Now is the time for Newt either to apologize to President Obama or else just crawl in a hole somewhere and hope everyone forgets his misunderstanding, his impulsive bloviating, and his rash calling for military action against Libya without Arab and UN agreement. In other words, Newt would have taken us right back to 1993: all Bush cowboy, imperialist swagger -- and disaster.
Obama is being anything but passive and dithering. As of a few hours ago, an obviously pre-planned strategy was put into effect by the US and its allies that included missiles launched from our Navy vessels in the Mediterranean. Targets include the air defense system around Tripoli and tanks along the coast near Benghazi. This is coordinated with the French who are taking the lead in imposing the no-fly zone. We are essentially providing support for their operation, as well as knocking out the ground forces that have been devastating to the rebel cause.
But what a difference from 1993 -- and from what Newt would have had us do.
We waited to get broad international support, including the Arab League, the United Nations, and a wide array of European and African allies. Strikes occurred within hours after Hillary Clinton attended an international conference in Paris that endorsed military action against Gaddafi. There was not an hour of dithering and delay after we got all the support and cooperation lined up.
The spokesman from the Center for American Progress that I quoted in my last post is right: this has much more the pattern and the feel of the 1991 bombing of Baghdad than the 2003 invasion of Iraq. And it promises to be lightening quick and get out quick. As adamant as Obama is that Gaddafi must be stopped, he is equally determined for us not to get into another ground war.
Bravo to Obama. Brava to Clinton and Rice.
Ralph
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Ah, yes, the women . . .
Two in-depth and substantive articles in today's New York Times go inside the Obama administration's decision-making process on military intervention in Libya.
What critics have referred to as Obama's dithering is actually the caution of an administration seeking to balance conflicting values and reflecting a division among senior advisers to the president.
On the one hand, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, national security adviser Thomas Donilon, and counterterrorism chief John Brennan all were wary of military action in another Arab state that lacked vital strategic interests of the U.S. They urged caution and were adamant about no U. S. troops on the ground -- which would likely evoke further anti-American, terrorist-recruiting furor on the Arab Street -- as well as concern among a war-weary American public.
Countering arguments of these three men were three women: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and senior NSC aide Samantha Power, who emphasized the humanitarian cause as well as supporting the fight for democracy against a dictator. The women prevailed, not just with persuasive powers but by themselves influencing the decisive events that shifted the balance: getting the Arab League to request UN action (Clinton) and then getting the decisive Security Council vote (Rice).
One thing all the advisers agreed upon was genuine partnership with allies and no military intervention without UN authorization. Part of this consensus too was that the US would let France and Britain take the lead and that no US ground troops would enter Libya. Even our involvement in air patrols and air strikes would be limited "to weeks, not months."
According to Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress,
Her arguments now helped sway his thinking, along with the unfolding events -- the U.N. decisive vote and Gaddafi's escalating destruction of the uprising. What followed was Obama's speaking out forcefully, now with UN backing and strong allies cooperating. He issued an ultimatum to Gaddafi and said military strikes would begin within hours.
As of this writing, French planes have already destroyed several Libyan tanks, and the no-fly zone has begun.
Hillary Clinton continues to impress me with her knowledge and her skill on the world stage. Secretary of State seems the ideal role for her, and she is performing with the best of them, in my opinion.
Ralph
What critics have referred to as Obama's dithering is actually the caution of an administration seeking to balance conflicting values and reflecting a division among senior advisers to the president.
On the one hand, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, national security adviser Thomas Donilon, and counterterrorism chief John Brennan all were wary of military action in another Arab state that lacked vital strategic interests of the U.S. They urged caution and were adamant about no U. S. troops on the ground -- which would likely evoke further anti-American, terrorist-recruiting furor on the Arab Street -- as well as concern among a war-weary American public.
Countering arguments of these three men were three women: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, and senior NSC aide Samantha Power, who emphasized the humanitarian cause as well as supporting the fight for democracy against a dictator. The women prevailed, not just with persuasive powers but by themselves influencing the decisive events that shifted the balance: getting the Arab League to request UN action (Clinton) and then getting the decisive Security Council vote (Rice).
One thing all the advisers agreed upon was genuine partnership with allies and no military intervention without UN authorization. Part of this consensus too was that the US would let France and Britain take the lead and that no US ground troops would enter Libya. Even our involvement in air patrols and air strikes would be limited "to weeks, not months."
According to Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress,
Hillary and Susan Rice were key parts of this story because Hillary got the Arab buy-in and Susan worked the U.N. to get a 10-5 vote, which is no easy thing [actually it was 10-0 with 5 abstentions] . . . . [This] puts the United States in a much stronger position because they've got the international support that makes this more like the 1991 Gulf war then the 2003 Iraq war.Hillary Clinton was apparently the key player here in tipping the balance. At first she shared Obama's and Gates' caution, but then on Tuesday night in her hotel room in Paris conferring with Arabic foreign ministers, she reflected on the inconsistency of our responding to the various situations in the Arab world. Her thinking shifted to the humanitarian and democracy causes, and she shared her strong feelings about this with Obama.
Her arguments now helped sway his thinking, along with the unfolding events -- the U.N. decisive vote and Gaddafi's escalating destruction of the uprising. What followed was Obama's speaking out forcefully, now with UN backing and strong allies cooperating. He issued an ultimatum to Gaddafi and said military strikes would begin within hours.
As of this writing, French planes have already destroyed several Libyan tanks, and the no-fly zone has begun.
Hillary Clinton continues to impress me with her knowledge and her skill on the world stage. Secretary of State seems the ideal role for her, and she is performing with the best of them, in my opinion.
Ralph
Now this is the way to do it
Despite Republican calls for swift action, and wannabe-prez hopefuls' scorn for his "passivity," Obama has once again proved to be the adult in the room, moving deliberately and wisely with appropriate caution before storming into Libya, as Bush did into Iraq.
Now we have not only sort of, possibly, maybe UN authorization to take out Sadaam, we have a clear vote specifically to establish not only the no-fly zone but to attack with force Gaddafi's military in order to protect Libyan civilians from their own mad dictator.
Here's what's happening. The Security Council vote was 10-0, with 5 abstentions. No veto, as had been feared. And it specifically authorized air strikes, not just the original no-fly zone.
Italy is providing seven military bases for use by the allies setting up the no fly zone, in addition to the one we have in Sicily. Along with French and British planes, fighter jets from the U.S., Canada, and Denmark have arrived in the area to enforce the no fly zone.
Now, this is the way to do it. No forged documents, no false claims of WMD, no stretching UN authorization that wasn't really final authorization -- no bully, cowboy U.S. swagger. Just quiet negotiations, encouragement of the Arab Nations themselves asking for the UN resolution; then behind the scenes diplomacy -- and we have strong -- and broad -- international cooperation.
Take note, Newt and Sarah, and Michele B., and Johnny Mc, et al. This is the way a president should act in a time of crisis.
Ralph
Now we have not only sort of, possibly, maybe UN authorization to take out Sadaam, we have a clear vote specifically to establish not only the no-fly zone but to attack with force Gaddafi's military in order to protect Libyan civilians from their own mad dictator.
Here's what's happening. The Security Council vote was 10-0, with 5 abstentions. No veto, as had been feared. And it specifically authorized air strikes, not just the original no-fly zone.
Italy is providing seven military bases for use by the allies setting up the no fly zone, in addition to the one we have in Sicily. Along with French and British planes, fighter jets from the U.S., Canada, and Denmark have arrived in the area to enforce the no fly zone.
Now, this is the way to do it. No forged documents, no false claims of WMD, no stretching UN authorization that wasn't really final authorization -- no bully, cowboy U.S. swagger. Just quiet negotiations, encouragement of the Arab Nations themselves asking for the UN resolution; then behind the scenes diplomacy -- and we have strong -- and broad -- international cooperation.
Take note, Newt and Sarah, and Michele B., and Johnny Mc, et al. This is the way a president should act in a time of crisis.
Ralph
Stranger than fiction
The St. Louis Post Dispatch reports an interesting story. If presented as fiction, it might be thought too preposterous to seem credible.
The basic story: 19 year Aaron was spotted stealing the tip jar from the counter of a Starbucks coffee shop by 54 year old Roger, who gave chase on foot and caught up with Aaron in the parking lot getting into his car. They struggled, Roger was knocked to the pavement as Aaron backed his car out, running over Roger. Aaron got away with the tip jar, which contained less than $5 dollars. Roger died 2 days later from head injuries.
The younger man eventually pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and was sentenced to one year in jail.
Now the story gets really interesting, because of the behavior of the older man's family.
On the day he was released from prison, Aaron had an emotional meeting with Roger's brother, Chris. It had been arranged by Aaron's father, who had developed a unique relationship with Chris over the months as they had talked about forgiveness and reconciliation and shared grief. Aaron's father wanted him to be part of this process for his own healing.
Then a few months later, Aaron was invited for a second meeting, this time with Roger's whole family and many friends -- outside Starbucks, where a tree had been planted with a plaque memorializing Roger near the spot he was killed. It was a tearful meeting as they all hugged and forgave Aaron, saying they knew he meant Roger no harm. And together they scattered Roger's ashes around the roots of the tree -- there outside the Starbucks coffee shop.
So far, a bit unusual, but not weird.
But now the family has turned around and filed a lawsuit against Starbucks for having a tip jar sitting out on the counter, which "invited" the crime of theft, without also providing security "to prevent such crimes" and to protect its customers. They allege that Starbucks did not "exercise reasonable care," and that as a "direct and proximate" result, Roger (a regular customer) was killed after being hit by the car.
What I find interesting from a people-watching perspective is the combination of the family's spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation with Aaron -- and its vindictiveness or greedy opportunism in suing Starbucks. It seems weird to exonerate the real perpetrator (Aaron who stole the tip jar and caused Roger's death), while suing the real victim (Starbucks got robbed).
Incidentally, they are asking for a minimum of $25,000 plus costs and expenses.
Ralph
The basic story: 19 year Aaron was spotted stealing the tip jar from the counter of a Starbucks coffee shop by 54 year old Roger, who gave chase on foot and caught up with Aaron in the parking lot getting into his car. They struggled, Roger was knocked to the pavement as Aaron backed his car out, running over Roger. Aaron got away with the tip jar, which contained less than $5 dollars. Roger died 2 days later from head injuries.
The younger man eventually pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and was sentenced to one year in jail.
Now the story gets really interesting, because of the behavior of the older man's family.
On the day he was released from prison, Aaron had an emotional meeting with Roger's brother, Chris. It had been arranged by Aaron's father, who had developed a unique relationship with Chris over the months as they had talked about forgiveness and reconciliation and shared grief. Aaron's father wanted him to be part of this process for his own healing.
Then a few months later, Aaron was invited for a second meeting, this time with Roger's whole family and many friends -- outside Starbucks, where a tree had been planted with a plaque memorializing Roger near the spot he was killed. It was a tearful meeting as they all hugged and forgave Aaron, saying they knew he meant Roger no harm. And together they scattered Roger's ashes around the roots of the tree -- there outside the Starbucks coffee shop.
So far, a bit unusual, but not weird.
But now the family has turned around and filed a lawsuit against Starbucks for having a tip jar sitting out on the counter, which "invited" the crime of theft, without also providing security "to prevent such crimes" and to protect its customers. They allege that Starbucks did not "exercise reasonable care," and that as a "direct and proximate" result, Roger (a regular customer) was killed after being hit by the car.
What I find interesting from a people-watching perspective is the combination of the family's spirit of forgiveness and reconciliation with Aaron -- and its vindictiveness or greedy opportunism in suing Starbucks. It seems weird to exonerate the real perpetrator (Aaron who stole the tip jar and caused Roger's death), while suing the real victim (Starbucks got robbed).
Incidentally, they are asking for a minimum of $25,000 plus costs and expenses.
Ralph
Friday, March 18, 2011
Newt is (again) a dangerous man #6
Newt spent last week playing his "repentance" card. (See my blog of March 11).
Now he's going after Obama again for not being "cowboy" enough to bomb Gaddafi's air force without a second thought. As before, Newt sounds knowledgeable enough that many people will be fooled into thinking he knows what he's talking about -- and that he has the good judgment and caution needed in a president.
This is why Newt (again) rises to the level of dangerous politician -- capable of stirring up the passions and resentments of those who don't know that he's a serial liar and a clever manipulator without a whiff of integrity.
Newt has no conception of diplomacy and behind the scenes negotiation. He can only bleat out his dire warnings and wild misrepresentations. Because Obama let Britain and France take the lead in pushing for the U.N. Security Council to authorize a no fly zone, Newt assumes that he was dithering and indecisive. In fact, there were tactical reasons for letting France and the UK take the lead on this one; but . . .
Here's Newt, as reported in HP:
Now he's going after Obama again for not being "cowboy" enough to bomb Gaddafi's air force without a second thought. As before, Newt sounds knowledgeable enough that many people will be fooled into thinking he knows what he's talking about -- and that he has the good judgment and caution needed in a president.
This is why Newt (again) rises to the level of dangerous politician -- capable of stirring up the passions and resentments of those who don't know that he's a serial liar and a clever manipulator without a whiff of integrity.
Newt has no conception of diplomacy and behind the scenes negotiation. He can only bleat out his dire warnings and wild misrepresentations. Because Obama let Britain and France take the lead in pushing for the U.N. Security Council to authorize a no fly zone, Newt assumes that he was dithering and indecisive. In fact, there were tactical reasons for letting France and the UK take the lead on this one; but . . .
Here's Newt, as reported in HP:
“There are a lot of ways to get rid of a dictator, if you want to. But this idea that we posture, we talk, we have diplomatic meetings -- it’s been 30-some days since this started,” Gingrich said. “It makes us look weak and uncertain.”
Pressed for things he would have done differently in the president's position, Gingrich listed only one.
“You start by communicating to the military that he’s going to be gone and that they should be on your side. And in a lot of cases, the military goes, ‘Got it, we’re with you guys.’ And they’re gone. It’s happened a number of times around the world,” he said.
OK. Let's suppose a President Gingrich who says this to the Libyan military leaders. Unlike the Egyptian military, we have almost no connections with or influence over the Libyans and they laugh at our naivete? So President G. would have shot his wad - with nothing to show for it. Then what? You want to go it alone and invade another Arab country without UN authorization and with tepid, at best, support from a few allies -- and huge opposition from a larger number?
Instead, here's what happened: President Obama was highly involved behind the scenes, conferring with the leaders of France and the UK, supporting the no-fly petition privately but knowing our taking the lead might backfire and trigger a veto by Russia or China, as well as generating even more anti-American outrage in the Arab world and increasing recruitment for terrorist missions.
So yesterday the UN Security Council not only approved a no-fly zone (with Russia and China abstaining, but not vetoing it) but the UN also authorized other necessary force -- which means not only can we control their airspace but also bomb their ground troops and protect the civilian rebels -- all within UN authorization.
Now Obama can speak with the authority of the U.N. and with the cooperation of major allies -- and he did so just now:
"All attacks against all civilians must stop. . . . These terms are not subject to negotiation. If Gaddafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences. . . . American leadership is essential, but that does not mean acting alone."
And what did Gaddifi do? As of a few hours ago, his Defense Minister announced a total and immediate cease fire, vowing to protect the civilian population. Now this may indeed be a trick to buy time -- maybe for Gaddifi to get out of the country. We'll have to see.
But compare this outcome:
Obama's way: a promising good outcome without loss of U.S. lives or billions and with strong international support for our position.
Gingrich's way: another war in another Arab country; more drain on our military men and women and on our treasury; more anti-American furor on the Arab Street; more resentment by our allies that the US dictates what they must do.
Let's see how Little Newt plays his next hand. Don't look for him to say "I was hasty and wrong." That language comes from Newt's mouth only when he thinks being a "repentant sinner" is to his political advantage with the religious right that he is courting for his parade.
Ralph
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Florida governor rejects money for bullet train
I've only paid half-hearted attention to the controversy over Florida Governor Rick Scott's refusal of the $2.4 billion federal grant to build a high speed rail line connecting Orlando and Tampa. It had been eagerly sought and planned for by former fellow Republican governor, Charlie Christ. I had only absorbed headlines and assumed it was another case of turning down federal money for political reasons, both partisan politics and ideology about big government.
My grandson was home for a visit from his graduate studies at Florida State University, and I asked his opinion. He says he thinks the governor was right -- on two counts.
First, although the federal grant would cover $2.4 billion of the estimated $2.6 billion in construction costs, it would leave the state vulnerable to inevitable cost overruns and long-range maintenance -- and possibly being stuck with a non-profitable, unpopular service.
Second, as David points out, and affirmed by a NY Times article today, the Orlando-Tampa route is a poor choice -- too short to realize the advantages of high speed rail. It's only 84 miles, and estimated travel time by bullet train is 56 minutes. Add in time to park at the station and a few minutes wait, it could easily take just as long as a car trip. In addition, once you arrive by train you have no car; and both Orlando and Tampa are cities where a car is needed to get around easily. Adding in a car rental further undermines the inducement to take the train, no matter the speed. With no commercial air service between the two cities, it would not even cut down on air travel.
So why did the Obama administration want so badly for this to be built? There are several reasons:
1. The federal funding was part of the $787 billion stimulus package and would have provided a lot of jobs, period. And the Florida and California high speed rail projects were the only two that were far enough along to benefit from money designated for stimulus and job creation. That's a compelling reason, but not sufficient if the project is not reasonable. The fact that these jobs would be in a conservative section of a swing state only added some political flavor to make this location compelling.
2. But, even moreso, I think, this is what was important to them: Establishing high speed rail is an important part of the Obama plan for revamping our transportation system, comparable to Eisenhower's interstate highway system in the 1950's. It not only will create lots of jobs -- designing and building -- but it will reduce gas consumption and traffic congestion and pollution. In addition, our lack of bullet trains is one of the ways we are falling behind other countries, notably Japan, France, and now China. Getting one up and running would be a boost in our national spirit.
3. This Orlando-Tampa route, because it is short, could be built and operational before Obama leaves office, and it would generate enthusiasm for larger projects. Besides, then Gov. Charlie Christ was pushing the idea that Florida could get one up and running faster than any other U.S. location -- and he already had much of the preliminary planning work done. The only other one on the boards at present, and also receiving federal funding, is the line between San Francisco and Los Angeles.
At 377 miles between two major metropolises, the California high speed rail project makes much more sense. Currently, with 11 flights each way daily just on Delta, and with high volume auto travel as well, the potential ridership is much larger and more likely to make it profitable.
The problem with it as the demonstration project is that it will not become operational until at least 2020, and it will cost $42 billion (as opposed to $2.4 billion).
So, there we are. The federal money for Florida goes back into the pot and may wind up going to California.
Ralph
My grandson was home for a visit from his graduate studies at Florida State University, and I asked his opinion. He says he thinks the governor was right -- on two counts.
First, although the federal grant would cover $2.4 billion of the estimated $2.6 billion in construction costs, it would leave the state vulnerable to inevitable cost overruns and long-range maintenance -- and possibly being stuck with a non-profitable, unpopular service.
Second, as David points out, and affirmed by a NY Times article today, the Orlando-Tampa route is a poor choice -- too short to realize the advantages of high speed rail. It's only 84 miles, and estimated travel time by bullet train is 56 minutes. Add in time to park at the station and a few minutes wait, it could easily take just as long as a car trip. In addition, once you arrive by train you have no car; and both Orlando and Tampa are cities where a car is needed to get around easily. Adding in a car rental further undermines the inducement to take the train, no matter the speed. With no commercial air service between the two cities, it would not even cut down on air travel.
So why did the Obama administration want so badly for this to be built? There are several reasons:
1. The federal funding was part of the $787 billion stimulus package and would have provided a lot of jobs, period. And the Florida and California high speed rail projects were the only two that were far enough along to benefit from money designated for stimulus and job creation. That's a compelling reason, but not sufficient if the project is not reasonable. The fact that these jobs would be in a conservative section of a swing state only added some political flavor to make this location compelling.
2. But, even moreso, I think, this is what was important to them: Establishing high speed rail is an important part of the Obama plan for revamping our transportation system, comparable to Eisenhower's interstate highway system in the 1950's. It not only will create lots of jobs -- designing and building -- but it will reduce gas consumption and traffic congestion and pollution. In addition, our lack of bullet trains is one of the ways we are falling behind other countries, notably Japan, France, and now China. Getting one up and running would be a boost in our national spirit.
3. This Orlando-Tampa route, because it is short, could be built and operational before Obama leaves office, and it would generate enthusiasm for larger projects. Besides, then Gov. Charlie Christ was pushing the idea that Florida could get one up and running faster than any other U.S. location -- and he already had much of the preliminary planning work done. The only other one on the boards at present, and also receiving federal funding, is the line between San Francisco and Los Angeles.
At 377 miles between two major metropolises, the California high speed rail project makes much more sense. Currently, with 11 flights each way daily just on Delta, and with high volume auto travel as well, the potential ridership is much larger and more likely to make it profitable.
The problem with it as the demonstration project is that it will not become operational until at least 2020, and it will cost $42 billion (as opposed to $2.4 billion).
So, there we are. The federal money for Florida goes back into the pot and may wind up going to California.
Ralph
Monday, March 14, 2011
What ???
HuffingtonPost reports:
On his first day back from vacation, Glenn Beck addressed the earthquake in Japan, and said he thinks that it could be a "message [is] being sent" by God.Speaking on his radio show Monday, Beck said, "I'm not saying God is, you know, causing earthquakes," before quickly adding, "I'm not not saying that either."
He then said that whatever one called God, "there's a message being sent. And that is, 'Hey, you know that stuff we're doing? Not really working out real well. Maybe we should stop doing some of it.' I'm just saying."
What did he say ? ? ? I have no idea.
I think he was just throwing our some code words to the faithful -- but he says he didn't say what he said -- but he really did.
How much longer will people listen to this charlatan? How much longer will they help him get obscenely rich from TV sponsors -- who, by the way, are dropping him like flies. And his TV audience is declining rapidly, too, I've read. He still has a big radio following, however.
Ralph
Palin vs GOP
Sarah Palin's standing with the serious thinkers of the conservative movement has sunk even lower than it was.
First, she did not heed the advice of Fox News Chief Roger Ailes, who warned against giving her "blood libel" speech. She did it anyway, to disastrous results -- and, according to New York magazine, it has left a rift between the two.
Second, George Will and other pundits and leading conservative thinkers, are dismayed by Palin's appeal to victimhood and group grievance. It is what drives her popularity with her base group, but it is hurting the conservative cause, they say.
Politico.com recalls the founder of modern conservatism, William Buckley, who provided the intellectual basis for the GOP as "the party of ideas." Asked if it would remain that, if Palin is the nominee, George Will says "The answer is emphatically 'no.'" Another conservative think-tank member said "she is living up to the most skeptical assessment of her."
Columnist Charles Krauthammer said, “When populism becomes purely anti-intellectual it can become unhealthy and destructive.” Peter Wehner, a George Bush strategist, said ". . . she seems at best disinterested in ideas or at least lacks the ability to articulate any philosophical justification for them. She relies instead on shallow talking points.”
Matt Labash, long time writer for Buckley's National Review, said “ . . . she sounds like a professional victimologist, the flip side of any lefty grievance group leader. She’s becoming Al Sharpton, Alaska edition."
It's true that Palin has a following, mostly of people who are aggrieved at liberals and at governmental control, with undertones of class and gender warfare and anti-intellectual populism. But that appeals to only one end of a deeply divided party, not enough to win a general election. The thinking conservatives seem determined not to let Palin and the Tea Party highjack their chances in 2012.
With plenty of both qualified -- and unqualified -- wannabes available and eager for the GOP nomination, it seems increasingly unlikely that it will be Sarah Palin. Whether she will get that message before, or after, some primaries losses remains to be seen.
Ralph
PS: Why have I relented on my "She Who Shall Not Be Named" resolve? The game has shifted. Publicity about her is now more likely to be unfavorable, so I'm no longer so concerned with not helping boost her popularity.
First, she did not heed the advice of Fox News Chief Roger Ailes, who warned against giving her "blood libel" speech. She did it anyway, to disastrous results -- and, according to New York magazine, it has left a rift between the two.
Second, George Will and other pundits and leading conservative thinkers, are dismayed by Palin's appeal to victimhood and group grievance. It is what drives her popularity with her base group, but it is hurting the conservative cause, they say.
Politico.com recalls the founder of modern conservatism, William Buckley, who provided the intellectual basis for the GOP as "the party of ideas." Asked if it would remain that, if Palin is the nominee, George Will says "The answer is emphatically 'no.'" Another conservative think-tank member said "she is living up to the most skeptical assessment of her."
Columnist Charles Krauthammer said, “When populism becomes purely anti-intellectual it can become unhealthy and destructive.” Peter Wehner, a George Bush strategist, said ". . . she seems at best disinterested in ideas or at least lacks the ability to articulate any philosophical justification for them. She relies instead on shallow talking points.”
Matt Labash, long time writer for Buckley's National Review, said “ . . . she sounds like a professional victimologist, the flip side of any lefty grievance group leader. She’s becoming Al Sharpton, Alaska edition."
It's true that Palin has a following, mostly of people who are aggrieved at liberals and at governmental control, with undertones of class and gender warfare and anti-intellectual populism. But that appeals to only one end of a deeply divided party, not enough to win a general election. The thinking conservatives seem determined not to let Palin and the Tea Party highjack their chances in 2012.
With plenty of both qualified -- and unqualified -- wannabes available and eager for the GOP nomination, it seems increasingly unlikely that it will be Sarah Palin. Whether she will get that message before, or after, some primaries losses remains to be seen.
Ralph
PS: Why have I relented on my "She Who Shall Not Be Named" resolve? The game has shifted. Publicity about her is now more likely to be unfavorable, so I'm no longer so concerned with not helping boost her popularity.
Is the health care mandate unconstitutional?
Keeping score: the federal judges who have ruled that the individual mandate in the health care reform act is constitutional slightly outnumber those who have ruled it unconstitutional. Obviously, with such division among appeals courts, it will wind up with the Supreme Nine.
In the New York Review of Books (Feb. 24, 2011), Georgetown University law professor David Cole explains the reasoning for finding constitutional support for the bill, specifically the individual mandate. I'll summarize:
1. The Constitution explicitly confers on Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce. Long-established precedents uphold fairly broad interpretations of "the commerce clause." No one really makes the case that health insurance does not involve interstate commerce.
2. Another provision, the "Necessary and Proper Clause, authorizes Congress to enact laws that are "necessary and proper" to carry out those powers, even if not expressly authorized by the Constitution's specific enumerative powers, . This interpretation dates back 200 years to the important decision that allowed the establishment of a national bank -- necessary in order to carry out the express functions of coining money, and taxing and spending. The same reasoning was reaffirmed just last year in a different kind of case, and the 7-2 majority was joined by Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy.
The individual mandate should be covered by similar reasoning: The right of Congress to regulate health insurance under the Commerce Clause is not being questioned (except perhaps by the extreme libertarians). One can then argue that the individual mandate is "necessary and proper" in order to prevent a large increase in premiums, if those who don't currently "need" insurance (i.e., the healthy ones) don't participate. Hence the universal, individual mandate.
3. In addition, Cole says that the individual mandate is permissible under Congress's power to tax. Politically, Obama doesn't want to call it a tax -- but in fact the individual mandate will be collected with the individual's income tax and used to "help the federal government defray the
health care costs the uninsured fail to pay."
Cole goes on to point out that Congress clearly has the power to tax in order to provide health insurance: as in Medicare and Medicaid. And if it had simply expanded them to provide universal health care, there would be no argument about it's permissibility. Personally, I think that's what they should have done. It would have been simpler, without all this challenge and defense.
Cole concludes:
Ralph
In the New York Review of Books (Feb. 24, 2011), Georgetown University law professor David Cole explains the reasoning for finding constitutional support for the bill, specifically the individual mandate. I'll summarize:
1. The Constitution explicitly confers on Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce. Long-established precedents uphold fairly broad interpretations of "the commerce clause." No one really makes the case that health insurance does not involve interstate commerce.
2. Another provision, the "Necessary and Proper Clause, authorizes Congress to enact laws that are "necessary and proper" to carry out those powers, even if not expressly authorized by the Constitution's specific enumerative powers, . This interpretation dates back 200 years to the important decision that allowed the establishment of a national bank -- necessary in order to carry out the express functions of coining money, and taxing and spending. The same reasoning was reaffirmed just last year in a different kind of case, and the 7-2 majority was joined by Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy.
The individual mandate should be covered by similar reasoning: The right of Congress to regulate health insurance under the Commerce Clause is not being questioned (except perhaps by the extreme libertarians). One can then argue that the individual mandate is "necessary and proper" in order to prevent a large increase in premiums, if those who don't currently "need" insurance (i.e., the healthy ones) don't participate. Hence the universal, individual mandate.
3. In addition, Cole says that the individual mandate is permissible under Congress's power to tax. Politically, Obama doesn't want to call it a tax -- but in fact the individual mandate will be collected with the individual's income tax and used to "help the federal government defray the
health care costs the uninsured fail to pay."
Cole goes on to point out that Congress clearly has the power to tax in order to provide health insurance: as in Medicare and Medicaid. And if it had simply expanded them to provide universal health care, there would be no argument about it's permissibility. Personally, I think that's what they should have done. It would have been simpler, without all this challenge and defense.
Cole concludes:
In short, Congress had ample authority to enact the individual mandate. Absent a return to a constitutional jurisprudence that has been rejected for more than seventy years and, even more radically, an upending of Chief Justice Marshall's [1819] long-accepted view of the Necessary and Proper Clause, the individual mandate is plainly constitution."There you have it. Arguments for the other side rest simply on saying that the Commerce Clause doesn't cover the individual mandate and ignoring the other two clauses that Cole relies on. Seems clear to me.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
