Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com. 
As the youngest contributor to this site, this is a particularly interesting time for me. Ever since I’ve been old enough to comprehend the slightest bit of national policy, George W. Bush has been this nation’s president. He’s always been the president, to me. And now he’s leaving, and someone new is taking over. Bush has had his ups and downs, but as our nation’s president, we owe it to him to honor his eight years of service to the country. I put together this slideshow as my little contribution to that. Thank you, President Bush, and farewell!
Hello everybody, the name is Max Twain and I’m very excited about my first blog here at race42012. Thanks again to Kavon and all our other contributors.
Inauguration Day brings about my inaugural post and the beginning of my Top 25, a frequently updated rankings of the top contenders to face off with our new president, Barack H. Obama. First, let me offer congratulations to our new president, and tip my hat to the remarkable moment we are living through (and constantly reminded of by the drooling, talking heads on MSNBC). I salute you and wish you luck, President Obama, and I look forward to your defeat in 2012.
Now, on to the list. These rankings will be based on the actions taken by the prospective candidates, the ground work they lay, and the attention they gain over the next four years. I also incorporate my own views on who I believe would be the strongest and/or weakest contenders into their positioning. Your feedback is greatly wanted, including lists of your own and reasons why certain candidates are too high/low would be appreciated. Enjoy.
1) Mitt Romney – Gov. Romney earns the top spot in my rankings for a number of reasons; his financial advantage, his organizing ability, his economic expertise, and his runner-up status (traditionally a spring board for many GOP candidates). Romney starts off with the name recognition that he lacked in 2008, when he battled household names like Rudy Giuliani and John McCain. This time, the governor will be able to apply his resources to organization and message instead of introduction, and his economic strong suit will come in handy with the economy likely a top issue once again in 2012.
2) Mark Sanford - The fiscally conservative, pork-hating Governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford takes the number 2 spot for his strong fiscal record, experience, and key positioning in the GOP’s most important primary state. Some feel with Sanford in the race, candidates will avoid SC like Iowa during Harkin’s run in 1992. However, South Carolina’s position on the calendar and historically will make it tougher to dodge, and the more socially conservative candidates won’t be able to avoid SC after the more moderate New Hampshire primary proves unsuccessful for them. Sanford is a very skilled politician, wilth a record that can both appease the base and attract Libertarians and moderates, making him the top early threat to Mitt Romney.
3) Sarah Palin – Governor Palin is simultaneously one of the best bets and biggest wild cards for the 2012 race. The Alaska Governor’s popularity with the base puts her in a strong position going into this cycle, however her poor performance has undermined her credibility as a national leader. The good news for the governor is that presidential campaigns last nearly two years these days, giving her plenty of time to rebuild her image with the broader electorate through interviews, speeches, town halls, and debates. If she performs at a presidential level, she will be a very tough, perhaps even front-running candidate. If she repeats her Couric interview performance, she won’t make it past Iowa, and I mean Ames.
4) Mike Huckabee – Mike Huckabee was the surprise of 2008. His humor and charm garnered him some of the best media coverage of any republican, and his evangelical support made him an early surprise contender. Huck will have more money and a better ground game next time, but I think you can only play the charming newcomer once. The media will take a harder look at him next time around, and his evangelical support is no longer a sure thing with Gov. Palin and other social conservatives in the race.
5) John Thune – Senator Thune is the most likely member of congress to get the GOP nod in 2012. He has the conservative resume to win over the base, the looks and communication skills to win over the broader electorate, and a chance in the Senate leadership to become the rhetorical counter to Obama the next four years. His lobbying ties and strong religious values could hurt him some with moderates. Expect the senator from South Dakota to top everyone’s VP list in 2012.
6) David Petraeus – Yes I know the General has been Shermanesque in his denial of interest in the Presidency, but I would expect nothing less of a commander in the field. Besides, a number of other sources have stated the General’s ambitions are quite different then his public statements. Gen. Petraeus in many ways would be the perfect candidate to challenge even a popular Obama; a heroic four star general with a world class intellect with no partisan voting past or political ties. Petraeus could use the 60th anniversary of Esienhower’s nomination to the same effect Obama used imagery and rhetoric to compare to JFK. The question will remain: does he want it? If he does, I think he becomes number 1 on this or any list.
7) Bobby Jindal – Gov. Jindal has been the favorite of many, but unless his decision to run for reelection in 2011 changes, I can’t see him turning around in 2 months and organizing Iowa and NH. However, the Governor is truly the brightest of the young GOP stars, and is quite possibly the smartest politician in the country. Many will continue to press the young Governor to run, despite the realities involved with the timing of his reelection as governor. However a VP nomination the following summer seems far more likely.
8 ) Tim Pawlenty – Minnesota’s governor has the proven ability to win in the bluest of states (even Reagan never won Minnesota) with is Sam’s Club Republican message. If the economy is still down, I imagine T-Paw’s blue-collar republicanism could be quite effective. He is also an evangelical, and could give Palin and Huckabee a run for the support of values voters.
9) Charlie Crist – Florida’s governor could easily be the favorite of moderates the nation over. With sky high approval numbers built on his bipartisan record, Gov. Crist could make the ‘Me Too’ case against a popular Obama, or offer himself up as a ‘new kind of republican’. He could also take the McCain path to the nomination if the field is divided among the base, winning over moderates and independents in blue-state primaries, as well as the big prize of Florida. The rumors of his personal life will need to be addressed at some point and will hurt him with some primary voters even if they are proven untrue.
10) Newt Gingrich – 2012 could be the return of an old reliable in the form of the former Speaker of the House. Gingrich has reformed his image somewhat, from the polarizing figure of the mid-90s to the idea-man of American Solutions. A ‘New Contract with America’ could be a big vote getter and help the former Speaker control the debate. His age and personal life will likely make him a tough sell to a new generation.
11) Mitch Daniels – A very successful Rust Belt governor, Mitch Daniels proved himself by running what many call the best governor’s campaign of 2008 despite the dreadful climate for republicans. He is a graduate of Princeton and Georgetown, and served as Director of the OMB, while also sitting on the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council. Oh and he’s Arab-American, proving once again that the GOP is far more inclusive then advertised.
12) Rick Perry - Another Governor of Texas? You bet. Rick Perry has had a long and successful career, from Captain in the Air Force to the longest serving Texas Governor in history. In many ways, he has a stronger resume then many of the other governors who have gone on to the White House. His 2010 reelection bid, likely facing off with Senator Hutchinson, will be the big test to decide how much further Perry can go.
13) Jon Huntsman Jr. – Very smart, very rich, successful business man, governor, and Mormon. Where have I heard this before??? The governor of Utah will likely have an early problem with the far better known Gov. Romney, and will struggle for support despite a strong economic background and experience. Plus his Mormon faith will likely be problem with some primary voters.
14) Jeb Bush – If his last name was Smith he would be a front-runner. His name likely rules him out, but his popularity in Florida shows that he can outrun his brother’s shadow. Jeb’s ability to organize and raise money would make him a tough candidate despite ‘Bush Fatigue’, and his passing on the Senate race tells me he has something a little bigger in mind.
15) Fred Thompson – If the former Senator could ever find the energy and will power to campaign as hard as some of his opponents he would be quite formidable. However, its unlikely that a four-years older Fred Thompson will be able to muster that strength.
16) Haley Barbour - Gov. Barbour is a truly talented executive, fundraiser, and manager. No wonder he made such a good lobbyist! The governor is truly quite the capable chief executive, but he is also a true insider and not a great match-up for President HopenChange.
17) Rudy Giuliani – If America’s Mayor could find the old fire in his belly he used to win in NYC twice he could still be a tough candidate. A successful run for Governor of NY in 2010 can bring Rudy back for another attempt at the White House.
18) Jim DeMint - Of all the potential candidates, it sure seems like Senator DeMint wants it the most. He has a solid conservative record and is likely to be a visible opponent of Obama these next 4 years. His biggest problem is Mark Sanford, and if Sanford is in DeMint is likely out.
19) John Ensign - The Nevada senator could use his south western roots to help the GOP regain its foot hold in the mid and south west. The fact that he beat Jimmy Carter’s son will also go a long way in winning hearts and minds of conservatives everywhere.
20) Eric Cantor – The Virginia congressman could be the candidate who brings Virginia back to the GOP. Smart, young, articulate, and the ability to raise money makes Rep. Cantor the best bet to go from the House to the nomination. I think Speaker of the House is more likely in his future then President.
21) Meg Whitman – The former eBay CEO and billionaire has her eyes on the California governorship. If she wins, her stock would skyrocket. The potential to have female candidate who could outspend Obama and possibly win California would pique the interest of a number of GOPers, even ones who think she is too liberal on some issues.
22) Gary Johnson - The former New Mexico governor is likely to pick up where Ron Paul left off. He has a lot of support from the Libertarian wing of the party as well as moderates, and with Rep. Paul’s success to build on, Gov. Johnson could follow a similar path up the ladder. The reason Congressman Paul is not in this spot himself is because in 2012 he will be 77 years old, 5 years older then John McCain was this cycle.
23) George Allen - Senator Allen has fallen far, but his career is not beyond rehabilitation. He could still follow through on his original plan to run for president before his close loss to Jim Webb. Though his image has taken a major hit, many in the base thought he got a raw deal and still like the former governor and senator and still believe his best days are ahead.
24) Mike Pence – Rep. Pence seems destined for the Tancredo/Hunter role in the next cycle; that of the hardcore principled conservative who no one knows and who complains about not getting enough questions in the debates.
25) Lindsay Grahm – Watching Senator Grahm snuggle up to our new president suggests to me that ol’ Lindsay thinks he actually has a shot at this. For that kind of out of the box dreaming, the Senator from South Carolina and McCain BFF gets the final spot on this list, for now.
He asks lots of hardball questions (“Is Barack Obama your president tomorrow?” “Are you afraid of the global effort to discredit capitalism?”). Also tells her that she’s “one hot grandma.”
Score a couple of points for the next POTUS on this one. From CBS News:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appears to differ from Barack Obama on at least two issues – tax increases and investigating the Bush administration.
…
Mr. Obama has fought that label, emphasizing that any tax increase would be directed at those making more than $250,000. However, since the election, Mr. Obama has been reluctant even to raise taxes on people making that much.
Lawrence Summers, Obama’s choice for director of the National Economic Council, signaled again Sunday that repealing the Bush tax cuts would not be a priority.
“Our overall focus is going to be on increasing spending,” Summers said in a broadcast interview. “Beyond that, there’s going to be a substantial tax cut for the American people.”
Mr. Obama’s aides worked with House Democrats to craft their version of an economic stimulus package. The package, unveiled last week, includes $550 billion in government spending and $275 billion in tax cuts. It would leave the Bush tax cuts in place.
…
Also Sunday, Pelosi said she wants an investigation into whether the Bush administration broke the law when it fired a group of federal prosecutors.
“I think that we have to learn from the past, and we cannot let the politicizing of, for example, the Justice Department, go unreviewed,” she said. “Past is prologue.”
House Democrats last week recommended a criminal investigation to determine whether administration officials broke the law in the name of national security. Along with the fired prosecutors, the report cited interrogation of foreign detainees, warrantless wiretaps, retribution against critics and manipulation of intelligence.
The president-elect has been more cautious, saying he wants to look to the future, not to the past.
“I don’t believe that anybody is above the law,” Mr. Obama said in a recent television interview. “On the other hand, I also have a belief that we need to look forward, as opposed to looking backwards.”
Kudos to Obama for standing up to the far left on this. He is already showing better judgement than the last democrat elected president did during his first two years in office.
Now… I’m sure that I will probably be criticized for sticking up for Obama, but I don’t care whether there is a D or an R next to his name, if he makes a decision that I personally think is a good one. I will have a lot of major problems with Barack Obama over the next four years, but when he is right, I will congratulate him. Would you rather him govern like a left wing liberal so he can lose, at the expense of the few good things that President Bush has left us with, like tax cuts? Or would you rather him govern to the center, where things will be much more effective for our country as a whole?
Personally, I choose to put the country first over political affiliations. If Obama makes wise decisions (at least in my opinion), then I will praise him. If he doesn’t, then I will criticize him. It’s that easy, and I guess that’s how I am going to deal with the next four years.
Well, did the lefties who thought it was cool to namecheck Chavez know that he’d be taking a steamer on the next President too?
In an interview airing on Venezuelan television and reported by The Washington Post Monday, Chavez said Obama has “the same stench” as Bush. The comment harkens back to September 2006, when Chavez addressed the United Nations General Assembly after Bush and said he could still smell the “sulfur” the U.S. president left behind at the podium.
Let there be peace on earth…
MD 1st District is the sort of place, Democrats shouldn’t have any chance of winning. We’ve discussed on here in the past the big mistake of choosing a weak candidate like Andy Harris to challenge Wayne Gilchrist. Andy Harris was just the sort of out-of-place gadfly to win over Republican activists and alienate the conservative Democrats who determine elections in the 1st district of Maryland.
I’ve spoken to several Central Committee-persons and a few members of the Lady Republican Clubs down in the 1st district. They are already looking to 2010 with anticipation (for Congress and for Governor).
Luis Luna is likely to run against Congressman Kratovil in 2010. He has a good shot at winning too. Kratovil can’t depend on getting a weak candidate from the wrong part of the district next time. Kratovil is likely to be weighed down by a deeply unpopular Democrat Governor O’Malley up for re-election in 2010.
Luis Luna worked in the EPA in the last few years under George Bush. Before that he was a television personality and community activist in the Lower Eastern Shore of Maryland. He even worked as a policy advisor in the Reagan administration during the 1980′s.
My connection to Mr. Luna is through my brother who worked at WBOC-TV where Luna would often appear offering commentary.
Besides that I know Luis Luna through his wife who runs a popular charity for the poor and homeless (The Magi Fund) and has run for office several times herself.
I believe Luna has an advantage in winning back this seat because of his deep connections to the community and his past history of running for this seat in 1990 (losing to Gilchrist in the Republican primary).
Besides Luis Luna, I think State Senator Lowell Stoltzfus would be a strong contender for the 1st district Congressional seat.
We need to run stiff challenges against all of the recent Democrat Congressmen in conservative districts.
Edit: I forgot to mention how Luna’s time in the EPA was an advantage. The 1st district is an odd district being mildly socially conservative, but also very environmentally aware and economically moderate. It’s the sort of district that doesn’t fit neatly into American politics.
According to the International Herald Tribune, McCain has been counseling President-elect Obama for the last three months on cabinet appointments, national security policy and other issues.
Not long after Senator John McCain returned last month from an official trip to Iraq and Pakistan, he received a phone call from President-elect Barack Obama.
As contenders for the presidency, the two had hammered each other for much of 2008 over their conflicting approaches to foreign policy, especially in Iraq. (He’d lose a war! He’d stay a hundred years!) Now, however, Obama said he wanted McCain’s advice, people in each camp briefed on the conversation said. What did he see on the trip? What did he learn?
It was just one step in a post-election courtship that historians say has few modern parallels, beginning with a private meeting in Obama’s transition office in Chicago just two weeks after the vote. On Monday night, McCain will be the guest of honor at a black-tie dinner celebrating Obama’s inauguration.
Over the last three months, Obama has quietly consulted McCain about many of the new administration’s potential nominees to top national security jobs and about other issues — in one case relaying back a contender’s answers to questions McCain had suggested.
McCain, meanwhile, has told colleagues “that many of these appointments he would have made himself,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican and a close McCain friend.
This breaking news of the secret meetings and counseling is not without controversy. Publicly, team Obama remains adamant on their withdrawl plans for Iraq, but those involved in the meeting are now stating that Obama is finding common ground with many of Senator McCain’s positions on American involvement in Iraq.
Emanuel said he did not remember any discussion of Iraq. “Barack has been clear that he is going to stick to his responsible reduction in forces, and he hasn’t changed from that,” he said.
But Graham, who accompanied McCain to the meeting, said Obama took a notably different tone toward Iraq than he had during the campaign, emphasizing the common ground in their views.
“He said that he understands that we had differences but he wanted to let us know that he also understands that we have got to be responsible in how we leave Iraq,” Graham recalled. “What the Obama-Biden administration has talked about is not losing the gains we have achieved. ”
He added, “Obama does not want to be the guy who lost Iraq when it is close to being won.”
For many Republicans, this news brings mixed emotions. During the campaign, Republicans understood that Senator McCain’s positions on foreign policy were the correct positions to take to ensure the safety of our nation and we should now be satisfied that President-elect Obama is adopting many of those positions. But at the same time, how could we not be frustrated at the lack of honesty shown by the Obama campaign? According to exit polling, Obama won on the issue of Iraq, even though polling during the campaign had shown McCain winning the issue.
We should not hold any animosity towards Senator McCain for providing counsel to the President-elect. McCain is doing this for two reasons. First, he is putting (and always has) his country first. Secondly, McCain is accepting the hand of friendship in hopes of influencing the policy positions of our next President. Although some may see this as too non-partisan, our soldiers fighting for our safety will appreciate the conviction of Senator McCain.
For liberals, expect them to turn a blind-eye, again, on another slap to their face from a candidate who exploited their anger, fear and expectations.
It was all ching-ching and bling-bling, my lefty friends. It was not about hope, but about power.
Happy Martin Luther King, Jr. Day!
All Americans should celebrate the life of this great American and the minders of the Georgia State House located just blocks from the place of his birth in Atlanta, should find a more prominent place for his portrait, but I digress.
Below is my first Charlotte Observer column published January 16, 2007. So important have race relations been in my life that I made it the subject of my “dead-tree main stream media” debut.
Let me add some context, two years on. Much of MLK’s dream has been realized, and tomorrow’s Inauguration of the first President of known partial African descent is just the latest and most visible evidence. Most of my friends and I, black and white in the South, long ago moved on from the race game and have judged each other by character content, and dare I day that for more than 20 years, so have most Americans.
What is so sad is that the media and the left won’t let race go.
Now, we have the greatest proof of all that whites will elect a Black man. Obama polled better than Kerry and got 20% of the Republican vote. There were many reasons not to vote for Obama. Race was not one of them, and his victory speaks volumes about how great this country is. I did not vote for him, but am proud of my country. That case is closed.
But what of blacks? To my mind, they will not have realized the Dream until they stop voting for Democrats at the rate of 90+%. I used to be a yellow-dawg Democrat, so I too was guilty for 18 years of blind, unjustified loyalty.
No one should begrudge Blacks in their overwhelming support of Obama. Catholics and Southerners did the same with their firsts.
But the real test comes in the next elections. Will they now vote more according to their beliefs on policy? We all know that blacks, just like whites, are no ideological monolith.
I heard someone say that the real evidence that America was achieving the dream was not so much when Frank Robinson was named the first black manager of a Major League Baseball team, but rather, when he was fired for reasons akin to those just like his white counterparts.
My dream is that we get past the political correctness, expose and extirpate all our pathologies and truly judge each other and our own based on character and not skin color, and that ultimately, we consider all of each other, our own, i.e. We the People.
Since Eve but the apple and Cain slew Abel, there have been those that found reasons to hate, with race being one of them. But that some people have and will always harbor such hatred should not obscure the fact that we are living in King’s Dream today in America.
Now, from two years ago:
Achieve King’s dream with equal treatment
Misguided liberal policies assume blacks are inferior victims
MIKE DEVINE
Special to the Observer
“Daddy, why would somebody want to shoot a preacher?”
That was a precocious little boy’s first reaction upon seeing the headline of The Spartanburg Herald announcing the assassination of the 39-year-old leader of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr.
No holiday cries out for a progress report more than the one President Ronald Reagan signed into law in 1983 and that America celebrated yesterday. Where do we stand nearly 39 years after King’s death on April 4, 1968?
Brandon Woolfolk, a 23-year-old African American junior at UNC Charlotte presently working as a hotel clerk, told me last week that “One change is that back then blacks feared whites. Today, they fear other blacks.”
Dewey Tullis, a life-long educator and prominent black member of the Spartanburg County Democratic Party, told The Wall Street Journal before last fall’s election he was supporting the Republican running for South Carolina’s top education post because, “Frankly, I’m tired of seeing our young black men graduate high school without knowing how to read and write.”
One main reason for these disturbing assessments: the well-intentioned but misguided liberal policies implemented immediately after the race-based “Jim Crow” laws were abolished. New race-based laws were passed, old non-race-based laws were misinterpreted by liberal judges, and new welfare policies kicked the black father out of the house and made Uncle Sam daddy.
Character building a priority
By contrast, King’s dream was that people be judged based, not on skin color, but rather on the content of their character. There is hope, however.The Charlotte-Mecklenburg African American Agenda conference earlier this month, whose agenda “priorities” could have been written by whites, shows that more and more blacks get it and are about the business of character building. Event organizers even invited as a featured speaker National Public Radio correspondent and Fox News commentator Juan Williams, author of “Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America — and What We Can Do About It.”
Now, what about Caucasians?
I became active in the Democratic Party mainly due to my disdain for the racism I saw in the 1970s. Happily, I watched most of the Republican racism melt under the weight of King’s mainstream American and Judeo-Christian moral arguments. Unhappily, I watched disturbing pathologies develop within my party and its members.
Then, during my five years in Atlanta before moving to the Queen City, I experienced what I call a “conservative epiphany,” in large part due to the covertly racist behavior of fellow liberal Democrats in their treatment of blacks as inferior victim dependents and their overt disdain for the Christian faith that inspired King.
Radio talk show host Dennis Prager recently described being shown a video of people reacting to a talk show organized by a firm that specializes in analyzing such shows for their producers. Prager noticed that the carefully chosen panel included no blacks. The firm explained that in their previous experience they discovered that after a black person gave their opinion about a show, white people would rarely offer differing opinions for fear of being deemed racist.
This condescending and misplaced white guilt and fear of the Political Correctness Police must end.
Face down the PC crowd
I don’t remember Daddy’s answer to his eldest son’s innocent inquiry some 39 years ago, but there is nothing I better remember than the way he lived his life. Dad employed the non-race-based Golden Rule found in Matthew’s Gospel as he coached some of the first racially integrated little league baseball teams in my hometown and insisted that blacks employed with him at Southern Railway be held to the same standards as whites.
King based his civil rights message largely on that New Testament passage, which admonishes us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, as well as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which acknowledge equality before our Creator and require equal treatment under the law.
Quite simply, whites must stop treating blacks as inferiors, and muster the courage to face down the PC crowd to make King’s dream more of a reality.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Obama’s assurances notwithstanding
[5:56 pm EST update: On a special Sunday edition on of FNC's Special Report, Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post echoed Gamecock's call for preemptive pardons for those CIA agents and others involved in the waterboarding and the decision to waterboard KSM and two other al Qaida leaders that led to information that saved thousands of American lives. Krauthammer went further and endorsed the awarding of medals to the agents and others involved. He suggested that Obama is "too smart" to follow the lead of John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi, but still said he hopes Bush will issue the preemptive pardons...and medals! Bravo Charles!]
Originally published by Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report
I have generally opposed blanket, preemptive pardons as Presidents leave office, as too violative of the rule of law. But Eric Holder’s (pictured) recent confirmation testimony gives me pause.
President-Elect Barack Obama recently reinforced my general opposition when he lauded the great and courageous work of intelligence personnel that should not have to “spend all their time looking over their shoulders,” when asked about the possible future prosecutions of those involved in “waterboarding” three high level captured al Qaida terrorists.
Vice-President Cheney said last week that he didn’t deem preemptive pardons necessary since all actions were legal.
But Obama’s nominee for Attorney General, the Cabinet position that will make decisions about illegality and prosecutions after the new president’s Day One, make it necessary in my mind that President Bush consider pardons, before his last Day 1461, for those that have been looking over their shoulders thanks to Obama and the Democrats’ rhetoric for the last four years:
Holder avoided directly addressing the possibility that Bush-era officials could face criminal prosecutions for their involvement in wiretapping and interrogation policies. But he quickly followed up by telling lawmakers that, when he called for a “reckoning” last year, he was referring not to indictments but to gathering information. Holder also cited the words of Obama, who has decried calls “to criminalize policy differences where they might exist.”
On counterterrorism policies, he said he would “follow the evidence, the facts, the law.”
Earlier in his testimony, Eric Holder unequivocally declared that he deemed waterboarding to be illegal torture.
Until now, I have kept my powder dry on Holder since there are consequences to elections; he may be the best we can get; he did say in 2002 that captured terrorists were illegal enemy combatants not entitled to POW status under Geneva; and since I considered Holder a minor fly on the wall with respect to the Hillary-driven FALN terrorist and Bill-driven Marc Rich pardons.
Given other testimony of Holder, but more so the loaded questions of Democrats and especially the intentions of John Conyers, one could also make a case that the Democrats’ politicization of national security and government policy in general (see US Attorney firings, etc), one could also justify sweeping preemptive pardons. But I think such pardons would usher in a lawlessness never before seen in America with preemptive pardons becoming as quadrennially traditional as “So help me God” at the end of the Oath.
Al Gore already did enough damage to the fabric of American exceptional-ism and uniqueness when he was the first to withdraw a Presidential election concession. Another such line we must not cross just now, and hopefully not ever.
My powder is still dry on seeking to deny Holder the AG job, but is no longer dry on deeming preemptive pardons acceptable on the narrow issue of those involved in waterboarding.
I just wish Obama would make it clear that he will not go down the road Holder suggests so that CIA heroes can rest their necks, now strained looking over their shoulders.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” – The Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts
It’s over.
Israel has declared a unilateral ceasefire in Gaza:
Israel declared a unilateral cease-fire Saturday in its 22-day offensive that turned Gaza neighborhoods into battlegrounds and dealt a stinging blow to the Islamic militants of Hamas. But Israeli troops will stay in the Palestinian territory for now and Hamas threatened to keep fighting until they leave.
In announcing the cease-fire, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Israel had achieved its goals and more.
“Hamas was hit hard, in its military arms and in its government institutions. Its leaders are in hiding and many of its men have been killed,” Olmert said.
This is not, take note, a withdrawal. But Israel’s mission in Gaza appears to be over — for now. Tzipi Livni says to cross your fingers:
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni indicated that Israel would renew its offensive if Hamas militants continued to fire rockets at Israel.
“This campaign is not a one-time event,” she said in an interview with the Israeli YNet news Web site. “The test will be the day after. That is the test of deterrence.”
So we shall see.
The article, by the way, that I am linking to, is written by our friend Ibrahim Barzak, who is notable for his past bias against Israel. The piece ends on a skeptical note, leaving the reader to wonder whether Israel might have taken some terrible — maybe even war-crimes-related — actions during the conflict.
—
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com.
Originally published by Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report
Former cave residence in Afghanistan (pictured)
The drive-by media and the leaders of the national Democratic Party have claimed for four years that the War on Terror was a failure since Osama bin Laden was still at large.
The President-Elect himself campaigned for two years on the theme that the Iraq War had caused President Bush to lose focus on capturing OBL.
These slanders on the Commander in Chief and the armed forces he has led in the Iraq, Afghanistan and other theaters of the greater war on terror have issued despite no attacks on the homeland since 911, the removal of any safe haven in Afghanistan, the decimation and scattering of al Qaida, the defeat of al Qaida in Iraq and the relegation of OBL to cave-manufactured black market audio tapes.
Of late, the actions of Barack Obama have been the greatest affirmations of the national security legacy of his soon to be predecessor. The Guantanamo Bay prison that was to be immediately shut down, or at least within 100 days, now has a 12-month lease renewal, at minimum. John Conyers’ and other House Democrats’ calls for war crimes prosecutions of CIA and military interrogators that dared misplace hairs on KSM’s head are falling on deaf, if substantial ears, as Obama lauds the great and courageous work of intelligence personelle that should not have to “spend all their time looking over their shoulders.”
Of course, Obama, the democrats and the treason media have spent much of their time over the last four years causing patriots in the CIA, FBI and armed forces to have to look over their shoulders while also keeping us safe against enemies trying to get through them to us.
No apology for all that? Guess not.
And what of that living symbol of supposed Bush failure that made change essential?
In an interview Wednesday with “CBS Evening News,” President-elect Barack Obama said that regardless of whether bin Laden is alive, the U.S. must weaken the al-Qaida network to the point that it can no longer function. “My preference, obviously, would be to capture or kill him,” Obama said. “But if we have so tightened the noose that he’s in a cave somewhere and can’t even communicate with his operatives then we will meet our goal of protecting America.”
Yes, “we” have tightened the noose Obama. “We” have met the goal of protecting America.
No thanks to you and any Democrat not named Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman. You weren’t part of that “we.”
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Originally published by Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report
An astute political observer in Alabama, while issuing disclaimers that he was not an economist as he conveyed astute observations to his economically and legally credentialed friend, would have made William Shakespeare proud with soul of wit brevity in reducing the “stimulus” issue down to its essentials.
“Mike,” he said, “aren’t there only two ways to stimulate the economy: Let the banks make loans based on market wisdom rather than government direction and stimulate job-producing investors to borrow and spend thru corporate, capital gains and other tax rate cuts and regulation reductions.”
I think that sums it up pretty well.
The outline we now have of the Speaker Nancy Pelosi (pictured above) House version of the Obama stimulus plan meets neither of the necessary criteria. In short, it is not a “stimulus” bill, unless by stimulus you mean state and federal government job retention and public works pork. We were told that there would be no earmarks and no pork. Yet, what are most earmarks? Public work projects, i.e. pork. I guess if enough of the bill is pork, it metastasizes into “stimulus. Must be an organic “meat”? Let’s look at some details:
Details of the two-year package, which calls for $550 billion in new spending and $275 billion in tax relief… the document provides the first blueprint of how President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats plan to fight the historic economic downturn, which has already wiped out 2.6 million jobs… [but] few elements of the package would hit the economy before the second half of the year, with the largest boost coming in late 2009 and into 2010.
Ok, so we have an emergency, an economic crisis and are virtually threatened daily by the President-Elect that failure to pass the bill before President’s Day (James Buchanan gets equal billing with George Washington), or we would be risking another Great Depression. (We were originally told that we risked calamity unless it passed on Day One.) Yet, now are told that “few elements” of the bill would stimulate until “late 2009 and into 2010.”
Guess they plan on blaming Bush till Valentine’s Day 2010? But I thought the liberal democrats cared about the suffering of Americans going on now?
We have much experience with pork barrel public works spending in this country since the Great Depression, and despite all the talk of getting funds to “shovel-ready” projects in the states, the fact is that all that will be stimulated initially are jobs for lawyers issuing environmental impact studies. In any event, public works have no history of stimulating recessions into recoveries, ever, even in the equivalents of “late 2009’s and into 2010’s.”
So far, we see that the caring is about lawyer jobs. But what of the rest of the 2/3 the package that is spending:
Some of the biggest expenditures will go directly to the states, with $90 billion going to increase the federal share of Medicaid payments and an additional $79 billion to help states avoid cutbacks in education and other services.
Most of the money is what we called “revenue sharing” in the pre-Obama Era. Now, we have come to what this bill actually is about: saving government jobs.
We are told by President-Elect Barack Obama (pictured below) that we all have to sacrifice, to have “some skin in the game.” Turns out the skin of private companies must lay-off workers but not the government. No, government skin is more equal than other skin in Obama and Pelosi’s game.
The stimulus bill is a stimulus bill, for government only.
You can look at the details of the spending via the link above, and I am for some of the public works projects. But when so much is being spent under the guise of combating climate change fka global warming while the nation is in deep freeze, on “investments” in “clean” energy, I turn a cold shoulder to any claims of “stimulus.”
But oh yeah, there are some token tax cuts, just not to likely job producers. You see, those folks have been on strike since the democrats took over Congress in 2006 and let the world know that the tax rates of job producers would go up at least by 2011. Obama holds out a Valentine that, despite his class warfare campaign to raise those taxes on the “rich” (ever get a job from the “poor”?), he might just let the “Bush” tax cuts die a natural death.
How nice. The very policy that has had investors on strikes since late 2005 will remain in place and that’s supposed to be a favor?
We know what stimulates, thanks to Coolidge (pictured) above, Harding, JFK, Reagan, Dubya, and Alexander Hamilton for goodness sakes, and that is Liberty, i.e. incentives to industriousness due to the prospect of getting to keep the fruits of one’s labor and capital.
Now, I have rarely seen a tax cut I didn’t like, but most of these are one shot deals much like the two Bush rebates that will not cause consumers to fundamentally change their behavior, i.e. spend instead of save. For that, even the senior senator from Illinois now admits, requires permanent tax rate changes.
So what do we have in the way of tax changes in the bill?:
Businesses would get “bonus” depreciation for investing in new plants and equipment. The proposal also allows companies that have losses this year to get refunds for taxes paid as far back as 2003; current tax rules allow losses to be carried back only two years. The plan also includes Mr. Obama’s “Making Work Pay” tax credit of $500 per worker and $1,000 for couples.
The bonus depreciation is good, but won’t kick in for many years. The carry-back loss provision is good, but, by definition only applies to failing companies that aren’t going to be hiring new workers.
The puny $10-20/week individual tax credits, are, well, pathetic.
Want to really boost spending? How about either a permanent or temporary payroll tax cut?
But if you really want to stimulate the economy, let’s do what we know works and get job-producing investors off strike. Let’s slash one of the world’s highest corporate tax rates, follow the Clinton-Gingrich example and cut capital gains tax rates.
What we have in this country now is a shortage of capital after all!
And let’s follow JFK, Reagan and Bush43 and cut tax rates at the top and let the rich do some hiring.
For decades conservatives have been slandered by the liberal media and democrats as not “caring” about the poor and downtrodden.
We care. Do you?
We can see the left cares about saving government and lawyer jobs, but what about a stimulus for the rest of us?
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
A dozen RNC members have come out to endorse Michael Steele for the Republican National Committee chairmanship and have pledged to help build support for his bid.
They come — oh no! — from blue states and swing states, mostly. You know, states we need to try and win back, like Wisconsin and Florida.
Is Michael Steele the frontrunner?
Steele is one of half a dozen candidates looking to lead the GOP. A CNN tally of public supports shows that 22 RNC members are publicly backing the national party’s current chair, Mike Duncan; Michigan Republican Party Chair Saul Anuzis has 13 public commitments; South Carolina Republican Party Chair Katon Dawon, former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell and Steele all have 12 announced endorsements. Former Tennessee Republican Party Chair Chip Saltsman has none.
A Steele political advisor tells CNN that the former lieutenant governor has “31 hard commitments” from RNC members. It is difficult to judge true support for any one of these candidates because it is a secret ballot, but political observers view Steele as a serious contender for the top spot.
We’ll find out in a couple of weeks…
—
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com.
We all know that Barack Obama has already secured his place in history as one of our nation’s greatest presidents of all time: his brilliant echoing of Abraham Lincoln — using the ex-president’s Bible and appointing his very own Team of Rivals (Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Tom Vilsack, and the ill-fated Bill Richardson) in a magnificent political masterstroke — and now his reaching out to his past competitor John McCain as an ally-to-be has proved that he’s a wonderful, intelligent, African-American, brave, forgiving man who has changed history forever.
He has even inspired Hollywood to make sacrifices of its own. Actor Will Smith intoned that “if [he] is asked by [his] Commander-in-Chief to star in a film about him, [he] will do [his] duty as an American.” Smith has not yet been called upon to fulfill his patriotic duty to play Barack Obama on-screen, but the man awaits having to leave his family to do so.
Desperate Housewives star Eva Longoria, meanwhile, is so inspired by the president-elect’s commitment to public service and charity that she has decided to go the extra mile by swearing off plastic water bottles in order to help the environment. Brave Longoria was joined by Lucy Liu, who committed to ride the subway from now on while in New York. As Reuters, no stranger to serving in the name of Obama, puts it:
Obama has appealed to Americans to help better their communities and he has promised to expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps.
It’s no surprise celebrities are among the first to respond, as Hollywood figures eagerly lined up behind Obama during his presidential campaign.
Entertainment Tonight reports that other celebrities making hard sacrifices will include Cameron Diaz, Dakota Fanning, and George Lopez.
Lindsay Lohan has used her blog to commit her support to the president-elect, but there’s little word on whether she’s going to commit to public service, like giving up water bottles or riding the subway.
Finally, Britney Spears feels that she has already fulfilled her duty to the Democrats by recently penning an ode to Bill Clinton.
—
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com.
And please spare the “stimulus” crock
Originally published by Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report
It looks as if the feared “fundamental change” as “stimulus” has begun, even before Inauguration Day:
House Votes to Expand Child Health Insurance [SCHIP]
“In this moment of crisis, ensuring that every child in America has access to affordable health care is not just good economic policy, but a moral obligation we hold as parents and citizens,” Obama said.
The House bill would provide health insurance to an additional 4.1 million children and parents, including legal immigrant children and pregnant women, who currently must wait five years before becoming eligible for the program.
I favor a federal safety net for the truly needy, as did Ronald Reagan (pictured). We have one. If we want to fundamentally change the net into a hammock, we should only do so after We the People debate the matter via our elected representatives in Congress.
I also favor a quickly passed stimulus bill to address the ongoing economic crisis. The “moment of crisis” the President-Elect refers to was in no way caused by any “parents” nor families earning as much as $80K per year not getting subsidized health care. It certainly wasn’t affected at all by the fundamental rule for immigrants that they ensure they are not burdens on the public for five years.
There may very well be an argument for expanding SCHIP to cover low income children not currently covered. I suspect there is a better argument for radical change that lower health care costs so that so many families wouldn’t need subsidized health care.
But even on that score, and despite Obama’s campaign promise to support measures that lower health care costs, this House passed bill actually restricts competition:
Buried in the bill is another gift, this one to a powerful health lobby–the hospital industry. The bill is ostensibly about health coverage for children, but there’s a section that bans physicians from owning or investing in hospitals.
Not only is it not related to expanding health care for low income children, nor stimulus, but rather is anathema to both.
The simple fact of the matter is that the only way we will ever lower health care costs is when a Doctor sees a patient pull up in the parking lot and asks himself how much that person can afford to pay, before setting the price for care, rather than reading a schedule of costs prepared by government bureaucrats.
Competition from smaller physician-owned specialty hospitals are a step in that direction. But hundreds of democrats in the House and 40 republicans couldn’t abide that cost cutting in the private sector. And given that the bill is no stimulus and contains provisions including non-low income children and even adults, what is the real motive behind the new law? Could it be the expansion of government power for its own sake and as a vehicle for buying votes?
I am open to a debate on the issue of how large a safety net we need for children, even during an economic crisis such as we find ourselves in just now. But the “debate” didn’t begin until 5:39 am yesterday and ended before Midnight. For that reason alone the bill must be opposed.
There is another reason to oppose the bill. It includes a cigarette tax increase of 61 cents to $1 per pack, which will fall primarily on lower income families , for a program that funds health care for adults, non-low income kids and abrogates a compact with legal immigrants:
Smokers paying an additional 61 cents per pack of cigarettes to finance a SCHIP expansion under the Democrat proposal would cost a working class family with two adult smokers hundreds of dollars per year in additional federal tobacco taxes alone.
President-elect Barack Obama promised that folks making less than $250,000 per year would not see their taxes go up. This legislation most assuredly breaks that promise.
Oh yeah, the bill also violates one of the few I had hoped he would keep, and reminds me of the middle-class tax cut that never came in 1993.
Seems Obama is a chip off an ole Democrat block.
Hopefully Senate Republicans will show themselves to be the true champions of the truly needy and working families by opposing the subsiding of increased illegal immigration, adults, and non-needy children before we are stimulated by such fundamental change.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Earlier this week, Adam Graham mentioned that Obama may have overpromised during the campaign, and on first glance, it appears he may be right.
From the AP via Breitbart:
Vice President-elect Joe Biden told Iraqi leaders Tuesday that the incoming U.S. administration is committed to a responsible troop withdrawal that does not endanger improvements in security, an Iraqi spokesman said.
Biden delivered the message in talks with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on the second day of his visit to Iraq, government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told The Associated Press.President-elect Barack Obama pledged during his election campaign to withdraw all American combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office and shift the focus to Afghanistan to combat a resurgent Taliban and al-Qaida-linked militants.
Since the November election, however, the U.S. and Iraq have signed a new security agreement that provides for all the more than 140,000 U.S. troops to leave by 2012, despite concerns among senior U.S. commanders that Iraqi forces might not be ready by then to ensure stability.
Jeff Emanuel elaborates:
This latest is, of course, a far cry from the Obama who opposed the ’surge’ in forces and General David Petraeus’s commitment to emphasize counterinsurgency in Iraq, as well as from the Obama who both refused to admit that the new strategy was succeeding and then, even after begrudgingly admitting that some gains had been made in that Arab state, made the head-scratching claim that he would still oppose the successful change in course if, knowing ahead of time how amazingly it would succeed, he were presented with the opportunity to do so again.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton stated yesterday that troop withdrawal would be a top priority:
During her testimony Clinton pledged to help end the war in Iraq by safely withdrawing American troops and said the Obama administration is “not taking any option off the table at all” when it comes to dealing with Iran, but will pursue a new and “perhaps different” approach characterized by an “attitude toward engagement.”
It’s also interesting to contrast Joe Biden’s “We will end this war” from the VP debates to yesterday’s “the new administration will stick to the timetable in the [U.S.- Iraq status of forces] agreement.”
This is an issue that I wanted to remind readers to keep a close eye on. It is going to be interesting to see how a President Obama acts in comparison to what he campaigned upon in the early primaries. I’m not willing to say that he will fail to deliver upon his campaign promises, but as we all know, bold ideas are much easier said than done.
In any case, it will be fascinating to watch Obama grow as a leader, in either a good or bad direction, once he takes office. The world is a much different place than it was eight years ago. For those of us who were old enough to participate in the 2000 election, it seems like a different lifetime.
UPDATE: RightWingNews take:
And, if you recall the agreement specifics, the 2012 deadline is a best-case dead-line, subject to change if necessary.
I should have posted this sooner, given that it happened a couple of days ago, but I’d like for everyone to know that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wanted to vote in favor of a United Nations Resolution supporting a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip — that is: a resolution supporting a condemnation of Israel for acting upon its right to self-defense. In the end, it was not supported, but instead, the United States voted “present” on the matter.
Ehud Olmert says that it was because of him that Rice decided to vote present rather than for the resolution. Rice adamantly denies it. The Washington Times says that it was because of Bush. Rice is defending her vote, saying that we should be more supportive of Egyptian mediation efforts…
Meanwhile, Olmert says that Rice is embarrassed by her vote. As she should be, if so. As John Bolton points out: usually, the United States stops this sort of anti-Israel nonsense at the United Nations.
Rice has toed the realist line on issues from Russia to Israel to North Korea — with the exception of Iraq and Afghanistan, of course, where she’s had little choice. She, like President Bush, has been horrific at spelling out why our mission has been appropriate in a loud and public manner.
Honestly? After Rice’s lackluster performance as Secretary of State, I expect that Hillary Clinton might actually impress me. Good riddance, Condoleezza Rice.
—
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com.
I’ve been off for a while, but in checking with our past archives, it seems this tidbit was overlooked.
In Tennessee, Bill Frist announced last week that he will not seek the Governor’s office in 2010, while Congressman Zach Wamp has announced that he will not be seeking re-election for his congressional seat, clearing the way for him to focus completely on the race for governor.
Get used to this picture. It’s the official Obama White House portrait! Next to it is the Bush equivalent.
Just a couple of quick thoughts, really. Nothing too in-depth:
Social Policy
Bush spent quite a bit of political capital in this area, much of it wastefully. The quixotic push for the Federal Marriage Amendment, the Terri Schiavo boondoggle, the stem-cell research pushback, and the Harriet Miers disaster — what wastes of time, capital, and energy! But Bush accomplished some good, here. The partial-birth abortion ban was a plus, and his judicial nominees — both at the Supreme Court and at the lower levels — were solid. There were high highs and low lows in his presidency, but overall, he squandered much of his potential legacy on wasteful schemes. [EDIT: On second thought, a C, rather than a C-, might be in order]
Economic and Size-of-Government Policy
Mixed, at best. No Child Left Behind, the bloated deficit, and the Medicare, Pt. D expansion stick out in my mind as low points of the entire Bush presidency. But Bush has held the line for free trade, initiated tax cuts, and dared to touch the third rail of Social Security — despite his incompetence in promoting his viewpoint, as was all-too-common.
I actually supported the immigration reform deal, so I’m not gonna knock any points off for that.
“Big Government Conservatism” came into vogue during Bush’s presidency, as was firmly epitomized in Bush’s statement in which he essentially said that he killed the free market to keep it alive. The bailouts, every single one of which he supported or supports (including the auto bailout), were the last straw for many who’d tried to hold faith in Bush’s economic judgment.
He started off strong, but ended with a thud. C- [Economics: C+, Size of Government: D]
Terrorism and National Security
Brilliant leadership on 9/11. Moral judgment against jihadism. A refusal to back down on Guantanamo Bay, waterboarding, the PATRIOT Act, and other tactics unfairly villified by the left. An ability to identify evil for what it is. Steadfast support of Israel. Supporting moral law over “international law” and the United Nations, which has been utterly blind to the jihadist threat and tyrannical dictators.
But with that, an inability to articulate why we’re fighting the war we are. A refusal to identify the enemy as Islamic fascism rather than “terror.” A staggering, strange refusal to promote his successes in stopping terrorist plots. The blind adherence to realism in regard to Russia, North Korea, and the Palestinians. Passing the buck on Iran to Barack Obama.
I won’t criticize him too much for the errors made in war. War is messy, and everything looks obvious with 20/20 hindsight. Horrific mistakes were made in World War II, also, but no one doubted the moral legitimacy of the mission. Bush never lost sight of the fact that we had to win, and why we needed to do so. To that extent, I give him a lot of credit. He never once thought of caving into political pressure.
Overall, I give him a B. It would be higher if he’d been more articulate about his mission against jihadism and a little less committed to realist doctrine in his second term.
Other
A fairly scandal-free presidency, omitting non-scandals such as the Plame affair and the US attorney firings. Bush has held his administration to a fairly high standard of ethics, which can only be a good thing. It’s a shame that the left has painted him in a manner other than what he behaved as.
His legacy will be one of foreign policy. No one remembers Harry Truman’s education policy, or his position on tarriffs. They remember him for containment. Bush will be remembered for the ‘War on Terror.’ Overall, his presidency could go either way, but as an overall grade, from a January 2009 perspective, I give him a C.
Senator Barack Obama votes against the confirmations of Chief Justice John Roberts and associate Justice Samuel Alito who believe in a dead Constitution that allows for utterances of God in the public square.
Presidential candidate Obama could no more disown Rev. Jeremiah “G-D America” Wright (pictured with Obama) than he could the whole of the black community.
President-Elect Obama assigns the task of the Inaugural invocation to an Evangelical Southern Baptist preacher who is, naturally, a vocal opponent of same-sex marriage who won’t commit to not uttering the name of the real Messiah at The Mall, the greatest public square of them all:
At George W. Bush’s 2001 swearing-in, the Revs. Franklin Graham and Kirbyjon Caldwell were criticized for invoking Christ. The distinct reference at a national civic event offended some, and even prompted a lawsuit.
Warren did not answer directly when asked whether he would dedicate his prayer to Jesus. In a statement Tuesday, Warren would say only that, “I’m a Christian pastor so I will pray the only kind of prayer I know how to pray.”
Advocates for gay rights protested Obama’s decision to give Warren a prominent role at the swearing-in. Warren supported Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California. Obama defended his choice, saying he wanted the event to reflect diverse views.
Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham, said it’s wrong to expect members of any faith to change how they pray in public.
“For a Christian, especially for an evangelical pastor, the Bible teaches us that we are to pray in the name of Jesus Christ. How can a minister pray any other way?” Franklin Graham said. “If you don’t want someone to pray in Jesus’ name, don’t invite an evangelical minister.”
Graham, who in 2001 stepped in for his ailing father, ended the invocation with, “We pray this in the name of the Father, and of the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.”
He then assigns the task of the first prayer of Inauguration week to an unrepentant wife and child abandoner who was chosen to be a Bishop despite that fact and the fact that he lives with the lover he left his family for. He happens to be gay:
Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, the only openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, has been asked to give the invocation at the first official inaugural activity, a welcome event with the president-elect on Sunday afternoon on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. Robinson had been critical of president-elect Barack Obama for asking Rick Warren, the evangelical pastor who encouraged voters to overturn same-sex marriage in California, to deliver the invocation at the inauguration
He claims to oppose same-sex marriage, yet opposed Proposition 8 in California that made such marriages legal and now has been discovered to have publicly admitted favoring same-sex marriage prior to the recent campaign:
In a 1996 questionnaire filled out for a Chicago gay and lesbian newspaper, then called Outlines, Obama came out clearly in favor of same-sex marriage, which he has opposed on the public record throughout his short career in national politics.
“I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,” Obama wrote in the typed, signed, statement.
What are we to make of all this Obama mishmash?
Is Pastor Rick Warren just a prop to appease his more socially conservative supporters? Does the family man approve of Bishop Robinson’s adulterous relationship and abandonment of children?
To this former democratic party activist and official of 18 years until 2000, it looks quite familiar: A democrat gets a pass from the leftist drive-by media with a wink and a nod, confident that the democrat will deliver on their agenda through judicial appointments.
Why alienate one voter when one can speak in vague phrases about living Constitutions and what one personally prefers, when one can have it both ways with a fawning media that will also likely not stoke up the outrage if the Name of Jesus is uttered from the Inaugural podium.
Well, this part of the drive and park media isn’t fooled, and will insist that those conservatives, black, white and Hispanic that trusted in The One will not go apprised when the betrayal is in progress.
It all seems pretty damning of God, America.
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” – The Chief Justice of the United States, John Roberts
Six days away from the end of the Bush Administration, it’s time to look back on and evaluate the Bush Administration. I’ll divide my grade up into three Areas: Social, Economic, and National Security.
Social Policy:
Bush held the line on pro-life and pro-family issues throughout his Administration. He provided us two great Justices of the Supreme Court in Roberts and Alito (though only after trying to turn political buddy Harriet Miers into a Supreme Court Justice.) He held the line on embryonic stem cell research, signed the partial birth abortion act, and in general stood relatively firm on social conservative issues.
Grade: B+
Economic Policy:
This is an area where Bush’s grade has plummeted in the last six months. Throughout his administration, Bush has had a mixed record on economic issues. During most of the Administration, the economy was growing and stable, thanks to the Bush Tax Cuts. Bush also said no to such boondoggles as cap and trade. On the other hand, Bush didn’t veto a spending bill for six years as wasteful pork and spending ran rampant creating six figure deficits. Bush’s push for an expensive Prescription Drug Benefit for Medicare has only exacerbated the problems with that troubled program.
However, Bush’s socialistic bailouts must drag down the grade. Trillions of dollars in American Treasure have been committed to bailouts, loans, and guarantees. The nation is near the point of a credit disaster. The free market system has been undermined as if Bush were trying to stop Obama from socializing the country by beating him to the punch. Bush ultimately made a decision that people would not pay the piper under his administration but past the bill onto children and grandchildren at an alarming rate.
Grade: D-
National Security:
Whatever you say about Bush, let the record reflect that America has not had a major terrorist attack since 9/11. He has kept America safe through the efforts of his Administration in the War on Terror. While he’s been criticized from the both left and right for his tactics in dealing with terrorism, he got the job done.
There are two areas where Bush seemed to let down. The first was following the Rumsfeld strategy too long and not getting more boots on the ground sooner. This could have saved quite few American lives. I don’t fault him too much on this as many good folks didn’t believe in the surge and I was skeptical of it, but when American lives are on the line, the President needs to get it right and the buck stops with him.
Another key area is border security, where Bush’s insistence on a guest worker program stalled the country from dealing with immigration in a serious way. For much of the Administration, the Bush Administration irresponsibly held border security measures needed to protect our nation hostage to the interests of Wal-Mart and Big Ag in having guest workers. Whatever one thinks of a guest worker program, it should only have been pursued after taking care of the border. In the last couple of years, the Bush Administration has made a more serious effort, but the prior year’s stalling has had its effect. And the number of illegal immigrants has fallen to do the failing economy, but also due to states that were forced to usurp the role of the federal government in immigration enforcement in order to protect their own infrastructure and social programs.
Grade: C+
Other Deductions:
My overall grade for the Bush Administration: C-. Not the worst President we ever had, but certainly not the best.
Barack Obama is having to dial back some of his campaign expectations:
(CNN) — In style and substance, Barack Obama is looking like he could be a different president than the candidate voters got to know during the campaign.
His message of changing the country has been replaced by one of repairing the country as he inherits crises that demand immediate action.
“I want to be realistic here,” Obama said in an interview that aired Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “Not everything that we talked about during the campaign are we going to be able to do on the pace that we had hoped.”
No, the waters aren’t receding. No, he’s probably not going to move us out of Iraq any faster than the Bush Administration did and as to this lady:
You’re still going to have to buy your own gas and pay your own mortgage. Sorry about that.
Obama’s sky high rhetoric has met cold reality. Obama’s over the top promises were never close to coming true. Young people who bought into this were ignorant. Older people who bought it were just plain stupid.
Of course, Obama’s not the first President in recent memory whose campaign promises had little to do with how he actually governed. One of the big reasons a lot of conservatives are ticked off at Bush is that Bush promised a lot and didn’t deliver all that much. Where’s my Social Security reform? Tax reform?
The results of this failure to deliver: disenchantment. Bill Clinton was a very different President from the one people thought they got in 1992, that and Ross Perot’s novelty wearing off led to 8 million less people voting in 1996. Many people disappointed with Bush stayed home in 2008. Obama can expect a drop off from people who didn’t get what they expected.
It seems that Presidential laundry lists are made to go unfulfilled. There are many reasons for this.
First, is Congress. Gridlock is not a bug in the way Congress works. The way it was designed by the Founders, and the way practices have developed, indicates that gridlock is a feature. Government can do stupid things, but if it’s going to do it through the legislative branch, it takes a lot of work.
Congress doesn’t have the time to act on a 40-piece agenda for the country. The legislative grist mill, and the fact that leaders in both houses have their own agendas, means that Congress simply will rarely have time to act on a huge laundry list.
Finally, the composition of Congress changes things. Who chairs what committee? It makes little sense to draw up detailed proposals when you may well be outflanked by a committee chairman. Conservatives have many complaints with President Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” but it couldn’t have helped being a better bill if there were 54 Senate Republicans (as there were before the 2000 election) rather than 50.
Outside of Congress, circumstances often force politicians to switch directions. Throughout Ron Paul’s campaign, he pointed out that Bush ran in 2000 against nation building and on a humble foreign policy. Of course, Bush wasn’t flip-flopping: 9/11 dictated a different course of action.
And now the economic crisis finds Obama unable to implement his plan for repealing the Bush tax cuts for the highest brackets, and carbon caps will probably have to wait, too.
Perhaps the lessons of the past three presidential elections are for everyone to run more humble campaigns. A candidate should have a few key priorities for their domestic agenda, but don’t wed themselves to 120 ideas as priorities. No President has the political capital to accomplish all of that. They can endorse ideas and say they’ll sign them if sent to them, but not to promise the items because the very people being wooed will feel betrayed sooner or later. The exception to this would be promises relating to personnel the President appoints.
Rather, in the ideal world, every candidate should have a few issues that they bring forward as true priorities that motivate them, and then voters make their decision based on those priorities, as well as the candidate’s values, philosophy, temperament, and leadership style.
The specifics change too much. When the campaign began on the Republican side in 2007, the big issue was illegal immigration, then the issue was energy, and now it is an economic crisis. The voter in Iowa or New Hampshire has no way of knowing what issue will be confronting the U.S. in a year and to make a good decision ultimately requires looking past the tunnel vision of the issue of the moment.
Maybe now that they are burning Obama’s picture, liberals will think that the Iranians are racist and will finally want to do something about the country. Maybe they’ll issue them a strongly-worded letter or something.
They can tolerate nuclear ambition by fundamentalist, anti-Semitic zealots — that’s one thing! — but racism, real or perceived, is quite another, no?
Good luck with that diplomacy, or “strategic peace talk,” or whatever it’s called this week, by the way: Obama may be the Christchild, but even his powers of hope and change don’t mean much next to the word of Allah. After Norman Podhoretz was proven wrong by Bush — word recently came out that he gave Israel the red light with regard to bombing Iran — are we going to stop these people? Maybe Hillary will smack some sense into Obama.
Man, could this go terribly awry. Grab the popcorn (and the duct tape).
The UN has been silent to the following criminal activities of the Hamas terrorist organization: 1. Hamas has violated the rights of the Palestinian children abusing them, brainwashing them and inciting them to hate and kill. …
The United States donates billions of dollars to Unicef.
