Liberalism, Pacifism, and Afghanistan: The "recaptured" moral highground.

Let's talk about stereotypes. When I say Liberal foreign policy, the auto-response from Conservatives will consist of key words like "weak", "naive," or "hippies." The Left is very famous for its Vietnam antics and most recently the opposition of Iraq War II. Yet it is very inarticulate to categorize the majority of liberals as anti-war. To the contrary, some of our greatest war leaders were "Liberals" of their time. It is hard to call the founding fathers anything but radical, rebelling against the established British Empire, or Lincoln as he waged the most brutal war in history against the established order(although industrialization not abolitionist feelings is the order I am referring to). Take Woodrow Wilson, the quintessential Liberal when it comes to diplomacy, yet he had absolutely no reservations about spending American blood in old Europe. Do I really even have to mention FDR? So, clearly Liberals do like war when it suits their agenda and when they are in charge. It is when the opposition party starts a war that it becomes a problem. Wars can make or break a party for a long time depending on their outcome. It is hypocritical to call Bush 2 an Imperialist for only maintaining the empire built by the liberal's wars before them. It is clearly not evil to expand our country's international power or why have progressives done it with such vigor and excellence for the past 200 plus years? Until Reagan took office and finished off the Soviets, it was often the Paleo-Conservatives that opposed outside diplomatic ties and especially overseas wars.

We have evidence of this secret liberal love of wars they deem "just" today in Obama's authorizing of 17,000 Marines to Afghanistan. The commanding general made remarks that he expected to be in full combat operations for at least 5 more years....yet no liberal outrage. Where is the talk of quagmires? Where is Osama? Show me the smoking gun! No, it was reported as a wise decision by the omnipotent Obama. Where are the anti-war rallies at now? Have you heard about the daily death toll in Afghanistan every single evening on the nightly news? No, and you won't.
Also, Pacifist are not always liberals. The anti-war crowd of the democratic party is simply a large gathering of shrill, ignorant, hippies who fail to realize the democratic party is just as much interested in combat activities as the Republican Party. They just know how to sell it better to the press and academia.

There are a faction of Pacifist conservatives, mainly due to Christian or other religious faith who simply cannot support war from a religious standpoint no matter who is in charge. I have the utmost respect for this group as their stance is constant through the decades. There were Quakers opposed to the Civil War for such reasons, and they will be against the Afghanistan conflict for the same reasons. Consistency is honesty and they are a testament to that fact.

I ask Conservatives not to attack the modern Democratic party as being weak stomached, but as shamelessly opportunistic. That being said, I still want the Left to win the war and expect conservatives to support our combat efforts in Afghanistan, even when it comes politically viable to oppose them. This country needs at least one loyal opposition party afterall.

R.H. President's Day Style

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/16/presidential.survey/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Above is the address to the latest ranking of Presidents with, morality, leadership, economic management, and foreign diplomacy. No surprise Lincoln comes in first, but there are some underrated Presidents that we fail to pay homage to. It would be a safe assumption that only about 25% of the American population can name all of the Presidents and that figure is quite optimistic to put it nicely. We tend to focus on the big names, from the Founding Fathers, skip to Lincoln, Wilson, Teddy, FDR, and on to modern times. You never hear about Calvin Coolidge, who staved off worse a worse economic recession than 1929 crash originally was by refusing to interfere in the economy.

We always think of the roaring 20's as a time of greed and foolish extravagance against the backdrop of the coming depression, but perhaps it is the governance of the depression that should be viewed foolishly. The other side quickly made the comparison of Hoover to Bush, a bumbling idiot who's purpose was to make way for the heroic FDR, or now Obama. I would agree but for different reasons. Hoover tried to appease those who wanted government intervention in the economy. President Hoover presented to Congress a program asking for aid to business, additional help for farmers facing mortgage foreclosures, banking reform, a loan to states for feeding the unemployed, expansion of public works, and drastic governmental economy. Sound familiar? Just like President W. Bush, Hoover tried to use the government to fix a private business cycle. Strangely enough, it did not work at all but only worsened the crisis, paving the way for a radical to sweep into office and foresee the biggest "change" this country has ever seen in peacetime. The popular notion is FDR came in and introduced social programs to put the unemployed to work in infrastructure programs and helped the poor, but his predecessor had already started that process to no avail. Interestedly enough, by 1936 the economy crashed again due to protectionist trade policies, (can you say Pelosi's Buy American). The parallels are indeed very striking, but for reasons far different than the modern Left likes to think of history. This is all tied to Hoover panicking, abandoning the traditional fiscal policies of the Republican Party, and turning a painful but necessary recession into a social and economic disaster this country has not yet recovered from. If anything, we slide further down the slope of activist governance each election cycle, save a brief 8 year slowdown during Reagan.

Obama quipped at a recent press conference that he didn't understand why conservatives were arguing about how FDR handled the economy, saying that debate was long over. I am sure it is at Harvard University Mr. President, but there will always be a few curious minds who look to the mistakes and triumphs of past Presidents with an open mind. Change and hope in the future is all grand, but wisdom and prudence are timeless.

Christopher Hitchens on Iran

Another example of why Hitchens is the most under-rated international relations mind in the world. I won't say much on the matter because Hitchens put it adequately already. A must read. -Nate

"Don't Let the Mullahs Run Out the ClockObama must talk directly to the Iranian people.
By Christopher HitchensPosted Saturday, Feb. 14, 2009, at 8:21 PM ET

It's strange how some totalitarian types feel the urge to be blunt and honest, even almost confessional. I call as my witness the senior member of the Robert Mugabe coterie who was quoted in the New York Times on Feb. 11 concerning the sham swearing-in of Morgan Tsvangirai as prime minister of Zimbabwe. After the ceremony, according to Celia W. Dugger's report:


[A] veteran ZANU-PF official who belongs to the party's politburo said of Mr. Tsvangirai, speaking on the understanding that he would not be quoted by name: "He will not last. I swear to you. We just want to buy time."

I thought that I knew that, but it's often useful to have one's suspicions confirmed.

Now, does anyone—I mean anyone at all—imagine that the Iranian government's flirtation with "direct talks" is anything—anything at all—but a precisely similar attempt to run out the clock while the centrifuges spin and to buy (or, more accurately, to waste) time until sufficient fissile material is ready and the mask can be thrown off?

Estimates differ, but it seems quite plausible that Iran will be able to make some such announcement before the end of this year. That would mean that all international agreements, all negotiations with bodies like the European Union, all "inspections" by the International Atomic Energy Authority had been, in effect, farcical and void. It would mean being laughed at by the mullahs in the here and now. And it would involve, for the rest of the future, having to treat them with exaggerated politeness. What a wonderful world that would be.

For decades, we have wondered what might happen when or if an apocalyptic weapon came into the hands of a messianic group or irrational regime. We are surely now quite close to finding out. I am not one of those who believe that the mullahs will immediately try to incinerate the Jewish state. This is for several reasons. First, the Iranian theocracy is fat and corrupt and runs a potentially wealthy country in such a way as to enrich only itself. A nuclear conflict with Israel would be—in a grimly literal sense—the very last thing that it would embark upon. Second, and even taking into account the officially messianic and jihadist rhetoric of the regime, it remains the case that a thermonuclear weapon detonated on the Zionist foe would also annihilate the Palestinians and destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque. (Even Saddam Hussein at his craziest recognized this fact, promising with uncharacteristic modesty only to "burn up half of Israel" with the weapons of mass destruction that he then boasted of possessing.)

Nor, I think, would the mullahs hand over their hard-won nuclear devices to a proxy party such as Hezbollah or seek to make a nuclear confrontation with the United States or Western Europe. What they almost certainly will do, however, is use the possession of nuclear weapons for some sort of nuclear blackmail against the neighboring gulf states, most of them Arab and Sunni rather than Persian and Shiite, but at least one of them (Bahrain) with a large Shiite population and a close geographical propinquity to Iran. Already you hear the odd rumble in hard-line circles in Tehran to the effect that Bahrain ought properly to be part of the Persian motherland. Imagine if Saddam Hussein had acquired a nuke before invading Kuwait. (This is why so many Arab governments and newspapers have been so tepid about supporting Iran's proxies Hamas and Hezbollah in the most recent confrontations with Israel.)

Faced with the appalling contingency of regional nuclear bullying disguised as "strategic ambiguity," the Bush administration managed, as so often, to achieve the worst of both worlds. It used to be that Bush officials, when asked about Tehran's nuclear ambitions, would reply in a dark and meaningful manner, "We will not leave this problem to the next administration." But, as you may have noticed … Still, one has to hope that the Obama administration does not make the opposite mistake and substitute a "make nice" policy for a policy that displayed neither soft speech nor the big stick. In that instance also, the Iranian reactors continued to hum and the centrifuges to whirl while in the wings, the missiles were also being acquired or tested (and something very odd was happening at a North Korean-built Syrian reactor site nearby).

The idea of direct and transparent negotiations with the Iranians is not wrong in principle, but it depends on which Iranians are the actual or potential partners. The president can address the Iranian people directly if he chooses, from the podium of the United Nations (as I urged Bush to do). He can tell them that just as the United States can and will help them to build civilian nuclear reactors, so it will not stand still and watch all Iran's agreements with international bodies be flagrantly broken. He can tell them that the mullahs' sponsorship of Hezbollah and Hamas is a reason for Iran's continued isolation. He can add—as I've suggested before—that in its zeal for armaments, the theocracy has been culpably negligent in preparing Iran and its people for the likelihood of a serious earthquake in the next few years and that the United States stands ready to share its seismological expertise in the here and now.

There are, in other words, several options and stages in between the polar opposites of confrontation with Iran and mute passivity in the face of clerical defiance of international law. But the time in which this "space" can be employed is diminishing, and it ought to be clearly stated and understood that if a confrontation does arise, it will not have been of Obama's making."

http://www.slate.com/id/2211267/?from=rss

An earmark free bill. The leaders say it is, so they must be right.

http://www.stimuluswatch.org/

"These projects are not part of the stimulus bill. They are candidates for funding by federal grant programs once the bill passes."

Checkout the link. All of the projects listed are in contention for billions of dollars.

The members of Congress and President Obama are so slick.

They can claim there are no 'earmarks' better known as pork, and get away with it.

It's like saying everything is legal until you get caught.

Funds are being earmarked for earmarks.

I'm all giddy; which of these projects will make the cut?! I'm rooting for the dog park in California as folks won't be getting a state refund, but there's a better of chance of them getting a dog park. Also, some folks in Mississippi are wanting doorbells. I guess those folks didn't come from the school of hard knocks...on doors.

Couldn't resist.
Still not as bad as some of those lame newspaper headline writers huh?

Too many projects to list. Hopefully, you'll check the site and it eats at you like the vultures who will be feasting on D.C. in antipation of Obama's signature.

2010: Will it really matter?

Democratic Congressional Campaign Chairman Chris Van Hollen recently went on record stating he did not see a "3rd wave" of democratic wins in 2010 in the mid-term elections, as such an occurrence would go against almost every pattern of American political history. The public of course hates one party rule for extended periods of time as all things bad are an extension of the party in power, while all the promise for good is given to the minority party. This is nothing new, and only extreme circumstances like the Civil War, Great Depression/WW2, and briefly 9/11 upset this natural cycle. Van Hollen said his goal was to try to maintain as many seats as possible, or in realistic terms not give up the majority in the House and especially the Senate. Too early to say what 2010 will look like, but good ole' populist angst against record-breaking government spending should do the trick for the Grand Ole' Party. The real issue is this, will it matter if the GOP does take Congress? At the rate the democrats are going presently with just the stimulus bill having provisions for expanded welfare with incentives for states to increase their enrollment numbers, the foundation for nationalized healthcare, and possibly the Census used to fudge the numbers a little more towards the left, by the time Republicans get back in power it may be meaningless. Once entitlements are increased, it is near impossible to cut them back. That is how government has always grown, once you increase the number dependent on government services, they will always vote to make sure they are not suddenly cut off. They say withdrawal is the hardest part. After Republicans are back in a position of power, the media will push hard to create sympathy for Obama the downtrodden, struggling so hard for our interest against an uncaring GOP obsessed with tax cuts and national defense. The economy will turn around eventually, just in time for 2012, then the One can win re-election promising to maintain a balance of power with the GOP and reaping the thanks of a greatfull nation for saving us from "apocalypse" and other demonic activity thanks to his stimulus package and total government transparency.

"Welcome back, welcome back, welcome back"

The bombshell this afternoon was Sen. Gregg withdrawing his nomination for Commerce Sec. for the Obama White House. This is great news for Senate Republicans. You could almost hear the last dying gasp of "no-drama Obama" and its for the better of both parties. Obama now is free to nominate someone who will manipulate the census to further the democratic party using guesstimation instead of head counting in hard to reach(Democratic) areas of the country. Of course, it will be up to the administration to determine what areas are too much trouble to actually head count, and when to use projected statistics instead. Transparency at work no doubt. Another cited reason was Sen. Gregg's refusal to go along with Obama's vision for the American economy based on government planning via Keynesian economic theory. I cannot think of a good reason Gregg ever agreed to accept the nomination of an White House in polar opposite of what he believed other than he was promised autonomy behind closed doors and obviously that didn't happen. It was a match made in hell and I think both sides will be better off politically in the end. Obama won't have a prop for a Commerce Sec. with no power, and Gregg can do his work in the Senate where he is so effective and revered. This also adds another GOP vote in the Senate as insurance against Coleman losing his legal challenge to funny-man Franklin.

The Grand Compromise?

Today we learned the tax-cuts bargained for by the three crossover GOP senators will total the grand amount of about $13 a week. With such massive tax cuts in play for our workers, one can surely see why the esteemed senators broke ranks with their fellow Republicans. I suppose we could each take one of the senators out to lunch once a week with the massive savings that is rushing our way. Senators Collins, Snowe, and Spector get the bipartisan hero of the week award for putting aside their principles and making sure serious tax relief gets to the American worker. I think the favor will be returned during the next Republican primary for each of the "terrific three". However, I urge the readers not to spend too freely as the massive $13 a week will be cut to $8 next year. One can certainly see why democrats detest tax cuts. When they think $13 a week is tax cut, I'd look for another way to stimulate the economy too. Perhaps send every American a $15 Starbucks gift card so we can all go buy fancy coffee. After all, gourmet coffee sales are a sign of economic prosperity.

We Don't Care

He's right. Politics is only perception. We must do something, so don't bog down the American people about the details on how it will work, how we will know its working, the costs, the risks etc. Just make sure they all know you're doing something very big and that inaction means "apocalypse." I certainly enjoy such movements of honesty by Congress, I suppose Obama's transparency goals are starting to really take effect.

Obama's Press-Conference For The Stimulus Package

Tonight Obama got some national air-time to campaign for his stimulus bill, which has taken some good hits from the Republican opposition last week. Considering how small the Republican presence in Congress is, not to mention how hostile the media is towards their arguments, they should be quite happy with their efforts to mount a successful opposition to a piece of legislation that is nauseating to conservatives on multiple fronts. Rasmussen and Gallop had the stimulus package slipping by the day until Obama began his recent push to translate his own personal popularity into support for the stimulus. If you love him, should you not trust him? Any good political relationship is based on the trust of the constituency in their elected leader, and conversely the ability of the leader to translate their trust into tangible results that can be readily seen in mass media. In the Post-Modern world perception is reality, and there is not a politician on earth that better understands this fact than Obama. So Obama used his big blue 747 to soar out of the muck of the beltway into the fabled middle America to remind the voters he indeed feels their struggle and to trust his wisdom in supporting the bill.

The press conference itself was fairly predictable in its content. Whenever Obama was asked a question, he did what he does best, give a speech. The flow and tempo of the exchange between reporters was not often like two opponents sparring, but more like the press was throwing up alley hoops for Obama to dunk with the finesse of his teleprompter athleticism. I don't want to get into every question asked because they were pretty dull for the most part (although I am beginning to think Obama is our national sports czar offering opinions on the state of NCAAF, NFL, and now MLB sports) but here are some points I think were lost upon much of the analysis I caught.

1.When referring to the rate of jobs lost, Obama mentioned we have lost more jobs last month than there are jobs in the entire state of Maine. Of course, it is simply a coincidence that two of the three GOP senators in negotiations with the Dems for supporting the Senate Stimulus bill happen to be from Maine. That surely was not political pressure being applied as Obama is above partisan politics, or as he put it, “..old habits die hard.”
2.Obama's use of Japan as an example of what can happen when a country fails to spend the big bucks to avoid a recession was poorly chosen but will not be questioned due to most American's ignorance of Japanese economic history. During the 90's bet the farm on Keynesian economic theory and deficit spent many, many billions to no avail. Japan could not shake off their depression with deficit spending, they only were successful in providing Obama a poor example a decade later.
3.When Queen Helen of the presidential press corps asked Obama a softball question about “so-called terrorists”, with a clever follow up gotcha on what countries currently have nukes in the Middle East to his knowledge (aka Israel, and possibly Iran), he focused on part one and totally ignored the nuke question. It is an unspoken fact that Israel has nuclear weapons, but refuses to deny or confirm their existence. What really makes this ignorance of the nuke question interesting is an earlier question on how he would deal with Iran diplomatically, answering in part “...their financing of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, the bellicose language that they've used towards Israel, their development of a nuclear weapon or their pursuit of a nuclear weapon -- that all of those things create the possibility of destabilizing the region and are not only contrary to our interests, but I think are contrary to the interests of international peace.” Notice the presence tense as if they already have one. I think Obama has intelligence verifying Iran has the nuclear bomb right now and both instances were possibly a slip letting onto that fact. It is not a total shocker as various Intelligence Reports have already pointed to Iran being almost there, but I think they have it and we know it.
Overall, I think Obama went out and accomplished what he had to do in getting out his message. Approval ratings for the bill will slip above 50% by the end of the week, and he'll get his token GOP senators to sign onto the Senate bill. As for whether it will work, that is a different topic for a different post.