RAGGED THOTS

Labels: Rudy Giuliani

# posted by Robert A. George @ 9:33 AM

Labels: Sarah Palin; media overkill; Going Rogue

# posted by Robert A. George @ 9:48 AM

Like the Ghost of Christmas Past, the specter of 1994 haunts the contemporary political scene. The Obama administration is desperate to learn from the mistakes of the Clintons in 1993 and 1994; the Republicans use those years to inspire them to remember how quickly the electoral landscape can change.

In the clearest example of this dynamic, the Obama White House made the early decision to allow Congress to take the lead on health care -- a 180 degree move from the 90s effort when Bill and Hillary Clinton rode roughshod over the health-care drafting process. That was a decision that ended up backfiring and creating much ill-will between the two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. Of course, going in the opposite direction has caused problems of its own -- as the current health-care process has demonstrated. Similarly, administration is trying to stay away from blatantly controversial social issues, so as to avoid a repeat of Clinton's gays-in-the-military debacle. Indeed, one could look at the Obama's shying away from both lifting "don't ask, don't tell" and intentionally side-stepping any gay-marriage political issues as a way of preventing a replay of the Clinton disaster.

On the other hand, the '94 parallel has helped fire up Republicans. This year's off-year GOP victories in New Jersey and Virginia are seen as parallel to the results in '93 that anticipated the '94 "Republican Revolution." Heck, like '94, a Democratic chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee is mired in ethics controversies (Dan Rostenkowski then, Charles Rangel now). Over the weekend, Newt Gingrich -- principal architect of that uprising -- even started talking about working with the RNC to put together a "Contract With America" 2.0.

Given these parallels, can Democrats stop history from repeating? Well, obviously, if the party gets health-care reform through this time, that's a legislative triumph instead of a failure. However, considering that average middle-class Americans won't necessarily see any benefits of the legislation for years to come, it will be a target that Republicans can focus on in both 2010 and 2012. The argument will be that Democrats passed a $1 trillion legislative bill -- but its benefits are slow to perceive -- at best. Toss in the $800 billion stimulus package -- and the fact that the unemployment rate will likely be above 10 percent for most of 2010 -- and a powerful narrative against all-Democratic Party rule could be made.

How will Democrats react?

Well, given how Obama has tried to do the opposite of what Clinton did, look for the president to start moving in a more centrist/right direction in anticipation of the '10 midterms -- rather than wait until the presidential re-elect (as Clinton did in '95-'96). In '94, it was the so-called "angry white males" turning out that voted in a Republican Congress for the first time in 40 years. Figure that the Obama political operation might be looking at the "Tea Party" movement as the 21st century version of that demographic. But Obama also knows that the share of the electorate identifying itself as independent has grown in the last several years. That group swung from going narrowly Obama last year to voting GOP by as much as 2-1 in the Jersey and Virginia elections. Obama has to figure out how to make more of those independents vote Democratic (or at least not become hostile to Democrats) next year.

And so, word leaked last week that the White House will focus on fiscal discipline and deficit reduction next year. Of course, this is a rather savvy idea in that the fiscal stimulus was back-loaded: Most of it hasn't been spent yet, meaning that the economy should be stimulated in '10 -- and, the White House hopes, will start creating jobs. The broader strategy will recognize that conservatives will be fired up regardless -- as they were in '94 -- so how does the White House minimize the damage? Obama's younger voters certainly didn't show up in this year's campaigns, partly explaining the drubbing Democrats received. And it won't be easy to tell liberals that spending has to be controlled. However, targeting independents by focusing on controlling the budget (at least rhetorically) may work -- or at least may keep them contented enough that they won't swing over to the GOP as they did this year.

Another area, where Obama may make at least some overtures in a centrist direction is in immigration. The administration is talking about reviving the comprehensive plan that Bush tried to get through. However, Obama has, arguably, been even tougher on immigration than his predecessor. The administration has already identified more than 100,000 immigrants -- of varied status -- who are already in the criminal justice system. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency is already moving against immigrants who are arrested and identified as already having criminal records. ICE then manages to place an indefinite hold on them while their criminal prosecution takes place. Once that is complete, the agency can begin deportation proceedings.

For those people adamantly against any "pathway to citizenship" plan to deal with illegal immigration, this program will not speak to them. However, for more middle-of-the-road voters, this will sound like a good reasonable idea -- and sound like the administration is working to keep the country safe from illegals that might commit violent offense.

Fiscal discipline. Working to keep the country safe (on the immigration front). These are a couple of areas where the Obama administration will try to put forward a more moderate type of governing after this year's Big Bang troika of spending, bailouts and company takeovers. (And keeping their fingers crossed that the stimulus works as it is supposed to.)

So, in game-planning so early for 2010, it's clear that the White House is worried, given the slowness of the economy to turn around. So, unlike '94, this Democratic administration appears to to be more proactive in the mid-term elections. One thing's is known, this will be an awfully long year until Election Day of 2010.

The sides have already been joined.

Labels: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton

# posted by Robert A. George @ 11:45 PM

Eight months ago, President Obama chose General Stanley McChrystal to chart out a new Afghanistan policy. His primary recommendation was for a "surge" of 40,000 more troops.

Wednesday's New York Times outlined three primary strategies for troop increases -- with McChrystal's plan being one of them. :

Three of the options call for specific levels of additional troops. The low-end option would add 20,000 to 25,000 troops, a middle option calls for about 30,000, and another embraces Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal’s request for roughly 40,000 more troops. Administration officials said that a fourth option was added only in the past few days. They declined to identify any troop level attached to it.

Yet, by Veterans Day night, the real story had leaked out. President Obama was reportedly rejecting all three options presented to him by his foreign policy and national security team. Instead, he wants an approach that takes more into account the entrenched corruption that has oozed out of the Karzai government and now permeates most of Afghanistan.

If Obama thought he had a problem a few weeks ago with former Vice President Dick Cheney accusing him of "dithering" over Afghanistan, he's really risking a public relations nightmare this time -- one that won't be confined just to conservative critics. The three-option plan reflected the viewpoints of not just McChrystal. It also reflected the opinions of administration heavy-hitters like Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

Now, instead of just "dithering" in the public Obama runs the risk of appearing not to take the seriously the counsel of any of his advisers -- on a policy that has life-and-death ramifications.

Yes, caution has its place -- especially when the subject is Afghanistan. Obama is also right not to accept the continued status quo of a corruption-accepting Hamid Karzai-run government. But tossing aside the hard work of the best and brightest in his administration is bad politics pursuing bad -- or at least random, amorphous -- policy. The corruption of Karzai has been known for months. That Karzai would probably end up winning the election and remaining in power was also pretty much a sure bet.

So, there's hardly anything known now that wasn't perceived eight months ago. So, why didn't the president articulate exactly what he was looking for then -- rather than have his advisers put forth three complex plans that did little to address his concerns?

Afghanistan has a well-deserved reputation as the "graveyard of empires." It may yet also pick up a new name -- Creator of "Obama the Hapless" as plans AB&C fall by the wayside. Exactly, how far through the alphabet will the White House go before a decision is made on what to do with Afghanistan?

Labels: Barack Obama, Hamid Karzai

# posted by Robert A. George @ 11:37 PM

Veterans Day should not be a sad day.

The day before America pauses to honor the men and women who step and volunteer to fight for this great nation was indeed a sad one. The country was forced to note the awful handiwork of two men who dishonored their country and their own comrades -- and killed many of their fellow Americans.

Those two men are John Allen Muhammad and (allegedly, we must still say) Nidal Malik Hasan).

The former was executed Tuesday evening -- nine years after the Army veteran launched a sniper shooting spree in the suburbs of Maryland and Virginia that left 10 people dead. Muhammad and his younger associate, Lee Boyd Malvo, had the DC capital region in a grip of fear, until they were apprehended. Muhammad, perhaps corrupted/influenced by the Nation of Islam -- or just taken in by his own evil -- ended up spreading his sickness to Malvo. The duo gained the distinction of becoming the two most infamous black serial killers in American history. Malvo, 17, at the time of the killings, is now serving multiple life sentences. With Muhammad now having gone to his reward, the families of his victims can get some peace -- and the Army can forget about one of their own who went evil.

Evil, in the same way, that Hasan did. Except the latter's crime is even more horrific: In addition to the 13 dead, there are nearly 30 injured. And the attack was even more wicked than the random sniper murders. Hasan, of course, worked at Fort Hood and new how to strike out at those on the compound. Promoted to major in the spring, the Army psychiatrist may very well have harmed his patients well before he went on his shooting spree.

Recovering from a stumbling, mixed-message statement on the day of the shooting, President Obama helped wipe away the treacherous stains the likes of Muhammad and Hasan left on the uniforms of their fellow service members. The president gave a powerful testimonial Tuesday to the victims of Hasan's mad rampage -- and the mission to which they had committed themselves. Obama recognized, in fact, that the targets of Hasan's hate-fueled attack were true heroes.

Specialist Jason Hunt was also recently married, with three children to care for. He joined the Army after high school. He did a tour in Iraq, and it was there that he re-enlisted for six more years on his 21st birthday so that he could continue to serve.

Staff Sergeant Amy Krueger was an athlete in high school, joined the Army shortly after 9/11, and had since returned home to speak to students about her experience. When her mother told her she couldn't take on Osama bin Laden by herself, Amy replied: "Watch me."

Private First Class Aaron Nemelka was an Eagle Scout who just recently signed up to do one of the most dangerous jobs in the service - defuse bombs - so that he could help save lives. He was proudly carrying on a tradition of military service that runs deep within his family.

To name just three. In a sense, they weren't terrorist victims, but rather casualties in the War on Terror -- as much casualties as if they had been caught in a surprise attack in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tragically, they lost their lives still in the very same country they swore to protect -- and taken down by one of their own.

Shakespeare tells us that "the evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones." On this Veterans Day, we can hope that the exact reverse is true for Muhammad and Hasan, military men who lost their. Let their evil go with them to their graves (hopefully that process will take less time with Hasan than it did for Muhammad). Instead, let the lives, courage and patriotism of the 13 slain be remembered and celebrated.

As the president said:

For those families who have lost a loved one, no words can fill the void that has been left. We knew these men and women as soldiers and caregivers. You knew them as mothers and fathers; sons and daughters; sisters and brothers.

But here is what you must also know: your loved ones endure through the life of our nation. Their memory will be honored in the places they lived and by the people they touched. Their life's work is our security, and the freedom that we too often take for granted. Every evening that the sun sets on a tranquil town; every dawn that a flag is unfurled; every moment that an American enjoys life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that is their legacy.

Neither this country - nor the values that we were founded upon - could exist without men and women like these thirteen Americans.

And that is why Veterans Day should never be a day for sadness. One or two bad apples might appear to stain the uniform of those who would risk all for this nation's legacy.

But hundreds of thousands more remain, ready to sacrifice all to guarantee that America's values will extend for centuries yet to come.

Cry not for them, but applaud them -- and thank them.

Labels: Nidal Malik Hasan, Veteran's Day

# posted by Robert A. George @ 7:32 AM

Labels: Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, sarah palin

# posted by Robert A. George @ 9:53 AM

UPDATE: Welcome, friends and foes directed here from the Drudge Report!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Democrats worried about this week's off-year elections on Tuesday might have reason to go into full-fledged panic after Thursday.

The "spin" over the exact reasons why Republicans won governors' races in New Jersey and Virginia can go on for quite some time. Democrats can claim that these were about local concerns. Republicans can say that it was the beginning of voters rejecting President Obama and the Democrats "big-government" agenda -- especially the push to reform health care.

There's some rhetorical points to be made on both sides.

Yesterday, however, stark reality of a very different sort intruded: News broke out of the shooting at the Fort Hood Army post in Texas. Soon enough, the full impact of the horror became evident: 13 dead, another 30 injured. The full details and investigation of the shooting -- evidently by a base Army officer -- will become clear in the days ahead.

It's President Obama's reaction to it that is disturbing. Networks reported that the White House had been notified of the early afternoon shooting. By late afternoon, word went out that the president would speak about the incident prior to a previously scheduled appearance. At about 5 PM, cable stations went to the president. But, instead of what might have been expected -- a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion -- viewers saw a wildly disconnected and, inappropriately "light" president making introductory remarks. At a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a "shout-out" to "Dr. Joe Medicine Crow -- that Congressional Medal of Honor winner." The president eventually spoke about the shooting -- in measured and appropriate terms, but how could anyone have advised him to begin in this manner?

Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours -- and that meant everyone watching given that this appearance by the president would not normally have been covered by the networks -- had to have been stunned. An incident like this requires a scrapping of the early "light" rhetoric. The president should just come out and apologize for the tone of his remarks, but then explain what has happened, express sympathy for those slain -- and appeal for calm and patience until all the facts are in. That's the least that should occur.

Indeed, an argument could be made that Obama should have canceled the Indian event, out of respect for people having been murdered at an Army post a few hours before. That would have prevented any sort of jarring emotional switch at the event.

Did the president's scheduling/communications/political team not realize what sort of image they were presenting to the country at this moment? The disconnect between what Americans at home knew had been going on -- and the initial words coming out of their president's mouth was jolting, if not emotionally disturbing.

It must have been horrifying for many politically aware Democrats, still reeling from the election two days before. The New Jersey gubernatorial vote had already demonstrated that the president and his political team couldn't produce a winning outcome in a state very friendly to Democrats (and where the president won by 15 points one year ago). And now this? Congressional Democrats must wonder if a White House that has burdened them with a too-heavy policy agenda over the last year has a strong enough political operation to help push that agenda through.

If the president's communications apparatus can't inform -- and protect -- their boss during tense moments when the country needs to see a focused commander-in-chief and a compassionate head of state, it has disastrous consequences for that president's party and supporters.

All the president's men (and women) fell down on the job Thursday. And Democrats across the country have real reason to panic.

Labels: Barack Obama, Fort Hood shooting

# posted by Robert A. George @ 7:32 AM