A Homeland Security Director that Disavows Terrorism?

Recently I have been struck by the fact that the new Director of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, has not mentioned terrorism in any public addresses, announcements or news releases. How can this be?

There are two possibilities. One is that there is some sort of concerted effort on behalf of the Obama Administration to not acknowledge terrorism at all. The second is that Napolitano actually believes that there is no threat.

In looking at the first possibility it is clearly plausible. The Obama Administration has already put out the word to stop referencing the "War on Terror", instead they will be calling it something else. Somewhat akin to calling a Moose a Duck, but whatever makes them feel better. My concern, as someone in the anti-terror business, is that the government and the people will lose focus on what is most impotant. Hezbollah has made repeated threats against the homeland recently, and the recent arrests in the UK should indicate the Al Quaida is still active. Losing focus now is dangerous and foolhardy and I hope the administration is not engaged in that dangerous naivete.

In looking at the second possibility, it is less plausible to me. How could anyone believe that there is no threat. However, as we have seen in the first months of this administation, there seems to be lack of direction at times.

The Party of No

Recently I have been receiving scads of e-mail from the conservative organizations I belong to about Rush Limbaugh's speech to CPAC several days ago. I am appalled that this pontificating windbag has become the de facto leader of our movement and I have thus engaged in some e-mail back and forth with the Chairman of the National Black Republican Association. Here are the texts of those e-mail engagements. The first, was in response to an e-mail I got from the aforementioned group, lauding Rush and all that he stands for.

As a long standing conservative I take umbrage with the message that Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the Republican Party is sending to America. If we allow Rush to be the continued de facto leader of our movement then we are in for a long, cold winter of discontent.

We have become the party of no. No leadership, no ideas, no forward thinking message and no idea of how to correct the issues that we face as a party and a nation. Barack Obama is obviously a liberal that spoke to the middle of the country to be elected then turned his back on the middle as he began his forward march left. We as conservatives and Republicans need to speak to the middle again, just as Ronald Reagan did so effectively in the 80's. The one thing Barack Obama did was bring new voters into the fold, if we don't begin to talk to these new voters that have now been left out in the cold, they will continue to vote for starry eyed dreamers with messages of hope and change or, worse, not vote at all anymore.

For your organization to put the likes of Rush Limbaugh front and center not only lacks real thought about conservatism and what the Republican Party should be about, it is also irresponsible because it continues to trumpet him as the de facto leader of our movement. Find me a real leader, find me a person with real courage and conviction, find me a person with ideas, find me a person that can talk to the middle about our ideals and bring them into the fold. None of those descriptors characterizes Rush Limbaugh.

I then received the following response from the Chairman herself.

Thanks for your e-mail. I respect your opinion about Rush Limbaugh, although I do not share your view of him. Most of our responses were favorable toward Rush. Below is a sample of the messages we received in support of Rush. It's good to know that we have your support in our effort to save our country from being turned into a failed socialist nations. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree about Rush.

Warm regards,

Frances Rice
Chairman
National Black Republican Association
______________

"Many people think Rush Limbaugh is an extremist. Why? Because that's the perception they have gleaned from the liberal media. I used to feel that way myself. Until I checked him out. Now I realize that Rush, Ann Coulter and other so-called "extremists" are just FULLY-COMMITTED conservatives. They don't compromise or pull any punches. God bless them.

Our country needs some real patriots. Men and women with backbone, to stand up against the Obama socialist machine. The liberal loons are tearing our country apart and throwing us into massive debt. Pelosi and Reed are acting like children who just got the keys to the candy store, spending our money right and left. The must be STOPPED.

We desperately need to shrink the federal government. Dismantle entire departments, beginning with the Dept. of Education, which is just a propaganda machine for the liberal left. If we can get some gutsy men and women of integrity in office we could cut the size of government in half...and save a ton of money. And if we implement the fair tax we can give people some relief while paying down our national debt.

None of these things can be comprehended by the nuts on Capitol Hill. Yet.

Go get 'em, Rush."

To which I then replied with the following.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. Indeed we will have to agree to disagree on this. The current message of the conservative movement is not one I can stand behind as it is short sighted and not in the best tradition of the party re-built by Ronald Reagan. Until people like Rush, Coulter and O'Reilly understand that pandering to the lowest common denominator of conservative thought (ie; conservative good, liberal bad) and understand that many in the country don't want to hear negativity and rancor anymore, then we will continue on the path that we are on. I am looking for forward thinking conservative strategists that understand that the middle has been abandoned by both parties. Ronald Reagan knew this and built a coalition of people, moderate and conservative, and led our party to the heights. Eight years of George W. Bush conservative dogmatic enterprise has led us to Rush Limbaugh as our de facto leader, and I can't abide by it. The long and the short of it is, I believe that the movement is in trouble, a ship without a rudder if you will. I will always be a conservative, but I can honestly say I may not always consider myself a Republican in the future. If the party doesn't grab hold of itself and make some honest assessments they will lose people like me all over this country.

Again thanks for your time.

Today's correspondance, first from the Organization


Please keep in mind that our country is a two-party system. We will have either Democrats in control of the White House and Congress or Republicans. No party is perfect. With Republicans we will get 70-80% of what we want, but with the Democrats we will get very little of what we want. We conservatives have a chance of influencing Republicans, but little chance of influencing Democrats. Conservatives and moderates who turn their backs on the Republican Party empower the Democrats.

In my view, it is counter-productive to try to make the Republican Party into a perfect party. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Regarding Rush Limbaugh, he is a private citizen and a talk show host who is exercising his freedom of speech. It is interesting that people who want the Republican Party to be a "big tent" party want to keep out people such as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly because of differences in opinions. Also, negativity and rancor are part of our political process and is not likely to end. Wishing such discourse would go away will not make it go away.

FYI, below is an article by a liberal Democrat who just happens to provide a clear-eyed view of Rush Limbaugh. It so happens that she agrees with you about the Republican Party being somewhat adrift at this moment in time. In my view, though, we need to work to help make our party more effective, not abandon it. Just my two cents.


_________________________________________________

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/03/11/mercury/

Heads should rollPresident Obama's clumsy, smirky staff is sinking him -- and resurrecting a deflated GOP! Plus: Lay off Rush!
By Camille Paglia
Mar. 11, 2009
Free Barack!
Yes, free the president from his flacks, fixers and goons -- his posse of smirky smart alecks and provincial rubes, who were shrewd enough to beat the slow, pompous Clintons in the mano-a-mano primaries but who seem like dazed lost lambs in the brave new world of federal legislation and global statesmanship.
Heads should be rolling at the White House for the embarrassing series of flubs that have overshadowed President Obama's first seven weeks in office and given the scattered, demoralized Republicans a huge boost toward regrouping and resurrection. (Michelle, please use those fabulous toned arms to butt some heads!)
First it was that chaotic pig rut of a stimulus package, which let House Democrats throw a thousand crazy kitchen sinks into what should have been a focused blueprint for economic recovery. Then it was the stunt of unnerving Wall Street by sending out a shrill duo of slick geeks (Timothy Geithner and Peter Orszag) as the administration's weirdly adolescent spokesmen on economics. Who could ever have confidence in that sorry pair?
And then there was the fiasco of the ham-handed White House reception for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which was evidently lacking the most basic elements of ceremony and protocol. Don't they read the "Iliad" anymore in the Ivy League? Check that out for the all-important ritual of gift giving, which has cemented alliances around the world for 5,000 years.
President Obama -- in whom I still have great hope and confidence -- has been ill-served by his advisors and staff. Yes, they have all been blindsided and overwhelmed by the crushing demands of the presidency. But I continue to believe in citizen presidents, who must learn by doing, even in a perilous age of terrorism. Though every novice administration makes blunders and bloopers, its modus operandi should not be a conspiratorial reflex cynicism.
Case in point: The orchestrated attack on radio host Rush Limbaugh, which has made the White House look like an oafish bunch of drunken frat boys. I returned from carnival in Brazil (more on that shortly) to find the Limbaugh affair in full flower. Has the administration gone mad? This entire fracas was set off by the president himself, who lowered his office by targeting a private citizen by name. Limbaugh had every right to counterattack, which he did with gusto. Why have so many Democrats abandoned the hallowed principle of free speech? Limbaugh, like our own liberal culture hero Lenny Bruce, is a professional commentator who can be as rude and crude as he wants.
Yes, I cringe when Rush plays his "Barack the Magic Negro" satire or when he gratuitously racializes the debate over Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb, who is a constant subject of withering scrutiny for quite different reasons on sports shows here in Philadelphia. On the other hand, I totally agree with Rush about "feminazis," whose amoral tactics and myopic worldview I as a dissident feminist had to battle for decades. As a student of radio and a longtime listener of Rush's show, I have gotten a wealth of pleasure and insight from him over the years. To attack Rush Limbaugh is to attack his audience -- and to intensify the loyalty of his fan base.
If Rush's presence looms too large for the political landscape, it's because of the total vacuity of the Republican leadership, which seems to be in a dithering funk. Rush isn't responsible for the feebleness of Republican voices or the thinness of Republican ideas. Only ignoramuses believe that Rush speaks for the Republican Party. On the contrary, Rush as a proponent of heartland conservatism has waged open warfare with the Washington party establishment for years.
And I'm sick of people impugning Rush's wealth and lifestyle, which is no different from that of another virtuoso broadcaster who hit it big -- Oprah Winfrey. Rush Limbaugh is an embodiment of the American dream: He slowly rose from obscurity to fame on the basis of his own talent and grit. Every penny Rush has earned was the result of his rapport with a vast audience who felt shut out and silenced by the liberal monopoly of major media. As a Democrat and Obama supporter, I certainly do not agree with everything Rush says or does. I was deeply upset, for example, by the sneering tone both Rush and Sean Hannity took on Inauguration Day, when partisan politics should have been set aside for a unifying celebration of American government and history. Nevertheless, I respect Rush for his independence of thought and his always provocative news analysis. He doesn't run with the elite -- he goes his own way.
President Obama should yank the reins and get his staff's noses out of slash-and-burn petty politics. His own dignity and prestige are on the line. If he wants a second term, he needs to project a calmer perspective about the eternal reality of vociferous opposition, which is built into our democratic system. Right now, the White House is starting to look like Raphael's scathing portrait of a pampered, passive Pope Leo X and his materialistic cardinals -- one of the first examples of an artist sending a secret, sardonic message to posterity. Do those shifty, beady-eyed guys needing a shave remind you of anyone? Yes, it's bare-knuckles Chicago pugilism, transplanted to Washington. The charitably well-meaning but hopelessly extravagant Leo X, by the way, managed to mishandle the birth of the Protestant Reformation, which permanently split Christianity.

To which I responded...

I could not agree more about trying to make the party work, that is why I am taking the time to voice my opinions about this party and its issues. I certainly understand the two party system, better than most I would argue, after working in various capacities on about 25 campaigns in my lifetime. I have served at various levels inside the Republican Party in Illinois (not overly proud of that one, since most of them are now in prison) and in Florida. Over the past several years however, my voice has been lost in the shuffle as Republicans have struggled to redefine themselves moving further and further right all the while.

I do want to have the party be a "big tent" and I do not believe that there is anything wrong with that. I do not believe that Rush, Coulter or O'Reilly should be silenced, as you stated they are indeed private citizens. However, the party has given them the microphone and allowed them to paint our movement with their brush. This is what I believe needs to end. I have not abandoned the party, the party has abandoned people like me, conservatives with analytical prowess and an understanding that elections in this country are won in the middle, not on the left or right. I believe that conservative values are best for this country and I believe that the values are cogent and relevant in this time. However, allowing entertainers to be the only ones in the movement to have a bullhorn is foolhardy and an incoherent strategy on our part. Until we start talking to the middle again, and develop a strategy that helps the middle see that our values are relevant we will continue to lose to Democrats that talk middle, but move left.

As for rancor and discord, sure it is part of the process, but now some of it is internal, Rush just made disparaging remarks about Newt Gingrich. Whatever happened to the Reagan Commanments, speak not ill of fellow Republicans? Again, my point is we are allowing Rush Limbaugh to paint our message with his brush. Private citizen sure, but we have elevated him to somewhat more, almost a spokesperson emeritus for the entire party.

I will always continue on the crusade for conservatism, good solid small government conservatism, not whatever has been passed off as conservatism in the last 8 years. However, the party has abandoned me recently, and it's not just me, I have like minded friends and colleagues whom feel the same.

Again I thank you for the response. At least you and I can have a free discussion without rancor and I am grateful for that.

To which came the following reply....

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to dialogue with you and thank you for your thoughtful comments. No leader in the Republican Party handed Rush, Coulter or O'Reilly a microphone. They, as private citizens, took advantage of opportunities offered by our American system of free enterprise, wrote their books or built their radio or TV programs and became successful due to hard work and being good at what they do. They are not stopping you, me or any of our Republican Party leaders from crafting our own messages and communicating those messages to the public. The NBRA is an independent group of all-volunteer grassroots activists that started with only five founding members here in Florida in 2005. As a result of our activities, we now have over 30,000 supporters in our database, our newsletters reach millions of people around the world, and we had over 5 million hits on our website in 2008 alone. Those who cast aspersions on Republicans who are on the right are not, themselves, adhering to Ronald Reagan's principle that you mentioned.

What is it about people on the right that bothers you so much? Is it their belief that marriage should be a union between one man and one woman? Is it their respect for the sanctity of life and opposition to abortion on demand? Is it the fact that they, along with over 70% of Americans, believe in God and attend church regularly? I do not understand why people have such animosity for people who are Christians, just as were our founding fathers.

To which I again responded as follows:

You and I have actually met on a few occassions, and I applaud the building of your organization to the level that it has been built. I am a recipient of many thoughtful and provocative e-mails from your organization, and I will continue to receive them gladly.

I believe that by not sticking to the message of what good conservatism is the Republican Party did in essence hand the microphone to Rush, Coulter et al. It was not a conscious choice, but one of little resistance. They have all been around for years, but have never spoken with as much authority for the conservative movement as they do now. This to me suggests a lack of leadership inside the movement, thus my feelings that the movement and the party are ships adrift.

I don't have problems with people on the right, I am one of them. I also do not believe that I have cast apsersions, or engaged in name calling. I am a Christian and believe in the things of which you speak. My problem is two fold. One, the conservative movement often fights liberal intolerance with more intolerance. It is becomes not a battle of ideas, but instead a trading of jibes and salvos of insults. Fun for the pundits and party regulars on both sides, but not fun for the people in the middle that believe in various things. Two, the social set of issues is not high on my radar screen for governmental action. I believe, as did the Founders, that religion is sacred but should also be separate from the halls of government. I also believe that governmental intervention in certain social areas, from either the right or the left is unacceptable. The protection of marriage, religion etc... is not the business of the government, nor is the dissoultion of those institutions (as the left would have us believe). Simply stated, I believe that if conservatism is the party of small solid government then we are hypocritical to advocate government intervention into people's choices about how they lead their lives. While many people lead their lives in ways that I would not, that does not grant me any authority or wisdom to say that they should not. In the same respect the government does not have that authority, or wisdom (as evidenced by elected officials on both sides of the aisle) to make those decisions either.

I have always been a fiscal conservative, and extremely conservative on Foreign Affairs and Security (I will still yell at the top of my lungs that Iraq was the right decision). I have often been characterized as a social libertarian, call it what you will. I still believe that the Republican Party and the conservative movement can be my home, I just want to see more thoughtful dialogue from the people we let speak for us.

Again I appreciate the exchange of thoughts with you.

I will of course continue to post any further contacts. This has of course done nothing to allay my frustrations about the direction of the conservative movement, but I am having some fun engaging in the discourse.

I did not leave my party, my party has left me

Lately I have been very angry about the way in which the Republicans are going about their business in Washington D.C. They have become the party of no. No ideas, no leadership, no ability to counter liberal ideals, no political courage, no political identity, the list could go on and on.

I have heard many times in the last several months about the reasons that the Republicans lost the election; Obama was a positive and vibrant figure that could not be beat, the party lost it's way fiscally, the party lost it's way socially, the party was not conservative enough etc... The one that seems to be taking hold is that the party was not conservative enough on issues of social consequence and that it needs to shift further right in order to win in upcoming elections. To this argument I respond by saying, ARE YOU CRAZY!!! There are two reasons I believe that this is absurd.

First, new voters came into the fold in 08 in alarming numbers. Obama introduced many new people into the electorate and they came out for him in large numbers because he spoke to the middle well enough to get them to vote for him on social concerns (I am discarding Foreign Policy here because polls show that of the voters that thought Foreign Policy was most important they split for McCain). These new voters are not liberal or conservative, I believe that they are centrists with a left lean on social issues. I have discussed this past election with many new voters and I was alarmed by the eclectic nature of their views. Many value the environment, but also National Security. Many believed that social issues were more important in this election cycle, but indicated that had they voted in 04 they would have voted more on Security and Foreign Policy issues. Many indicated that they felt like Obama talked more intelligently about their core concerns this time around, but that they felt like he was not well versed enough should Foreign Issues become a flashpoint in the near future. While this is not scientific, I use it to argue the larger point that the Republican Party did not lose because they were not right enough. It is abundantly clear to me that the Republicans lost because they forgot how to talk to the middle about social/economic issues. A move to the right will not work. A strategy to talk to the middle will work. I do not advocate sacrificing conservative ideals to do this. I advocate remembering that Ronald Reagan did this with unbelievable success without sacrifice of conservative ideals. The party needs to find to find that resonating message to the middle and begin talking to new voters, and they need to do it now.

Second, the Obama Presidency will clearly be one of governing from the left. After all the rhetoric about the middle, he has given many indicators in the first month that the middle is not somewhere he will dwell. Obama has stepped up the partisanship and moved the party to the left. I believe that this will leave a void in the middle and allow for the Republicans to pick up not only middle voters, but also many new voters who have no real political affiliation with either side.

The message needs to quickly change. The Republicans need to stop whining about not having a seat at the table and just sit down. They need to start talking about alternatives to the Obama plan and pushing them in the media whenever they can. Of course the alternatives will not pass, but they must begin positioning themselves for 2010 and beyond. The continuous whining and lack of leadership will only guarantee eight years of far left governance, something I do not want to see and something the country can't afford.

The party also needs to drop the flimsy, transparent political ploys. The united stand against the stimulus bill was refreshing, but it was too late. Where were these same Republicans during the first bail out on the Bush watch? They were nowhere. In rallying against the Obama stimulus, without providing a cogent alternative, they looked like they were playing a political game. Similar to being for something before being against it, ring any bells?

In short I am a conservative, and I am proud of it, but we can't win again until we talk to voters with a broad spectrum of views. I am advocating talking to the middle with plans that make sense and providing a conversation about alternatives, instead of a shouting match about not having a seat at the adult table.

This is Change? Seems alot like more of the same...

Just a few days from inauguration I am forced to take a hard look at the beginnings of this administration and make some conclusions about what the future will look like.

I have said several times in the last several weeks that this "change" does not seem like much change to me. The Cabinet is rife with appointees that have served in Democratic administrations before. Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta, Bill Richardson (now gone, but still was a name from the past), Rahm Emmanuel and Eric Holder all will be or would have been filling top spots in the Administration. This change is tantamount to giving someone a dollar for four quarters, at the end of the day it is still a dollar. These Cabinet appointments are indicative of the old Washington order, after the rhetoric of the campaign I was hoping for more, I think the voters were hoping for more. It is disappointing that originality went out the window somewhere, or that the talent pool just has a shallow end (which after the last election cycle may indeed be the case judging bu some of the buffoons that ran for office across this country) and I find it difficult to swallow this pill that I have swallowed before. The worst about this is that these people weren't even the most talented of the cast offs from the Clinton Administration, they were just the ones that were available. I have high hopes for Hillary at State, after watching her confirmation hearings she at least seems to get it. The only question remains, will she be allowed to pursue the agenda that she espouses in an Obama Administration?

The rhetorical output of the Administration sounds like a familiar tune as well. Spend, spend, spend, spend, spend and oh yeah spend. I have said before and will say again, spending will not get us out of the predicament we are in. Ingenuity and an appeal to what makes this country great will be the only thing that helps us out of the mess we are in. This country is in danger of "undeveloping" if oil hegemons continue to grow at the alarming rate that they are growing currently. Unless there is a move to develop new energy sources and crack reliance on foreign oil the entire future of Western economic civilization is at stake.

Bailout or Failout

So it has been a couple of months since the bailout took flight and I think we can all agree what a resounding success it has been. Right? Right? Anyone? No takers? I am not surprised.

400 billion was put out there with the intent of righting the ship and the ship still lists dangerously close to going over. Banks have not loaned the money and the reasons for it have been many to date. I have heard that they are waiting for the bottom of the market. I have heard that because the Government did not give the banks guidelines for using the money that the banks are within their rights to manage it how they believe they should. I have even heard that the money is out on the sidelines because there is just no place for it to go right now.

Here is my spin. The money has not been loaned because there is no profit in lending it right now. Rates are not favorable for banks they are favorable to borrowers. The banks want to make money on the money that they loan so it seems to make sense to me that the banks will not loan the money while the rates are not favorable for them to do so. The prepostorous part of this is, IT IS NOT THEIR MONEY!!!! If the motive is profit, and I believe that at least part of it is, the government should take the money back. At the very least they should pass some laws with rules about what the banks need to do with the money.

This has been nothing more than a cash grab and it needs to end now, of course with the unprecedented amount of boondoggles in Washington DC these recent years I am not shocked about any of it.

The Bush Legacy? Let the Speculation Begin

So the end is near. Eight years of George Bush policy and leadership is now coming to a close and it is time to begin the honest asessments of what has transpired and what the legacy will ultimately be.

In previous entries I have argued that this administration was the most paranoid and aloof since the Nixon Administration and I will stand by that statement. The lid has been on this White House since at least 2005 and it could be argued that the lid was on before that. This administration has shown a remarkable inability to get out in front of it's failures. Couple that with the inability to trumpet the successes that they have had and it has been a recipe for disaster. Some of this has most certainly been to protect the American people from frightening details about the war on terror, but there has been a decided lack of trust in the American people to decide for themselves what the information means. The White House has shown an amazing inability to let the people to make their own judgements about policy successes and failures and that indicates a flaw in leadership. Successful administrations admit failures and headline their victories, this administration has done neither very well. Therefore the legacy they have built, at least for the time being, is a very negative one.

Bush can, and should be, credited for his continued principled stand on this war. The President has never deviated from the course that he set out on after 9/11, that is something that should be admired. In the face of failure and criticism Bush has avoided being a windsock in this day and age that is a rare trait amongst politicians. If the war on terror continues for a generation, and I believe that it will, this President will eventually be viewed in a favorable light much like Nixon was later in his life.

What Kind of Weird Alternate Political Universe are We Entering?

In reading about and researching the new Obama economic plan I am forced to ask, what the hell have we gotten ourselves into? The centerpiece of the plan is to create 2.5 million new jobs (I did not see a timeframe within which this piece of magic is supposed to happen) by spending money on much needed infrastructure and urban improvement projects. The spending will top 700 billion dollars which when coupled with it's twin, the 700 billion dollar bailout from October, the cost for "fixing" the economy will be a minimal 1.4 trillion dollars. I am no economic expert, but that sounds like a lot of money to me.

The irony of this program is that it is also designed, as stated in Obama's own words of wonkdom, to be fiscally responsible. I will give everyone a moment for that to sink in. FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE!!! This must be some sort of joke and the punchline will be paid at the bottom line by the taxpayer. Obama paints the rosy picture of cutting govenment waste in order to fund some of his plans, but we have heard this song and dance before. The cold hard fact is that we will end up paying for this program of "responsibility" and at the end of the day I am not sure where the idea will take us.

There is some historical precedent for spending ourselves out of an economic crisis, it worked when FDR did it in the late 20's and early 30's. The US was on the verge of meltdown when FDR helped build the country from the ground up with infrastructure programs and targeted social welfare entitlements and then led the country to post war prosperity. The times now though are not apples to apples to the times then. At that time the U.S. was a burgeoning democracy and had many yet untapped rescources, natural and otherwise. American ingenuity was just beginning it's rise to the top. During the present time our ingenuity has been surpassed by the ingenuity of developing nations, much like we surpassed the developed nations of the eary 20th century. Our time as politcal, economic and military hegemon is drawing to a close and I could make the argument that it is already over. Attempting to spend the way out of this crisis with infrastructure projects and targeted social welfare entitlements will not work this time the world economy is too far beyond what we can do within our own borders.

The next hegemon in this world will be an energy hegemon. If some country does not act quickly to usurp the oncoming oil hegemony by spending resources to develop viable alternative energy sources every Western power will kneel to the new hegemony of oil. For the new President the agenda should be to create new jobs and spend new money in the area of developing alternative energy sources that could be viable on the world stage. We can become the energy hegemon and render oil nearly obsolete if the alternative source is pursued seriously enough and is made cost effective enough for large consumers like China and India. If we could remove the Chinese, Indian and American markets from the oil consumer list then over half of the world's population would be using a resource that only we knew how to make. Is this utopian? Sure. Is it improbable? Sure. Is it impossible? No. Obama has the chance to do for alternative energy what Kennedy did for space exploration, tap into the will of the American people and begin to get something done. Only a few Presidents have ever had the ability to move the country in an entirely new direction. Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan and now maybe Obama if he so chooses. Whatever you personally feel about the President Elect, it is no secret that I am not his biggest fan, the time to move this country is now. There is a new direction out there, the country is just waiting for someone to show the way.

First Priority, Health Care?

There have been some rumblings that the first priority of the new administration on the domestic front will be Health Care. To this possibility I must say, I am baffled. With the current state of the economy could the neophyte about to take the White House actually believe that there is some chance to do anything with the one issue that there will be absolutely no chance of getting anything done on? I speculate that the answer to this is no and that there is some tomfoolery afoot about what the agenda will be. However, if it is true I am pretty sure that the new administration has already lost it's mind.

Let's remember back to when the country tried this last time. It was another Democratic President early on is his tenure that decided to push for a Health Care solution as well. Anyone remember how that went for him? Obama would be well served to table the Health Care issue for the first year or so an focus heavily on the economy and his other plans for the overall restoration of American faith.

Obama will make some early mistakes for sure, however I do not believe that Health Care will be one of them. Look for this issue to hit the moth balls as soon as Obama assumes the office.

Cabinet Musings

So the search for the Cabinet begins and the speculation is rampant at present. The appointment of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff should signal that the administrative heavy in the execution of governmental business will not be President Obama. Emanuel has a long history of being the guy that knows where the skeletons are and how to bury the bodies when discarded after political use. This then begs the question, who else will be on this cabinet and why?

Some serious pundits have put the Hillary question on the map. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State is very interesting, but I believe it is politically dangerous for Obama and politically damaging for Clinton. For Obama the selection of someone as polarizing and recognizable as Hillary Clinton would not be a good move. Much has been made of Obama's affinity for Lincoln and his assemblage of rivals for a cabinet, while the sentiment is nice, there is no way it can work today. Putting a media star like Clinton on the Cabinet could only be a political danger for everyone involved. Lincoln had a distinct advantage when he named Seward, Chase and other rivals to his cabinet, namely that there was no mainstream media at the time. The animosity and rancor that sometimes found it's way into Lincoln Administration proceedings was not viewed or even read about by the public at large. In today's day and age any sign of distress from the Cabinet room could be a soundbite in about 5 seconds. To put someone like Hillary there would only lead to distraction and possible mayhem if there were ever a diagreement between the President and the Secretary of State. It could also be problematic for Obama if he does not choose Bill Richardson for this post (he has long been considered a possibility and a favorite by many) because Richardson essentially burned his bridge with the Clinton's when he backed Obama for the Presidency. Not choosing Richardson could cause a political rift amongst others that Obama needed support from to win. Sending a message that loyalty is not repaid with loyalty would be a death knell for Obama in building a coalition between the far left and the middle left. Hanging Richardson out to dry would be a critical mistake at this point and it would also lead me to reassess the political acumen of the new President.

I also do not believe that there would be any upside for Hillary in taking this position. Hillary Clinton still wants to be President. As unlikely that it is that she ever will be, Hillary knows that being a middle left supporter of Obama's on the key issues while being a critic of the intiatives that are far left will serve her better in the long run. Hillary also has to consider that she could be getting set up to take a fall for Iraq should the new administration not be able to get out as quickly as promised. The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense would most likely have to answer for the failure that is sure to come in this area. There is not a feasible way that Obama can meet his Iraq promise in any way that will not have the stench of failure on it. It is going to take longer that what has been promised to get out of the situation and Hillary knows this.

Some have advocated that John McCain be selected for Obama's Cabinet. This is actually an idea that makes some political sense. McCain is at the end of his career and he will not ever be President. For Obama to reward McCain for his many years of distinguished service would be a master political stroke. McCain would be an excellent choice for Secretary of Defense or State and would work well with Joe Biden in providing the President with sagely advice on the Foreign Policy direction of the country. There is no downside for McCain on this one and only upside for everyone involved.

The final Cabinet will look much different from traditional administrations. This will be an interesting transition period, the grist mill has only just started turning out the names.

The First 100 Days

We all hear about the first 100 days everytime there is new administration or Congressional election. The question always is what will the first 100 days look like? What will take place?

After the 2006 mid-terms the American people heard from Pelosi and Reid that the change, oh the change she was a comin, and it would be glorious. So what happened to the glory? Democrats frittered away their political capital against a weak President on the one issue that he was intractable on and that they had no chance of winning, Iraq. Reid and Pelosi severely miscalculated their potential for success on this one key issue and the result was not what they were hoping for and an expediture of political capital that they could not recover from. Instead of softening the weakened President with blows to other policy areas where they could have had success, they opted for the all or nothing Iraq strategy and lost. Pelosi and Reid are not going anywhere, and are in fact more prominent than before, they will take another pass at Iraq and they will want to do it quickly.

This means that Obama's first 100 days are going to be rife with risk and it will take a master politician to navigate the choppy waters of his mandate. Obama owes the left and they are going to come after him early and often to get what they want. Expect that Iraq, SCHIP and Health Care, taxation plans, spending plans and programs will spring forth from the Congress like Old Faithful. Obama's ability to placate the left with some victories without further damaging the economy will come to the forefront. If he can make his way through it will be impressive.

Ahhh but there is the darned economy. Obama has another group that he owes, new voters. They are going to want all the things that he promised them as well. Better financial times, more money in the pockets of the lower and middle class, Health Care etc... The way in which he handles the populace will be the very telling as well.

Obama is in a sticky spot at present. Bend to the left and risk the economy or bend to the new voters and risk the left. This will be an entertaining 100 days starting in January of 09 and I expect it will be fantastic to watch.

Obama, Palin and other post election tidbits

The gaffes have already begun. The President Elect has been involved in two so far. The first, the backhanded slap at Nancy Reagan in his press conference. Aside from the shot being offensive to people whom have always respected and admired Mrs. Reagan, it was also relatively poor in terms of timing. Obama had just lost his own Grandmother and then he took the shot at the 87 year old widow of the conservative icon, I am willing to chalk it up to a rookie mistake.

The second, Obama and President Bush met yesterday in one on one meetings that no advisors were present in. Interestingly details of the meeting were later leaked to the media. I wonder how that happened and what the purpose of it was. There is no way the information came from the Bush people on this one. There has not been a lid on the White House for the last four years, there is no way you would hear a peep from them now. The only answer is that it came from Obama and his people. The cautionary tale here should be that the President Elect is not the President yet, do not undermine the office that you will eventually hold and then expect that others will show you the respect that you did not show to your predecessor. Rookie mistake #2 and this was a big one.

Finally, scuttlebut abounds about Sarah Palin. Mrs. Palin suddenly has all sorts of interviews scheduled and has said that if it is God's plan she will run for President in 2012. Let me be the first to say, this can't happen! The only way Palin should run in 2012 is if God's plan is for Obama to be re-elected. It is also being thrown around that Palin may run for the Senate if Ted Stevens seat is vacated. The prospect of this is amusing to me for various reasons, but let me just say, stay Governor and do your homework. Next time Palin steps into the national spotlight she needs to be ready to answer tough questions. Not look like the beauty queen caught in the pageant spotlight.

Why Palin = Failin

Aside from the 20/20 hindsight and Monday Morning Quarterbacking about electoral strategy and where the Republicans went wrong in the election, it is time to take a deeper look at what the pick of Sarah Palin meant to the conservative movement in general.

Republicans have traditionally held themselves out as the party of small responsible government, and for years this message was resonant with voters. Fiscally in the last several years the train went off the track somewhere and Republicans became no better than Democrats in the trainwreck that is spending. However, socially there had historically been a stark distinction between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats were typically the party of handouts and big government and Republicans advocated the opposite. To a certain extent this is still the case fiscally, at least in the wings of the fiscal right, however socially it is not the same. Republicans became the party of "Big Brother". They began to legislate against things that a majority of people in this country feel should not be legislated. Some of this was in response to 9/11 and most Americans have no issues with those principles, but some other areas of social legislation have caused new voters to enter the system in response to what has taken place. Republicans and especially conservative Republicans did not start talking to those voters. Those voters and voters in the middle whom traditionally lean right left the fold of the party that could be easily viewed as out of touch.

We live in a time when voters want more say in their lives in the areas that are important, at home and at work and within the family unit. The conservatives need to get out of the way on issues that they view to be principles of morality. Current stances on; Abortion, Gay Marriage, regulation of TV and Radio and regulation of the written word will not work, particularly as more of the country is becoming accepting of these things. Conservatives continue to rely on the moral message on these issues and they are alienating voters that would otherwise agree with them on the issues that should be the most important; National Security, Economy, Education etc... Is it really worth losing elections over the moral issues when they could be winning on the issues that the country thinks are most important?

So what does Sarah Palin have to do with this? The answer is simple. McCain was a candidate that could talk to the middle about the issues that are important and offer a stark and intelligent contrast to what Obama was proposing. It would have been a classic showdown of traditional conservative values against traditional liberal values. Small Government v. Big Government. National Security for the future v. National Security with naivete. Managed Health Care v. Social Health Care. McCain could have still lost the election, but it would have been fun to watch. The pick of Palin indicated that the far right, most of whom are religious, were pushing the election to be about the moral things that have poisoned the Republican Platform for the last 16 years. McCain got unduely painted into a corner from which he could no longer fight with his message to the middle because the contrast of Palin from the right was too much to overcome.

Real conservatives, conservatives that believe that government should not legislate with a moral brush, should be engaging in a movement to remove the far right influence from the Republican Party. It is time to drop their positions on abortion, homosexuality and other areas and focus on the areas that are important to the future. If the far right will not get on board then they should be extricated from the party. There is too much at stake going forward to hold on to the sacred cows of the past.

Election 08: Repudiation or Change the Nation?

The election is over and President Elect Obama has begun his journey of hope and change that will surely carry this country into some interesting areas in the next four years. The question that has to be answered at this point is; was this election a repudiation of George W. Bush and his administration or was it a game changer for this country and the conservative movement?

A look at the election results will lead many to assume that this election was a game changer. It will lead many to assume that this is the beginning of the country becoming left center instead of right center. The numbers in raw form are favorable for this opinion. Obama won the election by the biggest margin that a Democrat has won by in over 40 years. On the face of it things would appear grim for the conservative movement and the Republican Party. Republicans were not ready to confront the introduction of new voters into the system. Republicans could not hold the voters in the middle that helped them gain power. Obama was able to introduce people who either did not care or were cynical about the process into the system with his message of hope and change. Republicans will need to figure out how to talk to these new voters quickly in order to prevent this from being a game changing election.

This election was also a clear repudiation of the Bush Administration. Bush's approval rating is historically low. The approval rating of Congress, largely controlled by Republicans for the better part of two decades, is historically low. Bush has been the most reclusive and schizophrenic President since Nixon. The Administration had no message and no ability to communicate success for the last two years, and I would argue that they lost their way for most of the second term. This failure led to an electorate that was angry and the revolt took place at the ballot box. Obama did not win on a substantive message, it is the first time in recent memory that a candidate was able to win with very little detail to his plan. The failing of the Bush Administration and the party was complete long before the election took place. The failing economy and the inability of the Administration to champion the success of the surge and the War on Terror led to the victory of the candidate that was saying what people wanted to hear. Clearly the failures of the party over the last eight years have led to this.

Could this election be a game changer? It most certainly could, but Obama has to work with two mandates going forward. One from new voters whom are going to want results based on their hopes for something new and different. The other from the far left and the people that pushed him to the top of the heap. Obama will not be able to buckle to the far left, he must keep them in line and protect his more important mandate, the one the new voters have given him. If Obama concedes to the far left agenda and vacates his message of something new he will have a difficult time holding this fragile coalition together. Look for Obama to temper his approch and take a considered look at his mandate for change. Obama will try to develop a mandate and hold on to the political capital that he has gained from the electorate, it is the most important political capital that there is.

Republicans going forward need to be vocal when the climate is right to be vocal. They need to counter Obama and give ideas that are sound and different from what he is proposing on the key issues that will be faced over the next four years. Health Care, the economy and the War on Terror are critical areas where the Republican can offer a contrasting viewpoint with a tempered hand. Criticism for the sake of criticism will not work. New voters want something different and the Republicans need to show where they are different from Obama on the substative points that people care about. A failure to provide a cogent and salient differing view on the issues of import will lead to this election being viewed as a game changer and Republicans don't want to get to that decision in the minds of the voters.

2010 will tell us if this was repudiation or game change. Only twice in the history of this country has the party in power in the White House not lost seats in a mid-term election, 1932 and 2002. 2010 will give us some answers, until then I will lean towards this election as repudiation with the potential for game change.

The President Elect and the Office of the President

The first press conference of the new era is in the books and I am extremely put off with the President Elect. Already? You may ask. Yes, already. I have never seen any President Elect announce with such aplomb and fanfare that he was in fact the President Elect. The podium with the sign proclaiming "The Office of the President Elect" was bit too much for me. The quasi realistic seal at the top of the sign also smacked of arrogance. The Office of the President deserves respect, George Bush currently holds that office, and whether you believe he deserves respect or not makes no difference. Some deference to the office should be shown. The equation is simple, until January 20th George Bush is President of the United States and Barack Obama is a Senator from Illinois.

If this is a sign of the arrogance that will come from this new administration then we are in trouble. It seems to me he should be more concerned with building his team and choosing his cabinet, than he should be with boldly letting everyone know that he is the President Elect. Call me old fashioned, but this just rubbed me the wrong way. I'm sure it won't be the last thing that rubs me wrong in the next four years...

So it begins.....

So the election is over, the Republicans went down to the inevitable defeat that I had been telling people about since August of 07. The question becomes what is next?

Over the next several days, weeks, months and maybe years I will monitor and discuss the developments of the Obama Administration. In addition I will take a critical look at the Republican party and the conservative movement and give my opinions about realignment.

Stay tuned.....It will be a fun ride.