Back to the Front

Today's article comes from Bruce Bialosky in which he goes over the lessons learned from the debt ceiling. Among others, Conservatives are too nice.

Example: Senator John Thune (R-SD), a wonderful man, recently appeared on Meet the Press with Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO). When Ms. McCaskill accused Republicans of “giving taxpayer checks to Big Oil,” Thune should have asked her what checks she was talking about.

Perhaps Thune didn't respond incredulously because earlier in the year we had a huge debate on Oil and Gas Subsidies, a debate Bialosky has apparently forgotten.

Later on Bialosky brings up the rating agencies.

The potential downgrading of America’s creditworthiness has little to do with the debt ceiling and everything to do with the gargantuan spending plans proposed by the Obama Administration.

Pity that S&P was pretty clear in it's downgrade that it is the political atmosphere that makes compromise unlikely that created the problem. Republicans are not going to allow revenue increases, they are only going to allow draconian cuts in spending. There will be no compromise, unless it is on the Liberal side of the fence(where Obama shows himself more than willing to give in). The forthcoming Committee will recommend some structural changes in Medicare and Social Security, and some more discretionary cuts; this bill will fail. The balanced budget amendment will fail. Leaving us with the plan of across the board cuts. There will be a compromise to exempt the military from these cuts, and there you go.

I could be wrong; perhaps as the weeks go on we will see the house Republicans scared by the downgrade into softening their approach a bit. But I doubt it.

Palin for President?

Maybe not says Bruce Biolosky in his latest article. After taking some time to slag off Obama (kind of a requisite these days), he notes that Palin may not be an ideal candidate either.

As attractive as Ms. Palin may be as a political personality, she does not have any of these elements of a political resume. She may have done an extraordinary job as Alaskan Governor, but she did that for only two and one-half years. She may have electrified a portion of the electorate, but she has few political allegiances to call on if she becomes President. Most importantly, she has not spent the amount of time needed to work on the issues of the day. By her own admission, she has had to expand the scope of her political universe since resigning as Governor. She has started to receive daily updates on her Blackberry, but that is not the same as Reagan’s detailed policy statements in his own hand.

. . . Sarah Palin may turn out to be an excellent candidate and an excellent President. She has certain innate abilities that cannot be molded into a political figure. She just needs to spend a lot more time enveloping herself in the political process and understanding the issues and possible solutions facing our country. This will not ruin her – it did not ruin Reagan.

Unfortunately for Mr. Biolosky, Palin is getting her political tutelage not from the mechanisms of government, but from the political fringes. She is proving popular to the Republican Base, and those seem to be the people she most wants to talk to.

Republicans are quick to dismiss any politician (well, liberal politician) who has an extensive academic background as being from an Ivory Tower, as being out of touch with how real America works. Well Palin is building her own kind of tower, one made of conservative ideology perhaps, but a tower nonetheless.

Ending Radio Silence

I was on the road two weeks ago and quite busy last week; but I am rededicating myself to this blog. For the next few minutes anyway.

It turns out President Obama wants us to all accept Islam; it was in his Cairo Speech.

Bruce Bialosky's latest article declares that he will happily accept Islam once they change completely (in his mind). He decries all the bad things Islam has done (i.e. mistreating women and gays, being enemies with Israel, pretending to care about the Palestinian cause (he presents a particularly fictional version of history). He concludes with a nice statement about Islam.

Mr. Obama, it is nice that you want us to accept Islam, but would you have asked us to accept Nazism or Communism with their mass murders and mistreatment of people? I suggest you remember we did not elect you to be Brown-Noser-in-Chief or Apologist-in-Chief; we elected you as Commander-in-Chief. I respectfully suggest you start acting like it because these apologies to mass murderers and intolerant sons-of-bitches are really getting tiresome.

Yeah; well kind of non-sensical; I suspect Bialosky didn't read Obama's speech, but he doesn't need to I suppose. Any speech that deals with Muslims or Arabs as human beings isn't going to be very popular with him. Bialosky and others who believe in the "Muslim Menace" don't seem to see peace with the Islamic world as likely until we have thoroughly conquered it.

For a rational alternative let's turn back to President Bush's Cairo speech.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

That's why we're partnering with a coalition of forty-six countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths – more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.