VOTE IN THE POLLS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PAGE!
Memorial Day 2009, the day two spokes of Bush's "Axis of Evil" reared their ugly heads and significantly raised the stakes for our new president and the security of our nation. While we slept last night, North Korea performed a nuclear test, its second, and test launched three short-range missiles. The nuclear weapon tested is reportedly as powerful as the bomb we dropped on Hiroshima. At the same time, Iran sent warships into international waters in a move that is historically unprecedented after itself testing a ballistic missile earlier in the week. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rejected the West's request that Iran freeze its nuclear work and said the nuclear issue is 'over.'
The White House released a statement in response to North Korea's tests at 2:10am this morning, evoking thoughts of the proverbial "3am phone call" that was featured in campaign ads of 2008. The president expressed "grave concern" over the bold move and said we must "stand up" to the North Koreans as nations around the world expressed outrage. The U.N. Security Council held an emergency meeting unanimously condemning the act. The Wall Street Journal says this amounts to N Korea testing Obama.
President Obama said in his inaugural address that "we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." Unfortunately, neither North Korea nor Iran has unclenched its fists in the slightest. The President must now begin to pull back his hand and take decisive action against these nations. As much as we wish otherwise, there will always be evil people in the world who will never respond to an outstretched hand or welcoming smile. This is not a superficial misundersanding; this is a fundamental difference in values. We value life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. North Korea and Iran do not. As the most powerful nation on Earth, we must now act, in whatever way necessary, to protect ourselves, our allies, and the security of an entire globe from these ruthless leaders. We can leave nothing off the table, and our enemies must get that message loud and clear.
For the first time in his young presidency, Barack Obama is squarely on the defensive over torture and Guantanamo. Top Hill Democrats pressured Obama into giving a speech on Thursday to address the issue, the day after his request for funding to close Gitmo was overwhelmingly rejected by a vote of 90 to 6 in a chamber that holds 59 Democratic votes. The vote has a lot to do with him saying that some of the terrorists would be transfered onto U.S. soil, perhaps indefinitely, while being unsure of what exactly to do with them. Obama's own FBI chief said Wednesday that tranfering prisoners to the U.S. could fuel terrorism inside the country. As Obama seeks middle ground on Guantanamo, a Pentagon report saying 1 in 7 of the 534 detainees released have returned to terrorist activity does not help his case that closing the prison is in the best interest of national security. Meanwhile, his spokesman, Robert Gibbs let it slip that closing Gitmo was a "hasty decision." The Fix explores "Obama's Gitmo Gambit" and concludes that closure will depend on Obama keeping his own party in line. He is obviously not off to a good start on that front. The Wall Street Journal sees the whole thing as a vindication of Bush's decisions on Gitmo while Charles Krauthammer says we are seeing Obama in Bush clothing on many issues of national security, if not yet Gitmo.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, not surprisingly, has failed to climb out of it this week, despite fleeing the country for China. CIA Director Leon Panetta has suggested that Pelosi's critique of the CIA could be detrimental to American national security. The Washington Post looks at how much trouble she's in as Former Speaker Newt Gingrich says she has disqualified herself from the job. Dick Morris agrees that Pelosi must go. George Will believes Pelosi needs to answer the questions about what she knew when and, furthermore, what she did about it. Stu Rothenberg says that the whole thing is a political pothole that could have been avoided, recognizing that Republicans have found the "soft underbelly of Obama's administration." She's known as Madam Speaker.
Chatter over health care policy is getting louder and louder as an actual bill is expected sooner rather than later and Obama's entire domestic agenda hinges on the supposed savings and revenue from his plan. The President met with a group of leading health-care providers earlier in the month in an attempt to bring them on board with his plan even as the New York Times says his push to cut costs faces tough odds and the Wall Street Journal warns that the path only ends with rationed care and looks at how Washington will ration when life and death decisions are determined by politics. They rightly say that anyone who buys Democrat's claims about choice and affordability will be in for a very rude awakening. In the face of Obama's public option, Republicans have offered their own health care plan, coauthored by North Carolina Senator Richard Burr. Unfortunately, Democrats are threatening to misuse a Senate parliamentary tactic in order to ram Obama's health care plan through congress without any Republican support. As to the public option, the Washington Post cannot imagine a public option aiding consumers without undermining competition. Dick Morris, blunt as usual, explains why rationing means the death of U.S. healthcare.
Other stories & opinions of note:
This just in, Veep Joe Biden has no filter. He said Friday that deciding to close Guantanamo Bay was "like opening Pandora's Box" and essentially confirmed Cheney's analysis that the decision was taken with "little deliberation and no plan." A new book asserts that the president has been so "distracted by the vice president's indiscipline" that he has privately rebuked Biden.
Our recession has turned malls into ghost towns as the dollar weakens, oil prices rise, the CBO predicts unemployment will peak above 10 percent and the president declares "we are out of money." Also, The Fix explains that, for voters, it's still the economy stupid.
The U.S. government is steering GM toward bankruptcy.
Four suspects were arrested in New York City for a plot to bomb Bronx synagogues.
Obama's budget cuts funding for abstinence-only sex education as the number of unwed mothers has risen sharply in the U.S.
Politico reports that North Carolina aka Tobacco Road is a top target for 2012 as evidenced by Obama, Biden and others' trips to the state. h/t Bradley Ballou
Rove looks at what he terms 'flip flops and governance.'
Wesley Pruden says even the messiah loses his training wheels.
Alec MacGillis looks at what the word 'pragmatic' means when applied to Obama.
Barone says that on guns and climate, the elites are out of touch as the WSJ says Democrats have lost the debate.
Brooks warns of fiscal suicide ahead.
Morris wonders when Obama will own the recession.
Brooks has an interesting piece about what makes a great CEO.
Morris believes we could see the death of Israel if Obama doesn't face Iran.
GOP STRATEGY BOARD
As Republicans try to tar Pelosi, some see the party's road to revival starting at Guantanamo, an issue that has given the GOP momentum for the first time since the election. Even Dick Cheney's ratings are on the rise. At the RNC, Michael Steele's critics believe the chair is "finding his mojo" following a very well-received speech to the committee last week. Meanwhile, Time wonders if the Republican Party is over and The Fix looks at how widespread Republican shrinkage has been. A new poll out of Nevada reveals that, even without a challenger, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is in trouble. Senator John Cornyn of Texas believes the GOP can win in 2010 by arguing that "all power in one party's hands is not necessarily a good thing." That is, by the way, an argument that Americans have historically bought, regardless of the party in question. In light of North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper turning down a Senate run, there is buzz that Congressman Mike McIntyre may challenge Burr. The New Republic has a profile of Jon Huntsman Jr. who is now going to China as our ambassador but may well be perfectly positioned for a presidential run in 2016 if Obama were to serve eight years. Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour is raising eyebrows by planning to travel to Iowa in late June. As Chris Cillizza says, no politician ever goes to Iowa by accident. Also, some are saying that Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels could be a Republican revolutionary. Stu Rothenberg sees the imminent nomination of someone to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court as a unique opportunity for Hill Republicans to rebrand the party. Finally, Cillizza looks at the two classes of races that make up his 2010 Senate Line.
Reader Comments: I was pleased to get some great comments following last week's post. Andy, Blaine, Hunter and Elizabeth offered very insightful thoughts. Please check out what they had to say as well as my response. The following are excerpts of my thoughts on their comments:
To Blaine: "I agree that, to the extent this admittedly imperfect country has done things in the past that run counter to our ideals and moral principles, we need to look at those actions and commit anew to living up to being the world leader militarily, economically and, as important, morally that we desire and profess to be. Now, whether or not the waterboarding of known terrorist fits into that category is a point of legitimate debate, and there are well meaning, good people on both sides. To the extent is is a case in which we need to make a correction, I agree with you completely that there is a way to do it "behind closed doors" that will accomplish the objective without involving a public that does not need to see all of the evidence and endangering our brave troops who are face to face with the terrorists right now as I exercise my freedom to blog my opinion, whatever it may be."
To Hunter: "I agree that many of his pronouncements have been pandering to the left, which, given the alternative that he actually follow through with them in policy, I can handle. The welcomed surprise was that he did a 180 on some of these pandering policy pronouncements, actually making decisions more along the lines of what I believe to be best for the nation. While ideally he would have understood the real threat this nation faces and the realities of war as a candidate and in the early days of his presidency, I praise him for seeing the light now rather than later and having the courage to essentially admit he was wrong (although I wish he would have a little more courage to actually say it) and change course."
"As Elizabeth observed, I like to acknowledge when the "other side" does something positive. It is intellectually dishonest and petty to disagree with someone simply for the sake of disagreeing or because of who they are. I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt and try to see the best of intentions, although they can be hard to see at times. We get nowhere by setting up strawman arguments and caricatures of the other side. Washington and the nation at large will make progress when the two parties work together, when possible without sacrificing core principles, toward policy that will improve life, prosperity and security for all Americans."
PG Rec: Resources for the most politically inclined among us.
Balanced Politics: This a great site that objectively lays out the arguments pro and con on the hottest issues facing Washington today. It has helped me formulate my views on a number of the issues.
Notes: The Pearce Godwin Blog now has 181 fans on Facebook. I've been truly humbled by the support you all have given me for what started just for fun on a slow day in the Senate :-). Please keep the comments coming, and thanks so much!!
Posts
4 comments:
I really don't like that the government is involved in healthcare at all. Medicare and Medicaid are failing organizations and are very poorly managed. I worked in a pharmacy and most people would have both to even get what they needed covered. I don't even like HMOs, why should a company dictate what doctor I can see? Why should the government?
Insurance is bad enough we don't need the government making it even worse. And then they want to provide the healthcare? We can already go to the doctor whenever we want, get whatever procedure we want done, visit the emergency room, call and ambulance. No the government doesn't pay for it but if they did you wouldn't have the freedom to do it as you please. Look at the countries that already have socialized healthcare. It doesn't work. It won't be better.
Nice post, Pearce. I had just heard about North Korea but I didn't know Iran did anything until now.
Pearce, Great thoughtful blog post once again. Also did not know about the Iran issue. I agree that we need to start showing metal soon. Thought I think a lot of people are ignoring what I'm hoping will happen: using the Middle Eastern Arab countries + Israel on Iran. It's the most common feeling of fear Israel/Arabic countries have had in common. Alliances there would have greater effect than Obama's words or meaningless U.N. resolutions condemning Iran.
On Health Care though I disagree. It's very complicated and I'm still only 75% sure I disagree but in short I'll try to explain: It's not that I do not have the same fears conservatives do of a public plan, it's my understanding of how horrible our health care system is today. Let's be honest that the left has realized this for long (see clinton) and the right has only come on board because it has become clear how horrible our health care system is. It's unsustainable cost-wise etc...I won't go into that. It is that the republican counterpart plan is a joke IMO. The tax credit proposed by the republicans (which I think was the same McCain proposed on the campaign trail that I opposed) is definitely not enough to cover high premiums available. They do not offer great concrete stuff on how to decrease costs. One of the most useless wastes in American health care is administrative costs (27% of our health care costs). This is because it takes so many resources to deal with the different insurances + figuring out who is/not insured. I do not remember the stats for other countries besides canada (18%) but we are the highest. My biggest fear of the public plan is the favorite conservative scare word: rationiong. Way I come to terms is that is the 50 mill we have uninsured now (& climbing w/ further job loss). The left is 100% correct when they say that is a form of rationing!!! That is also killing many people (+ helping kill our economy as it increases health care costs). Learning from mistakes Britain has made in rationing with a public system and figuring out how to do it best IMO is much more advantageous.
More reason to have less faith in the private system. As I said in the previous post, rationing is happening as we speak. It's called the uninsured...
http://www.slate.com/id/2218848/?from=rss
Thanks as always for the comments. I certainly sympathize with Danalee's concerns about socialized medicine and, like her, look to other countries currently under the system to see its downfalls. Danny made a very interesting and important point when he said, "it's not that I do not have the same fears conservatives do of a public plan, it's my understanding of how horrible our health care system is today." As to this understanding, I defer to Danny as I have very little expertise on the health care system. It is very important to appropriately frame the policy choice against the status quo. If, as Danny suggest, the current system is worse than conservatives' worst fears about a socialized system, then the lesser of two evils becomes the best policy. I am not ready to concede that to be the case because I don't have a full understanding of the problems with the current system but am convinced of the major problems with socialized medicine.
What I've come to realize with the health care debate is that where you stand depends on where you sit, sort of. More accurately than where you sit, it is where your focus and chief concern is. My point is this, if you have or most care about people who have satisfactory health care then you vigorously oppose socialized medicine for all of the reasons Danalee and the Wall Street Journal have articulated. If you can't afford or most care about people who can't afford health care under the current system then you may support any means to extend coverage universally, even through a single payer system, despite and regardless of what aggregate cost such a plan would have on the system as a whole, especially those who can now afford care. As with so many policy problems, where you stand depends on where you sit.
Post a Comment