~ CQpinion ~

Syria: Debunking the Myths

noreply@blogger.com (Krutic A) — Fri, 06 Sep 2013 23:26:00 +0000

The muddled, confused message out of the Obama administration on punishing Bashar al-Assad for his use of chemical weapons is the primary cause of its flailing prospects in Congress. When you announce what you are not willing/planning to do instead of keeping all options on the table, you have already lost: a) the element of surprise, b) the uncertainty of the consequences for the enemy and, c) the people in Congress who would have normally supported the military action on humanitarian or strategic reasons. But since the strike will not address either of those two problems, it leaves the President seeking support from a very narrow segment of Congress and thereby diminishing the likelihood of passage. President Obama has to be more forceful and determined in his approach to sway public opinion on the war. The sales pitch can begin with the debunking of a few myths purported by the White House and the Secretary of State.

Myth 1: This is not a war.

Secretary of State John Kerry has refused to call the proposed military action a war in multiple hearings, interviews, and press releases. The nonsensical nature of the statement that ‘this is not war in the classical sense’ should be clear to everyone but since it has continued to be used as a selling point by Mr. Kerry, it deserves debunking. Shockingly, nary a reporter or a Congressman has asked Mr. Kerry if he would consider a two-day missile strike on Washington, DC by Syria or Iran as war. One can stipulate that ‘not war in the classical sense’ is technically true, because for most of human history, war was fought on horses and through hand-to-hand combat, with no hostilities at night. So unless that’s what Mr. Kerry is getting at, attacking a sovereign nation is most certainly war by any stretch of the imagination. The administration should definitely make the case that this is not an invasion but to dismiss an act of a preemptive missile attack as simply a targeted, limited, and restricted strike (which sounds more like labor union activity than a military action) is misleading at best and dishonest at worst. You cannot get a little bit pregnant.

Myth 2: Said strikes will deter and degrade Assad’s chemical weapons capability.

Although true in the short term, this is a myth simply because ‘deter and degrade’ by definition is not prevent or eliminate. Besides, the administration has made clear (through mind boggling leaks) what it does not intend to do. Those leaks have resulted in a ‘yes’ answer to all of the following questions:

a) Will Bashar al-Assad remain in power?

b) Will Assad have access to the chemical weapons after the strike?

c) Will the majority of Assad's forces still be operational (i.e. alive)?

d) Will the Syrian regime's supply routes through the Russian naval base and land routes from Iran (through Iraq) remain operational and viable?

e) Will Assad be allowed to continue to cluster bomb, torture, and destroy entire neighborhoods with artillery shells and napalm?

Yes, yes, and yes. Evidently, all Mr. Assad has to do is hunker down for a week or two in his glorified spider hole and ignore the loud bangs around him. Besides, whatever the military strike by the United States degrades, can potentially be replaced by the Syrian regime through Iran and Russia. As for deterring Mr. Assad, deterrence only works if there is a will to follow through on violation of the underlying activity. The administration has made clear that the Syrian leadership is not a target and that an invasion or sustained bombing campaign is out of the question. It begs the question, what exactly is the deterrence for Mr. Assad to not use chemical weapons after the 90-day window expires?

Myth 3: Mr. Assad will be deterred by a few cruise missiles and is unlikely to use WMDs again.

This is the most presumptuous aspect of the administration’s case. Mr. Kerry has asserted that if Assad is foolish or irrational enough to continue using these weapons, there are ways to make him pay that do not involve war. It escapes the author what those ‘ways’ are, but if they exist, why aren't they being used now? Clearly the killing, torturing, and gassing of thousands of innocent people are not the actions of a rational, logical, and moral person. Therefore to assume that an evil, irrational, and immoral person will act irrationally and immorally by doing it again is not a far-fetched proposition. The Obama administration has to answer for that possibility and the steps it would take to counter it.

The Congress can be convinced to support the punitive strikes on Syria if the President lays out an honest, strategic, and convincing case in his address on Tuesday. However, if he continues on this path of arguing on semantics, declaring a one-sided end date to an uncertain conflict, and refusing to even discuss the possibility of a retaliation by Syria then the Congress will be right in rejecting this authorization of going to war.

Massacre!

noreply@blogger.com (Krutic A) — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 22:42:00 +0000

It is no secret that the Republicans took over the House by huge margins, diminished the Democratic majority in the Senate, and achieved historic advances in Gubernatorial and state legislature races. However the Democrat bloodbath that painted the electoral map red also had some interesting bylines:

Losers seek compromise: It is a time honored tradition that the losing side always interprets election results as a message to work together and compromise. Keeping with that trend, the Obama White House and the Democrats in Congress have suddenly realized the value of compromise and ‘working together for the benefit of the American people’. Never mind that for the past two years they have been doing the exact opposite. However, now that they can't ram unwanted legislation down people's throats, the Democrats want to compromise with the enemy seated in the back seat of President Obama's imaginary car.

Nancy Pelosi, Propaganda Minister: Nancy Pelosi continued her best impression of Al-Sahhaf, the delusional Iraqi propaganda minister under Saddam. Al-Sahhaf is best known for his statements describing how American troops were committing suicide by the hundreds, while American tanks were outside the gates of his ministry.
Ms. Pelosi consistently proclaimed that the Democrats would hold the house (even on Tuesday). She also claimed pride about the 'achievements' of her majority while the same majority was being rewarded i.e. massacred for their achievements.

Angry, rational electorate: The voters severely rebuked the Democratic agenda in every corner of the country and yet they were rational enough to not send just any Republican to DC. Intellectually stunted weaklings in Nevada and Delaware lost big and all signs point to a Murkowski victory in Alaska. Joe Miller, although intelligent and accomplished, came across as brutish and unlikeable. Voters rejected all three even in the GOP tsunami that was Tuesday. In addition, Tom Tancredo, the bordering-on-xenophobic ex congressman, also lost the Colorado governor's race in spite of being a Tea Partier. Looks likefacts and arguments did win the day; except in California.

America's Greece: California once again proved why it is in dire straits and may become the first failed state of the Union. Despite past records of non achievement, voters chose to reelect a sneering ideologue (Barbara Boxer) and an ancient relic as governor (Jerry Brown). In fact, the real surprise in California was the defeat of Prop 19. Maybe the collective 'glaucoma' of the supporters was acting up and they decided to peace out on the couch.

Holding on to the Harry tree: The victory by Reid in Nevada was the only ‘good news’ for the Democrats on Tuesday. Expect them to cling to that notion like people caught in a tornado would grab the only tree that hasn't been uprooted. Look for Democrats to tie in the Nevada race into any answer about Tuesday's disaster. It will be conveniently ignored that Reid, in spite of doing the 'people's work', needed millions of dollars and practically every Washington insider, union group, former President, the current President, the Vice President, and even the First Lady to save his seat from a terrible GOP candidate.
On another note, Chuck Schumer was probably as disappointed as the GOP when Harry Reid was declared the winner.

GOP the progressive party: You won't hear it from the NAACP, Hispanic groups, or NOW, but Republicans now have a female Indian American governor (first ever) and a black congressman from South Carolina (first since reconstruction), a female Hispanic Governor (again first ever) in New Mexico, and a Cuban American Senator from Florida. Those ignorant, angry hicks sure like to elect women and minorities.

Thrill no more: MSNBC's coverage of the results consisted of a roundtable of ultra liberal 'pundits' openly smirking at every GOP win and at Republicans who were foolish enough to appear on that network. The 'analysis' included condescending comments, outright insults and bizarre questions to Rep. Eric Cantor about whether Rand Paul would filibuster the debt ceiling increase. Apparently if a GOP Representative from Virginia doesn't know what an eye surgeon from Kentucky is thinking, who does?
Even when you discount the fact that it was a terrible night to be a left wing nut, this was still a pathetic display of 'journalism'. Although it is doubtful that any of the fifteen people who watch MSNBC took offense.

W encore: Next week former President George W. Bush will appear on various TV shows to promote his autobiography. I wonder how many people will suffer pangs of nostalgia when they see the Decider again and wish that the roles could somehow be reversed - George Bush back in the Oval office, and President Obama is left to do the only thing he does best; write about Barack Obama.

-=-=-=-=-

"Article first published as 'Massacre' on Blogcritics.org."

Operation Frustration

noreply@blogger.com (Krutic A) — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 22:53:00 +0000

The firestorm created by Gen. Stanley McChrystal's comments from a yet to be published article in Rolling Stone magazine crystallizes the current Afghan effort. The Generals in the field are frustrated with the civilian leadership. The civilian leadership is frustrated with the military and the Afghan government. The Afghan people are frustrated with everyone. The American public is barely paying attention to the war because of the problems back home. It would be fair to characterize the AfPak endeavor as ‘Operation Frustration’.

Clearly Gen. McChrystal and others in the military have been irritated and frustrated by the Obama administration for quite some time. The deliberative approach of Mr. Obama was a cause for concern to many. This frustration only builds up when US troops have to deal with extremely restrictive rules of engagement in implementing the Patreus/McChrystal COIN strategy. Raids and searches have to be conducted in tandem with incompetent Afghan police of dubious loyalties. The highly effective night raids are rare because President Karzai does not approve. Engaging the enemy is only allowed when fired upon first (i.e. after you are shot). All this would cause anyone to be angry, let alone the man in charge of uprooting the Taliban, converting and sustaining the loyalties of the warlords and peasants, and go after Al Qaeda elements. Thus the medium of conveying his annoyance at the civilian leadership is the issue here, not the actual sentiment, which should come as no surprise to anyone.

The reason Gen. McChrystal is in serious trouble is because his aides made a series of irresponsible comments about the civilian leadership that put them in charge of AfPak. What is even more concerning is who these comments were made to. Now, no matter the degree of dissatisfaction with Mr. Obama and his policies, talking to reporters behind the President's back is simply unacceptable. If the urge to voice your frustrations to a reporter becomes necessary then Gen. McChrystal and his aides should at least have the smarts to talk to a Bob Woodward or a Richard Engel. They would have used this information mainly to paint a picture and kept the inflammatory quotes (especially names) out of it. Talking to an unheard of, freelance reporter out to establish himself is exactly the last thing someone in McChrystal's position should do. (This is not a knock on the reporter; who appears to be adept at extracting information over drinks).

It remains to be seen what comes out of the meeting between the administration and Gen. McChrystal. It would be a very bad idea to fire him right now because of the immense hardship facing US troops in Afghanistan. It would be safe to say that most soldiers on the ground share at least a part of their commander's frustration toward some civilian operatives. The one thing that has to be done is reconsider the role of the envoy Richard Holbrook and ambassador Eikenberry. They are actually proving to be a problem for the military rather than productive liaisons that they were supposed to be. An important decision for Mr. Obama is to figure out a way to separate Mr. Eikenberry and the military leadership on the ground. It is clear that the relationship between those two mirrors the relationship between Mr. Karzai and the US administration. They work together only because they have to and neither seems to trust the other. This is not a constructive dynamic to have and it certainly cannot be sustained. Mr. Eikenberry was on the losing side of the argument during last year's extensive discussion on the path forward in Afghanistan. He has made no secret of his distrust of Mr. Karzai and now it seems he is also continuously at odds with Gen. McChrystal. The troop level argument has been settled (at least for the time being) and it makes no sense to put opposing sides under one tent on the ground to figure out ways to actually make progress in Afghanistan. Simply put, Eikenberry and Holbrook are replaceable. Gen. Stanley McChrystal is not, at least not in the short term.

This is a problem Mr. Obama did not need and did not create. An argument can be made that he has caused it gradually through his governing style. Having said that, this event would have been more understandable if it had happened last year when the AfPak strategy was being discussed in slow motion. Gen. McChrystal's aides have made a dangerous and foolish mistake by blurting out their frustrations to Rolling Stone. This will be a huge test for Mr. Obama and his much touted skills to compromise and reconcile differing views. The knee jerk left is already calling for the general's resignation. What they fail to understand is that this is not an academic concept or a preventive measure like wire taps where disagreement among leadership is expected and accepted. Afghanistan is a real war with a real enemy waiting to pounce on every perceived weakness; and there is no bigger weakness than a fractured leadership. One hopes that the President will swallow his ego, keep McChrystal in-charge and reiterate his commitment to the flailing Afghan war effort. Most importantly, Mr. Obama needs to prioritize the Afghan war and figure out how to solve what seem to be irreconcilable disagreements between the military and the White House. Gen. McChrystal's aides on the other hand, need to learn the art of shutting up.

*---*

Article first published as Operation Frustration on Blogcritics.

What We've Got Here Is Failure To.. Spin?

noreply@blogger.com (Krutic A) — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 05:26:00 +0000

"I think if there's any mistake made (it's) that we haven't communicated clearly enough what the president has done on this oil spill from the beginning," - Vice President Joe Biden

President Obama has been criticized for his inexperience, stoicism, naivety, and even his citizenship. The one thing that was never in doubt about Barack Obama was his oratory talent. Even his strongest detractors will submit to his superior communication skills. Therefore it is quite amusing to see the Obama administration cite a lack of effective communication as the reason for being unable to sell their policies. White House aides contend that the lack of support for Obama policies is not because they are unpopular, ineffective or hyper partisan. The voters disapprove of the policies only because they have not been shown the light by the administration. The administration maintains that the stimulus bill was not a failure in terms of its primary goal to stem unemployment. Aides say the reason for that perception is that Mr. Obama has been unable to communicate (read spin) how effective it has been. Similarly most people do not oppose the healthcare bill because it will reduce quality, increase the deficit and create a massive bureaucracy. The opposition arises from the failure of the administration to convey the benefits of the bill. Since this tactic has worked so well, the White House is trying it again with the oil disaster. According to the administration, they have been involved and in charge from day one of the oil spill. The only reason the people aren’t seeing any results is because of a communication gap. All would be well if only the White House could explain how a push for an energy bill and a new PR campaign for healthcare fit into the immediate response to the spill.

Anyone who has followed Mr. Obama's presidency will attest to the effectiveness of him as a communicator. So far he has communicated the Republican Party into unity, given rise to the Tea Party movement, and even expressed his candidates out of a job in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts. On the foreign front, he successfully communicated allies likeTurkey and Brazil to side with

Iran

. Mr. Obama also communicated the new 'reset' policy toward

Russia

with such clarity that Mr. Putin is now gleefully playing both sides (

Iran

and US), while

Poland

nurses the stab wound on its back. On the economic front, the President conveyed last month's wonderful jobs report so effectively that the financial markets tanked. In fact the only people he has failed to communicate successfully with are Andrew Romanoff and Joe Sestak.

Barack Obama specializes in lofty rhetoric, sweeping declarations and idealistic platitudes. He can give a rousing speech about a nuke free world but when asked about day to day governing issues, he has no answer except to hide behind meetings with 'experts'. His response to the oil spill is a classic example of this phenomenon. He can talk for hours about the need for hypothetical regulations but when asked about specifics he can’t even tell you if his own director of the MMS resigned or was fired. Evidently, in an effort to avoid turning this oil spill into his

Iran

hostage crisis, Mr. Obama has made it into his Katrina. By being marginally interested and peripherally in charge, he has avoided looking like the helpless Jimmy Carter. Unfortunately Mr. Obama now resembles Mike Brown, the in-over-his-head former director of FEMA.

To remedy his image, President Obama wants everyone to know how furious he is about the whole situation. In fact he is so angry that he refuses to speak to Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP. According to Mr. Obama, Mr. Hayward would only tell him what he wants to hear and the President is not interested in that. This is a bizarre excuse under any circumstances but coming from Mr. Obama, who at one point wanted to talk to

Iran

without pre conditions, it is laughable. Apparently the Iranians would have only told him the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Another interesting aspect to this is the habit of Mr. Obama to shut out primary players when he is brainstorming solutions to problems. Last year it was Gen. Stanley McChrystal who got the cold shoulder from the President for weeks while the White House was 'deliberating' its Afghan strategy.

Contrary to the idiotic 'get angry' mantra being pushed by the media, people do not want to see an angry, emotional President. They just want to know that he is concerned and in charge. To show that he gets the message, Mr. Obama is on a quest to kick ass. This ass-kicking journey has led him to basketball courts, fundraisers, various heritage month celebrations and even a personal Paul McCartney concert. Of course giving the appearance that he is out of touch from the suffering of the gulf coast is not the problem here. The problem is that the public is just slow to understand how all this fits into the big picture of helping the gulf coast, reducing unemployment and success in

Afghanistan

(yes, the war is still going on). The strategery of it all is just too much for people to grasp. Meetings with James Cameron, a show at the Ford Theater and the McCartney concert are all links in the crisis response chain. You'll see it when they send the Terminator down in a Yellow Submarine to plug the leak.

***---***

Article first published as Obama's Communication Breakdown on Blogcritics.

The Placebo President

noreply@blogger.com (Krutic A) — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 03:45:00 +0000

In early March, President Obama gave a speech on Healthcare reform proclaiming that the time for talk is over. He declared that everything that is to be said about the bill has been said. The only thing remaining, according to Mr. Obama, is a simple up or down vote. The President has since made four campaign style stops talking about only healthcare. His aides have been on all Sunday talk shows to talk about healthcare. So it seems the time for talk is over only if you oppose the healthcare bill. Just like he did in the so called bipartisan summit, Obama has appointed himself judge and jury on the subject of healthcare. He tells you what the truth is and what is misleading political falsehood. He is the only all-knowing and objective arbitrator on this issue. Everyone else is either misinformed or trying to misinform.

The healthcare reform conversation has been reduced to the legalities of the tricks the Democrats want to use to pass it. The bill's actual substance is an afterthought. No one is disputing the fact that ten years of taxation provides only six years of benefits. Neither has anyone explained how $500 billion from Medicare cuts will be used to pay for half of this massive entitlement and then the same half a trillion dollars will be used to keep Medicare solvent. The administration has not been confronted on how the right to chose does not extend to health insurance. Under this plan, one is forced to purchase a private service as mandated by the government (advantages of which could include helping pay for a registered sex offender's hip replacement). Of course this is all dismissed as distractions and obstructionist tactics of Republicans. The only thing the Democrats seem to be concerned about is how to pass a bill before the recess. The level of desperation Obama and the Democrats have reached is embarrassing. At this point, almost anything will get the president’s signature as long it is labeled Healthcare reform.

Congressional Democrats have completely dropped the pretense of trying to form a coalition or negotiating in good faith or listening to the public. In fact the major reason to get a bill passed before Easter is to avoid a redux of the town halls the Democrats faced last year. They have locked out Republicans from the conversation and also given up on Democrats who oppose the bill on principle (abortion language, cost, and special deals). Their new target is liberal Democrats who voted ‘No’ the first time. They are planning to use sleight of hand tricks in manipulating process and inventing rules to pass the bill without actually voting on the Senate bill. This farce sets a dangerous precedent for the future but the healthcare obsession has blinded the Democrats to any such concern.

President Obama is doing his part in this opaque and politically motivated process. He is offering rides on Air Force One to coax Congressmen to vote in favor of healthcare. Mr. Obama constantly reminds people about how urgent the need for reform is. In fact it is so urgent that the benefits from the reform won't kick in until 2014. He also manages to keep a straight face when he insists that people will see the magical effects of his trillion dollar entitlement only after the bill passes. Last week the White House announced that now it does not oppose the special deals given to certain states. This easy malleability of principle is the hallmark of this President. He stands up for something unless it is politically expedient to back down.

The deception and blatant arm twisting that includes threats of mounting a primary candidate against the 'No' votes will probably help Ms. Pelosi sneak this radioactive legislation through. However it must be noted how much further the political process has devolved since Obama became President. The problems in Washington are not exactly a revelation. Everyone was aware of the fractured nature of things, including Obama when he ran as the change agent. He was supposed to fix the problems; instead he has doubled down on the old ways without losing a step. It takes skill to constantly decry the entrenched partisan ways of Washington while running a healthcare reform process that comprises of special deals for the drug industry through lobbyists, unsavory deals to win Senate votes, budgetary tricks to hide costs, and a total lack of bipartisanship.

The saintly rhetoric from a year ago has given way to a ridiculous reality show that a frustrated public has no choice but watch because, well, they can't find jobs. The placebo effects of the Obama experiment are long gone and voters have realized that instead of a real cure for the ills of Washington, all they got was a sugar pill.

The Midas Untouch

noreply@blogger.com (Krutic A) — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 03:48:00 +0000

"Iraq could be one of the great achievements of this administration" - Vice President Joe Biden on CNN

The Obama administration is no different from any of its predecessors when it comes to shifting blame for failure and taking undeserved credit for success. All administrations engage in minor hypocrisy for their political benefit. It is expected and accepted for the most part. However the Obama administration has taken it to a ridiculous extreme. This is evident when the president uses Bush era deficits to rack up exponentially more debt. It is also evident in the prosecution of terrorists in Federal courts. But nowhere is it more blatant than in the recent comments by the Vice President taking credit for the progress in Iraq.

In 2007 then Senator Obama vehemently opposed the surge, which is responsible for the continued stabilization and political reconciliation seen in Iraq. He did not just oppose the surge; he gave speeches guaranteeing that additional troops will only lead to more violence and instability. He wanted nothing short of a troop withdrawal because the war was a lost cause, a sentiment echoed by congressional Democrats. Meanwhile, then Senator Joe Biden had a brainstorm of dividing Iraq into three different countries. He was convinced that this was the only way to have any resemblance of peace in Iraq. Neither Sen. Obama nor Sen. Biden expressed an iota of confidence or support for the Bush surge strategy.

Candidate Obama ran on the platform that the only thing to do about Iraq is to bring the troops home. Never once did he admit to the gains of the surge or accept the evidence of stability. In fact he made it a cornerstone of the campaign to summarily dismiss it. Now that the Candidate is President, he is more than willing to tout Iraqi success and take credit for it. Even when faced with overwhelming evidence of success, the administration has yet to acknowledge that the Obama/Biden stance against the surge was wrong. A debate on the potential outcome of Iraq if either of their ideas were followed has been conveniently missing. The leap from vehement opposition of the surge strategy to self congratulation on the success of the same strategy has been phenomenal.

President Bush set the stage for an Iraqi success not because, but in spite of Obama and Biden. The military success, the Sunni awakening, the political progress, and the withdrawal timeline are all Bush legacies. The current administration's contribution to the progress in Iraq has been to leave it alone. Ironically President Obama's Afghanistan strategy mirrors his predecessor's 'secure and hold' surge strategy of Iraq. Now no one expects this administration to give George Bush credit for anything. Their motto has always been - if it works, credit Obama; if it fails, blame Bush. It worked for them in the campaign and it worked in the first few months of the Presidency. But in this case, as Charles Krauthammer points out, they should at least have the decency to say Iraq will be an American success.

The truth is that almost everything President Obama has tried to 'fix' has gone from bad to worse. Obama’s thirteen month obsession over healthcare has caused a countrywide revolt leading to Democrats jumping ship. The economy (even after the $862B hoodwink they call stimulus) is still flat lining at best. A whopping 6% of Americans think that the so called Recovery Act has created jobs. As the joke goes - the only 'shovel ready' projects available are related to clearing the snow in DC. The deficit has skyrocketed and the jobless rate is bleaker than before the Stimulus. In response to the people's concern on jobs, the President convened a televised bipartisan healthcare summit. On the international front, Iran is more belligerent than before and moving toward a dictatorship. Who would have thought that the personal letter Obama wrote to Iranian leaders would fall on deaf ears.

Thus besides AfPak (where there is genuine progress and Obama deserves credit), everything this President touches becomes radioactive. The only thing he didn't touch - Iraq - has blossomed. To take credit for that is like a motorist taking credit for saving pedestrian lives just because he did not run them over. Although to be fair, perhaps Obama deserves a little credit here. The temptation to change the Iraq policy must have been profound. Letting things be, and thus void of the Obama stamp, is not something this administration does well. So in a way, it is an achievement that they left Iraq alone. One might just conclude that if Obama wants anything to work, he should leave it alone.

The Hoodwink Czar

noreply@blogger.com (Krutic A) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:13:00 +0000

The White House has taken heat for assigning Czars to oversee many major issues. These official policy Czars have proven to be largely ineffective. However the most effective Czar in the White House does not officially exist. The job of this Hoodwink Czar involves invention of numbers and theories to tout imaginary success of policy, and offering platitudes to downplay failure. He's a magician who gets people to concentrate on his silver tongue so they don't pay attention to his hands.

The Czar's stage name is Barack 'Hoodwink' Obama.

His greatest acts include:

Act I - Obamanomics is the real Freakonomics:

General understanding among economists is that redistributing tax revenue and destroying assets does not spur lasting growth. The Czar showed his disdain for such nonsense through the Cash for Clunkers program. The idea was to help consumers exchange their old cars for new by setting arbitrary mileage rules and offering free money. To further aid growth, the perfectly working 'clunkers', i.e. assets, were destroyed instead of reselling (to South American countries for example). Thus by simply preponing the transactions of consumers who would have bought a car anyway, Mr. Obama claims to have helped the economy and the auto industry.

Analysis of the program suggests that this scheme cost taxpayers over $20,000 per car sold and has raised used car prices. This means consumers who couldn’t afford new cars, now can't even afford used cars. Of course the Czar has dismissed such reports and added Edmunds to his enemies list.

Act II - Economics can be injurious to health:

Economics dictates that if you increase demand and keep supply constant, the price should go up. Mr. Obama has decided to challenge the silly laws of supply and demand. He will raise demand for healthcare by bringing in millions of uninsured people into the system. Since this will not increase the supply of doctors, nurses, or hospitals, it should lead to higher prices and/or lower quality.

Obamanomics however, has a way (which only the Czar knows) to reduce costs, increase quality, raise demand and keep supply constant. The plan is to reduce overall costs by taxing businesses and mandating people to buy a private good.

Constitutional implications aside, there are no details available to compare the inflow of revenue from the mandate and the cost of insuring millions. These details might make an appearance when the President comes on TV to force a jobless college graduate in Lexington to buy insurance so a former gang member in Chicago can get his knee replaced. My advice on further reducing costs - merge clinics and the DMV together.

Act III - Stimulation job:

Thanks to advances in economics under Obama, spending billions of non existent tax payer dollars on random projects (volcano research, arts endowment, etc) has helped revive the economy and decrease the rate of unemployment. The White House admits that job creation has not been upto expectation but they claim to have 'saved' over 650,000 jobs. They even have a way of measuring these saved jobs down to the exact number. The official number is 640,329! Mr. Obama should introduce the nation to Mr. 508,541 and Ms. 640,327 to motivate discouraged job seekers.

Common sense suggests that, short of companies sending Mr. Obama a weekly list of employees that they would have fired but did not, it is impossible to measure saved jobs. Luckily common sense and Obamanomics are mutually exclusive.

Assume, for argument's sake, that these numbers have not been pulled out of the nether regions of the human anatomy. It still means that each job cost over $165,000 (real cost is around $220,000). Imagine what an American entrepreneur could do with $200,000. Alas, this is unacceptable to Mr. Obama because the government would be out of the equation. The President does not believe in such non governmental private sector job creation. He also does not pay much attention to tangible numbers like the 17% unemployment rate and the thirteen digit deficit. Details like that interfere with the Suspension of Disbelief required to truly enjoy the illusion.

To be fair, The President did show his concern for the 'sobering number' of job losses by offering this gem; “My economic team is looking at ideas such as additional investments in our aging roads and bridges, incentives to encourage families and business to make buildings more energy efficient”. I knew it! Those unemployed bums should have insulated their homes properly if they wanted to keep their jobs.
Having solved the jobs problem, Mr. Obama then headed to the Capitol to push Healthcare.

The stimulus/saved job con job is the Hoodwink Czar’s greatest trick yet.

--
Mr. Obama's last show of the year is scheduled for December in Oslo to a full house of starry-eyed Scandinavians. Look for a dazzling display of useless platitudes, childish idealism, and self congratulation.
Next year the Hoodwink Czar will perform at the Capitol during the State of the Union Address. He will feature an additional neat trick where the Candidate transforms into the President for a couple of hours.

Ten People That Need To Go Away

noreply@blogger.com (Krutic A) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 05:07:00 +0000

There is an amazing scene in the movie 25th Hour where Edward Norton's character blasts every ethnic, economic and social group in New York City. I found myself doing something similar; although for good reason. The items on this list probably earn the ire of anyone with common sense. Go ahead, turn on your TV. I guarantee at least one of these things is on.

***

TMZ/Jon-Kate/Balloon Boy/Kardashians and all the other scum sucking parasites that are destroying society from the inside out. I don't even know who most of them are and yet they offend me by existing. Drop dead.

Glenn Beck: You brought down a White House czar, publicized the acorn scandal and humiliated that idiot White House communication director. 'America' has had enough. Now disappear.

Keith Olbermann: Being uncontrollably aroused every time Obama reads a teleprompter is no reason to be on every time I flip to MSNBC. Your show is watched by no one and you are NOT funny. You've even managed to ruin Sunday Night Football. Go away.

Vampires: Seriously? Comical blood suckers are a multi million dollar industry? Esquire magazine thinks its because young straight girls want to have sex with gay men. If only "Blade" had paid his taxes.

Joe Biden: One would think after 25+ years of blowing hot air and being wrong on almost every major foreign policy issue, you'd stop repeating the pattern. But alas, old habits die hard. Although it does help when you voice your opinion on issues. It tells people exactly what not to do. But still, be like Dick Cheney and go to that undisclosed location. Oh wait, you told everyone about it. Its okay, no one really listens to you. Now scram.

Vince Vaughn/Will Ferrell: When it wasn't funny the first time, why would it be funny the next 20 times? Stop making the same movies over and over again. Take a hint from Napoleon Dynamite. Piss off.
(Exceptions: Old school, Swingers)

Sarah Palin: Your team lost. Its over. No one cares what you have to say. Especially on your Facebook page. Go do some actual work. Start with punching that ex son-in-law of yours.

Jimmy Carter: See Joe Biden. Add wimp and senile. No one cared what you had to say even when you actually mattered. As George W Bush so eloquently stated, 'If I'm ever eighty six and acting like this, someone put me away'.

Twitter: It is for twits and attention whores. No CNN, I do not want to follow you on Twitter. How about the radical idea of following you on CNN? Does that still work? Here's a tweet: 'F*** off'.

Barack Obama: Its called the Oval Office. Its designed to work on problems facing the nation. Use it. Even President Bartlet wasn't on TV as much as you are. People are homeless and jobless, soldiers are dying and the deficit has 13 digits in it. For the sake of the country, develop a spine, take responsibilty and accomplish something.

Brett Favre: Actually, no. Stay Brett. You make my Sundays. And Mondays, when I read about your exploits. And Tuesdays, when I watch SportsCenter for the 10th time.

In Search of A Policy

noreply@blogger.com (Krutic A) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 04:24:00 +0000

Ask the White House about the current Afghanistan/Pakistan (AfPak) policy and one is deluged by professorial phrases like 'deliberating a strategy', 'analyzing proposals', 'nuanced thinking' and so forth. Everyone agrees that the decision that President Obama needs to make within weeks is not an easy one and requires careful analysis and deliberation. However, as Charles Krauthammer points out, Afghanistan did not just spring up on them. It has been around for eight years. The administration has had over nine months to deliberate and formulate a strategy. This endless discussion can only be perceived as lack of backbone at worst and indecisiveness at best. At some point this President will have to decide (for or against the surge) and then sell that proposal to the country. Instead we see him second guessing his own six month old strategy before it even has a chance to be implemented. When the President can't even sell something he believes in (healthcare), how will he sell a policy that he himself doubts?

The primary problem here is prioritization. President Obama has decided to concentrate all his energy on the created crisis of healthcare. The system is broken to be sure, but Americans have survived with the current system for decades. One more year would not change much. By contrast, the economy (jobs and the sinking dollar), AfPak and Iran will definitely change (for the worse) in a year. These pressing issues should have taken precedence. Instead It is only the last few days that President Obama has finally started concentrating on Afghanistan. Until now he had talked to Gen. McChrystal only twice. One of those times was at an airport for 25 minutes. Obama's 'beer summit' lasted longer. As Stephen Colbert points out, Obama did address AfPak but it was after banks, cars, stimulus, health care, a dog, an herb garden, the Olympics and beer.

***
America's foreign policy has been delegated to Vice President Biden for the most part. It is the strategy being pushed by Biden that is getting the most attention among factions of the White House and Democrats. One can only assume Obama is leaning toward that policy because he has said practically nothing on the matter. Remember this the same Joe Biden who devised the brilliant proposal to divide Iraq into three 'nations'. He is also probably the only person in the country who has been stimulated by the failed stimulus package. The President would be ill advised to accept Biden's proposals.

It is a clear sign that things aren't going well when Gaddafi wants you to be the President forever, Hugo Chavez prays for your health and the French President chides you for living in a virtual world. Iran is adding to Mr. Obama's woes by continually dismissing American overtures for a meaningful dialogue. Iran did accept Obama's offer to unclench its fist, although it was to slap the collective face of this administration and by extension, the United States.

On the positive side, the war on terror as a whole has had recent successes. Raids in Somalia, drone attacks in Pakistan and the recent arrests of terror suspects in the US suggest that the tactics used to prevent further attacks on US soil are working. Iraq is off the news and Obama has been smart to let that country continue to stabilize. Unfortunately for the President, these are Bush legacies. They are working because Obama was smart enough to leave those policies in place.

****
Most of President Obama's decisions are a confluence of three traits: meteoric confidence in his own persuasive powers, naive idealism and a tendency to avoid confrontation. This explains his incessent need to be on TV and involve himself in everything from the swine flu to Kanye West. It would also explain his childish desire to see a nuke free world and his waffling on AfPak, Gitmo closure and the public option in the healthcare debate.

It seems Mr. Obama suffers from a case of Presidential ADD. Besides healthcare, AfPak, Iran, the economy, the war on terror, Iraq and the dismal unemployment rate, President Obama trying to micromanage Chicago gang crime (which Senator Obama didn't show much concern for), the New York gubernatorial race and even the Olympics. So far the only real accomplishment of Mr. Obama is appearing on TV more than any other President in history.

It is high time the Candidate became the President. Its not too late to develop a spine and clench his own fist and stand up for something. The blame Bush/Cheney cow has been milked dry and then some. People now interpret the 'inherited from Bush' tactic (to deflect blame) as whining.

The astonishing predicament that this 'transformational change agent' finds himself in would be amusing if it weren't so dangerous.
Still, one gets the feeling that George W. Bush is trying in vain to suppress a grin.

Real spending With Imaginary Money

noreply@blogger.com (Krutic A) — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 16:58:00 +0000

"President Obama unveiled a $3 trillion-plus budget plan today that he says will halve the federal deficit by the end of his first term." — CNN, February 26, 2009.

Thus begins the change regime. One needs to possess serious oratory skills to get away with using 'trillions in spending' and 'cutting the deficit in half' in one sentence. But then oration and ambition are two attributes this President does not lack.
However, if you are still skeptical and annoyed then this candid White House email is just the thing you need to be convinced.

****
Dear Citizens,

A lot has been made of our massive spending proposals and how we will incur more debt than ever. These so called critics lack the intellectual vision that the President possesses. Allow us to address some of the more controversial and expensive aspects of the spending proposals.

- We must pour billions into education. So what that we do not have a concrete plan to go about it. No Child Left Behind was a concrete plan and you know how the President feels about that. This time it is money first, ideas later. Same goes for healthcare.

- The country is in dire need of big infrastructure projects including a rail from Orlando to Vegas. There is no better way to teach people financial discipline than giving them easy access to roller coasters and blackjack. After all it is only $5 billion of Chinese money that doesn't even exist yet!
- Going with our general theme of throwing money, billions of dollars in contracts to fund Green initiatives is only natural (or green?). Even though they might fail and most of these contracts might go to Al Gore's pals, it is in the interest of our planet.

- The President railed against Bush for expanding domestic spending but now it is necessary. When we do it, it is justified. This time it is for long term prosperity and not some short term gratification.

- A few millions here and there on acutely important projects like volcano monitoring, grape genetics and catfish study are a necessity. Surprise volacano eruptions have harmed a large number of grape eating catfish recently.

- Please do not worry about accountability. We have appointed all kinds of czars in the White House to do just that. Of course this would mean that the people who are supposed to be held accountable, will be monitored by people who serve the same people that came up with the plans that need accountability in the first place. Get it?

- Yes we are semi-aware that as soon as Bush left office, Pakistan released A Q Khan and signed a deal with the Taliban. North Korea moved missiles to launch sites and Iran fired a satellite. We have addressed these developments by dispatching an army of envoys to all hotspots. History has shown how effective envoys can be. Between the czars and the envoys, we have it all covered.

In addition to the above projects, we also have plans to cure cancer, eliminate global warming, provide universal health care and fight two wars. Leave the how to us. Details are overrated anyway.

Still concerned? Please tune in to the next speech by the President to allay your concerns. A mix of subtle condescension, gentle coaxing coupled with slight fear mongering packaged in an avalanche of words delivered with an evangelical flair will no doubt confuse...er...convince you completely.

Thank you,

The Office of President of United States

*Disclaimer*

* We do understand that we can't even figure out if our nominees paid taxes or not but we plan to track every dollar of the trillions we will spend.

* Unemployment is on the rise and the stock market is approaching zero but we believe base appeasing reversals of Bush directives on abortion and the environment are the priority.

* The stimulus package is not a trillion dollar hookwink - it is a journey that is best experienced blindfolded. Follow the President into the light.

* Remember if it fails, it is Bush's fault for making us inherit this mess. However, if it succeeds, it was the President's vision.

Questions For The Undecided Voter

noreply@blogger.com (Krutic A) — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 17:39:00 +0000

Congratulations on not being swayed by the endless political rallies, ads, media coverage and phone calls asking for your commitment to the Obama/Biden or the McCain/Palin ticket. You are running out of time to decide but before you do, here are a few questions that you might want to consider. If your answers are in the positive then you should vote for Barack Obama. However if you are unsure about the answers then John McCain deserves your vote.

The Economy: Despite all his mockery of McCain not being knowledgeable on the economy, Obama's background is anything but economic. As a lawyer, a law professor, a community organizer and Senator he has been even more removed from economic and financial affairs than John McCain. When all the rhetoric is peeled away, Obama's economic plan boils down to the redistribution of wealth which he himself admitted to Joe the plumber. One can also expect the deficit to balloon exponentially due to his massive spending programs.Do you agree with the policy that will drive the deficit through the roof and take your hard earned money and pass it out to people who can't cut it?

Military Policy: If Obama is elected, it will be the first time in history that America will elect a President who will preside over three wars (Iraq, Afghanistan and the global war on terror). Obama will also be a war time President who has not even the remotest experience with management or military strategy or war in general. In the one chance he had as an elected official, he showed his flawed judgement by declaring the surge a failure before it was even implemented. If he had been allowed to have his way, the troops would already be home by now, the surge would have never occurred and Iraq would be in a state of genocide and chaos. His logic is that we should not have been there in the first place. This is a backward facing view that the next President cannot afford to have.Do you trust a man who was never even a boy scout and has not even run a hot dog stand to manage three wars?

Taxes: Every chance he has had to vote for tax cuts or vote against tax increases, Obama has said no. The only tax cuts Obama has given are rhetorical. But now he promises to cut your taxes and that of 95% of Americans. He will also be running a welfare program in effect by giving tax rebate checks to people that do not pay any income taxes. You should also keep in mind that Bill Clinton ran on a platform of tax cuts but raised taxes once he got elected. It would simply be extremely irresponsible not to raise taxes to pay for the enormous spending programs the Democrats have in mind.

Do you have enough faith in Obama's word that he will not raise taxes even though the record of Democrats and Obama himself reflects the opposite?

Healthcare: Sen. Obama will have the government run the healthcare system for you. This is the government that cannot even secure the country's borders. Besides its ineffectiveness, imagine the experiences you will have at a government run health care facility (hint: think about your last visit to the DMV or the social security office).

Do you feel confident and hopeful about seeing a government appointed DMV style clerk for your healthcare needs?

Energy: It is not a stretch to state that Obama's experience with energy issues is limited to his experience at the local gas station. He voted for a disastrous energy bill and was also opposed to offshore drilling and nuclear power but now supports both. You would be right to assume that he shifted with the polls on energy issues just like he did on FISA and the Patriot Act.

Do you trust Obama to not change his mind and go back to his original views once he is elected?

Associations and Judgement: Obama has made his campaign about judgement being more important than experience. However the only people he has been closely associated for an extended period of time have turned out to be unsavory to say the least. He could not recognize or chose to ignore the characters of men like Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers. Associating with hate mongering pastors, shady political fixers and unrepentant terrorists would be non issues if Obama had a long record that would have helped Americans 'know' him. But he does not, so these are legitimate issues.

Do you feel safe and sure about Obama's judgement and ability to deal with rogue world leaders when he could not even correctly judge the characters of people he has known for years?

Leadership and Crisis Management: Barack Obama has never had to face (let alone lead people out of) a crisis and yet as President he will face the biggest challenges in the history of this country. His only real exposure to failure was losing a bid for the US House of Representatives! He has spent his career as a go along - get along politician with malleable convictions. No one has the faintest idea about how he will react to failure or resolve disputes or face a crisis situation.

Do you have enough proof or faith to be sure that he will not crack under pressure? What if he does?

The doubts about Obama's leadership ability are not only on the Republican side. Bill Clinton has said that electing Obama would be a roll of the dice. Joe Biden said that Obama will need on the job training. It is true that almost all Presidents have had 'on the job training' to an extent (it is the nature of the job) but Obama's learning curve will be extremely steep. It would be like hiring a gas station attendant to be the CEO of Exxon-Mobil.

You are undecided about Barack Obama because he has not closed the deal with you. There is plenty of doubt and uncertainity facing this country ranging from economic, foreign and military affairs.

Do you think it is wise to add to the uncertainty by electing a candidate whose leadership, crisis management and governing skills are a complete mystery?

John McCain is by no means perfect but at least you know where he will take the country and what his leadership and crisis management skills are like. You know about his convictions and his record of standing up for what he believes in no matter the political consequence. He has faced the toughest personal and political crises and come out on top.

That feeling in your gut which has kept you from supporting Obama (and that which has been falsely and unfairly attributed to closet racism) is actually a vital and reasonable recognition of the risks posed by an Obama presidency.

Don't ignore it.

Ten Talking Points for McCain

noreply@blogger.com (Krutic A) — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 19:10:00 +0000

Modern day debates have devolved into one line zingers and memorable attack lines instead of actual policy discussion. People's attention spans are too small to digest a 90 minute discussion on issues. It was evident that while interesting, the first debate was disappointing due to its lack of memorable lines or a clear winner. Sen. McCain needs to sharpen his attack with short sentences that cut and see through Obama's soaring rhetoric.

Ten talking points that McCain and Palin might consider using in the next debates and ads:

1. Sen. Obama has a tendency to stay on the sidelines on tough issues. There is an overt effort to avoid ruffling feathers. May it be in the Illinois state Senate where he voted 'Present' on tough issues such as punishment for gang members or may it be the gang of 14 to resolve the gridlock over judicial nominees or the recent bailout negotiations where he could have easily gotten involved to forge a bipartisan deal. Instead he chose to stay outside the loop and make statements from his teleprompter while McCain was in the midst of things - for better or worse, that is what a President is supposed to do. Take the lead and be in charge.

2. Sen. Obama is in the enviable position of saying whatever he wants with minimal risk of being proven wrong because there is no paper trail or a record to match his words and actions. He has voted to raise taxes 94 times and yet now he says he will cut them and Americans are supposed to take his word for it. There is the slimmest of records of bipartisanship and no record whatsoever of standing upto his party and yet we're supposed to accept his words at face value that he will work with both sides.
His 'bipartisanship' includes a law to 'keep lose nukes out of the hands of terrorists'. What does that even mean? It is as controversial and tough as congratulating Michael Phelps on his Olympic achievement. Who would be against keeping nukes out of the hands of terrorists? Bipartisanship implies working with the other side to do what is best for the country and in that process you invariably alienate people from both parties. It can be safely assumed no feathers were ruffled when this loose nukes bill was forged.

3. On taxes Obama says he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans. This is an interesting concept since not all working Americans pay Federal income tax. So his tax 'cut' is essentially a welfare program where he will handout rebate checks to people that don't pay any taxes. This is a clever way to hide yet another spending program.

4. On Iran and other rogue nations, Sen Obama wants to talk to them directly. He owes an explanation about what he will say to them. What is the brilliant argument he has in his arsenal that will convince these despots to give up what they're doing? What will he say face to face that cannot be conveyed through high level diplomats or allies that have relations with these countries?

5. There is no proof that he keeps his word on his promises. Sen. Obama was opposed to offshore drilling until the political winds changed and now he is for it. He was against nuclear power and now he is for it with reservations. He was against FISA until he voted for it. There seems to be a pattern of shifting with the polls and public opinion. It shows lack of conviction and raises the issue of trust (not patriotism but trust). Can he be trusted to keep his word when he keeps changing his mind to tell people what they want to hear?

6. Sen. Obama wants the government to take over healthcare and eliminate choices for consumers. He wants to hand over something as vital and important like healthcare to the government that took five days to get water to hurricane victims or the government that can't secure our borders or even handle toll booths efficiently.

7. Sen. Obama has voted with the Democrat leadership 97% of the time. This means he has voted with Harry Reid almost every time - the same Reid who said the war is lost long before the new strategy was even implemented. He voted with the same Nancy Pelosi who has taken over the Congress and run it into the ground. The current Congress has accomplished practically nothing and is even more unpopular than Bush. It is concerning that Obama agrees with such overt partisans every single time. It also proves that bipartisanship is only a punch line for Sen. Obama.

8. Sen. Obama has yet to answer for his running mate's plan to divide Iraq into 3 countries. That would have been disastrous and yet no one has asked them about it. Is that the kind of judgement we need? Obama has also to provide an explanation for asking almost a million dollars for everyday he has been in the Senate in earmarks and Joe Biden's ties to lobbyists and MBNA bank. We still don't have a clarification about Obama's ties to Fannie Mae and the donations from Fannie to his campaign. Both Obama and Biden also owe an explanation on the vote to keep the bill that included the infamous 'Bridge to nowhere' alive.

9. Obama has consistently avoided being pinned down on social issues and no one knows what kind of judges he will appoint to the Supreme Court. He has said that certain questions are above his pay grade. This shows yet another unwillingness to take on tough or controversial issues. There is no 'Present' button on the President's chair and there is no paygrade above the President's.

10. He has promised to take on the politics as usual and change things, yet there is no record of Obama taking on anyone in Illinois or trying to change things there. His political mentor is under an ethics could, the Governor is under investigation and the Mayor of Chicago is a walking mascot for cronyism and corruption. Sen. Obama has no record of standing up to any of these people.There is also no evidence of him taking on the Democrats in Congress. He never called for Congressman Jefferson or the Mayor of Detroit to resign after their respective scandals and neither has he called for Charlie Rangel to step down from his position after his recent embarassment over tax evasion (even the New York Times called for him to step down). Yet he promises to change things once he is President - sorry if we don't take his word for it.

The times are too challenging, too tough and too complicated to give over the reigns of the country to a freshman Senator with no major legislation, no executive experience and no perceivable convictions that stand the test of time. This is no time to try something new without knowing what that new will do once in office. Are you willing to roll the dice, take the risk and find out?

Hillary's Last Swing

noreply@blogger.com (Krutic A) — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:03:00 +0000

Barack Obama's historical achievement was no doubt the biggest news story of the week. However Hillary Clinton did not fade away into the night as many had hoped. Instead she took one final swing at Obama and it seems to have connected. This is her way of showing that she is a force to reckon with and her core base won't just roll over and support Obama. Her surrogates aren't even being subtle in pushing for her to be on the ticket.

The Clinton supporters have alleged everything from media bias to sexism to reverse racism in explaining her defeat. They are mad at the media, the DNC and especially Obama. Many have even threatened to support McCain. Hillary secretly enjoys this but has to come across as a uniter ready to do anything to make sure Democrats win in November. Her base, especially
low income whites and women are wary of Obama and will need convincing if Obama wants their vote.

So what does Clinton do? She all but says that she wants to be on the ticket. The VP buzz is almost as big a story as Obama's nomination. This puts Obama in an awkward situation similar to when she offered him to be her VP earlier this year. The difference is that this time he
has to decide. This is for real and Obama cannot get away by ignoring the question or laughing it off. Hillary's logic is simple: put me on and you get my supporters, say no to me and you disappoint them once again. If Obama does say no to her, he again prevents a woman from getting where no woman has before (if their ticket wins). This will push her supporters off the edge and Obama will never bring them back before November.

Obama supporters secretly wish that the rumors about Clinton wanting a graceful exit are true. (She wants him to offer the VP spot so she can deny it and appear graceful). Somehow, knowing the Clinton's lust for power, I doubt that is the case.
To be fair, Clinton is a brand name and gives the illusion of being experienced compared to the other names being floated around (Jim Webb, Kathleen Sebelius and Mark Warner). The only real competitor of Hillary seems to be Bill Richardson. Richardson isn't exactly a name brand but he is at least recognized outside his home state unlike the others mentioned above.
(Read 'Clinton's VP smokescreen' to see why Obama can't have her on the ticket.)

Why Republicans want the ticket
Republicans have always wanted to go against Clinton and this would give them the opportunity to do so. Obama will probably be overshadowed by the relentless attacks on the Clintons. Everything the Republicans need to attack Hillary and by extention Obama is in the Vanity Fair article by Todd Purdum. The article coupled with the suggestion put forth by Mitt Romney ('Do you want Bill running around the White House with nothing to do?') is enough material to last ages. Innuendo alone will be enough to turn people off this 'dream ticket'. Imagine an inexperienced, deep over his head, President Obama, a hostile, overly ambitious Vice President Hillary and playboy Bill with nothing to do sharing the same White House. Republicans can't have it better if they scripted it.

If Obama does pick Clinton he will show his naivety, inexperience and a vulnerability to be manipulated. Picture the same Obama in the White house being manipulated by hawkish generals or ultra liberal advisers. Imagine his meetings Ahmadinejad or some other despot he has promised to meet. They will instantly see right through him and we will have a Cuban missile crisis redux except this time the missiles might just be launched.

Obama probably realizes the perils of putting Clinton on the ticket but he feels he can pull it off. Odds are that Obama will pick Clinton because of over confidence and narcissism that have characterized his candidacy. Obama probably thinks he can dictate Clinton's role in the White House and in return he gets her voters and donors. He figures that the Clintons will not dare undercut the darling of the Democrats and the media without repercussions. We all know how that is going to turn out.
This is going to be beautiful.

Advantage John McCain

noreply@blogger.com (Krutic A) — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:48:00 +0000

By clinching the Republican nomination in early March John McCain surprised the pundits who widely believed that the Democrats would settle on their nominee long before the Republicans did. This change of dynamic is unexpectedly good news for McCain and the Republicans in a time when they could use some good news. The uncertainty and the increasingly negative campaigning in the Democratic field gives the Republicans a chance to level the playing field in this favorable year for the Democrats.

Some influential strategists like Karl Rove have argued that McCain risks fading from the front pages and that is not a good thing for a Presidential nominee. However getting some breathing room to plan for the future can only benefit McCain. The voters are likely to suffer from Obama/Clinton fatigue if the Democratic race drags on for months. This would make McCain the fresh new thing come November. It is also possible that the Democrats would exhaust some of their donors as well as enthusiasm among the voters while McCain can get new donors and build support by selling his message to the voters.

The other important factor is fatigue. No matter who the candidate is, the Democratic candidate's campaign is likely to be tired from the intense primary season, while McCain and his camp has a chance to relax and enjoy the show. It also gives them a chance to know what works against Obama/Clinton without having to work for it. They also have enough time to research the weaknesses of the Democratic candidates for the general campaign.
More importantly this provides the McCain camp with a wonderful opportunity to organize, fund raise, sharpen his message and introduce their candidate to the voters.

Planning:
John McCain was able to clinch the nomination in a relatively weak Republican field with his current organization. However the disorganized McCain camp would be easy prey for the Democrats especially since they would hit the ground running in swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania where they have intensively campaigned. John McCain needs to organize his campaign structure to match that of George Bush in 2004. The Bush camp followed the basic principles like Stick to message discipline, avoid falling prey to common mistakes and have a tight leak proof organization.

McCain should also remember that a healthy distrust of the press never hurt anyone. He has a habit of getting into arguments with the press as well as answer every question they have for him. This has made the press like him but there will always be some reporters who will use his candor against him. McCain needs to be aware of that and keep the press at arm's length.

Fund Raising:
The biggest advantage that McCain has from the Democratic infighting is money. He is free to raise money from traditional Republican donors as well as attract small online donors. The Democrats would have easily blown millions of dollars attacking each other before the summer ends while McCain has a great chance to increase his bank balance to match the Democrats. This is also the biggest use he has for President Bush. Bush may be unpopular but his fundraising abilities are strong as ever. McCain should take full advantage of this.

Sharpen his message:
John McCain made a mistake by being honest and admitting he does not have a lot of knowledge about economic concepts. He needs to makeup for that blunder and sharpen his domestic and economic message. He has the foreign policy aspect covered but the economic, social and health care messages need to be sharpened and put forth. He should use this time to hire the best economic minds to run that side of his campaign. He will need to have effective answers on the current housing crisis, the social security and medicare fears, the looming recession and rising oil prices.

On a lighter but equally important note, the McCain camp should start using new 'on the campaign trail' stories, jokes and anecdotes. We have heard his jokes about the bridge to nowhere, Clinton's Woodstock museum bill and bear DNA research and they were funny the first 10 times but now he needs new material.

Organize:
John McCain can use this time to organize his ground game in swing states and open campaign offices in those states. His camp should survey the voters in these states and address their concerns effectively. McCain also has a good chance of winning over Hispanics and his camp should dedicate itself to that cause. He also has ample time to pick his staff and more importantly a running mate that would satisfy the Republican base.

Introduction:
John McCain has a compelling story to tell about his life and career and its a shame most Americans only know a part of it. His courage, compassion and perseverance are inspirational. Barack Obama's inspirational speeches become pale when his words are compared to McCain's actions. McCain should introduce himself to the American people and his campaign should tell his story every chance they get.
In the time the Democrats are busy fighting each other, McCain runs a risk of being yesterday's news. He can reverse that by making TV and radio appearances every chance he gets. He should use this time to be everywhere from Leno to Jon Stewart, from daytime talk shows to Hispanic TV shows.

Winning the Base:
This is also a great opportunity for McCain to win over conservatives. He should make appearances on conservative talk radio as well as evangelical churches. He needs to do all he can to assure conservatives about Supreme Court judges, immigration and tax cuts. However McCain needs to be careful so as to not get carried away with this pandering. He should do it relatively below the radar and not win over conservatives at the expense of independents and moderates. It is a fine line but McCain can manage it.

Moreover a few conservatives being against him will not hurt him as much as one would think. Rush Limbaugh said a few weeks ago that if he wanted to destroy McCain's chances he (Limbaugh) would enthusiastically endorse him and that would drive away the moderates and independents. Thus if McCain does not have every conservative on board, he is at a net advantage.

The Democrats have given John McCain and the Republicans a great opening - question is can he take advantage of it?

Clinton's VP Smokescreen

noreply@blogger.com (Krutic A) — Sun, 09 Mar 2008 17:27:00 +0000

In a recent campaign event Bill Clinton told reporters that Hillary was 'very open to the idea' of Barack Obama as her running mate. This followed Hillary's statements to the news media that a joint ticket "may be where this is headed".

This is may sound like good news to Democrats who want this so called 'dream ticket' and to those who are worried about party unity. Clinton's offer suggests that she does not want the race to get irreparably negative. However the strategy behind this recent VP buzz is more tactical than altruistic.

Why Obama is not interested:

It is quite uncommon to see the front runner being offered the post of VP by the trailing candidate. Even though Sen. Obama is ahead by all measures in the race so far, Clinton's offer undercuts Obama's achievements and gives the illusion that she is ahead. It also puts him in an awkward spot where he either has to show some warmth to the idea or make a counter offer of his own to Hillary.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that Obama was trailing Clinton. Even in this scenario Obama cannot accept the offer because it would fly in the face of his entire platform. He has gotten this far by promising change and vowing not to allow the same old people to run Washington. By accepting the offer he would not only support the same old people, he would in fact facilitate the process as VP. Obama would also ruin his chances of running again in 2012 or 2016 because his message of change would be exposed as hypocritical.

Why Obama cannot counter the offer:

With Hillary as his running mate Obama would still be seen as facilitating giving power to the same old faces in Washington. He would also be worried about Hillary trying to undermine his authority. Denials aside, Obama will require on the job training if he becomes President. One can safely assume that he will not want the Clintons to be his trainers.

A President Obama would also constantly be wary of Bill and Hillary trying to second guess him. It would be an ugly power struggle where a seasoned former President and First Lady outshine and out maneuver the rookie President. Obama cannot afford to risk an undercurrent of hostility and political cunning in his running mate(s).

The Clinton camp has already figured out this dynamic and is thriving on it. They know Obama is cold to either idea and they have put him in a tough spot. Hillary comes across as the uniter extending an olive branch to her opponent while he comes across as the one willing to risk a divided party. Hillary would also largely benefit if Obama did accept her offer since she does not share the above dilemmas. The Obama camp is on the defensive against the retooled Clinton machine.

The Clintons have accepted their role as the insurgent candidate and have adapted to it brilliantly. They are at their best when fighting in the trenches and it will be interesting to see how Obama responds from his 'above the fray' pedestal.

Satire: The Great Obama Sale

noreply@blogger.com (Krutic A) — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:31:00 +0000

Welcome Voters!

It is the great Obama Sale! You are guaranteed to find something for everyone. We believe in pleasing everyone so come on in!!

ARE YOU:

Against NAFTA?
Then you will be happy to know that our candidate has all intentions to end NAFTA if it isn't renegotiated to get you your job back!
For NAFTA?
If you are not in a state like Ohio then rest assured! We're sure that by now you've heard of our (wink-wink) conversation with the Canadians. Nafta is not going anywhere - so relax!

Against Telecom immunity and terrorist surveillance?
Our candidate has said that they shouldn't be given immunity and we need to end warrentless wiretaps. So we will roll back the Bush tactics.
Worried we won't monitor terror communications?
Well our candidate did not show up to vote for the FISA bill so take it easy; we are not really against the FISA bill either! (wink-wink).

Want our troops out?
Our candidate showed amazing judgment by giving a speech in Chicago against the war! He has promised that troops will begin pulling out almost as soon as he takes office. So our troops are coming home and who cares what happens in Iraq after that?
Worried Iraq will fall into chaos or that al Qaeda will take over?
Fear not! We will send our troops back into Iraq if that happens. And who gives a damn that al Qaeda is already there?
To let you in on a secret - we aren't really going to withdraw too much. But we hope you understand that we have to say that to get elected! And we can always hope al Qaeda and the Shiite militants just go away.

Want an end to partisanship?
Our candidate's whole platform is based on that. He will end the bickering and make everyone come together. Believe us - it's a promise he intends to keep.
Part of the liberal Democratic base?
We are on your side! Our candidate isn't really going to work with Republicans on contentious issues. His idea of bipartisanship is making everyone go along with his view. And think about it, would you still support him if he had actually worked with Republicans on controversial issues?

Just look at John McCain - his party's base hates him because he worked with Democrats. Our candidate has the support of every sub group of the Democratic Party - does that happen with someone who is willing to break with his party on some issues? (wink-wink).

No Health Insurance?
Obama to the rescue! We will provide everyone a government run health care plan. Yes the same government that can't even handle toll booths efficiently will be responsible for your healthcare needs! We believe it is the best way.
Student?
There is a $4000 tax credit and low interest student loans for you if you vote for our candidate.
Senior Citizen?
There are additional medicare and prescription drug benefits for you if you vote for us.
Middle class family?
Don't worry, your taxes are not going up. We will only raise the taxes of your employers and other rich folk. How dare they get rich?!

So shoppers, in this leap year we ask you to make a leap of faith and support our great candidate.
Official Obama Cult Members get 15% more of their wishes fulfilled!!

Disclaimer:

We urge you to ignore our candidate's judgment of entering into a transaction with indicted political fixer Tony Rezko.

The Canadian memo was not supposed to leak out.

We do not take into consideration that threatening to end NAFTA unless its renegotiated to our liking will set a dangerous precedent where Canada and Mexico can threat to opt out unless the agreement is negotiated to their liking.

We also do not take into account that illegal immigration will increase ten fold and Mexico's economy might collapse if we withdraw from NAFTA.

We know there is no real evidence of bipartisanship, but when he is the President, Obama will work with everyone. You will just have to take our word for it.

We do not take into account the logistical and military nightmare it will be to take American troops out of Iraq and put them back in on short notice when Al Qaeda resurges.

We do not believe your small business employer will lay you off if his/her taxes go up. Economics is just not our cup of tea.

We have no real plan to pay for all our big programs for students, veterans, seniors, universal healthcare, etc. But with a 'Yes We Can' attitude we just might figure out a way.

Our promises are not necessarily binding and we reserve the right to 'change' our minds on them as we see fit politically.

It is now or never for Clinton

noreply@blogger.com (Krutic A) — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 03:59:00 +0000

It seems like Sen. Hillary Clinton has become a footnote between Sen. Barack Obama's victory speeches as he steamrolls through yet another string of victories in the Democratic primary.
The Clinton camp was expecting these losses in February, and they come as no surprise to anyone. However, Clinton needs to stay relevant in the campaign. She cannot afford to continue being mentioned as the runner-up who is pinning her hopes on Texas and Ohio. The Clinton campaign has to break Obama's momentum in order to remain competitive till the looming showdown over super delegates and resolution of Michigan and Florida delegates emerges.

One can safely assume Clinton and her surrogates are working under the radar to court the uncommitted super delegates and preparing for the fight over Florida and Michigan. Although these are necessary steps, Clinton has to get in the spotlight and separate herself from Obama and give voters a clear choice.

This phony live and let live campaign style that Obama and Clinton have employed is killing Clinton. Currently the policy differences betweeen the two are microscopic, and the race has been reduced to a popularity contest. Likeability is not a battle Hillary Clinton is going to win anytime soon. The Clinton camp is pushing for a debate in Texas before the primary there, and if she gets a chance to debate Obama she has to take Obama head-on. The love affair of the last debate gets her nowhere.

It is hard to attack the darling of the media whose platform is an abstract, non-specific theme that cannot be proven either way. Rep. Patrick Kennedy said so much in an interview where he said "what Sen. Obama offers cannot be put on a resume." Obama uses his experience as a community organizer in Chicago (another disprovable concept in terms of his effectiveness as the organizer) as a qualification to be President. In any other election cycle this would be a laughable proposition, but he is able to pull it off. His other and only real experience includes essentially discussing potholes in the Illinois legislature for seven years during which he did not stand out in any way.

Hillary Clinton has to make the case that change and experience are not mutually exclusive concepts. She has to point out that Obama is just another politician who has played it safe in both the Illinois State and US Senates for political benefit. He did not make an iota of difference in Chicago for over seven years and yet expects voters to take his word about changing the country.

Clinton also has to differentiate herself from Obama's policies or at least offer specifics about troop withdrawals and dealing with the war on terror. She has to offer ideas on how to deal with the problems facing the country that are concrete and different from Obama's. She needs to raise a new issue in the campaign (countering China, for example) and hammer it down. She should tout her First Lady experience as well as her Senate record before Obama got to the Senate.

Clinton needs to counter Obama's attacks about her vote for the war. He gave a non-consequential speech about the war, and his actions had no effect on anything. Once in the Senate, Obama has not backed up his anti-war stance by voting against funding or introducing a bill to withdraw troops. It won't be easy, but she has to sell that point to the voters. Finally, Clinton has to compete in Wisconsin even though she will probably lose there. Wisconsin can be used as a testing ground to attack Obama on his weaknesses.

The tide is with Obama right now, especially with respect to foreign affairs. Iraq is stable, Iran and North Korea are behaving themselves and no major foreign incident has occurred since the death of Benazir Bhutto that would expose Obama's inexperience and naivety. It is up to Hillary to remind the voters that it will not stay calm forever and when things change, stabilization will require real experience which only she offers.

Why Clinton is stronger after Super Tuesday

noreply@blogger.com (Krutic A) — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:24:00 +0000

If you paid any attention to the news leading up to Super Tuesday it was clear Obama had the momentum with a string of celebrity and union endorsements. Clinton was shown to be at least even if not behind in polls in California. There was no doubt about who won the state tally on Super Tuesday. Barack Obama won thirteen states to Clinton's eight with New Mexico pending and looking favorable to Obama.

The Obama campaign should be happy at what they accomplished against one the most recognizable political names in America. The Clinton folks should also be upbeat after winning California and Massachusetts and thus nullifying the endorsements of the Kennedys and John Kerry. A close look at the states won by each candidate gives an insight to which candidate has a better chance in the general elections.
Obama won more states but those included states like Alaska where the total votes cast were under 400. He also won states like Utah, Idaho and North Dakota which do not have enough delegates to make a difference in the total count and are republican strongholds. No Democrat has any chance at these states in the general elections. The Democratic Party has not and will not spend time in these states.

Obama did make headlines by winning the southern states with the exception of Tennessee which went to Clinton. Again the Bible belt is red from top to bottom and no Democrat has a chance there. The Black vote in these states will be small and inconsequential in November to make a difference for Democrats. The Hispanic vote will have a much bigger impact for the Democrats. Obama's biggest victories on Super Tuesday were Missouri, Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Connecticut, Kansas and Minnesota. Missouri, although a win for Obama, is essentially a tie in terms of the delegates awarded to each candidate.

Hillary Clinton also won in red states like Arkansas, Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Arizona where the Democratic nominee does not have a chance in November. But the Clinton camp should be happy with Super Tuesday’s results because of her wins in delegate rich Massachusetts, California, New York and New Jersey. These are Democratic states in the general elections. This is the Democratic base and Clinton did very well here. This means the democratic base with the exception of Illinois, Connecticut, and Delaware went with Clinton on Super Tuesday. It implies that she has the support of the voters in the states that democrats traditionally carry in the general elections.
This is the argument she can take to the big donors of the Democratic Party. Clinton only has to catch up in Connecticut, Delaware and Illinois while Obama has to work in New Jersey, California, Massachusetts and New York. Missouri is an exception where both would have to work to win that state along with the Republican nominee. Thus Obama has more work to do in winning the Democratic base than Clinton.

This is by no means over and Hillary Clinton should now concentrate on a few select states beyond Super Tuesday. States such as Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania are noteworthy. She can let Obama win more states and get the headlines but in terms of the base votes and delegates Clinton will remain ahead. She also has to attack Obama on the lack of specifics of his policies. The media seems to have given him a pass on the details but Clinton cannot afford to do so. She has to force him to unveil the nuts and bolts of his economic, military and social plans beyond the redundant change concept. Everyone gets it that Obama wants to bring about change but Clinton has to force him to get to the ‘how’ part.

There is no doubt that Barack Obama will continue his huge cash flows and get high profile endorsements. However ,the Clinton machine will work the grass roots like they did in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and California. Like in California and Massachusetts Obama’s celebrity endorsements will be reduced to nothing more than an opportunity to name drop by the Obama campaign.

The Democrats' insurance policy

noreply@blogger.com (Krutic A) — Wed, 21 Feb 2007 05:17:00 +0000

There are few things in politics more frustrating than being technically in control and yet being unable to influence policy. The Democrats these days face that feeling of helplessness over Iraq. They were counting on a chain reaction, once they win the elections in November 2006, President Bush will be without the crutch of the congress and hence will cave in over Iraq. Instead, far from their goals of bringing troops home, the Democrats are fighting to keep more troops from going to Iraq. This is certainly not what they expected or wanted. This helplessness is leading them toward the fight that the Republicans want - the fight over funding. The Democrats know that if they were in control of the Iraq policy today there is nothing they would or could do differently. However they simply cannot concede that point unless they have a political death wish. The recent non binding votes in the House and the Senate, however meaningless, are the Democrats' way of asserting control.

There are three possible reasons that the Democrats are going in this direction.
The Democrats want to try and appease or at least pacify the anti-war faction that includes the liberal websites and blogs. There are some in this faction that would actually like the US to loose in Iraq in the hope that it would influence future foreign policy in terms of military action, and not to mention the embarrassment to Bush and the Republicans. The Democratic congress obviously does not want the US to loose, but they have to appear to accommodate this faction considering the influence it wields on the grassroots movement. This faction is actively pushing for a vote on funding, leaving the Democrats in a terrible dilemma of wanting to support the troops while at the same time being perceived as taking away their safety.

The second reason for this non binding vote is to hedge their bets for the future. If the surge does not work and the Bush administration does decide to bring the troops home, the Democrats get the ultimate advantage in politics - the position to say, 'I told you so!' and they would have a vote to prove it. This seems to be the most plausible reason for this silly non binding resolution that has no effect on anything except being an insurance policy for the Democrats running in 2008.

However the reason the Democrats have not gone as far as a vote on funding, is because they also want an insurance policy if this surge actually does work. In that case they would have the opportunity to say that their continuance of funds was because they always believed in Gen. Petraeus to achieve the goal. They can also suggest that the non binding vote was a reason that the surge worked because the non confidence vote against the President forced the administration to change tactics which ultimately led to success in Iraq.

This type of posturing to get political advantage is as old as the Congress but in this age of instant communication this can send the wrong messages to the right people and right messages to the wrong people. Iran and Iraqi insurgents and militias would love nothing more than the Congress to fight Bush over troop withdrawal. One does not need a Ph.D in psychology to know what these people are thinking. They want the Congress to cut funding so the troops would have to withdraw. If this does happen then Iraq and the middle east will look far worse than anything we see today. It is the Democrats' responsibility to ensure that this does not happen in their zealous quest to embarrass Bush and gain future political advantage.