Obama's call to reach moderate Taliban is really a placation of the hard left in the U.S.

President Barack Obama claims he will reach out to "moderate" members of Afghanistan's Taliban to bring the war in that nation to a close.
But there's a simple flaw in Obama's logic - there are no moderate members of the Taliban - at least not using the westernized definition of political moderate. The Taliban is comprised of hard line Islamists. Their reputation as fundamentalist Muslims is well earned. The Taliban enforced a strict interpretation of Sharia law. During their rule, public floggings and executions were common. Television and the Internet were banned, as was something as frivolous as kite flying.
Then of course is the treatment of women. Under the Taliban women were treated as chattel and routinely beaten and disfigured for "lewd" behavior.
This is the mentality of the people President Obama wants to reach out and find a moderate. It's not probable.
Taliban expert and former official Waheed Mozhdah told Reuters that Obama's comments resemble a dream.
Another Mid East analyst, Qaseem Akhgar, also told Reuters that a moderate member of the Taliban is akin to a moderate killer.
So with no moderate member of the Taliban in sight, who was Obama talking to? The international community might give a nod to his comments, but even the most timid of French leaders knows there's no such thing as a moderate member of the Taliban. Besides, they know that Obama is sending 17,000 more troops to lend support to the 38,000 U.S. troops already serving there.
So that leaves a significant portion of the American voting populace as the target of Obama's rhetoric. Obama's comment was certainly aimed at the anti-war members of his own party. He wants to show this segment of the voting population that he is dedicated to ending the war in Afghanistan. Even while he sends more troops to fight the government that harbored the terrorists who attacked this nation in 2001, he's placating the ardent anti-war crowd, nothing else.

GOP knows they must appeal to new voters, the question is how

The Grand Old Party isn't so grand anymore. After two straight beatings in federal elections, party leaders are struggling to find a way to appeal to a broad base of voters.
Republicans must return to the message that veteran campaigners like former President Ronald Reagan and former Sen. Jesse Helms used. The modern GOP must be able to appeal to voters across the aisles like these two stalwarts of conservatism did. While both could be polarizing individuals, both were able to draw support from Democrats. But right now the party is not in such a position. Allow a clarification please - I don't mean for divisive politics by using Reagan or Helms (although as a colleague points out, Helms was quite divisive) but to design a message of fiscal and personal responsibility that can appeal across party lines.
To the average voter the party is fractured highlighted by a squabble between Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele and conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh. While this type of perceived infighting can be damaging to the party, it can also be cathartic as well. The party must organize and return to grassroots efforts in order to retake the White House and the halls of Congress. But the question is how.
During a Lincoln Day Dinner in DuPage County last month, Steele called for the Republican Party to tailor its message to all voters, not just conservative voters. Steele said the party message must be something that would appeal to voters who most likely would align themselves with Democrat candidates.

We need a new approach that assures Republicans play in every state; take nothing for granted. We may not win everywhere we play, but we certainly won’t win if we don’t play everywhere we can... Once again, we need to speak directly to the hopes, concerns and aspirations of Americans. So let’s stop telling Americans what we’re against and instead articulate a compelling vision of what we’re for, how we’ll lead and where we want to go.

During last week's Conservative Political Action Committee meeting in Washington, D.C., Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty made a similar call. Pawlenty said the GOP must appeal to what he calls “Sam’s Club voters,” socially right-leaning middle-class voters who may have once belonged to a union, and who now care more about whether they will see their next paycheck than about issues like abortion or gay rights. Like Steele, Pawlenty said the GOP needs to do a better job appealing to voters who are not rank and file Republicans.

“We don’t have a big enough party to be throwing people overboard, and so while we may not agree all the time, if somebody agrees with us most of the time, they need to feel welcome, and there needs to be a spot at the table for them, too,” Pawlenty said. “You don’t win elections and you can’t govern and you can’t make a difference if you aren’t able to get a majority. So you have to be adding people, not subtracting people.”

The problem has been identified, but now comes the hard part - implementing the change.

Limbaugh, Steele fight over GOP while Democrats laugh

So, who is the top bull elephant in the Grand Old Party?
Is it Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele?
Is it radio show host Rush Limbaugh?
It's an interesting question and since so much of politics is about perception, it's a question that deserves to be answered. First look at the reality of the RNC. The RNC exists to provide national leadership to the Republican Party, including the development of a national platform, coordinating fundraising efforts and promoting electoral strategies. The RNC works with Republican leadership in the 50 states.
Limbaugh is the host of the biggest, and perhaps most influential, conservative radio program in the nation. During the Clinton years Limbaugh was called the "voice of conservative principles" by National Review. Limbaugh is enjoying high ratings now thanks to being targeted by the Obama administration following his comments that he hopes Obama fails.
There's where perception comes into play. With the attention Limbaugh is receiving from Obama and his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, he is the chief target of the Democrats, which gives him more power within the party than he actually had. according to multiple news sources, On Sunday, Emanuel called Limbaugh "the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican Party," on CBS’ “Face The Nation." On Monday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs described Limbaugh as "a national spokesperson for conservative views and many in the Republican Party." In January Obama urged Republican leaders in a private meeting to quit listening to Limbaugh.
While Limbaugh is enjoying relevancy during the Obama years, it's clear the majority of Republicans don't acknowledge him as the leader. According to Rasmussen Reports, an independent polling organization, only 11 percent of Republicans believe Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party while 81 percent disagree. But when it comes to Democrats, 44 percent say Limbaugh is the party leader while 41 percent disagree.
When it comes to those identifying themselves as conservatives, moderates and liberal, without the party moniker, "76 percent of self-designated conservatives do not see him as the Republican leader. Fifty-two percent of moderates share that view, but the plurality of liberals,45 percent do see Limbaugh as calling the shots for the GOP."
While Rush may not be the leader of the Republican Party, he sure is a powerful voice in its ranks. So far no high ranking elected Republican lawmaker has spoken out against Limbaugh. And here's the reality of that - Limbaugh speaks to millions of people each day. Steele does not have that kind of voice. Limbaugh can urge people to not give contributions to the RNC as well. But would he do that in electoral times when every vote counts toward victory?
This is clearly something GOP officials want to go away and they're attempting to make it happen. According to a Wednesday article in The Hill, GOP lawmakers are stressing that people are more concerned with the state of the economy than they are with Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele.

"This is nothing more than a distraction created by the administration to take people’s attention away from the fact that they’re going to raise taxes and grow the size of government,” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Wednesday following a weekly GOP policy meeting.“The White House started this … I was in the room, going back to the day after the Inaugural, and it just kind of escalated from there."

Boehner has it right. It's a non issue, yet the Democrats will encourage infighting in the GOP as often as possible. Remember, there's always an election around the corner and fractured opposition is much better than a united opposition.

A return to Reaganism is what conservatives, voters want

Ronald Reagan, the 40th president of the United States is generally considered to be the standard bearer for the Republican Party.

The ideals espoused by Reagan are what a large portion of the voting populace - both Democrat, Independent and Republican - want, according to Rasmussen Reports. According to the polling organization, 83% of Republican voters around the country still agree with Reagan along with 40% of Democrats and 60% of those not affiliated with either major party. The Reagan ideal is what voters want to see in modern Republicans. Fifty-nine percent of voters still agree with Reagan's stance that government is the problem.

In 1981 Reagan said:

"From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.”

Reagan's words still resonate today despite the seemingly opposite tack taken by the Obama administration.

People suffer but Daley's friends prosper

The Daley administration is spending $55 million on public relations according to the Chicago Sun Times.

Of course the Daley administration has complained about a lack of funds for all kinds of city services. But there's funds for a tightly controlled public relations campaign. This is the 11th PR contract the city has awarded, each worth $5 million. All this during a time he city has a $50 million budget hole for 2009. Because of the budget crisis, Daley laid off 420 city employees, eliminating 1,600 vacancies, slowing police hiring and raising taxes, fines and fees by $52.5 million.

How many jobs could the latest $5 million have saved? How can Mayor Daley justify raising taxes to save city programs yet spend this kind of money on public relations?

Business as usual in Chicago. The mayor's friends get city money and the people get the short end of the stick. That's the Chicago way.