Archive for March, 2009

The Obama administration has decided that it doesn’t like the phrase “global war on terror” and has instructed its folks to refer to it as the “long war” or “overseas contingency operation.”

The Obama administration appears to be backing away from the phrase “global war on terror,” a signature rhetorical legacy of its predecessor.

In a memo e-mailed this week to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department’s office of security review noted that “this administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror’ [GWOT.] Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’ ”

This is dangerous.  Words have meaning, and by refusing to call the global war on terror what it is, we put our nation and our citizens (especially those overseas) at risk.  As I had commented a couple weeks ago when Secretary Napolitano didn’t use the words “terror” or “terrorism” in her first appearance on Capitol Hill, this refusal to address the real threat we face will come at a price, and that price may be pretty high.

Now is not the time to back down on this effort.  Too much is at stake.

“What is more necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people?  A wise a frugal government, . . . which shall leave [citizens] otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.” — Thomas Jefferson

I was all geared up to post on Obama’s speech/press conference, but frankly, it bored me to tears and I didn’t want to pass on the suffering.

Former Congressman Pat Toomey is the most powerful man in America today.  He single-handedly killed the Union’s number one legislative priority – the so-called “Employee Free Choice Act” also known as “card check.”

How does a guy who isn’t even in elective office, let along the U.S. Senate, pull this off?  By announcing that he is likely to run against Sen. Arlen Specter in a Republican primary.

Specter announced today, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, that he would vote against cloture on “card check”, thus denying the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his Union pals the 60^th vote they needed to move the bill forward.

This is a huge, HUGE, development.  Tens of millions of dollars (actually, hundreds of millions of dollars) on both sides of this debate were in the process of being raised and held in reserve to take to the battlefield.  Specter has just delivered a death-blow to the Union effort and saved America’s business community a bundle.  Talk about economic stimulus.  The only people left out are all the consultants and political operatives who were going to make a lot of money in this fight.

Thank the heavens for Pat Toomey.  I really, really hope he makes it official and jumps in against Specter.  He’ll now have less support from the business community, who will say that they can’t work against the incumbent Specter – especially after his vote against cloture.  They should support Toomey anyway, because he won’t play the games year-in and year-out that Specter has played with right-leaning constituencies.

Run Pat, run!

A couple days ago I blogged about the hits Obama had taken from the New York Times editorial pages.  One of those critical pieces was a column by Thomas Friedman.  In it he wrote:

President Obama missed a huge teaching opportunity with A.I.G. Those bonuses were an outrage. The public’s anger was justified. But rather than fanning those flames and letting Congress run riot, the president should have said: “I’ll handle this.”

He should have gone on national TV and had the fireside chat with the country that is long overdue. That’s a talk where he lays out exactly how deep the crisis we are in is, exactly how much sacrifice we’re all going to have to make to get out of it, and then calls on those A.I.G. brokers — and everyone else who, in our rush to heal our banking system, may have gotten bonuses they did not deserve — and tells them that their president is asking them to return their bonuses “for the sake of the country.”

Now the President is going to address the nation tonight about the financial crisis.  Is Friedman advising the President in the public forum of the New York Times editorial page with the President taking that advice?  We’ll know the answer after he gives his fireside chat speech tonight.

Obama’s army of volunteers was out in force over the weekend blitzing neighborhoods, knocking on doors, contacting Congressional offices – all in an effort to build a groundswell of support for the President’s budget.

What’s that?  You didn’t notice any activity?  Well, you’re not alone.  Apparently, not one Member of Congress knew anything about this effort.  Makes you wonder what this army of volunteers was doing.

This is the incredible challenge of grassroots mobilization.  It is very, very hard to get people ginned-up (no pun intended) enough to get out on the streets and knock on doors, make phone calls, etc.  And that’s during the last two weeks of a campaign.  Imagine the difficulty in March of the off-year.

Obama’s folks are learning the hard way that just because you hit send on your bazillion-member email list, doesn’t mean you will get anyone to do actual work.  How motivated can someone get about advocating for $2.8 trillion deficits over ten years?

Sure, they probably had a few thousand calls spread among a few dozen Congressional offices, but that’s pretty tepid response from a monstrous email list.

I’ve decided that Obama will not be an effective President, because there is a huge difference between campaigning and governing, and he would rather campaign. He just has to figure out how to keep his army motivated to campaign as well.

I’ll give credit where credit is due.  The Obama/Geithner announcement that the Dept. of Treasury was going to print more money to buy up more toxic assets rallied the stock market today – up almost 500 points! 

I’m not smart enough to know whether that bounce is going to be worth the long-term impact on inflation that pumping another $1 Trillion (yes, with a T) into the economy will have. 

You know, back in 1996, when Steve Forbes was running for President, people ridiculed him for preaching that we should get back to some form of the gold standard to stabilize our currency.  Well, Mr. Forbes, you have been vindicated… in a big, big way.

Rasmussen has done a poll in Arizona testing voters on Obama’s approval rating, Gov. Jan Brewer’s approval rating, whether voters support a temporary tax increase to fix the budget, whether they think a tax increase is going to happen and other issues like immigration and drug trafficking.  The results are very instructive. Clearly, there are some issues that raise the ire of Arizonans.

1* How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President… do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he’s been doing?

32% Strongly approve
21% Somewhat approve
8% Somewhat disapprove
39% Strongly disapprove
1% Not sure

No real news here.  In a red-shaded state like Arizona, it would be a surprise if Obama had strong approval.  People are still willing to give him some time, but nearly half are not liking what they see.

2* How would you rate the job Jan Brewer has been doing as Governor… do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job she’s been doing?

9% Strongly approve
48% Somewhat approve
26% Somewhat disapprove
11% Strongly disapprove
6% Not sure

The surprise here is that only 6% had no opinion.  That is good news for the Governor, because she is having a better honeymoon than Obama.  These number make any potential opponents (primary or general) take pause.

3* Do you favor or oppose a temporary tax increase to help stem the state’ budget shortfall?

22% Favor
65% Oppose
13% Not sure

People don’t like higher taxes. Period.

4* How likely is it that a temporary tax hike will become permanent?

70% Very likely
19% Somewhat likely
8% Not very likely
1% Not at all likely
2% Not sure

While people don’t like taxes, there is a feeling of inevitability.

5* Should there be a special election to raise state sales tax to help with the budget shortfall and to save some programs that have to be cut?

41% Yes
42% No
17% Not sure

The 17% of people who are not sure are the target audience for the Governor.

6* Should taxes only be raised by a majority vote of the people?

76% Yes
16% No
8% Not sure

People want a say, and they hold out hope that most people will think like they do, and not raise taxes.

The rest of the poll – just for kicks and giggles:

7* Would you favor or oppose doing away with property taxes completely if it meant an increase in sales tax?

42% Favor
33% Oppose
26% Not sure

8* Would you favor or oppose doing away with property taxes completely if it meant a loss of programs?

24% Favor
55% Oppose
22% Not sure

9* Do you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable impression of Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio?
46% Very favorable
22% Somewhat favorable
10% Somewhat unfavorable
16% Very unfavorable
7% Not sure
 

10* If a police officer pulls someone over for a traffic violation, should the officer automatically check to see if that person is in the country legally?
74% Yes
21% No
5% Not sure
 

11* If law enforcement officers know of places where immigrants gather to find work, should they sometimes conduct surprise raids to identify and deport illegal immigrants?
63% Yes
31% No
6% Not sure
 

12* How concerned are you that efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants will also end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens?

32% Very concerned
24% Somewhat concerned
30% Not very concerned
13% Not at all concerned
1% Not sure
 

13* Which concerns you more – illegal immigration or drug violence?
29% Illegal immigration
60% Drug violence
10% Not sure
 

14* If drug violence continues to escalate along the Mexican border should the U.S. Military be used along the border to protect American citizens?
76% Yes
14% No
9% Not sure

“Good and evil both increase at compound interest.  That is why the little decisions you and I make every day are of such infinite importance.” –C.S. Lewis

You know you are having a tough day if you are a Democrat President and the New York Times editorial pages hit you from three different angles on the same day. (Friedman, Dowd and the Editorial)

Politico does a recap of the hits on Obama from his friendliest newspaper, which leads one to think that not only is the honeymoon over (it has been for a few weeks) but the narrative of the “change” President is actually unraveling.

Obviously, one bad Sunday does not a Presidency undo, but the luster begins to fade with each successive hit from “friendly fire.”