealing with illegal immigration than Obama. If she can start sounding like a president, she’d vastly improve. But I still expect she’ll be No. 1 or 2 on the GOP ticket. A good omen: Daughter Bristol’s decision to break her engagement to Levi Johnson has spared us a recurring soap opera sure to happen if she married the guy.
Mitch Daniels. I favored the brilliant governor of Indiana who has matchless experience—a success in the private sector, strong force as head of the federal budget office under Bush II and courageous in the Indianapolis state house in bringing a state with budget in the red to where it’s finances are solidly in the black. But recently he declared that there should be a “moratorium” on social issues like pro-life, gay-rights. He’s a social conservative all right but that statement left me cold. Besides, how can any president rule off social issues which are so key in this secular cultural climate? I don’t think he’ll ever recover from that gaffe.
Haley Barbour. The governor of Mississippi has been a greatly underestimated force. He was a Washington lobbyist who learned early how to ameliorate hard feelings and get things done. He took that skill to the Republican National committee and was by all odds its most effective chairman since Mark Hanna, contributing powerfully to the GOP takeover of Congress in 1994. As governor he has been among the nation’s best, mobilizing the state early so that when Katrina hit the resources were already there. Again with the Gulf oil spill, he was calm, magnetic—better so than Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, too gaunt, looking like an advance man for a famine. . Barbour’s a dark horse candidate but a very skilled one. Probably his only electoral disadvantage is a broad Mississippi accent.
Mike Huckabee. Polls notwithstanding, anyone who runs against Obama had better be an orator and on top of his game. Remember when the only thing John McCain could say about rescuing the economy was to end appropriation earmarks? Huckabee’s communications skills are at least equal to Reagan’s. Since his run in 2008, he’s hosted a Fox News TV program which further honed his already sharpened talents. He’s been a successful governor and is a Baptist preacher so his pro-life, anti-gay rights credentials are in fine order. He’s a little cornpone and however it happened he freed too many penitentiary inmates early with some disastrous consequences. But when I hear him make a speech I am struck with how eloquent he is. At this point I like him best. Barbour a close second.
Tim Pawlenty. A good governor of Minnesota, showed guts in dealing with a liberal legislature but he’s got stiff opposition from those above.
John Thune. As a junior senator from South Dakota he’s just running for exercise—and the future.
Ron Paul. By 2012 he will be seventy-seven, one year younger than Ronald Reagan was when he retired after his second term. Mass discontent with big government, bailouts and over-involvement in foreign-military affairs have ratified Paul’s early predictions. Who could carry his libertarian banner? No one appears in sight for 2012 but in the future his son, Rand, if elected Senator from Kentucky, might.
I tip my hat to from Mark McKinnon, an astute analyst writing in The Daily Beast, for the background on this column.
http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured/democrats-sinking-with-demographics-will-republicans-bail-them-out/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)