I want to begin by giving credit where credit is due. Anyone who reads PG knows that I'm no Obama apologist and am often critical of his policies; however, this past week, the President impressed me with his surprising and dramatic shifts in policy in the area of national security. I refer to his reversal deciding not to release damaging detainee abuse photos, sticking it to his supporters at the ACLU who are arguing for their release in court. The President could not be more correct in his determination that to release the photos would "further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in greater danger." Also, he has done a u-turn on the use of military tribunals for trying suspected terrorist. The cynics may say the shifts are all for political gain, which, for the record, I believe will be a long-term effect, but I am choosing to give him the benefit of the doubt that his new outlook is genuine, that, as Michael Barone writes,"faced with a hard choice, Obama put the nation first." Many observers have defined Barack's leadership as "pragmatic," and pragmatism is what he showed us with these decisions. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) points out that a true leader does change his mind. This is certainly true; I only wish the President would say as much instead of finding creative ways to claim the moves are not clear reversals. Remarkably, the President's allies are conservatives who believe he is growing up while his harshest critics are liberals who believe he is selling out. Graham believes Obama has become "more realistic about the threats we face" while Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill) suggests that "overtime, you become more conservative as you deal with the true enemies of the United States." I agree.
This new outlook we see from the President is a clear result of waking up to Daily Threat Assessments instead of talking points for his morning campaign rally. As Republicans salute Obama, the outrage expressed by far left liberals towards their hero has been fun to watch. Some on the left are souring towards their great knight as MSNBC's Rachel Maddow even suggested that he is no different than W and the radical protest group Code Pink is considering calling Obama a war criminal. W must feel so replaceable. Outside of the extremist, the Washington Post finds that Americans at large are trusting the President more on national security than on other issues. Rightfully so; while I disagree vehemently with him on a number of economic and social issues, I have been pleasantly surprised by his display of strength and resolve on Iraq, Afghanistan and Pirates that yes, is not terribly distinguishable from all of our favorite cowboy.
For the sake of the country, we can only hope the he continues to take a fresh look at his positions, especially with respect to the closing of Guantanamo. Some are predicting an impending reversal of his order to close the prison by January as lawmakers in his own party deny him funding to follow through with the rash plan; however, today Gibbs reaffirmed the timetable for closure. Finally, this one made me think someone has been spiking his coffee causing him to start seeing the world as we conservatives do. At a town-hall meeting in New Mexico, Obama said, "we are mortgaging our children's future with more and more debt." I'm sorry, but isn't that our line? Maybe he started reading the wrong speech from his teleprompter again.
To quote GOP Chairman Michael Steele, "Pelosi has stepped in it big time." As I have reported for the last couple of weeks, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is twisting in the wind over what she knew when about waterboarding, which could prove her a hypocrite in light of her impassioned calls for prosecution of Bush officials. This past week, she clumsily escalated the firestorm to a new level. While getting extremely flustered (video clip) during her press conference, she actually accused the United States Central Intelligence Agency of lying to her (video clip). And not just Bush's CIA but also Obama's. Leon Panetta, the Democratic, Obama appointed director of the CIA and former California Congressional colleague of the Speaker laid the smackdown saying the CIA does no such thing.
Pelosi's self-torture has led her own deputy in the Democratic party to call for an investigation of what she knew and some around the country, including former Speaker Newt Gingrich, to call for her to step down. Last week, Gingrich said Pelosi 'lied' and called her 'despicable,' dishonest,' 'vicious' and 'trivial.' Karl Rove goes so far as to call Pelosi an accomplice to 'torture.' Politically, Pelosi has been knocked off her game to say the least, and it all seems to be backfiring as her already low approval ratings are plummeting. While her Democratic colleagues were rushing to begin hearings looking at the Bush memos (despite the President's call to look forward not backwards), the Speaker became an unavoidable embarrassment which, as Charlie Cook says, has weakened their ability to address bigger issues. A central point for Republicans has been that Pelosi could have objected to the practice way back in 2003 when she acknowledges she was briefed on its use. Republican lawmakers are also calling on the Speaker to either prove her accusation of lying or apologize to the CIA.
I was very fortunate to see Michael Steele's major speech to the Republican National Committee in person today (see my tweets on the left side of the page.) The Chairman delivered an inspirational message to the GOP officials gathered from around the country and to the American people at large (video clip). He said America needs the GOP now more than ever and that Obama's honeymoon is over. He declared that the Republican comeback has begun and pointed out that a majority of Americans agree with the GOP on the major issues. This comes on the heels of his impressive performance against DNC Chairman Tim Kaine on Sunday's Meet the Press in which Steele returned Obama's shout out (video clip).
Obama appears to be getting closer to revealing his pick to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court. The process has been remarkably secretive, but many people take it as a given that he will appoint a woman and a good chance that it will be a Hispanic as one of his most important electoral blocks is laying on the pressure for him to pick one of them.
Joe Biden has outdone Joe Biden. Just when you thought you had heard it all, Biden flippantly shared the location of the top secret vice-presidential bunker that Cheney spend time in immediately after 9/11. Was he that desperate for dinner conversation? Truly unbelievable. Meanwhile, the AP takes him to task for making exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims about the success of the 'stimulus' package.
Finally, my friend Neil Newhouse and his colleagues at Public Opinion Strategies have some fascinating looks at recent polling that provide great insight into where the country is politically today and where it might be going. Take a look at the following pieces:
Other stories of note:
Controversy surrounded Obama's commencement addresses, particularly at Notre Dame.
The U.S. has a plan to secure Pakistan's nukes if the country falls to the Taliban.
Obama is taking aim at car emissions which will add around $1,300 to the cost of a car.
Alarm sounded on Social Security and Medicare collapse.
Donald Trump points out that Miss California's gay marriage view is shared by Obama.
Democrats are considering a plan to increase taxes on soda, alcohol and cigarettes to pay for health care expansion.
The United States GPS system could be 'close to breakdown.'
GOP STRATEGY BOARD
An incredibly interesting new Gallup poll was released over the weekend showing a majority of Americans are pro-life for the first time. The new numbers reflect a 15 point swing over the last year and obviously have important implications for Republicans, speaking to Chairman Steele's point that the GOP is on the side of the majority of Americans. On the other hand, a Washington Post poll shows rising support for same-sex marriage, legalizing marijuana and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Speaking of polls, it turns out that happiness is being old, male and Republican! How's that for a talking point? Another bright spot, the latest Rasmussen poll shows the two parties tied on who can best handle the economy. As the RNC 'rakes it in' with strong April fundraising, Chris Cillizza addresses whether Republicans can win back Congress in 2010 and gives us his first Line on the races. Roy Cooper has decided against challenging Senator Burr in North Carolina, which is welcomed news as Burr's poll numbers are less than ideal. Cillizza also looks at the variousimplications of Crist's senate run, including renewed optimism for some Republicans, and wonders if Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels will we be the one to save the GOP. Meanwhile, Obama has effectively neutralized Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. (whom I profiled last week) byappointing him the ambassador to China. The New York Times' Adam Nagourney has a few interesting pieces on the GOP's search for the right tone, stance on gay marriage and the debate between purity and broadening. In addition, Larry Sabato takes a look at the upcoming battle for seats in the House in a historical context while Michael Barone looks at the Senate lineup for 2010.
**Notes: The PG Blog shattered previous records last week with 97 online hits in the first day compared to 26 the week before. 250 people have gone to the site to read last weeks blog, helping May surpassed the previous most successful month (pre-election October) with 346 visits thus far this month. These numbers are in addition to the 122 people who get the PG posts by email. To join the list, email pearcegodwinblog@gmail.com. In addition, the PG Blog launched a Facebook Fan Page which already has 143 fans. Don't forget to follow PG on Twitter for news tweets throughout the week. Keep the comments coming... more visitors should equal a more engaging, interesting and better blog for you. Thanks!
Posts
5 comments:
good stuff once again Pearce.
Re: GITMO photos
idk pearce. i have a lot of mixed thoughts on the issue. i think that we need to be accountable for anything that we have done that violates human rights if we are holding other countries to the same standard. now, i do feel that the public should not have total access to the information that needs to be dug up, and that should include photos. you are right in the belief that it would endanger our troops.
I wouldn't be so quick to commend Obama on his foreign policy stance, Pearce. His executive order to close Guantanamo Bay was clearly a political move, he's breaking lockstep with Bush only superficially. Obama's foreign policy is very much in line with his predecessor's; Obama's administration would still allow detainees to be tried in front of military tribunals and under his own proposed legislation, President Obama still has the power to order "Advanced Interrogation" techniques such as waterboarding (which, I might add, was only used a handful of times as a means of extracting information out of detainees at Gitmo.) The only difference is that those suspected of terrorism will be interrogated on American soil instead of Cuban soil. To me, it seems as though Obama is more pandering than making any meaningful revisions to foreign policy as it relates to terrorism. He condemns Guantanamo Bay but privately embraces the very principles and practices it employed that have drawn so much public criticism. I happen to believe that the use of these "Advanced Interrogation" techniques is a necessary evil in protecting American interests both at home and abroad, so I do not necessarily disagree with Obama's policy decisions. I do, however, think that it's worth pointing out that Obama's policies embody a "more of the same" approach, to whatever end, and do not in my mind warrant praise.
I like that Pearce can recognize positive aspects of the Obama administration even though he bleeds red. I will read his blog because he can clearly see that the party he doesn't belong to isn't always completely wrong.
Thanks so much for commenting y'all. I really appreciate that you took the time to do so.
First, as to Elizabeth's comment, I have a hard time taking anybody seriously, on either side, who is a hard line partisan without exception. It's silly to think that one party is always right on every issue, so I appreciate your recognition of me trying to be more honest and open minded in my assessment of policy decisions. And yes, how ironic that I bleed two different colors depending on the playing field in question.
Andy, you're awesome, thanks for the shout out; it means a lot.
Blaine, I think you offer a very thoughtful assessment of the situation. 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.
Hunter, I greatly appreciate your comment and specific assessment of the President's foreign policy. You are right on that his executive order to close Guantanamo was a rash and purely political/symbolic move (which Joe Biden essentially admitted recently... of course he did). It really is remarkable how much Obama's war policy has been "more of the same." I happen to believe that, certainly in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, that is a good thing. On another note, his immigration policy is following in Bush's footsteps as well. 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.
Post a Comment