Waldo's Virginia Political Blogroll » Tom Skypek

Why Obama Wants Democrats to Lose in November

Tom Skypek — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 23:18:03 +0000

One word: re-election. I know it sounds ridiculous and unbelievable to some, but President Obama does not want the Democrats to retain the House or Senate this November. It all comes down to his bid for re-election in 2012. Quite simply: Obama wants to run against a Republican Congress in 2012. He needs to be able to point at someone else and blame them for his shortcomings as a leader. Right now, he can’t do that. If he points across the street to Capitol Hill he’s pointing directly at his Democratic brethren in the House and Senate. Think about Bill Clinton in 1996, he had Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich to demonize. Obama needs an enemy–although he’s still trying to blame his sorry lot on George W. Bush, rather than his anti-growth, anti-business, redistributive economic policies.

While I think the GOP will succeed in taking back the House this November, capturing the Senate is a bit more challenging. Thinking strategically about 2012, it would not be the end of the world if we were unable to take back the Senate this November–as long as we have the majority in the House. Controlling the House will enable a significant check on Obama’s power. What we need in the Senate is enough votes to filibuster another Supreme Court nominee. If confirmed, Kagan will not shift the balance of power on the Supreme Court. Obama’s next pick will, however–hence we need enough votes for a filibuster. That’s what this upcoming election is about: putting the brakes on Obama’s policies. 2012 is about making sure Barack Obama is a one-term president. We need a president who loves this country unconditionally and who believes that the U.S. Constitution is more than a dated piece of paper.

Obama, White House officials: al Qaeda a ‘racist’ organization–really, ya think?!

Tom Skypek — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 20:12:06 +0000

Al Qaeda–racist? Really? Apparently, the Obama administration has just now reached this conclusion, nearly nine years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. ”In short,” one administration official explained, “al Qaeda is a racist organization that treats black Africans like cannon fodder and does not value human life.” Yes, al Qaeda does not value human life. And yes, it is happy to treaty people like cannon fodder. My question is: what are people doing in the administration who are just now realizing the truly despicable nature of this organization? Should they really be serving in important national security positions? Rarely do I find myself speechless but this is one of those times.

The Passing of Two Yankees Legends

Tom Skypek — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 23:37:57 +0000

A terrific piece from the NRO’s Daniel Foster on the passing of George Steinbrenner and Bob Sheppard, the legendary voice of the New York Yankees from 1951 – 2007.

It has been a tough week for the Yankee faithful. First, legendary Stadium announcer Bob “the Voice of God” Sheppard passed over the weekend (I’ll always remember his wonderful palindromes: ”Now batting, numbah 2, the shortstop, Derek Jee-tuh, the shortstop, numbah 2, now batting.”). And now the news that The Boss, George Steinbrenner, has died at age 80.

That’s exactly how Sheppard used to introduce the players. Here’s a great tribute. I went to my first Yankee game in 1989. I can’t say that I remember his voice that very first game; I wasn’t even ten years-old yet. But as I grew up and went back to Yankee Stadium during the 1990s, I came to love that voice. Listening to Bob Sheppard introduce the starting line-ups, batters, and pitchers was an unforgettable part of going to the Stadium.

As far as the Boss goes, he was a winner and a straight shooter, through and through. A pure capitalist, he made a lot of people very wealthy and a lot of families very happy. Some of my fondest memories growing up are days I spent at Yankee Stadium. It has been a tough week for the Yankee faithful, indeed. George and Bob, RIP.

Mattis is a Great Pick to be CENTCOM Commander

Tom Skypek — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 18:23:27 +0000

U.S. Marine Corps General James N. Mattis, who currently serves as the commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command, has been selected to lead U.S. Central Command. This is an outstanding pick by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Mattis is an exemplary general officer and a true strategic thinker. Not surprisingly, the mainstream media is beating up on Mattis for some comments he’s made in the past about warfare. His remarks were candid and, unfortunately, have been taken out of context. One misleading headline reads: “James Mattis: ‘It’s fun to shoot some people.’” Here’s the context for the quote:

You go into Afghanistan, you got guys who slap women around for five years, because they didn’t wear a veil. You know guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot ‘em.

I know this might come as a surprise to some people but our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan are not good people. They intentionally target and kill civilians. They are the types who think it’s okay to slaughter innocent men, women, and children. They hold the nineteen hijackers who killed nearly three-thousand Americans on September 11, 2001 in high esteem. They treat women as second-class citizens and view it as their duty to kill Christians and Jews.

So Mattis isn’t politically correct; he’s a warrior and he’s exactly the type of man I want defending this country. It’s a blessing that we have men like James Mattis and it’s a travesty that his reputation be marred in anyway by a handful of so-called journalists. The Senate should waste no time in confirming General Mattis.

John Kerry’s Misinformed Position on the New START Treaty

Tom Skypek — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 02:16:40 +0000

Yesterday, Senator John F. Kerry wrote an op-ed in response to Mitt Romney’s piece published earlier this week in which the former governor argued against ratifying the New START Treaty. Kerry’s op-ed was not only hyper-partisan but, as The Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano notes, quite inaccurate as well. Kerry’s op-ed was little more than partisan drivel. It lacked any sort of serious analytical rigor. I would expect a better quality of analysis and thought from the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

For the Obama Administration, the Rule of Law is Malleable (Very Malleable)

Tom Skypek — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 04:15:10 +0000

The Obama administration is going to sue Arizona for enforcing federal immigration law but they won’t prosecute these guys for voter intimidation? Really? It’s decisions like these that tell you everything you need to know about this administration and how they view the rule of law.

Romney on the New START Treaty

Tom Skypek — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 11:36:40 +0000

It’s hard to pick President Obama’s worst foreign policy mistake. As far as I’m concerned, his general conduct of American foreign policy has been subpar and a bit too Carteresque. According to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney the New START Treaty is a leading candidate for this administration’s worst foreign policy mistake. In an op-ed in yesterday’s WaPo, Romney presented a very clear argument in opposition to the New START Treaty. I agree wholeheartedly with his advice that the treaty, in its current state, should not be ratified by the United States Senate. Romney argues, “He [Obama] acceded to Russia’s No. 1 foreign policy objective, the abandonment of our Europe-based missile defense program, and obtained nothing whatsoever in return.” I have no problem giving something up to receive something in return–that’s how negotiations work. But it’s unclear to me what exactly we are receiving in return.

Entering into treaties is serious business because it reduces our sovereignty. How does this treaty advance the national interest? That is the question I would need answered, if I were voting on this in the Senate. Flowery language about “Global Zero” and nuclear disarmament would not suffice. To use an Obama phrase, let me be clear: I think a productive relationship with the Russian Federation could be a strategic asset in the coming decades, especially with the rise of China now upon us. However, a productive working relationship must be built on mutual trust and respect. This treaty is simply too one-sided to create the foundation for a stronger relationship with Moscow.

For an opposing view, check out Pavel Podvig’s response.

Steele’s Failed Critique Highlights Division Among Conservatives on War Strategy

Tom Skypek — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:18:38 +0000

In 2006, I was really pulling for Michael Steele in his battle to win a U.S. Senate seat in Maryland. Unfortunately, Ben Cardin won and Steele wound up running the Republican National Committee. Steele’s odd remarks about the war in Afghanistan have led to a growing number of calls for his resignation among prominent conservatives. The war in Afghanistan was definitely not a war of President Barack Obama’s choosing, as Steele suggested in his remarks at a Connecticut fundraiser. This factual inaccuracy made the rest of Steele’s comments seem off-the-wall, but it appears as though he was trying to challenge the president’s strategy for prosecuting the war. He just failed miserably:

Well if he’s such a student of history, has he not understood that, you know, that’s the one thing you don’t do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan. Alright? Because everyone who has tried over a thousand years of history has failed. And there are reasons for that. There are other ways to engage in Afghanistan without committing more troops.

To an extent, Steele is right: historically, Afghanistan is where great powers go to die. Some conservatives view the current strategy for the war in Afghanistan as fundamentally flawed–myself included. Our political objectives in Afghanistan are unclear and it is unlikely that we have the long-term political will to stay in Afghanistan for the time that’s required, nor the will to allocate the requisite number of troops. George Will wrote a great op-ed last year in which he argued that airpower, rather than land power, may be sufficient to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan. Steele, however, failed to present clearly a viable alternative to a land-based, counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy for Afghanistan. His hollow critique lacked credibility because of his factually inaccurate statement about the genesis of the war. Conservatives are split on the issue of Afghanistan and the Steele flap highlights this division. At face value, the conservative uproar is focused on Steele’s bogus suggestion that America elected to fight this war, unprompted. The real issue is the division on strategy among conservatives. Because Steele did such a poor job of communicating this alternative viewpoint, this division remains largely unexplored.

Very simply, the RNC needs a chairman who can raise lots of money and who can present clear, and viable policy alternatives to the current administration. The RNC chairman doesn’t need to be a foreign policy expert, but he/she needs to present his/her ideas in a clear and unambiguous manner. Steele has been unable to do this on several occasions.

What I care about most are the November elections. Right now, conservatives are tracking to make impressive gains in the House and Senate. The Democrats in Congress and the Obama administration are imploding politically. Their liberal ideology is simply incompatible with an electorate that is, at the end of the day, center-right. So while Steele is an imperfect chairman, selecting at a new high-profile chairman at this time could become an unnecessary distraction from November. Every minute spent on Michael Steele is less time that’s spent thinking about how to win in November. Steele’s definitely no Lee Atwater or Haley Barbour, but I don’t have any better suggestions at the moment. Mitt Romney is an outstanding administrator and would do well, but the legacy of his government health care program in Massachusetts would render his opposition to nationalized medicine impotent. Plus, he would probably view the gig as a demotion–going from serious presidential candidate to party chairman. Or maybe he wouldn’t. Part of me thinks that Romney could be a powerhouse at the helm of the RNC. I’m just not sure how he would be able to handle the health care issue. This is the same issue that could potential hobble his 2012 ambitions.

Happy Indendence Day – Get a Free Pocket-Sized Declaration of Independence & Constitution

Tom Skypek — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 23:32:16 +0000

Happy Independence Day to all! Thank you to all the military men and women who have fought to secure our freedom. It is my sincere hope that our friends in Congress and the White House will take time to reacquaint themselves with this very important document. I think that every public servant ought to carry a copy of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Too many have long forgotten the history of this nation’s founding and simply do not understand the principles of limited government and individual liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence. Thankfully, you can get a FREE, pocket-sized edition of these two documents from the good people at The Heritage Foundation.

You can find Thomas Jefferson’s immortal words below:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock

Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple

Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott

New Hampshire:
Mathew Thornton

Don’t Be Facebook Friends with a Spy

Tom Skypek — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 18:45:43 +0000

It appears as though accused Russian spy Mikhail Semenko was an active social networker. Semenko and his comrades are a case study in espionage 2.0. He had accounts on LinkedIn and Facebook. He even ran a blog on the Chinese economy. What are the lessons here? Well, first, you should know who you’re connected to on these social networking sites. A Facebook news feed could have been a great source of intelligence for Semenko, if he was friends with the right people–say, a congressman on the right committee who posts a little too much on his Facebook account or even a mid-level civil servant working in a sensitive national security position. It seems hard to believe, but it’s true. Spies aren’t just after things like weapons designs and highly classified documents. More mundane and seemingly innocent bits of information, such as a person’s schedule, location or patterns of behavior, can be equally useful to a foreign agent.

???If you’re a foreign agent, Facebook is a great way to target potential sources. As such, people who work in sensitive positions, especially three-letter agencies, should be careful about what they put into these publicly searchable profiles. This seems obvious, but you’d be surprised. In military parlance, this is called operational security. Unfortunately, there are a lot of silly kids who don’t practice operational security. I’m not suggesting that we need a Joe McCarthy of Facebook–only that people in sensitive positions be mindful about what kind of information they disclose and to whom.

Also, check out Jim Robbins’s account of his recent encounter with Semenko at a lecture in Washington.?

Focus Group with Frank Luntz in Old Town Alexandria

Tom Skypek — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 01:29:59 +0000

I’ve seen Frank Luntz on TV a bunch of times and I’ve always found him to be a pretty interesting guy. He’s definitely passionate about what he does. Last week, I participated in a focus group with Frank at his office in Old Town Alexandria. I was one of about 30 participants who showed up for the 3-hour session. The subject of the evening was Israel. It was a pretty interesting experience. Before we started, they gave us sandwiches from Panera. I had the smoked turkey, which was pretty solid. Then we filled out a pretty lengthy questionnaire, watched a series of informational videos, news clips, and speeches. We got to use those cool dials, or “Perception Analyzers,” Frank uses on TV when he’s doing a live focus group. The dial knob goes from 0 to 100. You start at 50–which is neutral. When you hear something you like, you turn the dial up closer to 100. When you don’t like what you hear, you turn the dial toward 0. We’d watch a short clip and react. Then his assistant would tell us, “Back to 50.”

The group seemed to be pretty evenly split between McCain and Obama voters. Frank was pretty funny, cracking jokes here and there, but he also seemed a little stressed. Even most of the conservatives in the group seemed to dislike Benjamin Netanyahu. By my count, it was just myself and another guy who liked Netanyahu. I told the group that Netanyahu strikes me as a decisive leader who’d protect my family and follow the terrorists to the gates of hell. Others called him arrogant. All and all the group struck me as being pretty slanted toward the Palestinian side. The operation to stop the blockade runners definitely hurt Israel in the public relations department. I think that Israel’s response to the blockade running was perfectly reasonable, but I was certainly in the minority.

The group overwhelmingly believed that Washington should cut foreign aid to Israel and seemed to indicate a general dissatisfaction with current U.S. foreign disbursements. I think we should cut foreign aid across the board. We hand out free money and frequently get nothing in return. The entire point of foreign aid is to provide a return on investment. Our aid disbursements are meant to advance the national interest and it seems like the vast majority of our aid programs simply don’t achieve that objective. I think we could certainly look at reducing our foreign aid package to Israel. They have nuclear weapons and an impressive conventional military and an economy capable of sustaining its military power and modernizing its forces, as necessary.

You can sign up to participate in a focus group with Frank Luntz here. It’s a pretty good time, if you like politics and current events. Plus they feed you and pay you for your time.

Fran Townshend Speech at National Defense University

Tom Skypek — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 17:15:39 +0000

I heard Fran Townshend, the former Homeland Security Advisor to George W. Bush, speak the other night at National Defense University at Ft. McNair. I was fortunate enough to get an invite through my affiliation with the Center for Strategic and International Studies and their Nuclear Scholars Initiative program. She gave a solid speech about the continued threat of terrorism and how it’s important for the government to clearly communicate threats to the American people. People get anxious when they’re kept in the dark and only told bits and pieces of a story, she argued. She also provided some lessons she learned navigating the sprawling national security bureaucracy both as a civil servant and a high-level political appointee.

I asked her during the Q&A whether she thought it was productive for the administration to describe terrorism as a “man-caused disaster” and refer to Islamic extremism as a “far-reaching network of violence and hatred.” Some observers think this is purely semantics. I think it’s important to identify threats in clear and unambiguous terms. Evidently Fran feels the same way. She called the move by the administration “dangerous” and unproductive. It got back to her point about keeping the American people informed.

National Review Institute (NRI) Washington Fellows

Tom Skypek — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 23:23:49 +0000

Recently, I found out that I was accepted into the National Review Institute’s Washington Fellows Program–a year-long program dedicated to the study of the history of the modern conservative movement. It is truly humbling to be affiliated with the Institute that William F. Buckley, Jr. founded in 1991 to advance conservatism in the United States. For a conservative such as myself, it’s tantamount to being knighted (or at least that’s how I view it). There are a total of 25 Fellows in the 2010 class and it’s an honor to be listed among such a talented and distinguished group of conservative thinkers. You can learn about the 2010 Washington Fellows here.

Red Dawn Remake with People’s Liberation Army!

Tom Skypek — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:39:54 +0000

So it looks like the classic 1984 war film Red Dawn, starring Patrick Swayzee and Charlie Sheen, is being remade. This time, though, the Chinese will be the invaders. If you haven’t seen the original, you should definitely check it out. Red Dawn was listed as #15 on National Review Online’s list of the Best Conservative Movies.

I’m really fired up for this film. While I’ll miss Swayzee and Sheen, I have high hopes for Connor Cruise, Tom Cruise’s son. More specifically, though, I’m glad that China’s growing military power is starting to get some attention in the popular media. Defense analysts and a handful of policymakers have been watching China’s military modernization program with great interest for almost two decades now.

The U.S.-Chinese relationship could be a real cash cow for Hollywood in the coming years–films on espionage and war and great power politics. I guess it will depend on how this film does at the box office.

h/t David Adesnik

Breaking News: Obama Accepts McChrystal’s Resignation, Petraeus Named as Replacement

Tom Skypek — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 17:45:15 +0000

It’s not too surprising that this is how it ended up. Obama, who is already perceived as a weak and indecisive leader by many, would have lost pretty much all credibility as a serious leader had he not relieved McChrystal. Gen. David Petraeus is currently the Commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and oversees the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. So this is a bit of a peculiar arrangement.

A friend just e-mailed me with the following comment, “one 2012 rival out of the way…”

Eliot Cohen on Why McChrystal Needs to Go

Tom Skypek — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 15:54:22 +0000

A great piece by Eliot Cohen on the McChrystal-Rolling Stone episode.

The president has not spoken publicly about Afghanistan in any serious way since December, and one wonders whether he has the nerve to act, in respect to Gen. McChrystal, like a serious commander in chief. If he leaves a wounded—and therefore more malleable—commander in place, he will have shown a calamitous weakness masquerading as political cleverness.

For the rest of us, there is a lesson about re-establishing fundamental norms of civilian-military relations. For years both political parties have used generals as props. Democrats cheered when disgruntled generals snarled at Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Republicans, to their equal discredit, played up military disquiet with President Bill Clinton and may do so again in this case.

In wartime, generals become public heroes. In some cases—in Stanley McChrystal’s—they really may be heroes. But that does not change the fundamental imperative of maintaining order and discipline. And if doing so means relieving a hero of command, so be it.

I’d recommend that you read this piece in its entirety. Cohen echoes several of the points that I made yesterday regarding civil-military relations in this country. He does a great job of putting this particular incident into the proper context–that this entire episode is really just an extension of the Obama’s administration’s mismanagement of the war in Afghanistan.

McChrystal Tests Civil-Military Relations

Tom Skypek — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 18:11:40 +0000

From Politico:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates publicly rebuked Gen. Stanley McChrystal Tuesday, saying in a statement that the top commander in Afghanistan had “made a significant mistake and exercised poor judgment” in the biting remarks he and his aides made in a Rolling Stone article about President Barack Obama and others in the administration.

The statement from Gates followed news that McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, has been summoned to the White House to explain the comments published in a Rolling Stone article.

President Barack Obama has to relieve Gen. McChrystal of his command. I don’t really see how this ends any other way. I guess McChrystal could tender his resignation, but even that would be a slap in the face to the Office of the President. If McChrystal did not have faith in his civilian leadership, he should have resigned. Civilian control of the military is one of the pillars of this Republic. To disrespect the commander-in-chief in such a blatant manner is an affront to the Office of the President and borders on insubordination.

There is clearly a perception within the U.S. military–in the officer corps and among the enlisted ranks–that this president is a weak commander-in-chief (which, I believe, is justified). He won the Democratic nomination by campaigning that he would have the U.S. out of Iraq within 16 months of being elected, remember? He doesn’t believe that the U.S. is at war with Islamic extremism and his conduct of U.S. foreign policy has been amateur, at best. Further, his decision to place additional stress on the force by repealing “Don’t ask, don’t tell” while fighting two wars is more than problematic. Still, he is the president. If he does not fire Gen. McChrystal, Obama will only reinforce the perception that he is a weak and indecisive leader.

According to Byron York, “…the bigger problem with McChrystal’s leadership has always been the general’s devotion to unreasonably restrictive rules of engagement that are resulting in the unnecessary deaths of American and coalition forces.” York makes a good point here, but the general is merely an accomplice to a failed policy. In enforcing these restrictive rules of engagement, McChrystal is following the guidance passed down by the Obama White House. These rules of engagement put U.S. troops at risk. You can’t win a war with one hand tied behind your back. Here’s an excerpt from the article.

One soldier shows me the list of new regulations the platoon was given. “Patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourselves with lethal force,” the laminated card reads. For a soldier who has traveled halfway around the world to fight, that’s like telling a cop he should only patrol in areas where he knows he won’t have to make arrests. “Does that make any f–king sense?” Pfc. Jared Pautsch. “We should just drop a f–king bomb on this place. You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?”

It is odd that a four-star general would give such access to a media outlet. Even if some of the comments were “off the record,” it is peculiar that he would trust a journalist from Rolling Stone, or any media outlet for that matter. Maybe this was an elaborate plan to force a confrontation with the White House. I don’t know. Regardless, it puts the president in a tough spot. While the first order impact of this article is the McChrystal fallout, I hope it shines renewed light on the overall mismanagement of the war in Afghanistan and how the current rules of engagement are putting American lives at risk. If that’s how this White House wants to prosecute this war, then we shouldn’t be there.

I agree with most of what McChrystal and his staff said in the article, but I’m not a general officer in the United States Army currently running a war. I’m a private citizen and there’s a big difference. I’m not part of the chain of command. The bottom line is that if he disagreed with Obama’s policies he should have resigned. Making these comments while in uniform was not the way to go. Do you think this whole episode will help or hinder morale? If you were on the ground in Afghanistan and you found out that your commanding general thinks the president is a dolt and bungling the war–how are you doing going to react? The efficacy of any military organization depends largely on strict adherence to the chain of command. Some pundits will relish this episode as an example of Obama’s poor leadership and disconnect from the military (I don’t think this would be happening if it were President McCain). But I believe this issue is bigger than Obama or McChrystal. It really has to do with the Office of the President, the Constitution, and how we think about civil-military relations in this country.

Foreign Policy Amateur

Tom Skypek — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:25:03 +0000

The Obama administration’s inept management of U.S. foreign policy is finally becoming apparent, even to Democrats like Mort Zuckerman. Zuckerman writes,

The reviews of Obama’s performance have been disappointing. He has seemed uncomfortable in the role of leading other nations, and often seems to suggest there is nothing special about America’s role in the world. The global community was puzzled over the pictures of Obama bowing to some of the world’s leaders and surprised by his gratuitous criticisms of and apologies for America’s foreign policy under the previous administration of George W. Bush. One Middle East authority, Fouad Ajami, pointed out that Obama seems unaware that it is bad form and even a great moral lapse to speak ill of one’s own tribe while in the lands of others.

Even in Britain, for decades our closest ally, the talk in the press—supported by polls—is about the end of the “special relationship” with America. French President Nicolas Sarkozy openly criticized Obama for months, including a direct attack on his policies at the United Nations. Sarkozy cited the need to recognize the real world, not the virtual world, a clear reference to Obama’s speech on nuclear weapons. When the French president is seen as tougher than the American president, you have to know that something is awry. Vladimir Putin of Russia has publicly scorned a number of Obama’s visions. Relations with the Chinese leadership got off to a bad start with the president’s poorly-organized visit to China, where his hosts treated him disdainfully and prevented him from speaking to a national television audience of the Chinese people. The Chinese behavior was unprecedented when compared to visits by other U.S. presidents.

Obama’s lack of credibility as a competent leader limits our bargaining power abroad and invites provocations by our adversaries, who perceive Obama as a weak and indecisive leader. This administration has fallen short in both style and substance. There’s something wrong when you treat your adversaries better than your friends and allies.

National Energy Tax Bill

Tom Skypek — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:28:13 +0000

From Politico:

Senate authors of a controversial climate change bill heralded EPA modeling results unveiled Tuesday as proof that their plan would have a limited pinch on Americans’ pocketbooks.

Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) found many reasons to gloat after getting the 74-page study that showed the overall costs from their legislation’s major global warming provisions would cost an average household between $80 to $150 per year.

“There’ll be some people who will want to demagogue that politically, but that’s less than $1 a day,” Lieberman told reporters. “Is the American household willing to pay less than $1 so we don’t have to buy oil from foreign countries, so we can create millions of new jobs, so we can clean up our environment? I think the answer is going to be yes.”

We knew that this type of bill would rear its ugly head again. A few points to consider: First, models are imperfect tools. They are decision-support tools and are frequently quite wrong (see mortgage securitization, for example). So the estimates touted by the senators could be very low. Second, $80 to $150 per year is a lot of money for some households. It’s a month worth of groceries or the “activity fee” required by some public schools so your child can play athletics or participate in the band. For some, it eats into a rent or mortgage payment. Think about the people who need to work two jobs to make ends meet. Over the course of a year, $1 a day is a lot of money to them. Third, this is simply an example of elitism at its finest. The reality is that most Americans care about the economy. A conjured problem like climate change, based on fraudulent since, is not high on their list of priorities or concerns–nor should it be.

Two Things the President Shouldn’t Do Tonight

Tom Skypek — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 22:28:38 +0000

I don’t anticipate that the White House will take my advice, but here’s two things President Obama shouldn’t do tonight in his address to the nation.

Blame BP and Big Oil. Good leaders focus 80% of their time on the solution and 20% on the problem. People want to hear about solutions tonight. They want to hear that the government has relaxed the necessary regulations to ensure a speedier cleanup and resolution to the problem. Blaming BP and Big Oil will score the president points with the Sierra Club crowd, but that’s about it. No one wants to hear excuses or listen to the president of the United States point fingers–just what he’s doing to address the problem.
Push a new cap and tax bill. The economy is in rough shape. The economy is still the number one issue on the minds of most Americans–not climate change. Using this forum to push a fringe bill that only liberal Washington elitists care about is a mistake. The president has proven to be politically tone deaf on more than one occasion. Trying to push a new energy tax bill is not the way to go. It’s bad policy and it’s certainly bad politics.

Now, having said that I will be very surprised if the president doesn’t make these points multiple times throughout his speech.

Mark Levin’s Interview with Democratic U.S. Senate Candidate Alvin Greene

Tom Skypek — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:57:14 +0000

This is absolutely remarkable.

Five Options for Dealing with Iran

Tom Skypek — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:19:03 +0000

It appears to be just a matter of time before Iran possesses an operational nuclear weapons capability. While the United Nations Security Council recently passed its fourth round of sanctions against Iran, if history is any guide, it is unlikely that this sanctions package will be any more effective than the previous three. Each of these sanctions packages have failed to achieve their stated objective of stopping Iran’s production of nuclear fuel. The options for stopping Iran are dwindling–as is time. There are, in fact, no attractive options for U.S. policymakers. These include: (1) accept a nuclear-armed Iran, (2) continue with sanctions, (3) support an Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear weapons complex, (4) launch a U.S.-led military strike against Iran’s nuclear weapons complex, and (5) facilitate regime change. As I said, not one of these options is attractive. In every case, the risks outweigh the benefits. Liberals believe that, in the end, diplomacy will work. Some conservatives believe that only military force will stop Iran, and while they are probably correct, the costs and risks associated with military action are extraordinarily high.

Accept a nuclear-armed Iran. This course of action is obviously not desirable for Washington, as long as the current regime is in power. Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon would alter the regional military balance in a fundamental way. Iran would stand to become the dominant military power in the Middle East. A nuclear-armed Iran would enjoy greater bargaining power diplomatically and largely insulate itself from a conventional military strike (in much the same way North Korea has done by credibly demonstrating its nuclear capability). Iran’s ability to coerce its neighbors and other actors will increase dramatically. While Iran does not yet possess a long-range ballistic missile capable of reaching the continental United States, it working toward building such a capability. This means that Iran will be able to hold targets in the United States at risk. This will make the United States susceptible to nuclear blackmail (again, see North Korea, for an example). The assumption here is that Iran can be deterred from using its weapons–that its fear of massive retaliation by Washington would prevent their use. Of course, this is a big assumption.

Continue with sanctions. It is highly unlikely that sanctions will prevent Iran from going nuclear. This latest round of sanctions is the fourth attempt. The fact of the matter is that Iran sees nuclear power as a “right” and matter of national pride. The regime will stop at nothing to build an indigenous nuclear weapons capability. Sanctions will only slow the process. In the end, sanctions will not work. As a policymaker, you can’t just stand around while Iran goes nuclear. Pushing sanctions is a way of delaying the inevitable.

Support an Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear weapons complex. Secretly, this is what every Sunni nation in the Middle East is hoping for. Saudi Arabia is even prepared to temporarily de-alert its air defense system, in the event of an Isareli strike against Iran. However, these countries would never admit in a public forum that they support military action against Iran. There are several challenges associated with a military strike. In 1981, Israel used air strikes to destroy Iraq’s nuclear facility at Osirak. But Iran’s nuclear weapons complex has many more potential targets which are hardened and dispersed. A “surgical” air strike, if successful, might destroy a couple of the facilities but would not destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons complex outright. A more robust air campaign could potentially achieve that objective but with significant risks–namely conflict escalation. Iran will not sit idly by as Israel drops ordnance on its nuclear facilities. Iran has a capable air defense system that includes advanced surface-to-air missiles (SAMs). The SAM threat will pose a significant risk to combat aircraft. Iran could also decide to launch ballistic missile strikes against Israel, or U.S. forces based in the region. Iran could also fully activate its terrorist network to launch attacks against Israeli and U.S. forces in the region. This counterattack would carry with it significant escalation risks for Iran, however, and would draw the United States into the conflict. Iran is also investing in anti-access/area-denial capabilities such as ballistic and cruise missiles, submarines, small high-speed coastal combatants,and advanced anti-ship mines, according to Andrew Krepinevich at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. The big risk with any military action is the risk of escalation. It is not difficult to envision a scenario in which a limited air strike devolves into a much broader regional conflict. If Iran decided to escalate the conflict by attacking U.S. forces in the region, Washington would have no choice but to respond militarily.

Launch a U.S.-led military strike against Iran’s nuclear weapons complex. Again, the risk of conflict escalation is significant. Jamie Fly and William Kristol argue that this is not the case–that Iran would not seek to escalate the conflict since what the leadership in Tehran ultimately values is power and an attack on U.S. forces would likely result in “regime decapitation.” While this line of reasoning makes perfect sense, it is a major assumption and the type of assumption that statesmen have gotten wrong on more than one occasion throughout history–and with disastrous consequences. The United States could deliver a crippling blow to Iran’s nuclear program using air strikes. However, even with perfect intelligence (which just wouldn’t happen), the United States would probably not be able to destroy Iran’s program outright. Further, if Iran decided to escalate the conflict by attacking U.S. forces in the region, Washington policymakers would have to respond militarily. The problem is that the force is already under considerable stress from fighting the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001 and 2003, respectively. Fly and Kristol conclude, “Despite our global commitments and our engagement in two ongoing wars, the U.S. military is fully able to carry out such a mission. Indeed, the success of President Bush’s 2007 surge of forces into Iraq and of President Obama’s sending additional resources to Afghanistan means we are on better footing to deal with Iran’s nuclear program than we were a few years ago.” While there are already U.S. forces in theater that could be re-deployed if necessary, it is unclear to me the scope of the “mission” to which Fly and Kristol are referring: are they talking about a massive ground campaign? Surgical air strikes augmented with special operations forces? Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom have placed stress on the force and have impacted the readiness of the U.S. military. This has to be a major planning consideration for anyone thinking about the use of force.

Facilitate regime change. If we woke up tomorrow and Iran was a pro-Western, pro-U.S. democracy, that would problem resolve this standoff. At that point, we probably wouldn’t care if they had civilian nuclear power program because we’d trust them to submit to a rigorous inspection regime. However, it doesn’t look like an organic, domestic revolution will occur in the near-term, despite calls by some senior policymakers to provide substantive support to the Iranian resistance–a course of action the Obama administration declined to adopt during last year’s unrest. Further, the costs associated with facilitating a regime change through military force are unacceptably high and such an operation shouldn’t even be considered because, quite simply, that is not the role of the United States military.

Not one of these options offers a low-risk approach for U.S. policymakers. While sanctions are a low-cost approach in the near-term, they will most likely be ineffective and will ultimately result in a nuclear-armed Iran. Conversely, while a military operation could halt the program for a period of time, the risks of escalation are considerable–even for a “surgical” air strike. If I had to wager, I would bet that the Obama administration will continue with the sanctions approach. However, this approach is, unfortunately, doomed to fail. It may very well be that Iran goes nuclear under President Barack Obama’s watch.

Democratic Congressman Bob Etheridge Assaults Student

Tom Skypek — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 13:07:54 +0000

Apparently, some Democrats are a bit on edge nowadays. This will make for quite the campaign commercial for his Republican challenger, Renee Ellmers. ”Do you fully support the Obama agenda?” That’s not really a tough, or emotional, question, if you’re a Democrat. Or maybe it is? I would hate to see this guy at a Town Hall Meeting. What’s he do when he’s asked a really tough question? Bodyslam? Sleeper hold? Check out the original post from Mike Flynn at Big Government.

Hoyer’s Diagnosis: ‘Spending Fatigue’

Tom Skypek — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 20:26:58 +0000

President Barack Obama is trying to push through yet another “emergency” spending bill. According to The Washington Post,

President Obama urged reluctant lawmakers Saturday to quickly approve nearly $50 billion in emergency aid to state and local governments, saying the money is needed to avoid “massive layoffs of teachers, police and firefighters” and to support the still-fragile economic recovery.

In a letter to congressional leaders, Obama defended last year’s huge economic stimulus package, saying it helped break the economy’s free fall, but argued that more spending is urgent and unavoidable. “We must take these emergency measures,” he wrote in an appeal aimed primarily at members of his own party.

For a president who claims to be serious about deficit reduction, he sure has a funny way of showing it. Even the party faithful are having a tough time swallowing this one: ”I think there is spending fatigue,” House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said recently. ”It’s tough in both houses to get votes.” However, if this weren’t an election year I have no doubt that Hoyer would be leading the charge for additional spending. How many “emergency” spending bills has this president pushed through Congress?

I thought this was the analytical president. An effective leader will analyze his/her choices and make adjustments accordingly–based on the efficacy of earlier decisions. Mr. Obama cannot spend his way out of this recession. His Keynesian policies are only exacerbating the recession and laying the foundation for another downturn. We’re all going to be in a world of hurt when the other shoe drops–the shoe being our $13 trillion national debt. That is the real emergency, Mr. President.

Strange Bedfellows: Saudi Arabia and Israel

Tom Skypek — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 23:35:54 +0000

Further evidence that international politics makes strange bedfellows. From The Times:

Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defences to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities, The Times can reveal.

In the week that the UN Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran, defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran.

To ensure the Israeli bombers pass unmolested, Riyadh has carried out tests to make certain its own jets are not scrambled and missile defence systems not activated. Once the Israelis are through, the kingdom’s air defences will return to full alert.

It is truly amazing how the need for security can make bitter rivals cooperate, even in certain rare instances. It really is extraordinary when you consider it–Saudi Arabia and Israel–cooperating.

The Conservative Mitch Daniels

Tom Skypek — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 01:39:29 +0000

I’ve been watching Mitch Daniels’s career as governor of Indiana with great interest for the last few years. I was impressed by his election in 2004 and then his 18-point margin of victory in 2008, a very tough year to have an “R” next to your name. Daniels is a true fiscal conservative and effective decision-maker. Andrew Ferguson recently wrote a terrific profile of Daniels in the latest issues of The Weekly Standard. His achievements in Indiana have been impressive:

When Daniels took office, in 2004, the state faced a $200 million deficit and hadn’t balanced its budget in seven years. Four years later, all outstanding debts had been paid off; after four balanced budgets, the state was running a surplus of $1.3 billion, which has cushioned the blows from a steady decline in revenues caused by the recession. “That’s what saved us when the recession hit,” one official said. “If we didn’t have the cash reserves and the debts paid off, we would have been toast.” The state today is spending roughly the same amount that it was when Daniels took office, largely because he resisted the budget increases other states were indulging in the past decade.

No other state in the Midwest—all of them, like Indiana, dependent on a declining manufacturing sector—can match this record. Venture capital investment in Indiana had lagged at $39 million annually in the first years of this decade. By 2009 it was averaging $94 million. Even now the state has continued to add jobs—7 percent of new U.S. employment has been in Indiana this year, a state with 2 percent of the country’s population. For the first time in 40 years more people are moving into the state than leaving it. Indiana earned its first triple-A bond rating from Standard and Poor’s in 2008; the other two major bond rating agencies concurred in April 2010, making it one of only nine states with this distinction, and one of only two in the Midwest.

We could use some of Daniels’s discipline in Washington. Daniels is taking some heat, however, for telling Ferguson that the next president “…will have to call a truce on the so-called social issues.” Mike Huckabee sent members of his HUCKPAC list a fundraising e-mail criticizing Daniels over the “truce” comment. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council also took Daniels to task for his comments. I’m a dedicated pro-lifer and I hope that some day Roe v. Wade is overturned, but I think some folks are getting too wrapped around the axle over his comments. (Here’s something to get bent out of shape over.) I have no doubt that, if elected president, he would support pro-life policies. His comment was merely a question of emphasis. Fiscal conservatism is a sexier message these days than social conservatism. This does not mean that he’s not dedicated to advancing socially conservative policies. Let’s give Mitch a shot. I mean it’s only June 2010, and you want to disqualify a very strong candidate over what seems to be a rather benign remark?

Let’s shift gears to foreign policy. Jennifer Rubin of Commentary wrote a separate piece on Daniels following a meeting with conservative journalists earlier this week. She asked him about U.S. foreign policy and, as Reihan Salam noted at The Agenda, found his answer “wanting.” I found his answer satisfying and thought-provoking.

I asked him the sole question on foreign policy — in what fundamental ways Obama had erred? He did not address any of the basic concerns conservatives have been discussing (e.g., engagement with despots, indifference on human rights, animus toward Israel). Instead, he gave a platitude, “Peace through strength has totally been vindicated.” And then he immediately asserted that we have to “ask questions about the extent of our commitments.” He said, “If we go broke, no one will follow a pauper.” At least temporarily, he said, we can’t maintain all our commitments. But if our foes don’t take a break, what do we do? Should we pull up stakes in Iraq and Afghanistan and hack away at the defense budget? It’s not clear whether he has thought these issues through, or whether he views foreign policy as anything more than a cost-control issue.

The bottom line is that we’re going bankrupt, both at home and abroad. To acknowledge this fact does not mean that you’re an “appeaser” or “American declinist,” rather, I would argue, a conservative. I think he raised some very thoughtful points on the sustainability of our current foreign policy. Many conservatives think that the defense budget is sacrosanct but the fact of the matter is that there’s significant waste and if we can’t secure this country with half a trillion dollars then we’re just not doing something right. We need to scale back our government commitments domestically–and abroad. Big government, liberal internationalism is not a conservative foreign policy. Daniels will encounter some resistance from the Washington foreign policy establishment over these views, especially as his national profile grows. Some will lobby him to adopt a more activist foreign policy stance. That would be a mistake. We’ll see what happens, though I’m encouraged by his thoughtful remarks.

Obama to Meet BP Chairman (Finally)

Tom Skypek — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 01:12:24 +0000

Yes, according to Reuters, President Barack Obama will meet with the Chairman of British Petroleum on June 16th at the White House. It’s about time. The crisis in the Gulf of Mexico is a public-private problem and requires a coordinated response that marshals resources from both the private and public sectors. Bigwigs in government are always pushing interagency coordination and public-private partnerships. It’s times like these that those types of working relationships are required. The president should have met with the BP Chairman several weeks ago. It’s been clear for some time that the situation is not getting better. Better late than never, but I submit that leaders need to make timely decisions, especially during times of crisis, especially if you’re the president of the United States.

Coulter Asks Palin to Endorse Simmons in CT Senate Race

Tom Skypek — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 01:13:24 +0000

Ann Coulter writes in Human Events,

“Sarah Palin endorsed three dark-horse candidates in Republican match-ups this year, and all three won their primaries yesterday: Nikki Haley in South Carolina, Sharron Angle in Nevada and Carly Fiorina in California. No wonder Sarah’s being stalked by Joe McGinniss.

Now, she’s got to endorse Rob Simmons for U.S. Senate. Otherwise, Republicans can kiss the possibility of a major upset in Connecticut goodbye.”

Not too sure if this will go anywhere, but it’s interesting, nonetheless.

Obama is “The Alien in the White House”

Tom Skypek — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 01:05:57 +0000

If you haven’t read Dorothy Rabinowitz’s op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal, you should. It is one of the most articulate and sobering critiques of Barack Obama and his administration that I’ve ever read. It’s sad that an article like this needs to be written. The fact of the matter is that Obama’s love for this country is conditional. He views himself as a world citizen first and an American second. This administration apologizes for this country on a regular basis, both at home and abroad. This country’s top counter terrorism official, John Brennan, has made excuses for those who have killed Americans, saying that “violent extremists are victims of political, economic and social forces.”

“One of his first reforms was to rid the White House of the bust of Winston Churchill—a gift from Tony Blair—by packing it back off to 10 Downing Street,” writes Rabinowitz. To me, that says everything you need to know about our 44th president.

The Fight Against Obamacare Continues…

Tom Skypek — Wed, 09 Jun 2010 14:07:04 +0000

…and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is leading the charge. The federal government responded to Virginia’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate with a motion to dismiss the case, a move which was fully expected by Cuccinelli and his team. The federal government has to file its reply brief by June 22^nd, and then the oral arguments on the motion to dismiss will take place on July 1^st at 10 a.m. – one hour for each side. If Virginia’s case is not dismissed and moves forward, a summary judgment hearing is scheduled for October 18^th. There will be a webcast meeting on June 16th–next Wednesday–to discuss the case and its foundation. You can sign up by clicking here.

Below is a summary of the arguments presented by both sides. It was generated by the Attorney General’s team.

Federal government’s arguments to dismiss the case	Virginia’s response
Virginia is not injured by the federal health care law	Because the federal health care law purports to invalidate a Virginia law (the Health Care Freedom Act) under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, Virginia’s sovereign interests have been injured
Because the mandate doesn’t take effect until 2014, the case is not “ripe”	1) Based on several previous Supreme Court decisions, if a dispute is certain to occur in the future, this does not prohibit the suit from being brought in the present 2) Virginia has already been forced to make decisions regarding insurance exchanges under the act, as well as changes to Medicaid. One of those decisions made the commonwealth forego more than $100 million in federal money.
Virginia’s suit is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act	The act does not apply to states under these circumstances, because Virginia’s action falls within an exception to the act that has been recognized by the Supreme Court
The government has the power under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to mandate the purchase of individual health insurance	1) The federal government’s argument is contrary to the text of the Constitution 2) The federal government’s argument is contrary to the meaning of the words of the Commerce Clause as understood by the Founders 3) The federal government’s argument is contrary to the historical context of the nation’s founding. When Great Britain instituted a tax on tea, the colonists’ response was to boycott and to not buy tea. Parliament had the power to regulate commerce, but even it did not attempt to force colonists to buy the taxed product. 4) The federal government’s argument is contrary to the traditional uses of the Commerce Clause. The clause has always been used to regulate economic activity; never inactivity. 5) The federal government’s argument is contrary to the precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has set outer limits to the reaches of the Commerce Clause, including in cases such as Lopez and Morrison, saying that the clause must have principled limits, otherwise the federal government essentially would have unlimited power, rather than the limited powers enumerated in the Constitution.
Even if refusing to buy insurance is not commerce, the government can still force people to buy health insurance using the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause.	1) Since 1819, the Supreme Court has held that any use of the Necessary and Proper Clause must be consistent with both “the letter and spirit” of the Constitution. Any interpretation that would destroy the federal form of government (where federal power is limited only to those powers enumerated in the Constitution, with remaining powers reserved to the states and the people) is not allowed under that standard. 2) In May, the Supreme Court decidedComstock. The Court adopted a historical approach to the use of the Necessary and Proper Clause. Because the mandate is utterly unprecedented, it is unlikely to be upheld under a historical approach.
Even if the government cannot win using the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause arguments, the federal health insurance mandate can be justified under the government’s taxing authority.	1) The penalty for not buying insurance is not a tax. Congress called it a “penalty” and claimed authority to act only under the Commerce Clause. To argue otherwise now ignores what Congress actually did. 2) A penalty for inaction is not a tax of any kind known to the Constitution, when judged historically.