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.
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Jindal dropped ball during presidential response
Tuesday night's response to President Barack Obama's Congressional address was not an auspicious introduction to the nation for Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
The response to the president is usually given to a rising star in the party. This year was Jindal's turn.
It's clear that Jindal is not ready for prime time national politics. It's not that he's not a capable politician, he's certainly doing a fine job as governor of Louisiana. Navigating that bayou cesspool of corruption is just as difficult as navigating the "stinky onion" cesspool in Illinois. So far Jindal has done a good job at the helm of his state.
He's done such a good job that he's often named as a possible presidential candidate for the Republican Part in 2012. He was on Sen. John McCain's short list for vice president in 2008. But if his response to the president is any indication, Jindal is not ready for the national stage.
His argument was stale. It's the same mantra Republican candidates have been using for years, but it's a mantra that is ringing hollow with the average citizen. Likewise the way he delivered the response was all wrong as well. Jindal spoke at the American people instead of speaking to the American people.
Conservative columnist Amanda Carpenter described Jindal's response:
Also the stagecraft of Jindal's response was poor. He should not have approached the camera from a hidden area like he was hiding, nor should the piece have been shot in front of the grand staircase of the governor's mansion in Baton Rouge. If the GOP wants to appeal to average folks, a mansion isn't the spot to make such an address.
The response to the president is usually given to a rising star in the party. This year was Jindal's turn.
It's clear that Jindal is not ready for prime time national politics. It's not that he's not a capable politician, he's certainly doing a fine job as governor of Louisiana. Navigating that bayou cesspool of corruption is just as difficult as navigating the "stinky onion" cesspool in Illinois. So far Jindal has done a good job at the helm of his state.
He's done such a good job that he's often named as a possible presidential candidate for the Republican Part in 2012. He was on Sen. John McCain's short list for vice president in 2008. But if his response to the president is any indication, Jindal is not ready for the national stage.
His argument was stale. It's the same mantra Republican candidates have been using for years, but it's a mantra that is ringing hollow with the average citizen. Likewise the way he delivered the response was all wrong as well. Jindal spoke at the American people instead of speaking to the American people.
Conservative columnist Amanda Carpenter described Jindal's response:
There was a cheesy, salesman-like quality to the response that I don't think connected with the Rick Santelli-inspired anger so many Republicans are feeling right now. And, I'm pretty sure he's going to be SNL's next target. His speech tempo was just, so weird. Enough complaining from me. He didn't pass the prime time test and it makes me sad. I don't want to dwell.
Also the stagecraft of Jindal's response was poor. He should not have approached the camera from a hidden area like he was hiding, nor should the piece have been shot in front of the grand staircase of the governor's mansion in Baton Rouge. If the GOP wants to appeal to average folks, a mansion isn't the spot to make such an address.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Whatever happens, Burris' legacy has been sealed with the stimulus vote
Everyone and their mother is calling for the resignation of Sen. Roland Burris, the latest in a long line of corrupt Illinois public officials.
He arrived in the Senate under a cloud and has remained under that cloud during his short stint. While Burris hasn't been in the U.S. Senate long enough to line his pockets or cement himself in other nefarious traditions, he's been there long enough and the damage has been done. Burris was there to pass Porkulus, the so called $787 billion stimulus plan. According to Sun Times columnist Lynn Sweet, Burris first told Senate leaders Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., that there was more to his appointment than met the eye. According to Sweet:
Passed with exactly the number of votes needed. No wonder President Obama pushed for Burris to be seated after his appointment. Burris. Without Burris in office, Porkulus was in danger. With Burris in office, Porkulus was unleashed on the taxpayers.
While it's imperative that Burris leave the Senate and return that seat to the people, the damage has been done to the nation. If the people are allowed to elect his successor, perhaps that vote will block future irresponsible spending packages.
He arrived in the Senate under a cloud and has remained under that cloud during his short stint. While Burris hasn't been in the U.S. Senate long enough to line his pockets or cement himself in other nefarious traditions, he's been there long enough and the damage has been done. Burris was there to pass Porkulus, the so called $787 billion stimulus plan. According to Sun Times columnist Lynn Sweet, Burris first told Senate leaders Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., that there was more to his appointment than met the eye. According to Sweet:
Burris dropped the news when Reid and Durbin were on the Senate floor whipping the roll call for the stimulus bill, which passed with exactly the number of votes needed.
Passed with exactly the number of votes needed. No wonder President Obama pushed for Burris to be seated after his appointment. Burris. Without Burris in office, Porkulus was in danger. With Burris in office, Porkulus was unleashed on the taxpayers.
While it's imperative that Burris leave the Senate and return that seat to the people, the damage has been done to the nation. If the people are allowed to elect his successor, perhaps that vote will block future irresponsible spending packages.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
No lobbyists in my administration will work on anything they lobbied for - what about Leon Panetta
Another of President Obama's top nominees is running afoul of the president's lobbyist rule.
Let's review Obama's ethics rules he installed his first day in office:
We've already seen some sliding on this position regarding William Lynn, who Obama wanted as an Undersecretary of Defense.
The latest round of letting a former lobbyist slide is Leon Panetta, the White House's nominee for Director of Central Intelligence. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Panetta earned $700,000 in speaking and consulting fees since the beginning of 2008. Some of the companies that paid Panetta are troubled banks and companies that deal with national security. So, if we're to take President Obama at his word, then Panetta, if hired, will not be able to work on national security issues. So that leaves what kind of role for the DCI?
This either indicates that Obama is ignoring his own rules, which means he is playing the populace for suckers, or he hasn't properly vetted his appointees. This latest black eye on the administration's appointments comes on the tail of two appointees having to bow out of the top level positions because they failed to pay their income taxes - which according to the logic of Vice President Joe Biden, means these folks are not patriotic.
So, is loading the top positions in Washington D.C. with lobbyists and unpatriotic tax cheats the kind of change the Obama administration is going to bring?
Let's review Obama's ethics rules he installed his first day in office:
"The executive order on ethics I will sign shortly represents a clean break from business as usual. As of today, lobbyists will be subject to stricter limits than under any other administration in history. If you are a lobbyist entering my administration, you will not be able to work on matters you lobbied on, or in the agencies you lobbied during the previous two years. When you leave government, you will not be able to lobby my administration for as long as I am president."
We've already seen some sliding on this position regarding William Lynn, who Obama wanted as an Undersecretary of Defense.
The latest round of letting a former lobbyist slide is Leon Panetta, the White House's nominee for Director of Central Intelligence. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Panetta earned $700,000 in speaking and consulting fees since the beginning of 2008. Some of the companies that paid Panetta are troubled banks and companies that deal with national security. So, if we're to take President Obama at his word, then Panetta, if hired, will not be able to work on national security issues. So that leaves what kind of role for the DCI?
This either indicates that Obama is ignoring his own rules, which means he is playing the populace for suckers, or he hasn't properly vetted his appointees. This latest black eye on the administration's appointments comes on the tail of two appointees having to bow out of the top level positions because they failed to pay their income taxes - which according to the logic of Vice President Joe Biden, means these folks are not patriotic.
So, is loading the top positions in Washington D.C. with lobbyists and unpatriotic tax cheats the kind of change the Obama administration is going to bring?
How will stimulus package fare in the end?
There has been a lot of talk on both sides of the aisle (and from the periphery too) about the massive stimulus package proposed by President Barack Obama and his legislative cronies (read Pelosi and Reid). As the package undergoes more and more examination, more concern is being voiced about the proposed billions of dollars in expenditures.
Today, The Hill is reporting that a coalition of Blue Dog Democrats (fiscally conservative Democrats) sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi complaining about the size of the bill. The Blue Dogs support an idea in the Senate to toss out much of the spending plan.
All of this occurs on the heels of Obama and Pelosi claiming it's imperative for the nation that the bill is passed as quickly as possible. Pelosi claimed if the package isn't passed, then 500 million Americans will lose their jobs - of course there's only about 304 millions Americans according to the census.
Regardless of Pelosi's gaff, the economy is in shambles. While it's as certain as spring following winter that some kind of package will be passed, how much will be in that final bill remains to be seen. But it's likely that much of the proposed $800 + billion will be removed, especially if fiscally minded lawmakers from both sides of the aisle work to make it so.
Today, The Hill is reporting that a coalition of Blue Dog Democrats (fiscally conservative Democrats) sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi complaining about the size of the bill. The Blue Dogs support an idea in the Senate to toss out much of the spending plan.
All of this occurs on the heels of Obama and Pelosi claiming it's imperative for the nation that the bill is passed as quickly as possible. Pelosi claimed if the package isn't passed, then 500 million Americans will lose their jobs - of course there's only about 304 millions Americans according to the census.
Regardless of Pelosi's gaff, the economy is in shambles. While it's as certain as spring following winter that some kind of package will be passed, how much will be in that final bill remains to be seen. But it's likely that much of the proposed $800 + billion will be removed, especially if fiscally minded lawmakers from both sides of the aisle work to make it so.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Looks like Obama is already backsliding on ethics rules
CNN and NBC are both reporting that President Obama is already backsliding on the "change" he brought to Washington, DC regarding ethics.
A day after being sworn in to the presidency, Obama signed an executive order on ethics.
A day after being sworn in to the presidency, Obama signed an executive order on ethics.
"The executive order on ethics I will sign shortly represents a clean break from business as usual. As of today, lobbyists will be subject to stricter limits than under any other administration in history. If you are a lobbyist entering my administration, you will not be able to work on matters you lobbied on, or in the agencies you lobbied during the previous two years. When you leave government, you will not be able to lobby my administration for as long as I am president."
But, Obama is already seeking exceptions to that rule. Obama is seeking a waiver for William Lynn, a former lobbyist for defense contractor Raytheon. Obama wants Lynn to be a deputy secretary of defense - a violation of the executive order he signed the other day. Color us so surprised. Oh sure, Obama's cronies in the Senate are attempting to add stipulations to Lynn's confirmation, saying he would recuse himself for a period of one year whenever something comes up with his former employer. It seems the change Obama is bringing to D.C. has a Chicago kind of flavor.
If Obama is willing to backslide on change so quickly, what else will his administration attempt to circumvent.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Obama sets tone for openeness, but will it last?
Apologies for the time lapse between postings, but I'm back now.
Since my last post we now have a new president - Barack H. Obama. Like millions I watched the inauguration and some of the news coverage, but after a while I found it repetitive and an orgy of love for the new POTUS. Don't get me wrong, it was news and the swearing in of our nation's first black president was historic, but after about two hours I was glad for cable television and the DVR.
Obama hit the ground running on his first day (as all presidents do) and the love continued from the media. One of Obama's first actions was to promise a more open government. That was enough to set the news staff at CNBC cheering.
Since my last post we now have a new president - Barack H. Obama. Like millions I watched the inauguration and some of the news coverage, but after a while I found it repetitive and an orgy of love for the new POTUS. Don't get me wrong, it was news and the swearing in of our nation's first black president was historic, but after about two hours I was glad for cable television and the DVR.
Obama hit the ground running on his first day (as all presidents do) and the love continued from the media. One of Obama's first actions was to promise a more open government. That was enough to set the news staff at CNBC cheering.
“For a long time now there’s been too much secrecy in this city,” Mr. Obama said at a swearing-in ceremony for senior officials at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, adjacent to the White House. He added, “Transparency and rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.” (From a New York Times article)
No one disputes the need for a transparent government. One of the monumental roles for journalists is to be a government watchdog for the citizenry. So the cynic in me wonders if this move by Obama was something offered as a bone to a media that has been very friendly to the Chicago native. When Obama decides something is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, how will the media act. Will they cut him some slack because of his proclamation? If so, that's a brilliant move on Obama's part to placate some of his biggest fans. Time will tell on this. Obama said the people must hold government accountable. And if he does not follow through on his call of openness, then he must be called on it.
I must laud something that Obama said on his first full day on the job. At a White House press conference he told the assembled reporters that public service is a "privilege" and not about advancing yourself, your friends or your corporate clients. Truer words were never spoken. The men and women who represent their friends, neighbors and total strangers in the halls of the legislature would do well to remember that being a public service is a privilege and a tremendous responsibility.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Senate set to back down on Burris appointment
It seems the U.S. Senate Democrats are prepared to cave on the Senate appointment of Roland Burris. After President-elect Barack Obama met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., earlier this week and the Senate Democrats backed down from their refusal to allow Burris to take the seat he was appointed to.
It's an outcome that was almost assured from the get-go. Burris was appointed by embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich who has been accused of attempting to sell that seat to the highest bidder. Now it is true that Burris donated money to the Blago gubernatorial campaign, according to an article in Sunday's Chicago Tribune, but Burris has not been accused of any wrongdoing. And Blago, as corrupt and ineffective as he seems to be, is still governor of Illinois and it is in his legal power to appoint a replacement for Obama.
Several things were at play in the Senate's backing down. First, Reid, who prior to Blago's Dec. 9 arrest, pushed for someone other than Burris to receive the appointment, does not want to start off the new session with a hostile relationship with the Obama administration. Obama took a personal interest in his former seat, and Reid is not going to go against the wildly popular president-elect.
Secondly there are legalities involved. Election law experts told ABC news that senators may not have the constitutional power to refuse to admit Burris into the Senate without some indication that his appointment was corrupt. In 1969 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. House must seat Adam Clayton Powell who was accused of corruption. The high court ruled the House did not have the authority to refuse his entry because he was legally elected to the House.
Thirdly, race plays a big role in the appointment of Burris. Obama was the only black member of the U.S. Senate. Burris is black. Democrats do not want to refuse to seat a black man who has not been accused of any wrong doing. The political backlash could create a rift between Democrats and the black community who overwhelmingly vote Democratic. U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Il., a former Black Panther, urged the Senate to allow Burris' appointment because of his race. Of course Rush backed a white politician for the seat when Obama ran for it, which negates his call for the need of a black man in the Senate. But this is politics where the winds of change are constantly blowing - especially for people who have no principle.
So look to Burris being the next U.S. Senator from Illinois. Of course he most likely won't keep his seat when it is up for grabs in 2010. Democrats and Republicans alike are salivating for that fight.
It's an outcome that was almost assured from the get-go. Burris was appointed by embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich who has been accused of attempting to sell that seat to the highest bidder. Now it is true that Burris donated money to the Blago gubernatorial campaign, according to an article in Sunday's Chicago Tribune, but Burris has not been accused of any wrongdoing. And Blago, as corrupt and ineffective as he seems to be, is still governor of Illinois and it is in his legal power to appoint a replacement for Obama.
Several things were at play in the Senate's backing down. First, Reid, who prior to Blago's Dec. 9 arrest, pushed for someone other than Burris to receive the appointment, does not want to start off the new session with a hostile relationship with the Obama administration. Obama took a personal interest in his former seat, and Reid is not going to go against the wildly popular president-elect.
Secondly there are legalities involved. Election law experts told ABC news that senators may not have the constitutional power to refuse to admit Burris into the Senate without some indication that his appointment was corrupt. In 1969 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. House must seat Adam Clayton Powell who was accused of corruption. The high court ruled the House did not have the authority to refuse his entry because he was legally elected to the House.
Thirdly, race plays a big role in the appointment of Burris. Obama was the only black member of the U.S. Senate. Burris is black. Democrats do not want to refuse to seat a black man who has not been accused of any wrong doing. The political backlash could create a rift between Democrats and the black community who overwhelmingly vote Democratic. U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Il., a former Black Panther, urged the Senate to allow Burris' appointment because of his race. Of course Rush backed a white politician for the seat when Obama ran for it, which negates his call for the need of a black man in the Senate. But this is politics where the winds of change are constantly blowing - especially for people who have no principle.
So look to Burris being the next U.S. Senator from Illinois. Of course he most likely won't keep his seat when it is up for grabs in 2010. Democrats and Republicans alike are salivating for that fight.
Monday, January 5, 2009
GOP should sit back and watch Democrats fight over Illinois Senate seat
As the comedy of errors is set to begin tomorrow in Washington, D.C., the republicans would be smart to sit back and let the Democrats handle the Illinois Senate seat.
Roland Burris is on his way to Washington to claim the seat he was appointed to by disgraced Gov. Rod Blagojevich despite having his paperwork rejected by Senate Democrats. Earlier today Secretary of the Senate Nancy Erickson rejected Burris' certificate of appointment to the Senate as invalid. Before flying off to the nation's capital, Burris told reporters that he is the state's junior senator and that his appointment by Blago was legal and constitutional.
Burris plans on going to the Senate on Tuesday to be sworn in despite having been told by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that he would not allow Burris to take his seat in the Senate. Reid, D-Nev., said he would not allow Burris to be sworn in due to the controversy surrounding Blago's alleged attempt to sell the seat to the highest bidder. However, with reports that Reid attempted to sway Blago's appointment (prior to Blago's arrest) Reid is walking a thin line of piety.
So while the Democrats squabble over the Illinois replacement for President elect Barack Obama, Republicans should sit back and watch the fireworks. The Democrats have backed themselves into a politically correct corner. Can they afford to refuse a black appointee - to a seat held by a wildly popular black legislator (the only black member of the Senate) simply because he was appointed by a disgraced governor? The GOP, which has been marginalized in Washington and Illinois, should quietly hope for Illinois lawmakers to hold a special election for the Senate seat. Playing a petulant game of hardball over Burris and Blago will only remind voters of why Republicans lost overwhelmingly in November - and can remind Illinois voters of possible compliance during the corrupt administration of Republican Gov. George Ryan . If a special election is held in Illinois, that's when Republicans need to turn up the heat and remind Illinois voters of Blago's corruption and the corruption of the Chicago Democratic Machine. Remind voters they wanted change in DC, which brought about the election of Obama, but that change is needed in Springfield and the Illinois GOP offers that change.
Roland Burris is on his way to Washington to claim the seat he was appointed to by disgraced Gov. Rod Blagojevich despite having his paperwork rejected by Senate Democrats. Earlier today Secretary of the Senate Nancy Erickson rejected Burris' certificate of appointment to the Senate as invalid. Before flying off to the nation's capital, Burris told reporters that he is the state's junior senator and that his appointment by Blago was legal and constitutional.
Burris plans on going to the Senate on Tuesday to be sworn in despite having been told by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that he would not allow Burris to take his seat in the Senate. Reid, D-Nev., said he would not allow Burris to be sworn in due to the controversy surrounding Blago's alleged attempt to sell the seat to the highest bidder. However, with reports that Reid attempted to sway Blago's appointment (prior to Blago's arrest) Reid is walking a thin line of piety.
So while the Democrats squabble over the Illinois replacement for President elect Barack Obama, Republicans should sit back and watch the fireworks. The Democrats have backed themselves into a politically correct corner. Can they afford to refuse a black appointee - to a seat held by a wildly popular black legislator (the only black member of the Senate) simply because he was appointed by a disgraced governor? The GOP, which has been marginalized in Washington and Illinois, should quietly hope for Illinois lawmakers to hold a special election for the Senate seat. Playing a petulant game of hardball over Burris and Blago will only remind voters of why Republicans lost overwhelmingly in November - and can remind Illinois voters of possible compliance during the corrupt administration of Republican Gov. George Ryan . If a special election is held in Illinois, that's when Republicans need to turn up the heat and remind Illinois voters of Blago's corruption and the corruption of the Chicago Democratic Machine. Remind voters they wanted change in DC, which brought about the election of Obama, but that change is needed in Springfield and the Illinois GOP offers that change.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Blago to name former attorney general to Senate seat
What in the world is Gov. Rod Blagojevich trying to accomplish?
The Chicago Tribune is reporting that Blago is planning on naming former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris to the U.S. Senate - the same seat that Blago has been accused of attempting to sell to the highest bidder. A press conference is scheduled for 2 p.m. today.
This will accomplish very little. The Democratic led Senate has already refused to seat anyone named by Blagojevich to that seat.
The new Congress will be sworn in in early January and Illinois will only field one senator until the seat held by President-elect Barack Obama is filled. Blago currently is the only one in the state who has the authority to fill that seat.
With all the legal trouble surrounding Blago currently, any candidate he puts forth for that seat will bear the taint of Blago's corruption.
Burris, who was the first black man to win statewide office in Illinois in 1978, would be wise to reject the governor's nomination.
And the state legislature would be wise to speed up their investigation into Blago and any impeachment hearings before Blago further drives the state into ruin.
The Chicago Tribune is reporting that Blago is planning on naming former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris to the U.S. Senate - the same seat that Blago has been accused of attempting to sell to the highest bidder. A press conference is scheduled for 2 p.m. today.
This will accomplish very little. The Democratic led Senate has already refused to seat anyone named by Blagojevich to that seat.
The new Congress will be sworn in in early January and Illinois will only field one senator until the seat held by President-elect Barack Obama is filled. Blago currently is the only one in the state who has the authority to fill that seat.
With all the legal trouble surrounding Blago currently, any candidate he puts forth for that seat will bear the taint of Blago's corruption.
Burris, who was the first black man to win statewide office in Illinois in 1978, would be wise to reject the governor's nomination.
And the state legislature would be wise to speed up their investigation into Blago and any impeachment hearings before Blago further drives the state into ruin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
