The Midpoint

Hype Comes Home To Roost...This Is What Happens When You Get Swept Up In A Concept

noreply@blogger.com (MidPointMan) — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:39:00 +0000

It is no longer a question of if Ayers will sink Obama, it is a question of how long will it take. People are just starting to understand what all of this means.

The Obama campaign keeps calling all of this lies, but at some point they will have to say what exactly the lie is...

...they cannot answer that simple question.

The New York Times Blows Obama's Abortion Smokescreen Away!

noreply@blogger.com (MidPointMan) — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:10:00 +0000

When you are the Democrat, if you cannot count on the NY Times, who can you count on? Not much I would guess.

At issue is Obama's bold, but misleading claim that he would have voted for the Federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which was "virtually identical" to the bill he himself killed in committee in 2003, AFTER the US Senate passed it's twin unanimously in 2002.

This bill, which was not opposed by NARAL or Planned Parenthood, provided that any fetus that survives the process of induced abortion, and is "Born Alive" must be given the full rights of any other legally distinct individual in those circumstances. This means that the physicians present must provide reasonable care to eliminate suffering, and where possible, provide life-sustaining treatment.

This bill is uncontroversial to all but the most ardent abortion rights activists, given that it seeks to provide the most basic of humane treatment to a suffering newborn infant.

Senator Obama objected to this bill, both voting against one version and preventing another, identical to the Federal Bill, to even come to a vote out of his committee.

Today he denies that the bill in his committee was, in fact, similar to the Federal bill which passed overwhelmingly.

Here is his testy denial:

Heavy stuff...he manages to call a lot of people liars in his response. The evidence now seems to suggest that it was he, in fact, who may be lying.

Here is what the New York Times had to say...

"The statute Congress passed in 2002 and the one the Illinois committee rejected a year later are virtually identical. Both say, for example, that “the words ‘person,’ ‘human being,’ ‘child’ and ‘individual’ shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development,” regardless of whether that birth “occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section or induced abortion.”

Obama's claim that an existing bill that covered this scenario is also suspect. If that were the case, why did the the Illinois Legislature pass the same bill to cover such scenarios after Obama left?

The Times continues...

"A year later, after Mr. Obama had moved on to Washington, the Illinois legislature approved a “born alive” law. But that statute, as the result of a compromise meant to avoid the standoff that led Mr. Obama to oppose the 2003 version, added language specifically stating that it should not be construed “to affect existing federal or state law regarding abortion” or “to alter generally accepted medical standards.”

It strikes me, and any critically thinking observer, that if there was no need for such a bill that the Illinois Legislature would have found exactly as Obama did, that there was no need. This, however, did not prove to be the case.

The key takeaway from this episode is the following:

Obama was presented with compelling testimony, that egregious medical practices were occurring that allowed surviving babies, after an induced abortion to die
Living newborns were allowed to expire from injuries sustained or collapsing of the lungs, without any concern for pain remediation, giving comfort and much less the need to provide potentially live-saving care
Given this knowledge, Senator Obama did nothing to amend the bill before his committee to provide it with language that would eliminate this abhorrent medical outcome, while preserving his desire to protect Roe v. Wade
Senator Obama, purportedly a Constitutional Scholar, was in a unique position as the Committee Chair to craft such language as to be acceptable to his desires
Senator Obama, given the opportunity, failed to provide adequate leadership and failed to protect innocent, suffering babies in favor of a coldly rigid ideological position
Senator Obama lacked the creativity and insight to provide an innovative remedy to solve a difficult, controversial issue that all parties agree must be addressed
Senator Obama, in an effort to cover up an obviously embarassing episode, both accused others of lying, while in matter of fact appears to be the lone perpetrator against the truth

This is a classic example where Obama had a choice between his cold ideology and the need to provide a bi-partisan bridge to a mutually acceptable outcome. He chose ideology.

He failed Illinois badly.

Now he is lying about it. Change We Can Believe In? Hope?

You get to be the judge...

Change You Can Scalp In The Parking Lot!

noreply@blogger.com (MidPointMan) — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:07:00 +0000

This oughtta help Obama win Colorado. It is funny that the closer the Convention gets, the further Obama seems to be drifting in the state.

I am sure nobody is talking about this around the water coolers in Denver...nahhhh.
It is stunning the hypocrisy behind Obama, Inc.

He Is The One...Now Live...Over 200 Views

noreply@blogger.com (MidPointMan) — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 05:16:00 +0000

I will soon publish all the links to the articles contained within the video...it moves pretty fast...just hit pause if you need to.

Hope Is Not A Strategy Chapter 2 Is Available...

noreply@blogger.com (MidPointMan) — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 02:23:00 +0000

Hope Is Not A Strategy Chapter 1 Is Available...

noreply@blogger.com (MidPointMan) — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 01:39:00 +0000

Obama on Iran v3.0

noreply@blogger.com (MidPointMan) — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 05:47:00 +0000

It seems as if we have been here before. Does a week go by that Obama's Iran Policy does not get a refresh?

Message to Senator Obama: For those of us in the world who might be inclined to support your policy of more open engagement with Iran, you are making life very hard on us. Please, get your story straight and stick to it, because this is getting ridiculous.

Barack Obama has already dug himself into a hole regarding talks with Iran. Round 1 had to do with preconditions:

Yes...without preconditions. Too weak? Do preparations count? How about thorough, rigorous diplomatic preparations? Alright, what if...we said that we had to be convinced that talks were in our best interest beforehand? Is that better? That does not count as a precondition, by the way. Did you just call me an appeaser?

Note: This is the point at which the average observer begins biting fingernails and tugging on hair.

Round 2 had to do with whether or not Iran was really much of a threat at all:

Iran is definitely a threat. But maybe not, I mean, they spend nothing close to what we do on defense, right? A few billion is all they spend. They are no threat next to the Soviets, right? A few billion will only buy you several dozen nukes, and the Soviets had thousands, right?

Somebody seems to be missing the point...and somebody kindly informed that person. Not even 48 hours later we heard that

Iran is definitely a threat again, in fact they are a"Grave Threat" that must be dealt with really tough principles. That is pretty much where I was going with that whole Soviet thing...

Ok, but you just said...oh never mind.

Senator Obama seemed to kick off round 3 at the AIPAC conference yesterday. Iran has graduated again, this time to "super-scary strategic threat" or as Obama put it:

"Iran - which always posed a greater threat to Israel than Iraq - is
emboldened, and poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States and
Israel in the Middle East in a generation."

Wow. A generation is say about 20-30 years, right? First of all, I am pretty sure there were Soviets in the Middle East 20-30 years ago. Weren't they supposed to dwarf the current Iranian threat? Sigh...moving on.

The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the
region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race,
and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its
President denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The
danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this
threat.

Two things to note. First, he uses the term "nuclear capability" but not necessarily "nuclear weapons." This is a fair amount of trust for such a "grave" threat. At least that part was consistent. But wait...here is the newsmaker..."eliminate this threat?" This almost sounds like a Clintonian spin on "regime change." This is new, this is bold. This is completely contradictory to everything we have heard up until now. My head hurts, but I soldier on...

I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear
weapon. That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating
preconditions, but with a clear-eyed understanding of our interests.

Ok, well at least this sounds familiar. We added a few descriptive zingers for effect here...aggressive...self-defeating...clear-eyed. I like it. At least we have heard this riff before.

There will be careful preparation. We will open up lines of communication, build
an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and evaluate the potential for
progress. Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down
with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as President of the
United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with
the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing - if, and only
if - it can advance the interests of the United States.

Ok, I give up. Did we not go through this already? Think of this as a blind date. Since when are any of the following NOT preconditions:

Potential for "Progress"
The partner of my choosing
The restaurant of my choosing
The night and time of my choosing
I get to choose the appetizer, main course and dessert
I get to decide whether or not I want to pay

We have come full circle here...there is not a whole lot more to say. One thing that might help is if Obama had articulated what his end-game might be for such discussions. If it is not for the sake of talking, then pray tell what the point is?

Is it recognition of Israel?
Ending support of Hamas or Hizbollah?
Compliance with the IAEA?
Cooperation on Iraq?
The resumption of diplomatic relations?

What are we supposed to get and expect to give? What is the carrot? The scary part might be that he really has no idea, or even worse...that he does have an idea and simply won't say. I suspect the former over the latter, but right now it seems like flying blind without even a concept.

So who would want to date Obama 3.0? I am not sure the independent voter is all that impressed at this point. Too many preconditions...

The American Soldier, Political Football

noreply@blogger.com (MidPointMan) — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 13:06:00 +0000

As the interminable 2008 election cycle switches into high gear (we weren't already in high gear?), a tattered old football is being booted around the political playground once again...our soldiers. Any pundit who claims that the recent discussion of various flavors of the new GI bill adds a new dimension to our political debate simply has not been paying attention.

Our soldiers, have been bandied about, in one way or another, in the last 3 election cycles. In 2006 it was the Democrats decrying the strains placed on our military families as a result of two botched wars in the Middle East. The prevailing political winds at their back, this legitimate argument proved to be quite effective with voters as well.

In 2004, both parties sought the mantle of "Defender of Our Defenders." It was the Republicans who, via a variety of more subtle means, equated support for the "War on Terror" with "Supporting Our Troops." The Democrats argued, mostly unsuccessfuly, that opposing their mission in Iraq somehow amounted to "support for our troops" (while subtly highlighting their failures) via the logic that ending the mission in defeat would somehow save the lives of our heroes.

This of course relied on the questionable logic that defeat in Iraq would lead to an end of all war in the region that might involve our servicemen. Under such a scenario, we would have to assume that Al Qaeda would not simply manage to relocate their operations across porous borders to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, using Iraq as a base of operations. Surely, the evolution of such a scenario would have done nothing to protect our troops, while serving up a lethal dose of malaise that would infect operational morale and recruitment.

This year, the political race for who loves the troops most is off to a heated start. The Republicans have traditional claim to the mantle, by virtue of strong support for the military through the Reagan years up to today. However, the revelation of poor treatment of returning veterans at Walter Reed Army Hospital and other facilities has given the Democrats, deservedly or not, the beginnings of a toehold claim on the "camouflaged crown of self-righteousness."

Early observations suggested, however, that this will be an uncomfortable, if not untenable position for the Democratic Party establishment. Despite their justifiable anger at poor facilities management at treatment centers, the military rank and file know that George Bush does not run these facilities nor is the military starved for cash to meet such needs. Yet the prevailing tendency on the part of Democrats was to pile on, and overhype the magnitude of what was going on, while placing it squarely at the feet of the reviled Bush.

But as shocking and distasteful as these revelations were, they proved to be both limited in scope and felt more as an embarassment within the military and it's bureaucracy. Thus emerged the view within the military is that their competence was under attack, and that piling on Bush was essentially piling on them, and a more subtle version of once again overhyping their occasional failures.

With the emergence of Barack Obama as the party flag-bearer, the claim only gets more tenuous. Senator Obama has a gift for rhetoric, but little in his background suggests that he either understands or embraces military culture. His scarcity on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan relative cannot go unnoticed in military circles. His recent speech at Wesleyan University was noteworthy for many reasons, but in this context it is his failure to mention military service among the many altenative venues for serving the nation. It was a subtle, but telling ommision. If Obama does not get "Bubba" then by comparison he is even further from getting "Joe the GI."

The acceleration of the long-discussed "21st Century GI Bill" to the forefront of the legislative agenda by the Democrats in Congress serves as a subtle admission to the precarious grip they have on the "GI Benevolence Factor." There are few in Congress that would argue that a refresh of the bill is not long overdue, especially given all that our soldiers have done to serve in the last 6 years. But what emerged is quickly becoming a lesson in political expediency and chest-thumping desire for credit, rather than a thoughtful effort towards making our soldiers whole, given their sacrifices.

The only evidence one has to provide to support this claim is the current prevailing version of the bill, authored by Senate Democrats. This is a poorly conceived and inwardly contradictory piece of legislation. Upon inspection, one concludes that this bill had only one design principle: it had to be one that John McCain could never support and George Bush could never sign. In other words, it had to be so damaging to the military institution itself, and so deply unfair in its distribution of riches that signing it would be the equivalent of injecting a massive overdose of morphine. It certainly would feel good, byt by the time the pain came back, the patient would already be dead.
Likewise it is no accident that Marine Hero and former Reaganite Jim Webb, Senator of the new swing state of Virginia was strutted out as window dressing for this bill. You would think, being a former Pentagon official himself, that Jim Webb would place high value on the opinions of military leadership. Not so. Defense Secretary Gates echoes the reasonable concern of Generals, Captains and Admirals who are responsible for maintaining our military machine. They are squarely in support of the concept of a new GI Bill, yet they squarely oppose this particular bill.

It is a hard claim to make that these accomplished leaders have little to no regard for the men they lead. Anyone who claims otherwise would have an uphill fight against logic and evidence. Yet, they oppose this legislation. Why would they do that? Because while they agree this is a great concept, to them it is a bad, bad bill.

Let's walk through the reasons they think so:

1. This Webb bill does not reward longer service and unfailry punishes career military offices. That's right. For the punch-clock set out there this makes no sense at all. An extra hour served amounts to some benefit, right? Well, in this case you would be wrong. Servicemen get no addtional benefits for re-enlisting and making the military a career. Today only about 30% do so as things are, and the fear is that this number will drop. Few argue that a 3-year enlistment is not deserving of educational benefits. But why not something more for staying? In our high-tech military it takes 2 years for most soldiers to reach a training plateau. Why not try and keep them longer? Apparently, supporters of the Webb Bill, including Barack Obama, appreciate their service, but only up to a point, after which, they do not feel more benfits are warranted. Puzzling.

2. The Webb bill fails to recognize the sacrifice of dependents by excluding transferability of benefits to them. Anyone who tries to make the claim that the woman behind the front lines who cares for a soldier's children is not serving all of us as well is shortsighted. Similarly, does not the 6 year old boy who has to spend every night in fear that mommy or daddy may not come back again offer a sacrifice to us was well? Some would say "No" and that is exactly what this bill communicates. Alternative legislation proposed by Lindsey Graham and supported by John McCain offers transferability of these educational benefits so that the wife, husband or child of a serviceman can study for a career. This would enable career officers, those who form the backbone of our military, the option of educating their whole family on the basis of their continued service. Senators Webb and Obama reject the logic of this via their opposition to the proposed Graham amendment.

Beyond the Pentagon's objections, there are 3 other reasons to be wary of the Webb Bill.

3. The Webb bill is discriminatory on many levels. For starters, it is indirectly discriminatory against African-Americans and Hispanics. The Webb bill benefits algorithm is adjusted by state to match the cost of in-state tuition and living costs in the state where the serviceman intends to receive the benefits. Tuition costs are nearly universally less expensive in the Southern and Southwestern United States than in the Northeast and Upper Midwest. Demographics such as they are, African-Americans and Hispanics, on average, will be entitled to lower levels of benefits than the average soldier. For the same reason, it is also discriminatory against any other soldier from a state with lower-than-average tuition and living costs.

This bill also discriminates against soldiers who enlisted prior to 9/11, but who may have served afterwards. Their service before 9/11 will not be considered as part of the Webb bill, a frighteningly silly oversight. The Graham-McCain proposal makes no such distinctions and places all soldiers, regardless of ethnicity, residency or enlistment date on the same footing. This opens up tremendous possibilities to soldiers serving before 9/11 who have not yet tapped benefits. The Webb bill ignores their service, including those who served in Operation Desert Storm. Puzzling.

4. The Webb bill places unnecessary limits on educational choice. Again, for a soldier to have benefits equal to the in-state tuition, he or she must reside in the state where they hope to study. But the reality is that many servicewomen may reasonably wish to pursue an education outside the state where they currently reside. Therefore, they would be subject to less benefits than they might otherwise get under the McCain proposal. The misguided logic that makes up the backbone of the Webb bill effectively freezes where servicemen can get an education, unless they wish to pay an expensive penalty for venturing to the institution of their choice. The Graham-McCain proposal has complete portability to any educational institution, anywhere.

5. The Webb bill undermines American "melting pot" style social mobility. The original GI Bill altered the fabric of American society from a patchwork quilt of regional subcultures into the emergent national consciousness that has become a fixture in our lives. How did it do this? Gifted soldiers from Arkansas suddenly started appearing on Ivy League campuses. Hillbillies from Appalachia took that check and found themselves at the University of California. North went South, South went West and Midwesterners went everywhere. This became the impetus for the tremendous labor mobility that greases the gears of our economy today. We just do not appreciate how unique it is that moving from Kansas City to Boston or from San Antonio to Chicago is just another fact of life. To foreign visitors, this uniquely American attitude is a true novelty. In other cultures, you typically die within walking distance of your birthplace. In America, not so, not anymore.

But the Webb bill takes this grate legacy of the GI Bill and completely does away with it. Through the arcane and unfair system for calculating benefits, it penalizes those who venture forth to find the best program, rather than the one that is covered. It gives great incentive NOT to move to areas of opportunity, but instead to stay in areas where you can get the in-state tuition rate. How any bill that does away with this tremendously important aspect of our original GI Bill can be called an improvement is beyond understanding.

6. The Webb bill creates a new, cumbersome and expensive bureaucracy. The current GI Bill is tremendously easy to administer. A simple formula dictates the benefits one may receive. The Graham-McCain proposal extends this basic concept further. This proposal could be administered using exactly the same infrastructure in place now. The Webb Bill, because of it's arcane logic that treats servicemen unequally, will require a huge amount of additional documentation and verification to dissuade fraud. These additional costs alone will amount to $250 million a year to administer above and beyond current costs, according to non-partisan estimates.

Despite these substantial flaws, there is one important thing that the Webb bill does include that the Graham-McCain bill does not, and this is worth noting.

The Graham-McCain bill does not have a provision for extending GI Bill benefits to active duty reservists and National Guard members. This is a must have, and McCain has specifically acknowledged this

The Webb bill, on the surface, is more generous in it's overall price tag by $14B over 10 years, and this should be noted. However this is primarily due to the fact that is discriminatory for the reasons cited above, giving some servicemen of equal sacrifice differing levels of benefits.

The basic benefit levels in the Graham-McCain legislation equate to the National Average cost of tuition and housing expenses. Because the Webb bill provides no incentive to economize in the choice of an educational institution, one would obviously spend away under such a scenario. I am not sure this is so virtuous to anyone.

So why would I make the claim that the Webb bill was purposefully designed to ensure that McCain would not actively support it and Bush would threaten veto?

Three pieces of evidence:

McCain reached out the Webb in Mid-May to discuss these shortcomings and offer a compromise bill that addressed these concerns. Webb's reply? "A Compromise Is Not Likely At This Late Date"
Graham and McCain's proposal was added as an amendment to an unrelated bill, a move that visibly angered Senate Democrats who subsequently blocked it: Senate blocks McCain-backed GI bill . Despite this verifiable fact, Obama routinely claims on the campaign trail that McCain is opposed to educational benefits for our veterans. To me, that reeks of opportunism
Barack Obama made a point of using McCain's absence at the vote on Webb's bill as a political bludgeon to score a political field goal. Given that the Democratic Senate voted down the Graham-McCain GI Bill, does this not seem like a scripted from some sort of playbook?

Now if Webb were interested in resolving what are some legitimate problems with his legislation, why not at least discuss options?

Perhaps he and Barack Obama would rather play football...