Posts Tagged ‘Bush’

The Obama campaign released a web ad today featuring former President Bill Clinton talking about how impressive it was that Obama made the decision to give the green light to an operation that led to Osama Bin Laden’s death.

President Obama is the Commander in Chief and deserves our gratitude for his willingness to make that call.

However, Obama’s ad then questions whether Mitt Romney would have made that same call.  The argument is beyond absurd.  That’s like questioning whether Al Gore would have approved the operation to capture Saddam Hussein – of course he would have.

Here is the Romney campaign response:

“The killing of Osama bin Laden was a momentous day for all Americans and the world, and Governor Romney congratulated the military, our intelligence agencies, and the President. It’s now sad to see the Obama campaign seek to use an event that unified our country to once again divide us, in order to try to distract voters’ attention from the failures of his administration. With 23 million Americans struggling for work, our national debt soaring, and household budgets being squeezed like never before, Mitt Romney is focused on strengthening America at home and abroad.”

Aside from questioning whether Romney would have made the same call, The Weekly Standard makes a great point:

This latest ad contradicts President Obama’s own pledge after he took out bin Laden. “You know, we don’t trot out this stuff as trophies,” Obama told CBS soon after the terrorist mastermind had been taken out. He added: “Americans and people around the world are glad that he’s gone. But we don’t need to spike the football.”

Part of the problem for Obama is that he can’t help giving himself credit for things that don’t only rely on him.

For example, this is an analysis about the difference in the speeches given by President Bush announcing the capture of Saddam Hussein and President Obama announcing the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Here is a synopsis of Obama’s speech on Osama bin Laden:

“Tonight, I can report . . . And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta . . . I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden . . . I met repeatedly with my national security team . . . I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action. . . . Today, at my direction . . . I’ve made clear . . . Over the years, I’ve repeatedly made clear . . . Tonight, I called President Zardari . . . and my team has also spoken. . .These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief . . . Finally, let me say to the families . .. I know that it has, at times, frayed. . . ..”

Compare that with the speech given by George W. Bush on December 14, 2003:

“Good afternoon. Yesterday, December the 13th, at around 8:30 p.m.
Baghdad time, United States military forces captured Saddam Hussein alive.

He was found near a farmhouse outside the city of Tikrit, in a swift raid conducted without casualties. And now the former dictator of Iraq will face the justice he denied to millions.
The capture of this man was crucial to the rise of a free Iraq…

And this afternoon, I have a message for the Iraqi people: You will not have to fear the rule of Saddam Hussein ever again.

All Iraqis who take the side of freedom have taken the winning side.

The goals of our coalition are the same as your goals — sovereignty for your country, dignity for your great culture, and for every Iraqi citizen, the opportunity for a better life…

The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force.
Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers in the hunt for members of the fallen regime, and in their effort to bring hope and freedom to the Iraqi people.

Their work continues, and so do the risks.

Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate ‘em.
I also have a message for all Americans: The capture of Saddam Hussein does not mean the end of violence in Iraq.

We still face terrorists who would rather go on killing the innocent than accept the rise of liberty in the heart of the Middle East…

Two different approaches.  It will be interesting if Obama’s approach works as the political message he has made it.

It is an unfailing truth that kids will focus in on one toy from Christmas and that it will generally be one of the cheapest of the bunch.  It makes me wonder why I don’t just do the dollar store for everything.

***

I did not tell my kids what I wanted for Christmas this year, so they were left to truly think on their own.  I got a variety of Dodger paraphernalia, four ties and two shirts.  They know me well: fun and practical.

***

I understand the appeal of a white Christmas, but you just can’t beat sunny and 70 degrees.

***

Speaking of sunny December weather, President Obama played his 90^th round of golf as President this week.  Not only is that nearly double what Bush played in eight years, it is more rounds than I’ve played in my lifetime. (Which is more a commentary on me than Obama.)

***

Apparently the NBA season is now underway.

***

I always enjoy the year-end specials about the top stories of the year, the year in pictures, best sports moments of the year and the like.  There were some interesting things that happened, but I’m guessing most people will be glad to see 2011 end.

***

I really feel for people who have a birthday on or near Christmas.  Speaking of which, Happy Birthday Nicole!

***

What does it say about me that I think of PF Changs as comfort food?

Another year, another decade.

I’ve been thinking about my memories of 1980, 1990, 2000 and wondering what will standout in 2010.

In 1980, the most vivid memory I have was witnessing the greatest sports moment in American history – when the USA Olympic hockey team beat the Soviet Union (“Do you believe in miracles?”). It was the symbolic turning point of West triumphing over the East, with the actual turning point happening 10 months later with the election of Ronald Reagan as President of the United States.

By 1990 the Berlin wall had come down and the Soviet Union was headed to the dustbin of history, as predicted by Reagan. The United States went through incredibly prosperous times even as it went through some interesting political shifts. The 1992 campaign saw Ross Perot as the spoiler for George Bush (who had famously broken his “no new taxes” pledge) and the election of the boy from Hope. 1994 was the “revolution” with the sweeping election of Republicans to the House and Senate. The decade ended with an impeachment of the President in the House, but no conviction in the Senate.

2000 was the year that divided the country in half, with the razor thin margin of victory of George W. Bush over Al Gore. And then Sept. 11, 2001 the country came back together, at least for a little while.

Bush actually did a lot to strive for bipartisanship. Not one of his major legislative initiatives was passed on a party-line vote. Bush’s two biggest legislative initiatives, No Child Left Behind and Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage, were opposed by conservatives in the House and Senate. But the war in Iraq and his push for big government initiatives had the dual affect of motivating the left against him and suppressing his base of support. The result was Republicans taking a beating at the polls in 2006 and 2008.

Looking at President Obama’s first year, bipartisan is not what comes to mind. In fact, there is a more partisan tone than I have ever witnessed myself. Is that a bad thing? Probably not. Big fights over policy are important. If everything big was just passed without strong debate we’d have a much more intrusive government. Partisanship puts a check on government, at least to some degree.

So 2010 will likely be the most partisan year in memory. There are going to be some big policy fights (health care will be the first) and this year will be fascinating to watch from an electoral standpoint. It could be a repeat of 1994. Time will tell.

One thing for certain is that time does not stand still. How will the decade of 2010-2019 be remembered? I don’t have any idea, but anticipation is half the fun.

Happy New Year and Happy New Decade!

Most people will expect me to be very critical of Obama for golfing more in 9 months than George Bush did in more than 2 years. I’m not. Bush had a ranch to go to in order to get some down time – Obama has the streets of Chicago. I’d go golfing too.

So Bush was vilified by the left every time he went golfing.  Will the same happen to The One?

This from the Politico blog which is covering the moment-by-moment movements of Obama:

Obama is back in Phoenix, sooner than expected, and while no explanation has been offered to the press, rumors of a golf game have been circulating.

Iran is in meltdown.  Iran is the new frontlines of democracy and expanding freedom.

Which is it?  For days after the latest election in which Ahmadinejad claimed victory, the Western press largely ignored the budding protests in Iran.  These protests are essentially demonstrations by what we could call the grassroots of Iran saying that their voices have been stifled by an unfair election process. 

It’s also kind of a big deal that the U.S. is officially not recognizing the election of Ahmdinejad.

Here is a link to a youtube video of thousands of people marching through the streets of Tehran.  Here is a series of photos from flickr.  Amazing stuff.  Can you imagine this happening even ten years ago?

This is a direct result of policies of George W. Bush and his vision of spreading democracy across the world.  You can’t tell me that the protests in Tehran and other parts of Iran aren’t part of a growing freedom movement there.  And this will not be the last time we see these kinds of events in countries that have been less than free.

Hopefully, this will provide some clarity to the Obama administration on foreign policy posturing.

One of the best analysis of the situation in Iran is here, on CBS News, by a friend of mine, Ben Domenech.  Here are some excerpts:

There is only one conflict in Iran today, to paraphrase Viktor Yushchenko — and it is between the regime and the people.

You wouldn’t know that from watching the news channels on TV in America today, or from reading sites like CNN World, featuring lonely wire service stories on what’s going on in Tehran. But news and images streamed in all day from Facebook and Twitter with reports from individuals on the ground — reports of students standing up to the onrushing military and police forces, of rocks and fire and tear gas, and even of clerics protesting the election’s result. Taken together, the scene appears to be the most violent protests in Iran in decades.

Many of these reports are unverified, as everything from within the fog of war tends to be. But the images and videos coming through are not. And Agence France Press has reported that at least ten leaders of two Iranian reformist political groups have been arrested. And throughout the day, access to means of communication were restricted.

***

Unfortunately, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, is not exactly the paradigm-shifting reformist the Western press has made him out to be. The reason neoconservatives like Daniel Pipes have professed support for the current president is that Ahmadinejad’s extremist statements exposed the blatant radicalism of the Iranian regime, ruled by Spiritual Leader Ali Hoseini Khameini (the president is merely his flunky in Iran’s system of rule). Even if given the presidency, the reform-minded Mousavi will not have any real impact on nuclear policy or other areas that threaten America’s interests in the Middle East.

Yet this does not make him any less important. At the moment, Mousavi has become a symbolic expression of the disenfranchisement of the populace, his victimhood the fuel for a social uprising that resembles in so many ways the Tiananmen student movement whose anniversary the world marked just days ago. Supreme Leader Khameini has officially endorsed the Ahmedinejad victory, meaning that the revolt going on in Iran at this moment is not a revolt within the system, but against it. Mousavi is no longer just another politician, but he has by his actions become an enemy of the Islamic Republic — a republic in name only — and the protesters today have joined with him in this action. This is not the sort of thing that the ruling authorities will forget or forgive. There will be consequences, and they will almost assuredly be bloody.

Secretary of State Clinton has voiced her concerns about the election result, while the White House reiterated its offers of dialogue with the Iranian regime. It is a strikingly disturbing thought that President Obama would do such a thing, in the wake of the events of the past few days — granting legitimacy to the Mad Hatter of Tehran — but this is obviously his decision. Let us hope someone will call the president’s mind to a higher purpose, to catch hold of a moment when his support for freedom has the potential to have a very real impact.

“Any system is inherently unstable that has no peaceful means to legitimize its leaders. In such cases, the very repressiveness of the state ultimately drives people to resist it, if necessary, by force. While we must be cautious about forcing the pace of change, we must not hesitate to declare our ultimate objectives and to take concrete actions to move toward them. We must be staunch in our conviction that freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings.”

Ronald Reagan said it nearly 27 years ago. The world needs to say it today.

Solid stuff.

I am no fan of former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. This is the man who brought us the “bridge to nowhere,” the granddaddy of earmarks and was an unabashed big-spending Republican.

Last year he was indicted and then later convicted for abuse of office related to business associates in Alaska providing free goods and services to Stevens, who was having his home remodeled.

On Tuesday a federal judge tossed out Steven’s conviction saying, “In nearly 25 years on the bench I have never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct in this case.” He also said the prosecutor’s actions were “shocking and disturbing.”

As a result of the investigation, indictment and conviction, Ted Stevens lost his Senate race last year.  Can you imagine the screaming that we’d be hearing if it were a Democrat Senator who had lost a race and then had his conviction thrown out?

Keep in mind that the prosecution was carried out by George W. Bush’s Justice Department.  So much for the claims that Bush’s Justice Department was “partisan.”

The bad news is that the Obama/Holder Justice Department is likely to scale back public corruption probes in the future.   We will have to wait and see what happens with current investigations into Democrat Congressmen Jack Murtha (PA) and Allen Mollahan (W. VA).  My guess is that they are toasting the decision.

Politico.com has a story that is just downright depressing.  Our nation’s debt is about to hit $11 TRILLION.  That is a staggering sum.  It was half that size in 1996.  In 13 years we have added as much debt as it took us to accumulate in the more than 200 years prior.

Back when I was a budget associate in the U.S. House, I always went straight to the appendix of the President’s budget to look at a couple figures: Government spending as a percentage of GDP and deficit as a percentage of GDP.  Obviously, if the economy continues to grow, we can absorb some increases in government spending and debt.

For example, in FY 1983 federal spending was 23.5% of GDP.  That reflected both weak economic growth and increased defense spending by Reagan. The deficit was 6% of GDP (a post-WWII high).  By FY 1988 the percentage of federal spending was 21.3% and the deficit was 3.1%.

In Clinton’s first budget, FY 1994, the percentage of federal spending was 21% and the deficit was 2.9%.  The budget following the Republican take-over of Congress dropped to 20.3% and the deficit was 1.4%.

Bush’s budgets tended to be on par with Clinton’s budgets (as a percentage, remember) with the FY 2007 budget at 20% of GDP and the deficit at 1.2%

How does Obama’s first budget stack up?   Federal spending as a percentage of GDP will be a whopping 27.2%.  And the deficit as a percentage of GDP?  Buckle up… 8.3%, which shatters the previous high of 6% in 1983.  To make matters worse, that 8.3% is BEFORE taking into account the stimulus package passed earlier in the year.

This is ugly.

Arlen Specter should announce retirement.  He has done more damage to this country than we deserve, and he needs to go.

And he also is willing to say anything to cover his tracks.  As one of the three Republicans who voted both for cloture and then for final passage of the “de-stimulus” bill, he claims that he will take a look at the bill, “find problems… and cure them.”  Uh, Mr. Specter, the whole bill is one giant problem, and the cure is to vote NO.

What Specter was talking about specifically was an issue I blogged on yesterday – about a “National Coordinator of Health Information.”   He forcefully said, “We are not going to let the federal government monitor what doctors do.”  I feel so much better already.  Specter says so, so it must be the case, right?

Think again.  This is a guy that played kissy-face with President Bush in his 2004 primary race against conservative stalwart Pat Toomey. Bush’s folks were warned that they better be prepared to be thrown under the bus if Specter won that primary.  Sure enough, the DAY AFTER the primary election, Specter was proudly talking about how he differed from Bush on stem cells, judicial nominees and the Patriot Act.

If you are interested in some of the history on the 2004 primary, this is an article in the New York Times right before the primary election.  Tim Carney, from Evans and Novak, wrote a blisteringly honest piece for National Review the day after the 2004 General election.  You can’t read this stuff without your blood pressure rising.

Sens. Arlen Specter, Susan Collins and Olympia Snow have cut a deal with Democrats to pass a “stimulus” bill in the Senate.

As you may know, in 2004, I spent the last two months of the campaign in Oklahoma running the grassroots, Victory and GOTV effort to elect Tom Coburn to the Senate.  We only had four kids at the time, so it wasn’t as much as a burden on my wife…  uh, honey… wait, come back… I meant… oh boy, it’s a good thing I got the kid’s playhouse drywalled and painted…  (The Washington Post did a profile story on my wife in Dec. 2007 on families of political hacks like me, and the challenges they face and in it she said she was totally on board…really).

Sorry for the diversion.

What you probably didn’t know, is that in April of 2004 I was working to help Rep. Pat Toomey (now the head of the Club for Growth) beat Arlen Specter in a primary.  Out of sheer desperation to help in any way I could, I hatched a plan to get conservatives across the country to use their cell phones to call into Pennsylvania and help get out the vote.  I figured that most people had free weekends and we could get a lot of calls made, since Pat was creating a lot of buzz with conservatives across the country.

I created an email address, then we got National Review Online to mention it on The Corner and the emails started flooding in from people all over the country wanting a list to call.

We also organized a phone bank in Phoenix and called around to get people to help.  On election day, me and Rob and Marne Haney and a handful of others were there calling away. (Yes, Rob and I have been both in the same trench and in opposite trenches in many a battle).

In the end, we organized and produced about 25,000 phone calls into PA from out of state for Toomey.

But here was the killer.  The Bush folks insisted on campaigning for Specter. And I don’t mean the casual fly-in, tarmac visit.  Bush went into Pennsylvania at least four times in the last few weeks and also did a TV commercial.  The White House argument was that Specter as the nominee gave Bush a better chance to win PA.  I argued (vigorously) that if Specter was the nominee, conservatives would be deflated and Bush would lose PA. (Which ended up happening).

In the end, the President’s help made the difference and Toomey’s grassroots army (both in-state and out-of-state) couldn’t overcome it… but they came darn close.  Toomey lost the primary to Arlen Specter by one vote per precinct.

So, the next time someone says that one vote doesn’t matter, tell them that it was “one vote” that gave us a nearly $1 Trillion “stimulus” package.

Thanks President Bush.